What's wrong with this airplane?

txflyer

En-Route
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
4,509
Location
Wild Blue Yonder
Display Name

Display name:
Fly it like you STOL it ♦
1980 Aerostar 601P with almost 0 time engines and no squawks $119,000?

Really? :confused:

http://www.controller.com/listingsd.../AEROSTAR-601P/1980-AEROSTAR-601P/1241535.htm

img.axd
 
Going off the top of my head I believe these have the worst safety record of all twins........seems to be a fuel pickup problem as I recall. I'm sure somebody with direct experience will chime in shortly with more accurate info. One took off out of SNA years ago now and plowed the owner and a couple others into some tennis courts off the end of the runway. I have no idea if a fix was ever found or if they are more reliable now............but that may explain the $119K..........
 
Going off the top of my head I believe these have the worst safety record of all twins........seems to be a fuel pickup problem as I recall. I'm sure somebody with direct experience will chime in shortly with more accurate info. One took off out of SNA years ago now and plowed the owner and a couple others into some tennis courts off the end of the runway. I have no idea if a fix was ever found or if they are more reliable now............but that may explain the $119K..........




That's surprising, because I was just reading how the narrow set of the engines make them almost bullet proof on an engine out. Because of the single line thrust component, and they will climb at gross on one engine.

I know nothing about them other than what I read that they're fast.

This one caught my eye with low time and others bringing much more.
 
Last edited:
The engine overhauls alone are more than that.

Probably a misprint or fat-fingering of some sort. Plane is registered to AG corp as a trustee, likely operated by a mexican national in mexico.
 
I believe the accident rate was very much a pilot issue as well. From what im told they need to be flown more like a jet / very high performance airplane and require the appropriate training.
 
I did read the wing has about a 1 degree angle of incidence to the ground. It will not fly off on it's own. You have to increase the angle of attack of the wing.

In other words, you have to pull it off the runway. That may be where pilots were getting into trouble.

And I'll bet the glide ratio isn't so great with that type of wing ...
 
Last edited:
I think that price is probably misquoted, but it's a possibility. Aircraft doesn't have the intercoolers (you can tell because they don't have the scoop/inlet under the nacelles). That's a $20K upgrade. Not entirely necessary, but it is a sought after upgrade, so this lowers the price slightly. Still, it sounds too cheap even with this feature missing. If it's not, you'd be a fool not to snap it up!:yes:

As for fuel system I have a 601P and the fuel system is simplicity itself. Much, much simpler than any of the Cessnas and Pipers. Literally set it and forget it. All Ted Smith designs had simple fuel systems.

The reasons people used to crash them due to fuel starvation is because they didn't understand the gaging and were taught the wrong technique - I'll come back to that, but first a basic overview of the Aerostars fuel system: There are 3 tanks in total. 65gal in each wing, and a 44gal fuselage tank. Engines are gravity fed from wing tank and fuselage tank. For every 4 gallons it sips from the wing, it takes 1 gallon from the fuselage. This means that the wings will run dry after 130gals and you'll now only have the gals in the fuselage left. So if you don't touch anything the plane will run until all its tanks are empty without having to switch anything. Set it and forget it.

However, and here is where people messed up, there is the possibility to cross feed from the opposite wing for balancing purposes. This means that ALL the fuel in that wing now feeds the opposite engine and it bypasses the fuselage tank completely. So if you keep the valve in cross feed, it will run until that wing is dry and then the engine will quit, even though you have plenty of fuel in fuselage tank left. All you need to do is switch valve back to normal mode, but people didn't do that and freaked out when the engine quit. Also, one of the biggest Aerostar dealers who shall remain nameless, told all its buyers to run the ship in double cross feed "to empty the wing tanks first" and the switch to normal. Well, what happened was both engines died from starvation when the wings ran dry, and the fuselage tank didn't get used at all and was full of fuel!

The second problem was at the very beginning the Aerostar came with a single fuel gage and you had to SWITCH measuring probes to see what the reading was for each tank. Which meant they'd forget they were sampling the fuselage tank in cross feed mode and thought they had plenty of fuel. It was a bad design and was replaced with a 3-piece fuel gage as an AD in the late 70's. No Aerostar has the old single gage left, so that's just a long lived reputation that won't go away.

0362773.jpg

At the top of the panel in the centre, one can clearly see the later style 3 tank fuel gages that are now in every Aerostar per an AD.

Aerostars are as honest as they come. They fly great on one engine, they have dead simple fuel system, they're built like brick s**t outhouses (stressed to +6G and it took +14G to break the elevator during certification). No inflight break-ups recorded. They'll warn you when they're about to stall with a 10 knot buffet (certified with no stall warner because it gives such ample warning), they're very easy on the fuel for a twin, etc, etc.

Sure, you need to be on point with your speeds - that wing doesn't like to fly slow and it can bite if you get too slow and start loading it up in a turn etc. It also needs a bit of rwy and is not a great climber below 100kts (above that they'll climb 1500ft/min). As long as you fly it by the book, they'll reward you with the crispest handling this side of an aerobatic. Great aircraft - don't let anyone tell you anything different.

aerostar.jpg

Here's a late 700P beauty. How can you tell? Well, the pitot tube at the top of the vertical fin got moved to the side of the fuselage for that model.
 
Last edited:
I think that price is probably misquoted, but it's a possibility. Aircraft doesn't have the intercoolers (you can tell because they don't have the scoop/inlet under the nacelles. That's a $20K upgrade. Not entirely necessary, but it is a sought after upgrade, so this lowers the price slightly. Still, it sounds too cheap even with this feature missing. If it's not, you'd be a fool not to snap it up!:yes:

As for fuel system I have a 601P and the fuel system is simplicity itself in it. Much, much simpler than any of the Cessnas and Pipers. Literally set it and forget it. All Ted Smith designs had simple fuel systems.

The reasons people used to crash them due to fuel starvation is because they didn't understand the gaging and were taught the wrong technique - I'll come back to that, but first a basic overview of the Aerostars fuel system: There are 3 tanks in total. 65gal in each wing, and a 44gal fuselage tank. Engines are gravity fed from wing tank and fuselage tank. For every 4 gallons it sips from the wing, it takes 1 gallon from the fuselage. This means that the wings will run dry after 130gals and you'll now only have the gals in the fuselage left. So if you don't touch anything the plane will run until all its tanks are empty without having to switch anything. Set it and forget it.

However, and here is where people messed up, there is the possibility to cross feed from the opposite wing for balancing purposes. This means that ALL the fuel in that wing now feeds the opposite engine and it bypasses the fuselage tank completely. So if you keep the valve in cross feed, it will run until that wing is dry and then the engine will quit, even though you have plenty of fuel in fuselage tank left. All you need to do is switch valve back to normal mode, but people didn't do that and freaked out when the engine quit. Also, one of the biggest Aerostar dealers who shall remain nameless, told all its buyers to run the ship in double cross feed "to empty the wing tanks first" and the switch to normal. Well, what happened was both engines died from starvation when the wings ran dry, and the fuselage tank didn't get used at all and was full of fuel!

The second problem was at the very beginning the Aerostar came with a single fuel gage and you had to SWITCH measuring probes to see what the reading was for each tank. Which meant they'd forget they were sampling the fuselage tank in cross feed mode and thought they had plenty of fuel. It was a bad design and was replaced with a 3-piece fuel gage as an AD in the late 70's. No Aerostar has the old single gage left, so that's just a long lived reputation that won't go away.

Aerostars are as honest as they come. They fly great on one engine, they have dead simple fuel system, they're built like brick s**t outhouses (stressed to +6G and it took +14G to break the elevator during certification). No inflight break-ups recorded. They'll warn you when they're about to stall with a 10 knot buffet (certified with no stall warner because it gives such ample warning), they're very easy on the fuel for a twin, etc, etc.

Sure, you need to be on point with your speeds - that wing doesn't like to fly slow and it can bite if you get too slow and start loading it up in a turn etc. It also needs a bit of rwy and is not a great climber below 100kts (above that they'll climb 2000ft/min). As long as you fly it by the book, they'll reward you with the crispest handling this side of an aerobatic. Great aircraft - don't let anyone tell you anything different.



Here we go.

This is why I belong to forums. To hear from the horses mouth.

I read this article by Bill Cox, and he has nothing but praise for the Aerostar. He said pretty much the same thing you just did. They are one of the most docile, well flying, and enjoyable aircraft he's ever flown according to him. :wink2:
 
You should get it!:yes::D:yesnod:


It's not a question of $$$$. I'm not multi rated or IFR. I would have to catch up to this airplane.

And I already have a plane I don't fly enough.

This just looked to good to be true. I may call the guy and see if it's some kind of distress sale. If it is, I might buy it just to sit in it and make airplane noises until I can either fly it, or sell it. .... :D
 
Use to see a lot of these. I think they were originally built in Santa Maria CA.
 
It is a beautiful and fast machine. I can afford it. I have the MEI ratings.
Ahhh but - I fly for fun.
How much fun is it to burn all that fuel just to get there 20 minutes faster than my fat old Apache?
Only if I were still banging across the continent on a schedule would that ship make sense.
And for those thrilled with the idea that they can buy a rocket like that for cheap. It's like dating a super model - can you afford the up keep?
And be honest - do you have/keep the skill level to fly a hot rod that is unforgiving of getting a little slow with the ball off center?
 
Bah for just a little bit more you could buy a brand new LSA.:D
 
Bah for just a little bit more you could buy a brand new LSA.:D

:rofl: Good one, Greg! You have my vote for the Post of the day!

I haven't done the research on this one, but has this ship been converted to RVSM compliance? That is a big number, and lack of RVSM will keep this plane out of the flight levels. Also engine times? Overhauling/replacing these turbines will cause a major dent in the wallet....

So maybe from a purely economic point of view, this wonderful airplane really is a parts airplane?

Any comments welcome. (Not that you guys need an invitation....) :goofy:

-Skip
 
:rofl: Good one, Greg! You have my vote for the Post of the day!

I haven't done the research on this one, but has this ship been converted to RVSM compliance? That is a big number, and lack of RVSM will keep this plane out of the flight levels. Also engine times? Overhauling/replacing these turbines will cause a major dent in the wallet....

So maybe from a purely economic point of view, this wonderful airplane really is a parts airplane?

Any comments welcome. (Not that you guys need an invitation....) :goofy:

-Skip


Read the add Skip. It has 7.0 SMOH both engines and props. Don
 
Piston twins have low resale values these days. Doubly so when it's one notorious for high maintenance costs.

I'd love to have one.
 
Piston twins have low resale values these days. Doubly so when it's one notorious for high maintenance costs.
.

Except that this one is priced at 60% of what other 601Ps with low-time engines are advertised at. So either
- the owner really wants to get rid of it (e.g.turboprop under contract),
- he fat-fingered the engine or airframe times,
- there is more to the story.
 
Except that this one is priced at 60% of what other 601Ps with low-time engines are advertised at. So either
- the owner really wants to get rid of it (e.g.turboprop under contract),
- he fat-fingered the engine or airframe times,
- there is more to the story.

My vote is for 3.
 
There is one event that would tie two new engines, two new props, fresh paint and a low price into one nice bundle.


:yes: And could also result in a soon-to-be-former owner who is now afraid of the airplane and wants rid of it.
 
I haven't done the research on this one, but has this ship been converted to RVSM compliance? That is a big number, and lack of RVSM will keep this plane out of the flight levels. Also engine times? Overhauling/replacing these turbines will cause a major dent in the wallet....

No need for RSVM compliance unless you fly above FL290. They're certified to 25000ft only.
 
There is one event that would tie two new engines, two new props, fresh paint and a low price into one nice bundle.
It was listed for $199.5K in 2009 with 50 per side SMOH and 0 time props. You may be onto something :rolleyes2:

(hint: search books.google.com for the N-number)

Nauga,
and a different kind of landing fee
 
You guys jump on it if you want it. I don't want it. I have not called the guy, but I'm tempted just to get the skinny on it.
 
You guys jump on it if you want it. I don't want it. I have not called the guy, but I'm tempted just to get the skinny on it.

Tire kickers are never appreciated by sellers, although a good seller will pretend he doesn't mind.
 
Tire kickers are never appreciated by sellers, although a good seller will pretend he doesn't mind.


I could write a personal check for it in full, so I'm a serious buyer whenever I look at most anything. :redface:

Who knows?

I could change my mind if it's all that and then some. :dunno:
 
Still a good price for that airplane with 700hr on the engines. She looks like a peach, as well. I wish she'd been around when I was looking.
 
Jesus Christ, for $95K, you get A/C, full de-ice, twin engines, 250m.p.h., pressurized, hot plate windshield, and the beauty of an Aerostar.

That's a lot of bird for the $$$$.:goofy:
 
Skip and Strat that is actually above FL280. Just a nit to pick.
 
http://www.aso.com/listings/AircraftListings.aspx?m_id=100&act_id=2


Check out ASO. There are two or three 601P's that are not far from that $119K price. So I guess that's nominal, but there are 700P's that are a 601P conversion with a higher gross, and I guess bigger engines. Those bring the big bucks.

Not bigger engines but they have the -U engines rather than the S1D which gives you a different case and a less persnickety exhaust/turbo system. IIRC they also have a higher pressurization and altitude and inter coolers.
 
Jesus Christ, for $95K, you get A/C, full de-ice, twin engines, 250m.p.h., pressurized, hot plate windshield, and the beauty of an Aerostar.

That's a lot of bird for the $$$$.:goofy:

Why do you think I hope to be able to feed a twin sometime before I die, your purchase dollar can go a loooong way.
 
Why do you think I hope to be able to feed a twin sometime before I die, your purchase dollar can go a loooong way.

That's the real rub - the purchase price is the cheap part.

But if you do it right, they aren't terrible. Being an A&P helps.
 
Why do you think I hope to be able to feed a twin sometime before I die, your purchase dollar can go a loooong way.


Well, you know what they say. If you have to ask ... :rolleyes:

The question is use. How much will you use it.

Justifying a twin is one thing, justifying a twin sitting in a hangar most of the time is another .... works the same for any airplane I guess .. it's just the degree of $$$$.
 
That's the real rub - the purchase price is the cheap part.

But if you do it right, they aren't terrible. Being an A&P helps.

Yep, I think I can swing the "care" part of care & feeding. If all I did was travel I think I'd have one already though as $/mile aren't too far off what I'm flying now. The $/hr make it unlikely I can swing it for purely recreational flying though.
 
Back
Top