Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Best performing non turbine twin

I am interested in others views as the title says and your reasons please given consideration of the usual suspects?

You need to supply more info

Otherwise, it would be this one:

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

As Peter says, it depends what your criteria are and how you factor them: Takeoff and landing distance? Cruising speed? Cruising altitude/pressurisation? Payload? Range? Climb rate? Price/value for money? Fuel efficiency?

There will be no single aeroplane that scores best in all categories, not even Peter’s example (it scores poorly in the “payload” category: One pilot and 200 bullets.).

From the ones I have flown I would say the overall best performer is the C404 (very similar figures to the Navajo Chieftain which I have not flown therefore can’t compare). But it is slow(ish) and unpressurised. And needs a lot of AVGAS.

EDDS - Stuttgart

You want top speed and/or fuel economy, the Aerostar can’t be beat. The Baron, Comanche, 414, 340, 310 people try, but they don’t stand a chance. If you want to go fast and burn little and have good range, there’s only one game in town – 601P. You just want to go fast, faster than an early King Air and don’t care about fuel – 700/Superstar.

Short field performance? Not so much. Cabin Class cabin? Nah.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 03 Jul 15:31

Wouldn’t fancy the maintenance bill for either of the aircraft pictured above! The Tigercat is spectacular, although I would prefer DeHavilland’s finest, the DH98 Mosquito

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

The normally aspirated Aerostar is a solid 200KTAS type without the mx and headaches of a turbo. If this ad is serious this does appear to be a bargain. IFR MEP for less than a 40 year old Warrior.

Actually my bad this is a turbocharged 601, ok 240KTAS with mx budget for turbocharged engines.

Last Edited by RobertL18C at 02 Sep 12:47
Oxford (EGTK)

Woah, what a price though.
Parting the plane out should be worth the asking price alone.

Had one experience with an aircraft in Spain, and it wasn’t a comforting one.
By the paint stripes on the ground, it looks like this AC isn’t hangared…

Yes, this is the turbocharged non-press version. And honestly, if you’re looking at buying a turbo’d aircraft anyway, you should get the 601P. The pressurization system is not a high maintenance system and it adds so much comfort and usability. If you want no turbo costs and a simple Aerostar, then look for the 600 or 601B models. If you want to go faster than most turbines, look at the Superstar/700P models.

RobertL18C wrote:

Actually my bad this is a turbocharged 601, ok 240KTAS with mx budget for turbocharged engines.

The seller sais IO-540-S1A5.That would be non turbocharged?

Several alarm bells going off: One boot missing, is it airworthy like that for a ferry? The GNS’s are non waas which means they need replacement as upgrades are no longer offered as far as I know. “Some maintenance missing due to Covid”.

Price is quite interesting for someone who wants to get a cheap Aerostar though and I suppose due to the fact that it is neither pressurized nor has it got turbos it may well be cheaper in maintenance too than the 601P.

Not in the market myself but maybe it could be an interesting upgrader.

LSZH, Switzerland
14 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top