I have owned a stock 601-P and a Superstar 700 on which I had winglets installed; I now fly a -10 powered MU-2K short body. My Aerostars were fantastic flying machines with amazing fighter-like handling and relatively high efficiency for long trips at altitude (I flew mine at FL230-250 most of the time). But short field ops were just not their forte. At my home field of KLAR, the ground run alone was often over 3000 feet in the summer. As Mike suggested, the MU-2 easily bests the AEST on landing and takeoff and cruises over 300kts (but it handles like a B747). It has huge props with reverse thrust to get stopped, and twice the horsepower of the most powerful Aerostar, with larger wings and massive, full-span flaps to help it get off the ground. No comparison.
Do buy an Aerostar if you want to go fast (for a piston), relatively far, and carry a lot of weight with excellent turbulence penetration. But don't buy one if you need a large cabin and must get into and out of a short field. Their wing is optimized for speed and handling.

Sage advice. I hope "they" are listening.

Jg

Thomas, you must have missed us 600 drivers on the forum talking about visiting fields shorter than 2,000 feet. How short a field do you venture with an MU-2?

I realize it's apples and oranges. But then your MU-2 has got twice the horsepower of a 700P and beta thrust so that's hardly a fair comparison either.

You have a definite advantage on unimproved fields with that landing gear and the high-mounted props.

Geo, they don't appear to use much grass....

[youtube]https://youtu.be/om6yTgwvNQs[/youtube]

[youtube]https://youtu.be/Ye92XvsucYU[/youtube]

Thomas, you must have missed us 600 drivers on the forum talking about visiting fields shorter than 2,000 feet. How short a field do you venture with an MU-2?

I realize it's apples and oranges. But then your MU-2 has got twice the horsepower of a 700P and beta thrust so that's hardly a fair comparison either.

You have a definite advantage on unimproved fields with that landing gear and the high-mounted props.

I'm just kidding you, Thomas. I'm reminded of when I was talking to my insurance agent about buying an Aerostar and was advised to buy a Seminole or Seneca instead and build multi time first. I asked why would I ever want to spend twice as much money going slower then I was already cruising in my Mooney?

Likewise, if you ever tire of the Aerostar (still pinching myself after several decades so that's unlikely) or need more speed / capability, then the MU-2 is a very, very attractive step up.

It's amazing that both the Aerostar and the MU-2 got seriously bad raps but both are stellar performers in the hands of a competent pilot.

Cheers!

Nor does a 600, John. I checked one of my favorite turf strips VanSant in Erwinna PA. 3,000 feet long. But it's a lot closer to sea level than Johnson Creek @ 5,000 above sea level. And no mountains

Nor does a 600, John. I checked one of my favorite turf strips VanSant in Erwinna PA. 3,000 feet long. But it's a lot closer to sea level than Johnson Creek @ 5,000 above sea level. And no mountains

John, two completely different airplanes, the 600 and 700. But they fly exactly the same.

If you lighten a 700 to the same take-off weight, it will be even more sprightly than a 600 given the extra hundred horsepower.

The thing is, you can pack an extra 1,350 pounds into a 700 and climb to the flight levels and cruise at 260 kts which is not something you could ever do with a 600. So you're better off figuring out your flight profile first, deciding whether you benefit more from the simplicity and ease of maintenance of a 30 GPH 200 kt 600 or you want the pressurization and the turbos (and associated costs) along with the weight lifting capability and added speed of a 700.

Those of us with 600s sleep peacefully at night knowing that wing spar can lift 125% of what we carry without breaking a sweat and the cabin can be pumped up and down without popping rivets.

Ok, that's fair. My 700 is a blast when it's light on a cold day.

I was more interested in how the short wing airplane flies/handles.

I don't think you could tell the difference. Besides, what's more fun that flying a lightly loaded 600 on a cold day. The plane jumps off the runway.

You do get 300# extra MTOW if you put the wing extensions (Option 277) on a 600. And a 5,800# 600 is going to fly the same as a 5,800# 700 @ 85% power.

As an aside, that appears to be where the winglets come on strong - at the 700's MTOW flying at Vy. That's the end of the polar curve where you get a 7% reduction in "drag units." By the time you accelerate to cruise or you fly at lighter weights, the drag reduction is minimal. Since I can't get within a thousand pounds of a heavily loaded 700 there's some benefit to installing them on a 600 but I'd never get the same payoff you P drivers see.

BTW That's a computer simulated 7% reduction in "drag units." Actual mileage may vary.

The average empty weight of a Machen 700 is 4,650 lbs. My 600 empty weight is 3,890 lbs. with wing extensions, winglets, big brakes, all glass and short props. My gross weight is 5,700 lbs. https://aerostaraircraft.com/wp-content ... ations.pdf

What don't understand about the wingtip extensions - if you read the type certificate data sheet A17WE Rev. 23 it says that for the 601 (Note: 601 not 601P) "AAC Option No. 93 extends each wing tip 15 inches and increases the permissible maximum weight from 5700 lbs. to 6000 lbs."

Pardon my ignorance but what is structurally different between a 600 and a short wing 601? The short wing 601s start off with a 5700 lb MTOW and those with Option 93 get the 300 pound increase to 6000 lbs.

Why are the wingtips good for 300 extra on a 601 but only 200 extra (from 5500 to 5700 MTOW) on a 600? That's what a short wing 601 starts off at - 5700. And a 601 is a turbo-normalized 600 so it's the same 580 HP of a 600 at sea level.

Granted they do some CG range restrictions on a heavy 601 - 17% MAC is as far forward as you can go vs 15% on the 600.

My 600 is 170# heavier empty but I carry known ice, engine A/C, and ART2000. They're removing the steam gages as we speak so I hope I'll be as svelte as you after surgery.

I can’t speak for a 601. All I can tell you about is my 600 and my personal experiences.
My guess is the turbo’s on a 601 have an affect on the max gross weight.

The might be why they added 200# to the MTOW of the original short wing 601 - to cover the added empty weight of the turbo-normalization system hardware without sacrificing any useful load from the 600 model. But it doesn't account for why adding wingtip extensions buys you an extra 300 pounds on the 601 but only 200 extra pounds on the 600. That's really odd given the 600 is 200 pounds lighter than a short wing 601 to start with.

So with original short wings, MTOW of the 600 is 200 pounds less than the 601.

When you put extended wingtips on both, the MTOW of the 600 is 300 pounds less that the 601.

Go figure.