News: Added Links For Twin Commander and Facebook Pages

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Aerostar?  (Read 22282 times)

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #45 on: February 22, 2018, 02:00:14 am »
You get a lot of bang for buck in Aerostar world. I saw a 700 where price had dropped to $100K recently.. I have nothing bad to say about them and if you want one, you should get one.

Just be emotionally and mentally prepared when it comes to selling, that it will take a long time to sell it and it will be at a loss. But then again, that's pretty much any airplane you own unless you have a PC12, C185 or a Cub.
Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

JimC

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #46 on: February 22, 2018, 11:46:01 am »
We're getting really, really close to the age of the throwaway airplane. These 40-50 year old twin turboprops - once you reach TBO, why would you pay to overhaul? Just buy the next one and fly it to TBO. I know people have been predicting this for years and it hasn't come to pass, but are we finally here now that the SETP really has a strong presence in the market?
500B, B200

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2018, 02:45:21 pm »
No, would make zero sense to overhaul my aircraft come TBO. Probably not make any sense on any -5 powered 690A/B either. On -10's, it probably won't make sense financially either, but the gap is small enough it is prob worth it for utility.

The choice many face at the end of TBO is continue to run them, or find a lower time engine somewhere and buy that.

That said, here's a crop duster guy on another forum talking about PT6's over TBO:

Yes, we completely ignore TBO. Our planes currently range from 10,000-14,000 SMOH. That said, we do comply with HSI intervals and usually do them as much as twice as often as recommended by Pratt. If you have someone who will treat you right on hots, they can be a good way to save money. In addition to finding discrepancies while there is still time to repair instead of replace, frequent hot sections can be a vital tool in determining if current operating practices are allowing for the most economical outcome.

Our in house limits are currently 1000 hours on starter/generators, 5000 on CT blades, 1500 on hot sections, 5000 on FCUs, High pressure fuel pumps, and power sections. Most every thing else is done "on condition". As far as cycle limits, we strictly observe them on all rotating components.

The results have been outstanding. Dispatch reliability is nearly perfect and operating expense is only a fraction of what Pratt quotes.

Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2018, 02:50:34 pm »
You have to weigh the cost of overhaul versus the hassle of selling your airplane, finding another one, and what the resale value of your airplane would be with fresh (under 1000 SMOH) engines. You get some, and maybe quite a bit, of the overhaul cost back when you go sell the airplane, especially if it's a good and well equipped airplane.

At least, that's true for the Jetprops... I'm less sure that you get much back on a dash 5 690.

Jeff, your problem is going to be finding a good Aerostar. It's funny-- my experience in buying airplanes has been the opposite of yours. My experience has been that the high priced airplanes are generally pretty good and don't need a whole lot, while the low-priced ones might seem like a bargain but have been sitting for years, need avionics upgrades, various maintenance issues, ADs, etc.

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2018, 05:04:20 pm »
Don,

Of course your correct.  The more money you spend the better the plane.

I was just stating that the very high end of the Aerostar line is full of planes that don?t fly.

What I liked about my shrike is it flew.  And it regularly had maintenance.  Oil changes and very well documented.

I guess I was spoiled with my first plane and I may be making too much out of this.

Honestly I?ve had way to much time thinking about this. 

Adam Frisch

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
    • Adam Frisch FSF
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2018, 05:06:01 pm »
Kind of agree with Don in many ways - I've consistently gone for the bottom feeders in each segment and have the long waits and repairs to prove it! I think next time I buy a plane, I'll try to buy closer to what I want. Sure, a little fix or upgrade here and there I'm not opposed to, but when everything needs doing it just takes years out of your flying...

Slumming it in the turboprop world - so you don't have to.

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #51 on: February 22, 2018, 05:11:29 pm »
I so agree!

I?m trying to find a plane that is flight ready.  Don?t need 750 g500 or anything like that.  But I do want a good flying machine.  With respectable electronics.

Maybe I?m being to optimistic but I was more in the realm of trying to find a 600a as opposed to a 601p

I?m so not interested in doing a ground up on a plane.  That sounds awful.

I?m getting close.  And hopefully soon I will be a flyin.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2018, 05:22:05 pm »
You said had to be newer than 1980, right? So you're only looking at 602Ps or factory 700s?

Jeff Johnson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2018, 05:42:11 pm »
1980 still had the 601p

But yeah a 602p would be preferable.  And I don?t see the need for a 700

Ideally 1980 -81 600a with ice protection.  But I?m down to 3-4 examples of this aircraft left...

N888wb is a 1979 but numbers look good.  Except western skyways overhauls 500hrs ago.  Which some will do there best to stay away from.  And stock original interior.  But it has 530waas and looks to be well taken care of.  Down side is Kent larson is listing and he is a bit tough to deal with
N700LM is a good plane.  Newer case U2A engines 800 TTSN but non waas 530 and it?s been sitting.  Although he states it?s in good shape might need a prop overhaul, and interior is original
N250s has all the righ electronics, good hours, good times.  But needs a paint job really bad.  Well it?s a nice paint job.  Just Candy Apple red. Oh and interior is original. Another plus is it?s flown regularly so I?d assume most of the gremlins have been worked out :)

Out of the 3 I like 700LM the best. 
I also really want a KFC 200 auto pilot as opposed to the century 4.  May be splitting hairs on this one.  But I like the KFC better.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2018, 05:49:40 pm »
I would advise you strongly against a stock 601P, with the turbo-normalized engines. They are quite under-powered, especially if one quits. And those engines don't have a great reputation.

I would advise either a stock 602P or a 700... 700 is going to give you better takeoff and single engine performance, and it is noticeable. There is a reason why so many 601Ps were converted to 700s.

donv

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3220
Re: Aerostar?
« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2018, 12:14:58 pm »
I notice that the 690B with the orange on the tail is gone from Controller... given the price, I assume it sold.

Surprisingly, Bruce's bargain 1000 is still listed.