And the way to spot a 700P is that the pitot tube is on the front fuselage, not up at tail. Were it should have been all along.

If you're buying a twin for the view, buy something else, Dennis.

As I remind my hypoxic brothers, until the 700 came out the 600 had the best power-to-weight ratio of all the Aerostar models. The 600 is a fire-breathing scream machine that should be flown with the same precision and attention as all the other models. Only difference with a 600 is you don't have to worry about coking turbos or emergency descents. It is definitely not the "training wheels" version. It's 200 kts on 30 gph.

Pick an Aerostar, any model Aerostar, and it will demand a great deal of your time learning how to fly and to maintain it. For those of us enamored with the performance and capabilities, it's worth it. If all you want is two engines and a view, buy an Aircam. Seriously. Get something the average competent mechanic can maintain for you, like Brand B or C or P.

Talk to your insurance agent. Yes, you can buy one (and might be able to insure it) with 50hrs multi. But you'll likely have to spend 50 hours dual before you can carry passengers. Why bother if you're already checked out in the Baron and all you want is good visibility?

if you want good visibility in a twin look at the Partenavia P.68 io360s so simple engines and fixed gear. a friend of mine had one with turbos and it was a real load hauler and good cross country aircraft.

I am an average competent mechanic. (A&P/IA) Maintenance on any twin doesn't scare me in the least.

To be clear, the reason I want a twin is for the load hauling capability, weather capability, and the ability to get up and over the Great Lakes that surround where I live. I also enjoy the challenge of flying them, and learning and growing as a pilot. If I just wanted to look down, I'd keep my Cardinal RG, which has fantastic visibility. But my family is outgrowing it, it can't fly IFR in the winter, it goes into automatic rough over the middle of Lake Michigan, and I'm bored flying it.

When I look at the light piston twin cohort, Barons/310's/Aztecs/Commanders/Aerostars/Etc.. all haul a good load, all can be had deiced, all will get me over the lakes, and all can be bought within my budget. I can work on all of them, and all will cost about the same to own or run. So all that being equal, I'm looking for more specific differentiators. Aztecs are easy to fly, which would be nice given my low time. 310's are some of the most beautiful planes ever built. I'm familiar with Barons. And Commanders and Aerostars tick my visibility box.

The Aerostar isn't my first choice, but it's worth a look.

"Dennis Martin"]

I am an average competent mechanic. (A&P/IA) Maintenance on any twin doesn't scare me in the least.

To be clear, the reason I want a twin is for the load hauling capability, weather capability, and the ability to get up and over the Great Lakes that surround where I live. I also enjoy the challenge of flying them, and learning and growing as a pilot. If I just wanted to look down, I'd keep my Cardinal RG, which has fantastic visibility. But my family is outgrowing it, it can't fly IFR in the winter, it goes into automatic rough over the middle of Lake Michigan, and I'm bored flying it.

When I look at the light piston twin cohort, Barons/310's/Aztecs/Commanders/Aerostars/Etc.. all haul a good load, all can be had deiced, all will get me over the lakes, and all can be bought within my budget. I can work on all of them, and all will cost about the same to own or run. So all that being equal, I'm looking for more specific differentiators. Aztecs are easy to fly, which would be nice given my low time. 310's are some of the most beautiful planes ever built. I'm familiar with Barons. And Commanders and Aerostars tick my visibility box.

The Aerostar isn't my first choice, but it's worth a look.[/quote]

I am curious, what is your first choice for a light twin?

I recently moved into an Aerostar 601P, but have kept my Baron for a while to “make sure”. I can haul approximately 650 lb payload with full fuel, if I don’t fill the aux fuel tank. So that’s 165 gallon burning north of 32 GPH, but certainly not burning it all in one place. Up higher and going MUCH faster, I am burning closer to 38 GPH. I also have a 700 Super Star project that I hope to have in the air in the next six to nine months.

If you have a serious interest in an Aerostar, I know where there is a 601B that has been converted to automatic waste gates (many years ago) that is a very nice low time airplane, with 300 hour engines and props on both sides, that can be bought for practically nothing. He has a hangar full and now wants a V35B so something has to go to make room for it and he has chosen the twin because he flys it the least. It is currently in annual and being flown by its owner, who is a 40,000 hour professional pilot, and it lives in a climate controlled hangar. I may also be willing to sell my low time B55 as well, if that’s the route you want to go.

Thanks, Frank

Back in 2012 when I switched to the Aerostar, I had about 15 hours in a Piper Seminole.
It can be done. I had to do a class, which if recall correctly was about 20 hours of ground school and ten hours flying. Then 25 hours with a mentor pilot, and then a three month and six month check ride. The check rides were about two hours each as I recall.

Tim

Keep in mind that in 2012 the insurance industry was significantly different. It had become much more strict in the past four or five years.

I have no doubt you're a competent mechanic & IA, Dennis, but the AEST is not an airplane for tire-kickers checking boxes. You'd face a stiff learning curve re: all the stuff you have to inspect for with the aging fleet and quirky design issues like the nose gear hat section. (That's why owners tend to frequent experienced Aerostar shops.)

There are those of us who were enamored with the Aerostar at first sight and for whom nothing else will do (unless maybe if it cruises at better than 350 knots and sips kerosene). When you've been bitten by that bug you're willing to spend years tracking down a clean 600 to purchase. And deal with an insurance agent who said, "Why don't you buy a Seneca / Seminole and put a couple hundred hours on that first before you buy the Aerostar?" I asked him why I'd want to spend twice as much going slower than the Mooney I owned at that point. Like you I wanted performance, de-ice, and weather radar.

It's a great hypothetical question - what about a 600? - but there are a dozen Aerostars listed on Controller, only three of them 600s. And none of them have any deice equipment listed, not even hot props. You'd have a lot more choices and a lot fewer hassles searching among the more common brands.

Good luck with your search!

I am an average competent mechanic. (A&P/IA) Maintenance on any twin doesn't scare me in the least.

To be clear, the reason I want a twin is for the load hauling capability, weather capability, and the ability to get up and over the Great Lakes that surround where I live. I also enjoy the challenge of flying them, and learning and growing as a pilot. If I just wanted to look down, I'd keep my Cardinal RG, which has fantastic visibility. But my family is outgrowing it, it can't fly IFR in the winter, it goes into automatic rough over the middle of Lake Michigan, and I'm bored flying it.

When I look at the light piston twin cohort, Barons/310's/Aztecs/Commanders/Aerostars/Etc.. all haul a good load, all can be had deiced, all will get me over the lakes, and all can be bought within my budget. I can work on all of them, and all will cost about the same to own or run. So all that being equal, I'm looking for more specific differentiators. Aztecs are easy to fly, which would be nice given my low time. 310's are some of the most beautiful planes ever built. I'm familiar with Barons. And Commanders and Aerostars tick my visibility box.

The Aerostar isn't my first choice, but it's worth a look.

Not on the Aerostar. In the upgraded 602P with the gross weight increase and Machen upgraded engines, I had over a thousand pounds UL with full fuel including the aux tank. These numbers are from memory so take them with a grain of salt, but are fairly representative I believe of the fleet with the options.
MTOW was 6850
BEW was 4400
Main plus Aux was 215 gallons & 6 = 1290
Leaves: 1160

Tim

Not on the Aerostar. In the upgraded 602P with the gross weight increase and Machen upgraded engines, I had over a thousand pounds UL with full fuel including the aux tank. These numbers are from memory so take them with a grain of salt, but are fairly representative I believe of the fleet with the options.
MTOW was 6850
BEW was 4400
Main plus Aux was 215 gallons & 6 = 1290
Leaves: 1160

Tim

In go fast mode, the U2A engines ran around 22-23 GPH each running ROP. But cruise speed was around 240KTAS in the mid 20s.
In long range cruise, memory says around to 200 KTAS, and 11-12 GPH per engine running LOP.

I am sure you can guess which one I used more.

You could run the plane as hard and as fast you wanted. Due to the slightly lower compression, the U2A engines were always a few percent less efficient than the other models.

Tim

In go-fast mode with my 601P/SS700 and U2A engines, I could see the published speeds. 262 KTAS at about 50 GPH at FL250. The speed/power setting card that I posted on one of the first pages of this thread was usually dead on.

Ironically, I did an 800 mile round trip with two stops away from base with my Aerostar, the next week with a C-441. The Aerostar fuel was purchased at the lowest cost retail rate, the C-441 at contract rates. It cost $60 more for the C-441 and flight times were only a few minutes shorter. The C-441 was much more comfortable though..

My U2A's would run much slower, however I found that if the GW was heavy, anytime I was under about 65% power efficiency was lost as the airplane would mush. If heavy, I usually ran around 67-70% power where I found the nest MPG numbers shows on the Shadin and higher power if someone else was paying for the fuel.

I would definitely be interested in that 601B. I'm finishing up another Cardinal RG project that should be gone by the end of the summer. Goal is to sell that and my other Cardinal and put the money into a twin project. I like fixing them as much as flying them. So generally I'll find a project of some type, fix/upgrade it (whatever it needs), fly it for a couple years, and move on to the next.

I am an average competent mechanic. (A&P/IA) Maintenance on any twin doesn't scare me in the least.

To be clear, the reason I want a twin is for the load hauling capability, weather capability, and the ability to get up and over the Great Lakes that surround where I live. I also enjoy the challenge of flying them, and learning and growing as a pilot. If I just wanted to look down, I'd keep my Cardinal RG, which has fantastic visibility. But my family is outgrowing it, it can't fly IFR in the winter, it goes into automatic rough over the middle of Lake Michigan, and I'm bored flying it.

When I look at the light piston twin cohort, Barons/310's/Aztecs/Commanders/Aerostars/Etc.. all haul a good load, all can be had deiced, all will get me over the lakes, and all can be bought within my budget. I can work on all of them, and all will cost about the same to own or run. So all that being equal, I'm looking for more specific differentiators. Aztecs are easy to fly, which would be nice given my low time. 310's are some of the most beautiful planes ever built. I'm familiar with Barons. And Commanders and Aerostars tick my visibility box.

The Aerostar isn't my first choice, but it's worth a look.