 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stratobee
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 159
Location: Los Angeles
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:54 am Post subject: 685 vs. Aerostar |
 |
|
Here we go again.. 
As I look ahead for my future flying and something to grow into, once again my thoughts come back to the 685. I've read Milt Concannon's summary about it and how he thinks it's just a little bit misunderstood. My work takes me all over the US, and I'd love to be able to fly myself there when it's feasible and weather permits. I'd ideally need all weather capability, long range and pressurization. Especially long range. I'd kind of set my sights on Ted Smiths's other design, the Aerostar as a good step up. In fact, I came very close to buying an immaculate one about 6 months ago, but couldn't quite make the finances work in time.
But as I look at the 685's for sale just sitting there month in and month out and not moving - prices keep going down - I couldn't help but start comparing the two again. A 685 can be had for about the same price as an Aerostar, give or take.
PROS OF 685:
1. Now, what's good about the 685 is that it has many of the things I want already built in. First of all it's a Commander, but secondly it has insane range, full de-ice and all that good stuff. Stuff that I'd have to add on the Aerostar most likely, at least the aux fuel tank to get comparable range. That's a $15000 modification just for the aux tank. Most of them don't have full certification for icing, but can be upgraded for another $10K or something. It adds up.
2. The other "advantage", if one may say so is that a 685 would probably able to land at a smooth grass field or a dirt strip without shedding a leg, whereas the Aerostar would probably not. I realize none of them are particularly well suited for backcountry flying, but if there's a choice the 685 is probably better at it.
3. The Aerostar has a racy wing and won't tolerate you going slow, so even though it's 3000lbs lighter, you'll use the same amount of rwy and touch down at the same speed. None of them are short field performers.
The Aerostar has a life limit on most of it's windows (just below 5000hrs) and the front wind shield is about $20K. I'm assuming the 685 has no such vices?
CONS OF 685:
1. The Aerostar is probably the most economical twin for fuel one can fly. 25gph at LOP and 190-200kts. That's hard to beat. I'm assuming the 685, leaned to within an inch of its life, would struggle to get below 35-38gph at speeds around 180-190kts. On a long cross country that's a difference of about 100gal..
2. The Aerostar has "normal" engines and none of that funny stuff. That said, my geared engines have not given me undue trouble and I know of quite a few people who fly geared and have little problems. However, the 685's is the most highly strung of the geared engines and I've heard that a couple of cylinders will pop each year. Just how it is. And should they need an overhaul, we're talking $50K/pop. Phew.
3. The Aerostar is also fully supported, whereas I'm assuming the 685 is probably not.
4. I also fly predominantly alone or with few passengers - do I really need to lug around 9000lbs of airplane for one person? Seems a bit irresponsible almost...
Who the most reliable is mechanically is probably also a draw. I'm assuming they'll see the equal amount of insides of hangars. Good thing is that I know a lot more people that can give good advice in the Commander community than I do in Aerostars.
Thoughts on this subject?
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
_________________
Adam |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cannuck
Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 14
Location: SK Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: 685 vs. Aerostar |
|
|
I a no Commander expert, but my travel for the last 20 years has been restricted because I had to haul too much equipment to fly (not pounds too much, TONS). I did my personal travel in a Tiger that I nearly wore out, and had a 3NM (C-45 to you South of 49) that we operated commercially in the bush. I have been agonizing over exactly the same consideration.
I find that a commander with its spar done comes pretty close to the price of a good aerostar. A commander with a pair of IO-720s has an engine cost not much different from a U2A converted Superstar. and so on it goes. The ultimate difference is that a 601P or 602P can be brought up to the very latest in state of the art improvements - with an airframe and mod cost with zero time engines of $800k+. I don't know what a Grand Rennaisance Commander would run, but I expect just a little bit less.
If you buy something at the lower end of the price spectrum, you ARE going to have maintenance costs that will move you somewhere up the ladder over time. So you pick your point in that range with EITHER airplane, sort of a wash.
Unless you are carrying a lot of people, my feeling is now that the Aerostar offers so much better speed (particularly with Superstars) and economy, it is pretty much a given for one to three pax. (I had considered carrying more, but we have since backed off that a bit). IF you are going to do rough field, no question you want the Commander. I have seen a few Shrikes operating in the North, and they work really well on partially improved fields. Like Commanders, there seem to be a lot for sale, the price keeps going down, and it is easy to find one with known ice, 5 psi pressurization, and good engine times with decent avionics - FAR below replacement costs.
Perfect time to have this problem.
BTW: having come to know an acquaintance of Ted Smith (and former Aerostar owner and Commander pilot), I would love to hear the Commander people's take on this question.
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
_________________
AA1 and AA5B former (future?) owner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stratobee
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 159
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: 685 vs. Aerostar |
|
|
I think that had AC/Rockwell done a pressurised turbocharged 500, that would have been the absolutely ideal aircraft. I would personally have traded some top end speed for the ability to get into 2000ft grass strips and have some of that great utility. That would have been my ideal plane. Unfortunately they didn't, and instead made an overly complicated compromise with hydraulic pressurisation and whatnot. I realize it was other times then - avgas was cheap and nobody really worried much about geared engines etc. Today that's unfortunately become a huge liability. It's not that they're bad engines, it's just that they'll cost you $40K more to O/H as the few who can do it have you over a barrel. Aviation has become so expensive that the whole twin market is almost dead - and having another thing on your plate like an orphaned engine nobody wants to touch - is not something that helps.
Now I find myself having almost committed to an Aerostar I've been looking at. It's well supported and you can buy engine parts at WalMart. Sure, it won't get into short grass strips, or have the same utility, but it's not something that happens everyday anyway. I will keep my Aero Commander for those great short field trips when I go camping (nobody wants to buy it anyway - they're giving away 520's these days), but for longer trips it will probably shift to the Aerostar. I don't want to rain on Commanders on this great forum, and I love my Commander, but the time has come for me to look to the future of my flying. I want pressurisation, I want de-ice, I want long range tanks, I want a supported aircraft I can grow with and upgrade, something I could take to Europe for a summer trip at some point - I need a real all-weather tourer.
The 685 is the only thing that kind of compares to the Aerostar in the Commander range, maybe the 680FLP and the 680FP as well. But they're all saddled with expensive geared engines and in the case of the older ones, hydraulic Skydrol pressurisation that is unsupported. And in the case of the 685 over the Aerostar, you have no benefit in takeoff roll. In fact, the opposite is true. Add to this expensive main gear inspections, aft pressure bulkead AD's, $50K engine overhauls and eye watering fuel consumption and the case is hard to make unless you need to regularly fly 10 people out of 6000ft tarmac airports.
That said, the old girl and me just back from long xcountry to Nashville. Had some oil pressure troubles due to a faulty oil pressure relief valve that had to get fixed in TX, but was pretty quickly taken care of. Other than that, in the twilight of her years, engines over TBO, she's more reliable than ever. In the last 100hrs I've barely had a single squawk. 2 days ago just got back from Mammoth and a skiing trip - DA of 8500ft was nothing to the old girl - she soared happily up into the air after a short ground run. I just wish the bloody GO-435's weren't $38K to overhaul/piece. It's insane. I get an Aerostar for the same amount I pay for the overhaul on the GO's! Despite what all my non flying friends think, I'm not a millionaire just because I own an aircraft. I can't afford to keep a 60 year old classic flying with prices like these. Somethings gotta give and that same amount is unfortunately better spent on another airframe.
| | - The Matronics Commander-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List |
|
_________________
Adam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
