Because Twinkies are maint free... Go big or go home. The killers on the Aerostar are the electric AC, turbos, exhaust, and pressure system. The 600A has no turbos, no pressure system, and the K5 engine has the upgraded inconel muffs, but the manifolds should be upgraded. No electric AC to go wrong. There are some gear bits that need attention but the cost of upgrading those isn't too bad. If I was flying over deep water, in scruffy weather, I'd sure rather be in an Aerostar than a twinkie.
All about Piper Twin Comanches (PA30/39)
- Thread starter flyingcheesehead
- Start date
Doc Holliday
En-Route
So you've owned and maintained one?
No, as stated, I tried to buy one several times and each plane wouldn't pass the pre-buy. Of the four I looked at all of them failed for the pressure systems, turbo, or one had a bad AC, and also pressure issues. The entire GA aviation world is aware of the maint on Aerostars, and I'm not trying to minimize it. All I add here is that the Aerostar is a LOT more plane for comparative added maint over the twinkie. The Aerostars are also very well supported by two independent shops, with tons of institutional knowledge. If I'm going to run two engine, and two props, I'll pay the added freight to go another 40Kts faster.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
That “added freight” is you are buying a maintenance hog that will clear out a bank account or melt your credit cards.
So, I guess it was YOU who had a bad experience with ownership of an Aerostar. My apologies on your misfortune.
People say the same thing about literally any airplane asked about on here or any other forum. Most of it's just rumor and speculation from people who have never actually owned or maintained the make/model in question.
Not every airplane is simple and cheap to maintain. Yes, a Twin Comanche will cost more to maintain, on average, than a Mooney or an Arrow or a Bonanza or a 172. And yes, an Aerostar or a Duke will cost more to maintain than the Twinkie (or a Baron, etc.). More performance usually comes with more complexity; and more complexity usually comes with more maintenance. Anyone who expects otherwise is, well, an idiot. And some of us are willing to pay (or put in their own time/work) for the performance that something like a Duke or an Aerostar or a similar high performance piston twin will provide.
midwestpa24
Final Approach
Our local "seasoned" Piper mechanic will call you every name in the book if you show up with an Aerostar. He will still work on it, just won't like it.
Although he has told me, the Aerostar is an amazing machine and a great airplane. They are just a PITA to work on because everything is crammed into the airframe. There is no room to work on anything.
As far as the Twin Comanche goes, it is a great airplane. But other than the second engine and a little more gross weight, the fuselage and cabin are no different than the single engine Comanches. The cabin is substantially the same.
Although he has told me, the Aerostar is an amazing machine and a great airplane. They are just a PITA to work on because everything is crammed into the airframe. There is no room to work on anything.
As far as the Twin Comanche goes, it is a great airplane. But other than the second engine and a little more gross weight, the fuselage and cabin are no different than the single engine Comanches. The cabin is substantially the same.
schmookeeg
Final Approach
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 5,812
- Location
- Alameda, CA
- Display Name
- Mike Brannigan
- Home Airfield
- KOAK
I am still trying to understand how a 400hp Miller twinkie is quoted as a 135kt plane when the 320hp twinkie is a 150kt plane all day.
I liked mine, but I owned it when Webco was in force. I think of them as a twin early mooney. It definitely suckled on my credit cards in an outsized way to its little stature.
I feel like the cabin in the twinkie is too small and the cabin in the seneca is too big.
I liked mine, but I owned it when Webco was in force. I think of them as a twin early mooney. It definitely suckled on my credit cards in an outsized way to its little stature.
I feel like the cabin in the twinkie is too small and the cabin in the seneca is too big.
Twins usually do cost more than singles, but you’ll also find within in the same class of aircraft there are differences in models. For example, the Aerostar and P-Baron definitely require more mx than other similar twins, but not so much from their complexity. From my side its more a design and support issue which drives the end result and cost. Its no different than why I didn’t work on R22/44 helicopters or Mooneys for the same reasons. So while there are rumors or speculations in general with some models, you’ll find when those same models repeatedly come up in conversation it tends to be more than just a myth.
True, to an extent, but the vast majority of commentors who bemoan the various complex piston twins rarely have any actual experience with those makes/models. They just parrot what they read on the internet or once heard from the grumpy old mechanic at their airport.
Doc Holliday
En-Route
Agreed. The poster I replied to had 4 rebuys fail on a Aerostar and that’s indicative of the fleet. There’s no getting around the care and feeding.
Twin Comanches are ancient. Many have gone through multiple (cheap) owners who have kicked the can down the road. Unfortunately Lance and his son found one even after a self proclaimed type expert passed it on prebuy.
For some that want a known expensive product and accept the responsibility, have at it. But the OP is looking for a plane to use, not restore (unless I missed something)
I'm now sorry to have deflected this twinkie thread into an Aerostar bashing contest. BTW, I also started looking at the twinkie(as stated) and two of the planes I looked at also failed my personal pre-buy exam. The first one that came to my airport for a look had some weird issue with the flaps. The second one had all kinds of issues with the gear, and I suspect it was a training aircraft that needed the typical $10k of gear mx. The last twinkie I looked at was a dream machine. Had the wow-cowls, some other speed mods, great paint, good times, and the short flight I took it was an honest example. They were asking $149k, and I possibly could have spent that and never turn a wrench for years. Maybe.
I wondered why - for the same nut, or very similar I could get a PA-60 without turbo or pressure? Of course, just like the exotic car market the voodoo public perception skewed the buying public. So I learned, the 600 and 600A were the bargain play(if such thing exists) in the Aerostar world and thusly, I have somewhat poisoned this thread. I made my case, and based only on the OP mentioning the Aerostar in post 23 as possibly desirable.
Suggest I go on sabbatical here, and proceed back to the PA-30 discussion. fini
I wondered why - for the same nut, or very similar I could get a PA-60 without turbo or pressure? Of course, just like the exotic car market the voodoo public perception skewed the buying public. So I learned, the 600 and 600A were the bargain play(if such thing exists) in the Aerostar world and thusly, I have somewhat poisoned this thread. I made my case, and based only on the OP mentioning the Aerostar in post 23 as possibly desirable.
Suggest I go on sabbatical here, and proceed back to the PA-30 discussion. fini
As an older pilot who has owned 7 different airplanes over 50 years, I remember a general statement that was not far from the truth in my experience. For every 25 mph increase in speed, one could double the cost of ownership(maintenance, insurance, hangar, gas, annuals, interest on purchase price, etc). There was also the saying you can pay me now, or later which can apply on many airplane purchases. I’m sure one can find “testimonies” about individual exceptions, but that old saying has been pretty accurate for many. Cessna 140<177fg<182rg<B36<P Baron <single turbo prop<small jet<etc. what’s your mission, what are you willing to pay are the question. Don’t forget to figure in purchase price and what you could earn on that money if invested.
flyingcheesehead
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 28,191
- Location
- UQACY, WI
- Display Name
- iMooniac
- Home Airfield
- KUES/KMKE
Well if that holds true, switching to the Twinkie should *save* me money!
