Its obviously not a Beech, but does anyone have any experience with these planes (P Navajos) and does anyone know if the engines are still supported?

I gather they were built to compete with the Dukes/421s of the world.

Many are attractively priced and the cabin seems quite well sized.

I figure there most be some broadly experienced aviators here with the inside scoop.


John

The P-Navajo is a solid airplane, we maintain 2 of them. The engines are pretty well supported except for the vacuum pumps, and alternator drives, which can be difficult to obtain. Midwest Aircraft engines are the folks for the engines, and can give you good insight as to what to expect at overhaul. We have had no real problems keeping them running right.
The airframe is basic Navajo just beefed up. Piper decided to make the cabin floor the pressure vessel, which can be prone to leaks if the mechs aren't careful.

One of the ones we maintain is for sale if you become interested.

P navajo = mojave. Right?

I would be interested in learning about what you have available and any experiences you can share.

Sort of just investigating, but interested.

Sir.

I have a lot of time in the P Navajo.

Flew them for an air ambulance operator. They are a powerful, all weather aircraft.
The P Navajo likes fuel. The TIGO 541 engines are geared and seldom will you see TBO. I own a Duke and the same holds true, only to a lesser degree. I almost went with a P Navajo.

The P Navajo is very dependable. I never missed a flight. They are a bit noisy with the geared engines and as with all Piper twins I flew.

Dependability comes at a price and I spare nothing when it is needed. It's nice to be able to go when others are waiting on the weather to improve.

Respectfully
Dan Uhlik
ATP, A&P IA

Dan -

Do you think that the P-Navajo has more weather capability than other cabin class twins?

Robert

No, The P-Navajo has TIGO-541 425 hp engines and the Mojave has TIO 540 350 hp engines.

The P is a heavy hauler...The Mojave not so much.

I have a regular Navajo. Before getting it I toyed with the idea of getting a p-Navajo. I asked 3 or 4 mechanics who all steered me away from them. They all told me if I wanted to make them rich then I should buy one. They all told me that the upside down engines were a real pain for owners and rarely made TBO. Another friend of mine who has 20,000 plus hours flying asked me how many times I saw a p Navajo? I told him not many and he said there was a reason for it, that they were great if you had boat loads of money.
Funnily enough, landing at pompano beach last month, the controller asked me if there was such a thing a a pressurized Navajo

I almost pulled the trigger on a Duke, but again everyone recommended the costs and maintenance would be prohibitive.

As luck would have it bought an old Navajo and spent 4 years restoring it. Would hAve been much much cheaper to just get a p Navajo or Duke

Remy

Remy,

One thing I have learned is most people unless they have owned a plane have no idea what it costs. :-)
I know people that told me a Cirrus was a hangar queen and I should never get one. They were wrong.
Same can be said for a lot of people getting Aerostar and P Baron.


Tim

I currently own a 76 p- Navajo and I love it, other than it is rather fuel hungry
Maintenance, no problem.
I pulled my right engine with 1470 hours and still all compressions mid 70
The fellow that said it it noisy doesn't know what his talking about cause geared engines don't make noise.
Probably quietest cabin of any piston twin
At cruise I bring RPM back to 1750. You can have a conversation without headsets.
Parts is a little challenge and you have to get creative
The Duke is a joke. 2900 RPM with a small prop st takeoff makes for a noisy cabin
Would recommend it if you want a heavy spacious airplane.

Those small props are much closer to the centerline than the competition. If you ever lose an engine on takeoff, you’ll be damn glad of it in a Duke. Feel free to compare VMC roll numbers...

Anyone else have P Navajo experience? What kind of cruise number and fuel flow at 18,000-25,000

I owned and operated a '73 P-Navajo for a few thousand hours back in the 90's. It was in my charter business and I used it quite a bit personally too. Extremely solid, nice flying, comfortable airplane.

Realistic speeds were 200 to 210 knots true airspeed in the upper teens to low 20's. Much above FL230 didn't usually make sense, and CHT would start to get a little warm. 48 gph was about the cruise fuel burn (using 100 to 150 ROP). Block-to-block average burn was just shy of 60 gph. The brochure speeds (240 kts) were 100% false.

Very quiet cabin - 1800 or 1600 prop rpm depending on power setting.

Useful load was very good - I forget the actual numbers, but I remember having 7 adults in the airplane and having enough fuel for a 2 hour flight plus decent reserve.

Unfortunately, the TIGO-541 is quite an orphan nowadays. It wasn't much better in the 90's, but at least you could get any parts you needed. At that time there were only a few shops that really had much experience with them. We didn't have much trouble with them, just operate them properly and keep tight grip on the usual items for a big turbo piston powerplant.

Several expensive time bombs under the cowlings.... The alternator drive couplings were several thousand dollars and would go out after a few hundred hours, and the 800 series Parker Hannafin air pressure pumps were much more expensive then the 400 series units on most airplanes.... they were heavily tasked because they were used to assist in the pressurization (to even out the pressure spikes from the turbos from power changes). There's some thrust washer of some kind that I think is now made of "unobtanium" and not available from any source if you need on (good chance of that during an overhaul).

The airframe is a Cheyenne II (literally - bolt-for-bolt) until the Cheyenne started getting thicker skins in later production years I think, so if you can keep the engines in one piece and afford the fuel bill it's solid, capable, marvelous airplane. Airframe is simple and solid.

If you need to rely on it for a heavy flying schedule, and you're ok with the cost of feeding the engines the fuel and parts they need, the only consideration left is dispatch reliability and downtime while waiting for hard-to-get parts.

I crewed a fairly new PA-31P back around 1971 for six months so I really couldn’t say much more than anyone here already has, except ours stayed broke a lot. Flew good and climbed well as long as both engines were running. At the time, I attended the factory school and they uncovered a PT-6 in a back room so, even then we knew the Cheyenne was coming. I’d say if you can manage it, go for the Cheyenne; you’ll probably be money ahead in the long term. My $.02.

MM