Beech 58P

It is a superb pilot aircraft and excellent touring machine. Comfortable, excellent performance, very precise handling and very well made.

Unfortunately more than even most Beech’s they are very expensive to maintain, the more so because of the pressure vessel, but they are in any event difficult to work on, which significantly increases the labour compared with a similiar task on most other twins.

If running costs are not too much of a concern then its a very hard to beat twin. However consider whether you need pressurisation, I am lead to believe it adds significantly to the running costs.

With the exception of the PA46 would it be fair to say that oxygen cannulas put paid to the pressurised light pistons?

You levitate quite slowly to around FL180 or FL 200 and then nurse the pistons in the descent (how do you deal with an ATC request for minimum rate of descent of 1500 fpm or 2000 fpm?, not atypical near TMAs), while becoming a nuclear engineer in your ability to monitor multi probe engine analysers and interpret them. Because you are low performance climber and descender in the flight levels you will be radar vectored to kingdom come, wondering why you are over the Brecon Beacons instead of settling nicely in pressurised comfort enroute to Le Mole.

In addition to looking after the plumbing you also have to live with shortened TBOs, and early cylinder work.

I have no expertise in this area but a well known UK pilot told me he looked at a P Baron and decided that a 421C gave him much more bang for a similar buck.

He bought a slightly shagged 421C for I guess about £100-150k and then spent a similar amount on a bare-metal repaint and refit (at Airtime at EGHH – probably a useful contact if they still have the expertise).

He ended up with a very classy machine, capable of c. FL250 and 250kt TAS. In reality he was flying mostly lower and slower but he had radar etc and during one particular year he did 50 business trips (mostly UK to N. Italy and such) and on just 2 of them had to turn back when presented with a solid wall of CBs. I flew in that plane too. The cabin passengers didn’t need headsets… very civilised.

Downside was that he was absolutely hammered on the fuel burn and then hammered more on landing fees due to the weight.

But the plane itself was great.

He ran it in a syndicate of two, both with adequate funds (the right way to run a syndicate, rather than members who are right on the financial edge) and later they moved to a King Air 90.

All N-reg.

With the exception of the PA46 would it be fair to say that oxygen cannulas put paid to the pressurised light pistons?

Lots of debate on this e.g. here even though that is not specifically pressurised twins.

An Aerostar will perform better in every parameter than a 58P. Faster, higher, burn less fuel etc. Probably be cheaper to maintain as well, with todays Beeech parts prices. Plus it won’t expire at 10000hrs. They have about the same cabin size.

If you need bigger, the C421 is a good choice. Great big cabin and loading capacity. But you’re gonna spend as much on that as on a turbine twin in running costs when all is said and done probably, so you might as well go turbine to start with. Here in the US an Aerostar is about $350-450/hr plane. 58P should be the same. A C421 is about $550-650/hr.

I wouldn’t run a 58P off grass. MTOW is 6100lbs and the tires are small, you’d be asking for trouble. I’d buy a PA31 like my friend who just bought G-EEJE over at EINC to run off grass. The 58P guru over on BeechTalk is Don Lawrenz and he is the expert. There is a good book called 58P you can get on Amazon. The 58P really does perform well up high once the pressurisation system has no leaks, you can run it at FL240 where it can do 240kts TAS at 160L per hour total, but in reality you will run it slower and at lower fuel burn. You can potter around at 160kts down low at 80L per hour total.

I have sold an early 58P N717HL to guys in Hungary and they seem to like it. I am brokering another one N65MJ here that I’ve cut the price on, but this move probably comes too little too late to get her gone this year. Even on short trips the pilot who flies this one would climb her up like EIWT to EGKA we went at FL220 and EIWT to EGGP around FL140.

A really nice airplane to fly, simple fuel system, strong reliable undercarriage and in good shape can give very high dispatch rates.

EDIT: If you want to fly one for cost to try it out, drop me a PM…

No, an Aerostar is not ideal for grass. A Twin Commander 500B would be ideal for that, but then it’s not pressurized. Don’t know what your budget it, but if it can stretch to $300-400K why not get an MU-2 or a Turbo Commander? Both very good on grass and cheap to run as far as TP’s go. About the same running costs as a C421, give or take.

The MU2 is not the sort of aircraft I’d be comfortable getting slow, but that’s what you need to get into short fields. A King Air is much more like it.

I have recounted this before, but I once went to Kentucky to pick up an aircraft, and stood looking into the seller company’s hangar surveying the fleet. There was a Lear Jet, a King Air, a P-Baron, and an Aerostar. The guy asked me which I thought was the most trouble and I immediately said Lear Jet. He laughed and said way out, it’s the Aerostar. He said he was going through maintenance hours like crazy, and the parts were costing a bomb.

MU-2 now you are talking, and now with one of the best recurrent training programmes with an excellent safety record.