BeechTalk - BT - Turbo Navajo to Normally Aspirated Navajo Conversion

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Jan 2016, 04:53

Username Protected wrote:

Krzysztof,

Bless your heart. I am glad there are people here to assist you in your search in any way we possibly can. I also find it kind of humorous... and a sad testament, that you have to come to a Beechcraft website to get the information you need -- and the aviation comraderie, to support your purchasing a Piper product. :bud:

Super sound proofing is usually just a matter of thicker insulation blankets, thicker windows and better door and window seals. I usually fly most flat engine craft with just a Telex 650 Pro (which has essentially zero noise cancelling ability) so I can hear the health of the engines. Plus, it's really light on my head. It's like the "Un-headset" headset. The Travel Air is about second - only to the Twinkie - in quietness in a piston twin. Heck... it might even take first on many of them. Usually just use a hand-mike in those, unless it's really hard IFR. The Navajo is of course much more of a louder symphony, but it doesn't usually bother me. Radials... well, that's another story altogether. Two words: David Clark. Very good insulation blankets that can be cut to fit are made nowadays, but you'll have to wreck your interior and almost start over from scratch to install them. It is primarily for the benefit of your passengers in a cabin-class plane like a Navajo. In a Baron, it pays off a little more for everyone involved, being sandwiched betwixt two growling Continentals and their fans turning @ 2,300 RPM barely right in front of you. To me, it's only worth doing if you were going down that road of interior refurbishment anyway. Like splitting an engine case to do a crankshaft AD inspection and not going ahead and overhauling the engine while it's sitting there in pieces. :scratch:

At any rate, we hope you continue to feel unrestrained in coming to Beechcraft here to solve all of your Piper needs.

~~ Mark

Hi Mark,

I looked around at different GA forums, and it appears that Beech Talk is by far the largest, most knowledgable, and most influential GA forum. Thank you for the encouraging words. It is a pleasure to be here.
At work, on the Airbus, I use a Telex Airman 850 headset. It has an active noise reduction system, and works well, cutting out mid and high frequencies. We use them for departures, and arrivals. The rest of the way, we just use speakers and hand-held microphones. I sort of see doing it that way when I get back to GA flying. I have had a number of headsets, including a Denali set with an active noise reduction. It was pretty good at cutting it all out, passively and actively.
Like I said in my previous post, I think that everything in a 35 year old, or older airplane, should be gutted-out, including the interior, creating an opportunity to change things.

KW

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2016, 14:42

This is out of a Navajo POH, Emergency Procedures, after loss of both alternators:

CAUTION

If load shedding procedures have been carried out, the battery will
provide electric power for approximately 35 minutes to complete
a landing under IFR conditions including only a single flap
extension and use of landing lights for a limited time. The above
time depends upon the condition of the battery, temperature, and
the time elapsed between alternator failure and load shedding.

Do you guys think a successful conclusion of a flight can be accomplished in night IMC in 35 minutes?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 12 Jan 2016, 16:07

Username Protected wrote:

This is out of a Navajo POH, Emergency Procedures, after loss of both alternators:

CAUTION

If load shedding procedures have been carried out, the battery will
provide electric power for approximately 35 minutes to complete
a landing under IFR conditions including only a single flap
extension and use of landing lights for a limited time. The above
time depends upon the condition of the battery, temperature, and
the time elapsed between alternator failure and load shedding.

Do you guys think a successful conclusion of a flight can be accomplished in night IMC in 35 minutes?

What are the odds of a double alternator failure where the battery bus is still available? Great time to have battery backup on your AHRS and AI.

In my plane. I can shut off the master and still have my vacuum instrumentation, two GPSs with two moving map mfds and synthetic vision, AHRS, weather, and traffic. This stuff is cheap and I would absolutely rely on it in a double alternator failure event to save a battery during night IMC. All you need is NAV. You still have the six pack to keep you upright.

----if you are going to bring up deice on props....maybe its just your time, or maybe you just keep chuggin' blowing the boots and don't really need to see out of the window.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2016, 03:03

Admittedly, assuming that an airplane is maintained well, double alternator failure is unlikely. So the six pack will work, if the AI and HSI gyros are vacuum powered, or in your setup back-up battery powered AHRS. The only systems that will need electricity is NAV 1, to be displayed on the HSI for example, turn and bank indicator, and COM 1. Everything else can be shed I guess. Back-up battery for these would be nice, like you have, or how about a larger battery? Navajo has a 17 ampere-hour battery. By going with 28 ampere-hour the time could be increased from 35 to about 57 minutes. The cost - about 30 lbs more weight, but what is 30 lbs more in a Navajo.
So much for guys who remove the vacuum system altogether, reduce redundancy, and totaly rely on electricity.

KW

Username Protected · **Posted:** 13 Jan 2016, 07:26

Also, I think a fluxgate compass system driving an HSI, might require electricity.

KW

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Jan 2016, 08:50

Username Protected wrote:

Also, I think a fluxgate compass system driving an HSI, might require electricity.

KW

The fluxgate system isn't driving the HSI. It just provides a correction signal to compensate for precession. The HSI maintains its direction based on a gyro. Most of them are pneumatically driven. If the fluxgate dies, it will just behave like a free gyro.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Jan 2016, 11:17

Username Protected wrote:

Also, I think a fluxgate compass system driving an HSI, might require electricity.

KW

The fluxgate system isn't driving the HSI. It just provides a correction signal to compensate for precession. The HSI maintains its direction based on a gyro. Most of them are pneumatically driven. If the fluxgate dies, it will just behave like a free gyro.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Jan 2016, 12:12

Username Protected wrote:

Hey Krzysztof,

Have you seen the Twin Bo forum on here? Just sayin'...

D50E. If you are gonna fix something up, something like Dale Egan's airplane might fit the bill.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 14 Jan 2016, 14:32

Hi Jim,

I have been reading and looking at those photos on the Twin Bo forum quite a bit lately, very interesting and nostalgic airplane, and those restorations these guys are doing. I also read-up on the Queen Air posts, very cool stuff, like Mark Halden's Queen Air 65.

KW

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Jan 2016, 20:01

I have a general question. In the Piper Navajo take-off distance graph, the performance is shown on a dry, level runway. How would one calculate this performance on a wet, contaminated, upslope/downslope runway?

KW

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Jan 2016, 20:30

Here is another graph. Again, dry, level runway.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Jan 2016, 20:35

Here is one more. All of them dry, level runway.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Jan 2016, 22:32

I believe the running text of the POH gives you correction factors for dry/wet/grass/slope.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2016, 05:52

I will read the POH in more detail, see if I can find anything. Thanks.

KW

Username Protected · **Posted:** 25 Jan 2016, 07:18

In the Introduction to Performance and Flight Planning chapter, I found this paragraph.

"Effects of conditions not considered on the charts, such as the effect of a soft or grass runway surface on takeoff and landing performance, or the effect of winds aloft on cruise and range performance, must be evaluated by the pilot."

KW