Adam as you had an Aerostar up to recently you could maybe share “real world” running costs would be real interested to hear and maybe also real / realistic performance
many thanks
Here’s a 340 apparently in good shape for $65,000! What would the running costs be, assuming everything worked?
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
What would the running costs be, assuming everything worked?
One of my instructor colleagues owns a C340 privately. He rents it out for something like 700 Euros per hour. I guess this is about what you can expect when you fly between 100 and 200 hours per year and no unpleasant surprises come up.
Watch out for the various models though, there are significant differences between the 340, the 340A and 340A II which will show up in the price tag. The one above is a 340, therefore it is rather cheap. I would rather go for at least a 340A because of the stronger engines.
I’m not a good barometer as I overhauled engines and then immediately sold it. Sucker’s deal and never smart financially. But I can share with you the two annuals that were unrelated to the overhaul – the first one and the very last one. As you can see one was $11K and the other $7K. A little was added to that, so maybe the real cost was closer to $13K and $8K. I flew the plane for 100hrs before I overhauled. In that time I changed tires and had a sticking wastegate that needed mouse milking. All in all, less than $1500 in costs. After overhaul I had no squawks for 80hrs whatsoever. Finally a vacuum pump failed, about $1200.
Performance on the290hp 601P model is about 200-210kts up high, max speed 235kts. On the 700’s, the 350hp version like the one in the start of thread, you’re looking at 230-240kts in speed, with a max speed around 260-270kts. Att full bore on the 350hp ones, going 260kts, you’re looking at 45gal/hr. LOP on the 601P, you can get it down to 25gal/hr going 200kts. If I’d ever buy another Aerostar I’d go for the 700 models with the 350hp. They just have great single engine performance and can keep altitude on one very high. They also rotate quicker and climb better. And with the 5.5psi upgrade and FL280, you’re in a more comfortable place than many turbines or jets.
thanks for this Adam
what is to be considered to keep the press.Fuselage in maintainance ?
The actual vessel needs very little. The outflow valves rarely break, but they do need cleaning once in awhile. The door seal also a low maintenance item in itself, but if it has a little pinch leak, it will cause the vacuum pump (they’re actually air pumps, not vacuum pumps) to keep trying to re-inflate the seal in flight, which will wear out the pump. So if you have high failure rates on your pump, you most likely have a pinhole leak in the seal. Aerostar Aircraft has a remedy for this – they sell an electric door seal pump that just deals with the door seal, so the vacuum pumps can be left to just do the instruments. It’s not a very pricy kit and a good upgrade. Even so, the actual door seal isn’t that expensive in itself, so it can make sense to change that maybe every 5-10 years.
https://barnstormers.com/classified-1611756-1957-Piper-Apache-PA23-150.html
Quite clever comparing it to a 182, although annual maintenance is a good deal higher.
Have flown Twinkies and early bugsmasher Apaches, and remain fond of the Apache. Great visibility and comfort, and can use relatively sporty grass strips, albeit not short ones. Plan on 135 KTAS with 800NM range.
