What's wrong with this airplane?

txflyer said:
Well, you know what they say. If you have to ask ... :rolleyes:

The question is use. How much will you use it.

Justifying a twin is one thing, justifying a twin sitting in a hangar most of the time is another .... works the same for any airplane I guess .. it's just the degree of $$$$.
Click to expand...

I do lots of trips that a bigger faster plane would be better suited to, and could con the Mrs. into more trips if the plane was faster as well.

However I also do a lot of bombing around by myself and commute 19nm by air fairly regularly, a wasteful use for a twin. It is why I have a 182, it is something between a DA-20 and a Seneca
 
txflyer said:
Well, you know what they say. If you have to ask ... :rolleyes:

The question is use. How much will you use it.

Justifying a twin is one thing, justifying a twin sitting in a hangar most of the time is another .... works the same for any airplane I guess .. it's just the degree of $$$$.
Click to expand...

That "if you have to ask" really isn't too accurate, in my mind. Like any other item it's good to be able to look at the total cost

A twin sitting is kinda silly, as is using it for short trips. But the cost of it sitting isn't bad, either. Hangar size is similar, insurance is more, maintenance we've already discussed.

Skylane81E said:
I do lots of trips that a bigger faster plane would be better suited to, and could con the Mrs. into more trips if the plane was faster as well.

However I also do a lot of bombing around by myself and commute 19nm by air fairly regularly, a wasteful use for a twin. It is why I have a 182, it is something between a DA-20 and a Seneca
Click to expand...

So this might sound silly, but if you do solo bombing and trips, what about trading your 182 in for a 337 and also pick up some little experimental single seater? Just one idea if you do a lot of both.
 
The $95K one has been for sale for ages. There's more to the story there, or it would have shifted by now. The one I bought had been on the market for about a year. A few takers, but for various reasons they all fell through. I was looking at rock bottom priced planes with run out engines, because it was the only thing I could afford and I didn't want to finance. The previous owner was also known to me and he had had the ship for 17 years and taken good care of it. Plus it had a pre buy from the Aerostar Club's president, so I knew there were no surprises. I'm glad to say that she gave me close to 100hrs of "free" flying with her run out engines (2200hrs) before I chucked her in for dual overhaul (which is in progress now). I had a leaking O-ring in those 100hrs, but that was it. We flew close to 10000nm on long cross countries and had no issues. Very reliable plane so far.

Last annual was $10K, doubt it will be much more next time around with new engines, probably less. Insurance is cheap (no hull) and she's frugal on fuel (25gal/hr total). Parts are plentiful and not any more expensive than anything coming out of Beechcraft or Cessna. So, so far, she's been a lot cheaper than my old Aero Commander that was much simpler in construction. This might obviously change...;):(
 
Last edited:
Dr. O said:
And for those thrilled with the idea that they can buy a rocket like that for cheap. It's like dating a super model - can you afford the up keep?
Click to expand...

Probably not ... but the first week with either the super model or the plane would be a BLAST!:lol::goofy:

Dr. O said:
And be honest - do you have/keep the skill level to fly a hot rod that is unforgiving of getting a little slow with the ball off center?
Click to expand...

This is POA! Of course ALL of us do, why else would be here!:D
 
I'm learning that in the higher echelon's of flying, purchase price is a non-issue.

It's hourly cost and how much you can run it at that cost.

Airplanes are like the stock market imo. They can be irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
 
Purchase price can still matter depending on your finances and business model. Money is still equal to money.

But for the most part, if you can afford to operate a twin, the purchase price usually doesn't matter as much.
 
Like the MU2, an aerostar is not a docile twin like say an Aztec. A pal used to fly an MU2 and loved it. Now flys a superstar for another company and has around 1500 hours in. Neither is for the low time twin pilot. ( all twins are dangerous without proper training.) Another pilot, now passed away, flew an aerostar ( non pressurized) into a 2200 foot strip many many times while I was present. He had many hours in both models. He passed away from natural causes at 70. The P model needs more runway, 3000feet or more. I flew in both in the right seat and both pilots had the gear coming up as they broke ground, busy aircraft! In addition , both are high maintenance aircraft and demand constant , expensive attention.
 
txflyer said:
I did read the wing has about a 1 degree angle of incidence to the ground. It will not fly off on it's own. You have to increase the angle of attack of the wing.

In other words, you have to pull it off the runway. That may be where pilots were getting into trouble.

And I'll bet the glide ratio isn't so great with that type of wing ...
Click to expand...

That would be all high performance aircraft.
 
I should add here, the pal who currently flys one is flying a Super Star , with many goodies. It is for sale with approx 700 hours each engine., VERY carefully maintained as he flys the company president. It's on controller, has a big "YES" on the tail.
 
Aerostars are a lot like Mooneys. They were made to be fast and efficient. In spite or because of that, these two types have more old wives tales following them than the CPB group. Usually these comments come from persons who have never flown them. Too bad.
An Aerostar is on the top of my list of the twin I would like to buy. A lot of that is because it was designed like a Mooney. Two problems. 1. The tail is too high for my hangar door. 2. It would be flown by my son who has zero multi time at this point. That makes it a big insurance hit, and I do admit that an Aerostar may not be the best training twin.

We'll see. I do follow the Aerostar for sale market.
 
YES! mooney was as far as I got! flew both a super 21 and a 201 quite a bit , both great airplanes. I never got a twin rating as I only flew to amaze myself and the money was also a biggie!The superstar I speak of, for sale, google if you want superstar for sale in Maryland. it will come up and can be identified by being red white and blue with a big "YES" on the tail. I don't recall the price but it's not cheap.
 
Lance F said:
Aerostars are a lot like Mooneys. They were made to be fast and efficient. In spite or because of that, these two types have more old wives tales following them than the CPB group. Usually these comments come from persons who have never flown them. Too bad.
An Aerostar is on the top of my list of the twin I would like to buy. A lot of that is because it was designed like a Mooney. Two problems. 1. The tail is too high for my hangar door. 2. It would be flown by my son who has zero multi time at this point. That makes it a big insurance hit, and I do admit that an Aerostar may not be the best training twin.

We'll see. I do follow the Aerostar for sale market.
Click to expand...


There's an article I linked earlier that said the narrow mount of the engines make the Aerostar one of the most docile on engine out because of more single line thrust component.

And they have the power to climb on one engine at gross. Albeit, it said maybe only 300f.p.m., but that is at least up instead of down. :redface:
 
The 601P has a 9300ft single engine ceiling. The 700 has a 17000ft single engine ceiling.

The 700's are nice planes, but they burn a lot more fuel for not going very much faster. Sure, if you need speed, need to carry full loads and don't care what the cost is, or you need the safety of that single engine ceiling, then the 700 is the way to go. The 601P is a good balance between speed and economy.
 
txflyer said:
There's an article I linked earlier that said the narrow mount of the engines make the Aerostar one of the most docile on engine out because of more single line thrust component.

And they have the power to climb on one engine at gross. Albeit, it said maybe only 300f.p.m., but that is at least up instead of down. :redface:
Click to expand...

It's not just the placement of the engines relative to the fuselage, it's also items like the stall characteristics. Part of what makes the Aztec a great trainer is it's pretty much impossible to stall or Vmc roll.
 
weilke said:
There is one event that would tie two new engines, two new props, fresh paint and a low price into one nice bundle.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I've repaired a few that have done that. No big deal if it's repaired properly. Gotta love pilots who kept me employed.
 
This is all very good info on the Aerostar. Big thanks to stratobee for posting that info, too.

Right now, the Aerostar is probably #2 on my list, with the DA42-NG or -VI being in #1 place.

Lots could change in the two or three years before I could pursue getting something myself, but it's nice to have options and dream :)
 
I always thought the standard unpressurized aerostar was ok for power, that the pressurized standard was a dog which is why they went to the superstar on the Pressureized version, which with the higher horsepower turned it into a much better performer. Is this correct?
 
The unpressurised 601B is a real little rocket. It's much lighter than the 601P and has excellent performance. It'll climb to 30000ft and go 262kts at full speed, making it the fastest Aerostar except for the 700/702P. They didn't build that many of them, though. The straight 600A is a normally aspirated version of that and it's good value for money. Can be had for not much cash, if you don't need pressurisation.

As for the 601P being a dog, that's not really something I'd agree on. It certainly isn't a short field performer, but once that wing gets going it will climb pretty well. I regularly saw close to 1500ft/min with my tired 2200hr engines. I saw around 190-200kts burning 25gal/hr. Never did load her to max gross though, it was probably just 500lbs below with full tanks and just me.
 
Last edited:
I have a good bit of 600 time. EVERYTHING Stratobee sez is true. They are NUMBERS aircraft. Fly the number and it wont' disappoint you. Get away from the numbers and you're lucky if you get to regret it.

They are among the MOST efficient twins there are.
 
They are a great looking airplane. Wish, when it was young I'd had a chance to learn to fly one. Just sitting on the ramp they are of movie star caliber.
 
Dr Bruce - You mentioned the DA42 in a previous post, so I'm guessing you might have some DA42 time?

If so, of the DA42 and the Aerostar, which did you "like" the best?

Yes, I know this is a very loaded question, and probably comparing apples and giraffes, but curious as to your thoughts on each, if you'd flown both of them?
 
I started a thread on the Aerostar value a while back. If I had the need to zip about a lot I'd sure have one. My thread was lambasted a bit because of the cost of ownership to upgrade and maintain them. That can be said about pretty much any plane, but the Aerostar seems to be the poster child for costly mx. Amortize it over 200-300 hours per year for someone who moves around a lot and it's relative.

As it is, I wouldn't feel comfy in one only flying 60-100 hours per year. Not enough reps to keep sharp, but more is better and the Aerostar is all kinds of 'more'.

Oh, and I saved 'bee a few AMUs a while back, and still no right seat offer. I am -- offended. :D j/k
 
LoneAspen said:
Dr Bruce - You mentioned the DA42 in a previous post, so I'm guessing you might have some DA42 time?

If so, of the DA42 and the Aerostar, which did you "like" the best?

Yes, I know this is a very loaded question, and probably comparing apples and giraffes, but curious as to your thoughts on each, if you'd flown both of them?
Click to expand...
Yeah seriously the comparison is between a Seminole class aircraft (2 passengers) and utility twin.

I'm at the bottom edge of that- I can fly the Pacific NW this time of year (and just did). Last summer I moved my then 21 year old's apartment from MQB to IJD in one trip. PA 34 cabins are HUGE for GA- of course, I could only go in 2 hour fuel hops.

If I didn't need FIKI and a BIG cabin, I would be in different mount in a flash. The real interior volume is about the same as a Toyota Camry.

Trouble with the delightful DA42 is, for the current prices and gearboxes you really are not saving much real "lifecycle cost", and it's a SMALL cabin. You can't take much with you.

The twins that have real utility- weather flexibility and haul it there quickly continue to have real value. Unlimited piston twin budget- Aerostar 601P (really a cabin for 5 not large folks). But at that point a TBM 750 would be a tough competitor.

So no favorites- each a/c has a different mission. AStar cabin is a bit small for my needs. Sure wish I had the speed....but life's a b_tch. As to how they fly- they're just twins. You learn their peccadillos- the Astar you do by the numbers. The Seneca will talk to you. The DA42 will TELL you.
 
bbchien said:
Trouble with the delightful DA42 is, for the current prices and gearboxes you really are not saving much real "lifecycle cost", and it's a SMALL cabin. You can't take much with you.
Click to expand...
I also really like flying the DA42. But in addition to the small cabin, you also don't get much speed out of it.

If I was retired and bouncing around traveling for fun with the wife and a couple of suitcases, a Twinstar might be the right ride. But factoring in the kids and the dogs, maybe not so much.
 
The low price is probably due to the soft market these days and the up keeping of the plane. Compared to a Mooney 201 the 601P will cost you more than five times to maintain and support. It needs at least 4,000 ft runway and burns at least 34 gph. Insurance can be $5,000/year. It will not fit in a traditional T hangar. Unlike the Barons or Cessna twins the props are next to the pilot window on the 601P. This makes the plane very noisy, specially when shedding ice. You may get it for $119K but you are going to spend half of that per year to support it.

José
 
Piloto - not a thing you said is correct. Sigh.
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
Piloto - not a thing you said is correct. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Actually, much of what he said is correct, note his fuel flow number. If you run your engines like that and fly that hard and rich, the plane will eat your lunch on maintenance, same as any other plane.

This is where many performance twins (and singles) get their bad reputation, from people who "didn't buy this plane to go slow". If you operate LOP with 25GPH fuel flows, you'll have very surprisingly low operating and maintenance costs.
 
I should have said almost not a thing he said is correct. Sure, it's easy to have it burn 34gal/hr or even a lot more. Hell, it can burn 50gal/hr if you want it to. Just as it's easy to have a Mooney burn 20-25gal/hr. And it won't fit in a T-hangar unless you do some acrobatic manoeuvres and raise the nose up by a good 1,5-2 feet, which, isn't easily done or correct so I'll give him that.

The rest is positively incorrect.;)
 
Last edited:
Lance F said:
Aerostars are a lot like Mooneys. They were made to be fast and efficient. In spite or because of that, these two types have more old wives tales following them than the CPB group. Usually these comments come from persons who have never flown them. Too bad.
.
Click to expand...

True of a lot of planes.

I like the ones that start off "I read on the Internet........."

:rolleyes:
 
RotorAndWing said:
True of a lot of planes.

I like the ones that start off "I read on the Internet........."

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I got some jackwagon walk up to me when I was fueling the 310 on Sunday. Went about like this:

"Is that a 310?"
"Yes"
"Don't those have lots of ADs from the wings falling off?"
"No"
"Oh, I read that somewhere. I see cages, are you a breeder?"
"No, animal rescue."
"That's stupid. Why would anyone help animals?"
"I don't like people."
"That's messed up."
"So is walking up to a man, implying his airplane is a piece of ****, and then saying what he does with it is dumb."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I got some jackwagon walk up to me when I was fueling the 310 on Sunday. Went about like this:

"Is that a 310?"
"Yes"
"Don't those have lots of ADs from the wings falling off?"
"No"
"Oh, I read that somewhere. I see cages, are you a breeder?"
"No, animal rescue."
"That's stupid. Why would anyone help animals?"
"I don't like people."
"That's messed up."
"So is walking up to a man, implying his airplane is a piece of ****, and then saying what he does with it is dumb."
Click to expand...

That guy sounded like a real tool who was trying to get into your head a bit.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I got some jackwagon walk up to me when I was fueling the 310 on Sunday. Went about like this:

"Is that a 310?"
"Yes"
"Don't those have lots of ADs from the wings falling off?"
"No"
"Oh, I read that somewhere. I see cages, are you a breeder?"
"No, animal rescue."
"That's stupid. Why would anyone help animals?"
"I don't like people."
"That's messed up."
"So is walking up to a man, implying his airplane is a piece of ****, and then saying what he does with it is dumb."
Click to expand...


I think you and I would be good friends if we met in person.

I have a Twin Comanche. When I got it I heard: "those things are dangerous", "didn't they kill a lot of people?". "They will bite you if you get slow".

All airplanes are dangerous if flown incorrectly. All cars are dangerous if driven incorrectly, or if someone around you drives incorrectly.

I especially like talking to someone who rides street bikes and says flying is dangerous.
 
bburnett said:
I think you and I would be good friends if we met in person.

I have a Twin Comanche. When I got it I heard: "those things are dangerous", "didn't they kill a lot of people?". "They will bite you if you get slow".

All airplanes are dangerous if flown incorrectly. All cars are dangerous if driven incorrectly, or if someone around you drives incorrectly.

I especially like talking to someone who rides street bikes and says flying is dangerous.
Click to expand...

I just tell them "Yes it is, but it's a good day to die." That normally ends the conversation.
 
LJS1993 said:
That guy sounded like a real tool who was trying to get into your head a bit.
Click to expand...

The general impression I got was that he was too stupid to realize what he was saying. There was more to the encounter, but those were the highlights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top