Why is this plane priced this low?

My cfi was killed in one of these. Fast ship but unforgiving of mistakes or engines that quit on takeoff.
 
When I had one (actually had three over a six-year period--the 135 operator crashed one of them--but only one P-model) I learned to always carry $800 cash on each trip for unscheduled MX, usually relating to one or more of the four turbos. And that was 25 years ago. The number is probably $1,500 now. The other difference is that Piper had service centers that could work on them back then, even though some of them were less than stellar.
 
It's the cost of admission that's low - but to play, you have to pay. A plane like this, if sold new today, would cost $1.5M, and have MX bills to match.

The number of people who can afford to run such an animal is shrinking, as success and growth are increasingly punished.

Plus, a lot of people who would previously have been candidates for a plane like this, are now flying in Pilatus and TBM turbine singles.
 
Or angel wings.:D

It's the cost of admission that's low - but to play, you have to pay. A plane like this, if sold new today, would cost $1.5M, and have MX bills to match.

The number of people who can afford to run such an animal is shrinking, as success and growth are increasingly punished.

Plus, a lot of people who would previously have been candidates for a plane like this, are now flying in Pilatus and TBM turbine singles.
 
Doesn't look like it's K-Ice, either (I don't see boots). Awful high performance plane to not be k-ice....

Colleague of mine had one, sold it to buy another twin (400-series, IIRC). The Aerostar was a handful, but it was fast. And a maintenance hog.
 
Yeah, I just took a look at the Aerostar website to get an idea of what goes wrong. An upgraded exhaust system to Inconel materials seems to be a common theme. The materials alone are about $20k, plus install. I'm sure the 'while you are in there' price to do other things could add a few thou. That's just the exhaust bits.

overboost protection ~$4k. That's a thou per turbo for a small diaphram, sensor, and wastegate arm attachment. Intercoolers ~$21k.

So the 'base' price of this guy is $80k, but in 2-5 years someone is going to have $120k wrapped up in it pretty easy.
 
There seem to be a lot of twins out there for pretty cheap. I just figure folks don't want to feed the thirsty boogers. Or perhaps maintenance is just too steep.

I myself looked into a light twin or two. Though they aren'r nearly the high performance, cabin class animal that the aerostar is, 310's can be had for less than 50K, or on the lesser end (price and performance), you can find 337's for less than 30K, or Apaches for 25-30K, even full Geronimo's for <50K. Again, those aren't in the Aerostar class, but you can see the correlation.

I've been tempted a couple of times on twins. A 337 and a Geronimo. Both were under 35K, but the good Pilot's of America talked me out of them.

There was a Cessna 340 here locally that a guy was asking like 60K for. It was extremely nice in all areas, but I think was in need of six jugs or so. Still, it could have been flying high for probably 75K.
 
I think the typical saying goes, have atleast the purchase price of the airplane you are buying in reserve for mx.....with a twin I would have atleast 2x the purchase price to put towards maintenance/upgrades.
 
That is one beautiful plane though. It has serious ramp presence(at least by the FBO with the fuel truck - lol). In reading up on it, they are designed and built the way I like, with over stress designed in by Smith. Well, maybe some day, but not today. I can swing the $80k, but the ~$40k mx in 5 years might be a killer. Plus of course the gas to move it down the airway.
 
Doesn't have any of the good mods on it and no deice gear that I can see.
 
Deice absence would be a deal breaker for me on a plane so capable otherwise. A friend of mine had one of those and he said it was the fastest factory piston on the market. He also said it was a thirsty machine and he paid on average 25k for his annuals.
 
Deice absence would be a deal breaker for me on a plane so capable otherwise. A friend of mine had one of those and he said it was the fastest factory piston on the market. He also said it was a thirsty machine and he paid on average 25k for his annuals.

Half of that number is because it's a ***** kitty to work on. Thing about them is, that is one stout assed airframe. Ted Smith designed some pretty good airplanes.
 
I have visions of taking off from TX about 07-ish, and being on the slopes at around 11:30. Then some noshing overnight with the beautiful people, do a little downhill the next morning and back in the hanger in TX by 6PM and off too work.

A nice fantasy as any other I guess. All it takes is money. Nah - I still with my Bo.
 
We had a big project in Jekyll Island, a golf development in Myrtle Beach and another real estate deal in Columbus/Starkville MS that also involved a golf course when we owned the 602. A typical four-day trip included three rounds of golf and some good seafood. It was a nice way to get around to those spots.

I have visions of taking off from TX about 07-ish, and being on the slopes at around 11:30. Then some noshing overnight with the beautiful people, do a little downhill the next morning and back in the hanger in TX by 6PM and off too work.

A nice fantasy as any other I guess. All it takes is money. Nah - I still with my Bo.
 
We had a big project in Jekyll Island, a golf development in Myrtle Beach and another real estate deal in Columbus/Starkville MS that also involved a golf course when we owned the 602. A typical four-day trip included three rounds of golf and some good seafood. It was a nice way to get around to those spots.

Yeah, that's what I'm talkin bout. I'd love to tour the islands off the coast of FL in one too. But - alas, I don't wanna write those checks.
 
The novelty wears off quickly, and even faster when you conclude they are all for the same problems that are never fixed and deemed by most techs to be un-fixable.

Yeah, that's what I'm talkin bout. I'd love to tour the islands off the coast of FL in one too. But - alas, I don't wanna write those checks.
 
All that stuff sure does take the fun out of such a really great looking plane. Watched a guy do a low pass in a freshly painted one, then land and open up the gull wing doors on that midwing, and I was in love.

Have been ever since.
 
Looks like the Aerostar company has most of the bugs worked out by upgrading to something called the 650, 680 or 700P, having to do with the engine total HP and lots of retrofit items. If you add it all up from the website, the plan is to take a shell 601P, write a check for about $300k, and have a nice, semi-reliable plane at the end of the pipe. New exhaust, intakes, intercoolers, hubs, scavenge pumps, hot props, hot windscreen, brakes, etc.

Think I'll go look at Twinkies. ;)
 
We had a big project in Jekyll Island, a golf development in Myrtle Beach and another real estate deal in Columbus/Starkville MS that also involved a golf course when we owned the 602. A typical four-day trip included three rounds of golf and some good seafood. It was a nice way to get around to those spots.

As I hunt for a good airplane to buy, one of the first criteria I look for is whether it can carry me, my dad, my bro-in-law, three sets of clubs, and enough gas to get us to some nice greenery. :yes:

In the mean time, Wayne, anytime you are coming through Lindsay, OK on a golf run, hit me up :)
 
Last edited:
Bring them to the desert next winter. Most of the guys are Okies.

As I hunt for a good airplane to buy, one of the first criteria I look for is whether it can carry me, my dad, my bro-in-law, three sets of clubs, and enough gas to get us to some nice greenery. :yes:

In the mean time, Wayne, anytime you are coming through Lindsay, OK on a golf run, hit me up :)
 
-I can't see why this plane is such a bargain.

Am I missing something?
If the avionics panel is so clunky as this one specially in such otherwise capable body it tends to pull the price to record lows.
 
Last edited:
There seem to be a lot of twins out there for pretty cheap. I just figure folks don't want to feed the thirsty boogers. Or perhaps maintenance is just too steep.

I myself looked into a light twin or two. Though they aren'r nearly the high performance, cabin class animal that the aerostar is, 310's can be had for less than 50K, or on the lesser end (price and performance), you can find 337's for less than 30K, or Apaches for 25-30K, even full Geronimo's for <50K. Again, those aren't in the Aerostar class, but you can see the correlation.

I've been tempted a couple of times on twins. A 337 and a Geronimo. Both were under 35K, but the good Pilot's of America talked me out of them.

There was a Cessna 340 here locally that a guy was asking like 60K for. It was extremely nice in all areas, but I think was in need of six jugs or so. Still, it could have been flying high for probably 75K.

Okie,
Did you get turned away from twins for the general double cost of singles? I really like the 340's....just wondering if it's worth it?
Jeff
 
I just bought an Aerostar. In fact, I'm doing my training on my own aircraft as we speak, with an instructor who has about 11.000hrs in Aerostars alone and used to work for Ted Smith (no relation)! It's a fun plane to fly. But the ink had barely dried on the pink copy before I had to shell out for a stuck prop governor cable...:lol::no: But I'm no stranger to ownership, so I know there will alway be a maintenance hump when you buy an aircraft that usually lasts over 2 annuals, where all the gremlins get worked out. These first annuals can be expensive, but it does get better. The last one on the plane I just bought was $7K. Not bad, for a complex, pressurised twin. That figure will increase as you rectify things and establish a personal standard of maintenance that is comfortable for yourself.

A couple of myths about Aerostars:

1. That they're gas guzzlers. They are, as everyone knows, very fast. But that also means they're very economical when you throttle back. They have one of the smallest frontal areas of any twin and that racy wing is very slick which reduces drag. This translates to great economy, at least for the 601P model. Running LOP you can coast along at 200-210ktas at high altitudes on 25gph. Except for the Twinstar diesel and the Tecnam P2006T, there are few, if any, twins that can match that economy.

2. They are a handful to fly on single engine. Not true, I've been doing it all week. The engines sit close to the centerline, so the moment isn't as great as in most other twins. This means the tail can be made a little bit smaller and less draggy and still have plenty of authority. You have to be a little bit quicker in the T/O configuration on the 601P to cage one engine and pitch for blue line, as it doesn't have as much power as the 700. But once that's done it'll climb an easy 300fpm at max gross and on a 94 degree day. Not too shabby.

3. Hard to get parts for. They are perhaps the most well supported discontinued piston airframe on the market. You can get anything, plus tons of modifications, right from Aerostar Inc - the holder of the type certificate. Constantly developing new improvements etc. Not cheap, but a great resource for owners like me who aren't millionaires. I can upgrade as I go, safe in the knowledge that the items I might want to upgrade are there when I can afford them.

All the other myths are true...:D They do like a bit of rwy. They do land pretty fast. They are complex.

As for flying them: The torque tube controls gives a feel like no other twin. Super tight, like a little jet fighter. Lands like a jet, too - with a little firm thump. Well built and oversized. In fact, this is one of the main reasons I bought one (and for fuel economy): there is only one known in-flight breakup known in an Aerostar. The outer skins are almost twice as thick as on any other twin. The flap deployment speeds are way higher than most - I can throw 10 degrees down at any speed, 20 degrees at 174kts. The yellow arc is ridiculously short and you can go almost right up to Vne before you hit it, etc, etc. So basically, they're built like tanks and that 3-spar wing can take a beating. I feel safe in the knowledge that I have an extra margin of safety should I ever encounter elements that would break up other planes.
 
Last edited:
I owned three of them (600, T & P) over a 6-year period. My experience was different than you're describing. V1 cuts meant land now rather than continue. 300'/minute is insuffficient gradient.

MX costs for the 600 were tolerable. Costs for the T were higher but manageable. The P ate us out of house and home, with turbos being the primary culprit. The P was a new plane, so there was no "first annuals are expensive" excuse. When something broke it was either a warranty cost or it wasn't. Over time, fewer and fewer costs were covered by warranty, even though they were the same problems that had plagued us since new.

They were fun to fly, a bit awkward to load, and much more comfortable for pax with one middle-row seat removed. Fuel burn was about ths same as other twins, but cost/gal was much less so we didn't worry much about it.

Our trainer for both the Aerostar and Malibu was "Rev Bob" Scott, the head of training at Piper for many years.

Hope your experiences are better than mine. The locals say you need to get the MX done by the gurus in Idaho or wherever they are.

I just bought an Aerostar. In fact, I'm doing my training on my own aircraft as we speak, with an instructor who has about 11.000hrs in Aerostars alone and used to work for Ted Smith (no relation)! It's a fun plane to fly. But the ink had barely dried on the pink copy before I had to shell out for a stuck prop governor cable...:lol::no: But I'm no stranger to ownership, so I know there will alway be a maintenance hump when you buy an aircraft that usually lasts over 2 annuals, where all the gremlins get worked out. These first annuals can be expensive, but it does get better. The last one on the plane I just bought was $7K. Not bad, for a complex, pressurised twin.

A couple of myths about Aerostars:

1. That they're thirsty. They are, as everyone knows, very fast. But that also means they're very economical when you throttle back. They have one of the smallest frontal areas of any twin and that racy wing is very slick which reduces drag. This translates to great economy, at least for the 601P model. Running LOP you can coast along at 200-210ktas at high altitudes on 25gph. Except for the Twinstar diesel and the Tecnam P2006T, there are few, if any, twins that can match that economy.

2. They are a handful to fly on single engine. Not true, I've been doing it all week. The engines sit close to the centerline, so the moment isn't as great as in most other twins. This means the tail can be made a little bit smaller and less draggy and still have plenty of authority. You have to be a little bit quicker in the T/O configuration on the 601P to cage one engine and pitch for blue line, as it doesn't have as much power as the 700. But once that's done it'll climb an easy 300fpm at max gross and on a 94 degree day. Not too shabby.

3. Hard to get parts for. They are perhaps the most well supported discontinued piston airframe on the market. You can get anything, plus tons of modifications, right from Aerostar Inc - the holder of the type certificate. Constantly developing new improvements etc. Not cheap, but a great resource for owners like me who aren't millionaires. I can upgrade as I go, safe in the knowledge that the items I might want to upgrade are there when I can afford them.

All the other myths are true...:D They do like a bit of rwy. They do land pretty fast. They are complex.

As for flying them: The torque tube controls gives a feel like no other twin. Super tight, like a little jet fighter. Lands like a jet, too - with a little firm thump. Well built and oversized. In fact, this is one of the main reasons I bought one (and for fuel economy): there is only one known in-flight breakup known in an Aerostar. The outer skins are almost twice as thick as on any other twin. The flap deployment speeds are way higher than most - I can throw 10 degrees down at any speed, 20 degrees at 174kts. The yellow arc is ridiculously short and you can go almost right up to Vne before you hit it, etc, etc. So basically, they're built like tanks and that 3-spar wing can take a beating. I feel safe in the knowledge that I have an extra margin of safety should I ever encounter elements that would break up other planes.
 
Interesting to hear of your experiences, Wayne. I could well be headed for a maintenance nightmare myself, but it will take a year or two to see any trending. This one has been pretty well maintained, but has been sitting for the last 2 years not flying. And planes that sit always develop some problems.
 
Okie,
Did you get turned away from twins for the general double cost of singles? I really like the 340's....just wondering if it's worth it?
Jeff

Keep in mind that there is a difference between aore entry-level twin and a 340. Compared to our 310, a 340 has pressurization and turbos, which add to the number of high dollar parts that can break, and (perhaps a bigger issue) makes the work more difficult, increasing labor costs.

On the Twin Cessna forums, people seem to figure a 340-421 costs $500-700/hr, depending on who you ask. We figure the 310 at around $300-$350/hr. However, our costs for the 310 seem to be lower than most people's costs.

Whether it's worth it depends on your mission. We do 187 KTAS in the 310 on 27 GPH now, LOP with 520s. A 340 will have to go higher to get similar speed/economy. I remember one time that a 340 and I took off from a similar area going to a similar area, talking to the same controllers most of the trip. We ended up going about the same speed over the ground, obviously not much of a day for tailwinds up high. Point is, he was burning likely a bit more fuel and had to climb high to get similar speed, meaning he burned more fuel in the climb. But his passengers were more comfortable than ours would have been (we were empty).
 
Back
Top