So what kind of short wing, non turbo 600 makes it to 17,500? What’s the climb rate at 16k in such plane?

Any stock 600 that is airworthy can easily make it to 17,500. Service ceiling is defined as able to maintain a 100 FPM climb rate? Model 600 POH Fig 8-9 "Rate of Climb, Twin Engine" show a 600 still climbing at 100 FPM at 22,000 on an ISA day at max gross.

I can't attest to that personally. I've never taken a 600 above 18,000.

POH Cruise Performance charts only go to 15,000. 198 knots @ 27 GPH. You've only got about 17" of manifold pressure up there so that's why, if you're going to cruise routinely at those altitudes, you want a 601 or P model instead of a 600.

Any stock 600 that is airworthy can easily make it to 17,500. Service ceiling is defined as able to maintain a 100 FPM climb rate? Model 600 POH Fig 8-9 "Rate of Climb, Twin Engine" show a 600 still climbing at 100 FPM at 22,000 on an ISA day at max gross.

I can't attest to that personally. I've never taken a 600 above 18,000.

POH Cruise Performance charts only go to 15,000. 198 knots @ 27 GPH. You've only got about 17" of manifold pressure up there so that's why, if you're going to cruise routinely at those altitudes, you want a 601 or P model instead of a 600.

Oh I took my 600A to 15,000’ once…. Your not climbing, then 200FPM, then not climbing, then 200FPM etc etc.. it was painful. 17,500 idk, that would take some real patience and precise pitch control. This is when I decided I needed something turbo and pressurized.

I hear ya. Speaking of pressurized, I did finally fly mine today after another 100 hour. The prop overhauls took forever but the cool part is it once again makes full power straight to FL200 and at 24” and 2200, full of fuel, seems to still go really fast even after the static leaks were fixed. Joel at Juliet Delta knows the planes, no doubt about it.

The performance increase realized on a 600 after installing wing extensions and winglets is most dramatic on takeoffs, initial climb, approaches and landings, not at altitude. All you have to do is fly a 600 without winglets and extensions and fly one with winglets and extensions and you will be shocked. I was.

I wasn’t expecting the plane to jump off the runway like it did and climb the way it did. It caught me by complete surprise. Although not as dramatic as the takeoff, approach and landing were noticeably different. Increase in lateral stability on approach, again, I was not expecting, but, pleasantly surprised. I never floated down the runway when I didn’t have the extensions and winglets. After the install I had to make adjustments to my short approaches otherwise I would float. That’s a feeling I never experienced in a short wing 600.

Although the figures are not published, stall speed, single engine performance, takeoff and landing performance have all been enhanced. Experience, a little bit of common sense and reasoning will bare that out. The increase in useful load is what it is.

All in all, the wing extensions and winglets make a 600 a different airplane. Increase in utility and safety is realized straight across the board. It is what it is. There is no denying it. At approx. $50,000.00 for both, it isn’t inexpensive. The value received is for you to decide.

All that being said, you will realize an increase in climb to whatever altitude you desire. It’s just not as dramatic as what you experience close to the ground. At 10,000’ msl and above, you will begin to notice about a two to three knot increase in tas post wing extension and winglet install. Again, not published, but, what I have experienced.

Braden’s Flying Service was an Aerostar and Piper dealer…landed there many times with my Aerostar and Twin Comanche

OK, Tom, I'll stipulate to a three knot increase above 10,000 ft. New York to Chicago (KMMU-KPWK) is a three hour flight. For that three hour flight I get there three minutes faster with the winglets and the extra three knots versus without. I burn 30 an hour so that three minutes represents a gallon and a half savings. At a current average price (rounding up) of $6 per gallon for 100LL, I saved $9.00.

Dividing our installed cost of $52,300 by the $9 savings it would take me 5,811.1 hours at cruise to pay them off. I am loathe to admit my own mortality but they're never going to pay off in my lifetime.

And besides, there's only a single flight level above ten - eleven eastbound and twelve westbound - not requiring oxygen. At which point you'd be better off putting your $50k towards purchase of a turbocharged P model.

Granted the winglets really look cool.

OK, Tom, I'll stipulate to a three knot increase above 10,000 ft. New York to Chicago (KMMU-KPWK) is a three hour flight. For that three hour flight I get there three minutes faster with the winglets and the extra three knots versus without. I burn 30 an hour so that three minutes represents a gallon and a half savings. At a current average price (rounding up) of $6 per gallon for 100LL, I saved $9.00.

Dividing our installed cost of $52,300 by the $9 savings it would take me 5,811.1 hours at cruise to pay them off. I am loathe to admit my own mortality but they're never going to pay off in my lifetime.

And besides, there's only a single flight level above ten - eleven eastbound and twelve westbound - not requiring oxygen. At which point you'd be better off putting your $50k towards purchase of a turbocharged P model.

Granted the winglets really look cool.

OK, so here's the thing, Tom. Get out your AOA Aerostar Training Materials (I'm referencing V2.1 9/28/2017) and look up the stall speed of the 600 (83 clean; 74 w flaps) and 601B (86 clean; 77 w flaps) and ask yourself why, with the wingtip extensions, does the 601B have a higher stalling speed than the 600? You said all the numbers have been enhanced with the longer wings

Wait a minute - the 601B is certified to 6,000 gross while the 600 is limited to 5,500. So the 601B is carrying 500 extra pounds. Using the 600 performance charts (POH Fig 8-17 Stall Speeds) there appears to be a three to four knot difference in stall speed for each 500 pound difference in weight. Clean for the 600: 83, 79, 76, and 71; w flaps: 74, 70, 68, and 64 at 5,500, 5,000, 4,500, and 4,000 respectively.

So if we adjust the 601B stall speed down to 5,500 lbs by subtracting three knots then a 5,500lb 600 stalls at 83 and a 5,500lb 601B stalls at 83 clean. And with flaps it's 74 and 74.

If they both stall at the same speed at the same weight, one with short wings and the other with wingtip extensions, how has my stall speed been enhanced by the wingtip extensions?

I apologize. I'm a numbers guy. I give a lot more weight to published numbers than to anecdotal reports. And I'm quite happy with my clipped wing rocket. Ted Smith was a genius.

It’s all in the winglets.

I wasn’t comparing a 600 with winglets and extensions to a 601B.
I was comparing a straight short wing 600 to a 600 with extensions and winglets.
A turbo model is a whole different ball game. Apples to oranges.

I’m not a numbers guy Geo, but, I do know what my 600 flew like before the extensions and winglets install. I do know what it flys like now. I share what I have experienced with and without the installs. You and everyone else can take it from there and make your own decisions and conclusions.

I had a 601-P/700 and was an early adopter for the winglets. No question it made a big difference. Not really in ultimate cruise speed, mostly in handling. Where before the plane had a tendency to almost push through the flare/ground effect at low speed and "fly-on."
On rotation during takeoff, it was rather abrupt as you pulled up on the yoke and it finally lifted the nose and broke free of the ground. After the winglets, you could flare and glide very nicely in the landings and the takeoff felt much more like a normal plane as it would gently climb off the runway. Simulated single engine climbs worked much better too. And for me, I subsequently had one cautionary shut-down for over-temp, one outright failure due to cylinder separation from the case, and one shut-down due to oil loss...all after winglet installation and it flew very nicely, in two cases well over 100 miles in weather over very inhospitable terrain. I don't think the winglets make it much faster, but the takeoff and landing is much more pleasant/normal and it is a safer plane if you lose one.

There are repetitive questions regarding the safe amount of runway required for an Aerostar. I I have read some responses that worry me. There are many factors that go into determining what is "safe" and "not so safe" in a particular situation. I would suggest that you can listen to Forrest.

I will start with some basic information. I have flown STOL and short field airplanes all my life. Most of my "experience" is not conjecture. Something that should be obvious: with a single engine airplane, the requirements of being safe are simple. Distance over a 50' obstacle and stall speed. Due to the potential loss of an engine, it is not nearly that simple with a twin. Stall speed, VMC, blue line, accelerate stop distance, and the DIFFERENCE between the runway needed for lift off and the distance over a 50' obstacle (or a 100' obstacle, all come into play.

References to horsepower to weight ratio have been made. That figure determines one thing and one thing only, acceleration on the ground and, to a lesser extent, on initial climb out. Add to that number the efficiency of the prop at static and low speeds to determine accretion. At this point of the "puzzle" all airplanes are otherwise equal. They have to accelerate from standing start to flying speed before anything happens. My C-55 Baron stalls at barely over 70 knots at gross weight. Am I going to haul it off at that speed. No. VMC is about ten knots higher. So, in comparing the ability and safety of a particular twin on a given amount of runway, is that the whole equation? Not by a long shot. Accelerate/Stop distance comes into play. That is mostly a factor of the brakes and tires which can vary greatly even within the same model of aircraft.

Then, comes the most important number. Blue line. The highest risk time of flying a twin is the time from lift off to blue line. Obviously, horsepower to weight ratios come into play here, but the consideration I see missed here is wing design. The difference between the airfoil designs between different airplanes can be startling.

I have flown one Aerostar: a '79 model 601P stock except for intercoolers.

I have flown almost every model of Beech aircraft up to the 90 King Air. These airplanes all share the same basic airfoil, It is A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AIRFOIL from the Aerostar's laminar design and the behavior of these two airfoils is significantly different once the airplane's wheels leave the runway.

I owned my Aerostar for about six years and regularly flew into a 3,000' strip where my shop was located. No issue as I was always fairly light. But that strip had cotton fields stretching to the south and trees rising from a swamp on the north. I always took off to the south. Taking off to the north would not bother me in the Baron in the least even at higher weights.

Why? The Baron wing allows the airplane to accelerate and climb from VMC, 80 knots, to Blue line, 99 knots, in a fraction of the time the Aerostar can make the same journey from its VMC to its Blue line.

I'm not going to beat this subject to death. The knowledgeable pilots hereon already understand the flying a twin safely is part science (the numbers). and part art (putting together all the factors needed).

I still remember the single most nail biting takeoff in the Aerostar. it was out of a 4000' strip with 100' pine trees on each end. Summer, full fuel, two aboard. I know exactly where the airplane was in speed and capability when it finally got over those trees and to blue line. Had I lost an engine before that, I simply would not be here to post this.

The Aerostar is a great airplane. If I could go back, I would have hung two new engines on it and kept going. But understand, pilot skills and airplane capability are ALWAYS no more than adequate for the circumstances you place yourself and your airplane.

There is not a pilot alive who has the skills to lower an airplanes stall speed, VMC, Blue Line, or single engine climb rate. I'll add one more caution. Some of the claims on this thread are pure should be seriously questioned.

Proceed with caution.

Jg

The one thing I never liked about the 601P was the time between rotation and getting too blue line. It was a slow transition and they really don't climb well in that region. After that, they get going. I think the 700/Superstar is better in this regard and narrows that transition time.

Yes Adam, EXACTLY MY POINT. You said it more simply.

The laminar flow wing is designed for speed, and it delivers. Sometimes, I felt like I could time the acceleration from lift off to blue line with an hour glass. This is the butt camping part of any flight in a twin. The "big engine" Aerostar's simply power through that quicker.

The difference in "slow" speed performance between a laminar flow wing and a "fatter" higher lift design like the Beech is significant. It is all built around angle of attack. The Aerostar wing was picked for speed, and it delivers. With essentially the same horsepower but 700 pounds more weight, my 601P was easily ten knots faster than my C-55 at non-turbo altitudes.

A couple of more points that I think some will find of interest.

The other airplane I owned that was slow getting to blue line was an H model Beech 18. It was one of the most docile airplanes I have ever flown and its single engine handling was like flying a 172. But, due to drag, its acceleration after lift off was like molasses. The best handling twin in the world will kill you in the "coffin's corner" between VMC and blue line during take off.

When in the construction business, I owned a Twin Bonanza (6300# gross) for many of those years. Simply put, it had the short field performance of a Skylane. It had no heavy conversions; 3x3 bench seats with over the wing door. Our 4-22 runway is 1600 feet long from from the beginning of 22 to where it crosses 13/31. With full fuel and me and my, then, young boys, it would land, stop, and take off before it even reached 13/31.

Again, I caution "new" Aerostar owners to be very careful with advice from those who are newly made Bob Hoover's touting the Aerostar as everything to everybody.

There has been some well greased BS posted on these pages.

Jg