banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 06:23 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 13:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/01/16
Posts: 335
Post Likes: +386
Location: Chicago suburbs
Aircraft: Working on it...
Ok, so the wife throws me a curveball. I want to get a plane and the War Department has approved it. I need 5 seats and have been researching Barons and 310’s and found a couple to investigate further. This is where the fun comes in, the other day she asks can we get a 7 seater so her sister and her sisters daughter (niece) can come too. Oy....

I’ve done some looking at Navajos but can’t find anything that is real world performance or reliability, only book numbers and nothing really about cruise speed or fuel burn.

Now I do not want pressurization and I would prefer no turbos but it looks like I cannot avoid turbos.

So, now that that’s out there, what are the real world cruise speeds and fuel burn for a Navajo C? Any gotchas as far as reliability or maintenance to be aware of? Are the engines garbage? Fun stuff like that. I tried to search but came up with a metric ass ton of posts about the Chieftain but otherwise nada. Admittedly my search fu isn’t the best.

Anything you guys can offer up would be appreciated.

_________________
Maidens rescued.
Dragons slain upon request.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 14:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/14
Posts: 6451
Post Likes: +4520
Aircraft: V35
You just missed a really nice Navajo that was advertised on BT by Jesse Johnson. It's under contract now, I believe.

As you know, it's a big step from a Baron or Seneca or 310 up to a Navajo or 400-series Cessna twin. Most people apply the 80/20 rule and buy the smaller plane which works for most of what you want to do. Some lucky people can buy the bigger plane and have room for the add-on passengers and luggage.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 14:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/31/10
Posts: 13101
Post Likes: +6969
There are some vids with performance info in that sales thread.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 15:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/11
Posts: 2284
Post Likes: +1278
Aircraft: F8L Falco
PA-31-310 is a great airplane. Your wife will love it compared to the BE58, PA34 or C310. She'll see it as her own mini airliner.

Very straight forward, nice flying machine. No real fancy systems, MTX comparable other airplanes you're considering, actually cheaper labor wise because access is mostly very good. Only a few "shockers" in the parts department, but overall very well supported and affordable. The PA-31-310 has very durable engines, with just a little TLC, easy to make TBO without cylinder work. Turbos not a big issue if you keep an eye on the installation aspects and operate the engines appropriately. Some outfit in Canada was marketing a turbo removal program, don't know it's popularity. The original airplane ('67-69) came in a NA version (300 HP), but I don't think it was very popular.

Book numbers IIRC were pretty accurate, Pipers books were pretty realistic, my 50 yr. old Piper still makes book figures. I'm seem to recall 190-210 KTAS on 28-32 GPH. I flew them in the Jurassic age, before LOP, but I'd imagine they'd run fine LOP.

Very good ice handler; carries a decent amount of ice without fuss, can be found FIKI equipped.

Downsides: too big to fit in std. T-hangar and you need to "educate" your passengers on the glow thru the cowl doors at night.

I feel it's vastly underappreciated; cabin class comfort on close to a light twin budget. The considerable improvement in comfort and capabilities far exceeds the incremental increase in operating costs.

The toughest part of getting a Navajo is finding one not worn out. They were very popular "working" airplanes. That being said, a well cared for 10,000 hr Navajo is nothing to avoid.

Good luck in your analysis and shopping.

George

_________________
Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they don't get it wrong


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 15:41 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/30/10
Posts: 490
Post Likes: +225
Company: Parker Flight Training
Location: Georgetown, TX (KGTU)
Aircraft: 2018 Other
Username Protected wrote:
Ok, so the wife throws me a curveball. I want to get a plane and the War Department has approved it. I need 5 seats and have been researching Barons and 310’s and found a couple to investigate further. This is where the fun comes in, the other day she asks can we get a 7 seater so her sister and her sisters daughter (niece) can come too. Oy....

I’ve done some looking at Navajos but can’t find anything that is real world performance or reliability, only book numbers and nothing really about cruise speed or fuel burn.

Now I do not want pressurization and I would prefer no turbos but it looks like I cannot avoid turbos.

So, now that that’s out there, what are the real world cruise speeds and fuel burn for a Navajo C? Any gotchas as far as reliability or maintenance to be aware of? Are the engines garbage? Fun stuff like that. I tried to search but came up with a metric ass ton of posts about the Chieftain but otherwise nada. Admittedly my search fu isn’t the best.

Anything you guys can offer up would be appreciated.

Jesse's Navajo is a Colemill conversion so will be faster at normal cruise power settings than a Navajo without the bigger engines . The Navajo comes in three models - the PA31-310, the PA31-325 with counter rotating engines, and the PA31-350 Chieftain, which had a stretched fuselage for more room. The number after the dash indicates the horsepower from the factory. Unless you need a Chieftain, you can probably find one of the smaller ones configured with seven seats. The problem is finding one that hasn't been beat to death flying freight or charter. There are a few but they don't come on the market often.

I have owned two 310hp models, both configured with six seats and a non-belted potty. There is an optional belted potty that can serve as seventh seat although I don't know where you would get one if it is not in the aircraft when you buy it. There is also a commuter configuration although few of the smaller Navajos were configured that way.

I usually flew between 8 and 11,000 ft in Texas and the east, only going into oxygen levels when necessary. All Navajos come with a decent capacity oxygen system but getting a refill can be an interesting exercise, especially on Sunday.

My cruise speeds in the 310 hp airplane were about 190-195 knots running LOP at about 36/2200, FF about 16-17 GPH per engine. Higher altitudes yielded better speeds but both my airplanes would start to bootstrap at about 17,000 mandating a reduction in MP and/or an increase in RPM to keep the engines stable.

You will want to carefully evaluate the useful load when shopping as some are pretty heavy and, like most, you can't load it up with retired NFL tackles and full fuel and still be legal. You will also want AC as there in nothing hotter than a cabin class airplane without AC, and I never trusted anyone else to shut the door.

I moved from a C310 to the Navajo, flew two local flights as a checkout, loaded up the family and headed to Mom's for Christmas. Nowadays, the insurance company would not allow that and that is the reason I now have an approved school for them.

I found the airplane to be a great instrument platform - stable when properly trimmed and easy to handle at slow speeds. It also has a high cabin and is much easier for a big guy like me to get in and out of the front seats, much easier than the pressurized twin Cessnas (except the P337) or the Duke.

Maintenance - I bought one turbo, had three or four cylinders reworked, replaced one mag, and that was about it for unscheduled maintenance. My cylinder issues was all intake valves and went away when I switched to multi-grade oil.

All in all, it is still one of my favorite airplanes.

Good luck in your search.

_________________
Gerry Parker, CFII, MEI
Insurance Approved Training
58P, C340/414/421, PA31
KGTU (Georgetown, TX)


Last edited on 07 Dec 2017, 16:19, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 15:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 500
Post Likes: +555
Aircraft: PA31, PA32R
I have about 300 hours in our PA-31-310C. Performance at 65% is 175 knots true and 33gph total on average. In general the engines and everything else has been very reliable. They are solid machines and fly well. Personally I have never done single-engine operations at max gross, but the old wive's tale is that it's moderate at best. However that's true of most piston twins. They are very comfortable, too, it's a true cabin class airplane.

We've done a few of the Mike Jones/Colemill mods. The best was the inner gear door delete. The inner doors can be a pain to maintain just right. The kit replaces them with a fixed panel with a wheel-sized opening. We noticed no speed loss, and the gear cycles about twice as fast now too.

Another mod we have is winglets. Performance gain from them is negligible, maybe a little more responsive in roll. The real benefit is having LED landing lights in each one.

There's also one that restores 40-degree flaps. They're blocked by default. You do not need this kit unless you plan to operate from very short runways. If not, forget about it, waste of money unless you need flap transmission work anyway.

Like anything, it helps to have someone familiar with the type do the maintenance. For many years we were using the local average A&P and had moderate results. He could get close on the squawk list, but something was always not quite right. Switched to a Navajo-expert mechanic and all those little niggles that "just can't be fixed" were gone. Example: the density controllers were never right. You could breathe on the throttle and get 3-4" of manifold pressure change. From idle to high cruise power was about an inch of lever movement, with the other 5" of lever travel left over. After having them adjusted by the new guy, they are smooth and linear.

The nose gear trunnion can be cracked by careless linemen exceeding the tow angle limits. It happened to us 3 times. The repair is several thousand dollars, and it can be a small enough crack that you don't notice it until you're long gone from the guilty FBO. We had a 2/3 record of getting the FBO to pay for it. We wised up and got the STC for a removable pin for the nose gear linkage. Pull the pin after parking and they can turn as sharp as they want to. I think it was $1000 plus install, and absolutely worth it. Of course, if you take off without reconnecting, the nosewheel will not be going flying with you. It's pretty obvious though when you get to the first sharp corner and the rudder pedals don't steer you. I added a remove-before-flight tag.

I've had it from Canada to the USVI, west coast to east coast and it's always been a good ride. Just put 70 hours on it in September/October with some donated relief for Puerto Rico. Max gross in the Caribbean heat still produced about 800 fpm climb.

Let me know if I can help with any other questions. I have a weight-and-balance Excel spreadsheet if you want to play around with it.


Attachment:
Photo Oct 03, 9 55 23 AM.jpg


Attachment:
Photo Oct 03, 3 51 03 PM (1).jpg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 16:43 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/15/11
Posts: 2388
Post Likes: +1055
Location: Mandan, ND
Aircraft: V35
We run a 1979 -325. Our numbers do not match others. We plan for 170KTAS at 33/2200, 6-8,000', which yields us about 36gph and 1600TIT. We dont run LOP, Lycoming says not to in the engine manual. Other do.

In ours we regularly fly at gross (every day) but not full fuel. 6 people total and lots of bags. We keep the nacelles (aftermarket option) empty and minimal fuel in the outboards (enough to splash around the bladder). Lighter, more power and higher would obviously yield higher TAS.

Like others said, carries a lot of ice. Good honest plane. Some models (like ours) have a different flap control system than the earlier models. Some parts are hard to come by (like the flap computer) but others are very common. Like many birds of this vintage.

Single engine ops below blue line is trip downhill, like many piston twins. Unless very light. But that is usually only for a short period of time after takeoff. If you can get a few hundred feet off the ground you are usually way above blue line.

As far as finding a good example, my constant searches on controller always seem to yield a few good examples of the short body. The Chieftain or -350 are more popular with Part 135 Passenger and Freight guys. But good examples do pop up from time to time. Some of them have really crappy old avionics and need upgrades, others have had "work" done and of course you get a discount on used avionics in the price (or most people do). A lot of them came with the King KFC200 FCS, which still works good and at the present is serviceable. They can be made to play well with a G600 using the GAD43e. Otherwise it gets to be a lot of relay switching like we are doing now with a 750 upgrade.

As far as MX goes, they are old airplanes and if made today would be well over the $1mm mark. So new parts are priced accordingly. We have 1600 hours on 1800 TBO engines and have just replaced 1 turbo. The other will most likely make TBO. There are some ADs recently issued on the tail structure that are very labor intensive. About $5k each if done separately, but may be able to be combined. They have a 500 time limit (the new ADs) from last year, IIRC.

I think they are great airplanes. Carry a good load, honest, and reasonable to maintain. Systems are more "big airplane" operation and feel than a Seneca that feels like a fancy Cherokee. In the front, you sit "on" the airplane instead of crawling in and down low like a Seneca. The different years and models do have some variations, so blanket statements about a particular system may or may not be relevant from year to year. According to Mike Jones, over half of the existing fleet of short bodies have had the Panther Conversion, which seems to be well worth it. Not only do you get more HP and better climb (4 blades) the resale value also is higher. While you pay for the STC, you do get more resale value.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 16:54 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/09/09
Posts: 5547
Post Likes: +2503
Location: Owosso, MI (KRNP)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
Username Protected wrote:
Now I do not want pressurization and I would prefer no turbos but it looks like I cannot avoid turbos.


They're rare, but there are a few out there without turbo's. I can't remember if some were from the factory NA, or all were done under an STC....

Edit: Five are shown on the FAA's registry as a PA31-300.

Jason


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 18:14 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/16/12
Posts: 53
Post Likes: +62
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Aircraft: AT-6
I owned a beautiful one-owner 1979 Navajo 310 C in the late 1990's. A great airplane it was, but I swore that if I ever got another Navajo it would have factory air-conditioning and wing lockers.
I'm back to Navajo owning/flying again this year. Another 1979 but this time a Panther CR with both motors turning the same way (J2B's also), air-conditioning that works, and wing lockers. It is smoother running and quieter than the straight C version, and has lots of baggage room with the wing lockers because 'we don't travel light' as my wife says.
Find the right Navajo and take it to a proper pre-buy. For example, if windshield won't heat-up, you don't want to be the one fixing it for 25-30k.
I looked at a lot of junk before finding mine. One had a kink on the skin right on the bottom main spar by the gear. I was told by the owners mechanic that it could be hammered down with some new rivets! Ran from that one.
A beautiful looking Panther that we inspected was loose and worn-out everywhere. My mechanic said it had been maintained to un-airworthiness. Ask was 275k. Saw it for sale again recently at 225K.
Another Panther we looked at had higher time engines that just couldn't make good compressions. It was out of annual for a while, but the owner took it on three flights trying to run it a little before trying the compressions again and again. It didn't help, but made me wonder about his judgement. 150k would have bought it, maybe less. It has overhauled motors now and is for sale over 400k and still needs a new interior and maybe paint.
What really impressed me about Jesse's Panther were the photo's earlier on BT showing it with the cowlings off. Those engine installations were the work of a true professional.

Tom


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 21:20 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/16/10
Posts: 8884
Post Likes: +1954
If only they piper brought them back. :thumbup:

_________________
If you think nobody cares about you. Try not paying your income tax.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 21:34 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 14128
Post Likes: +9073
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
TwinBo! :thumbup:

_________________
http://calipilot.com
atp/cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 07 Dec 2017, 21:52 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/01/16
Posts: 335
Post Likes: +386
Location: Chicago suburbs
Aircraft: Working on it...
Username Protected wrote:
TwinBo! :thumbup:

Believe me, I’ve thought about that too.

_________________
Maidens rescued.
Dragons slain upon request.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 08 Dec 2017, 11:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/30/11
Posts: 360
Post Likes: +139
Location: KABE
Aircraft: PA31
I have a 68 PA31-310. Great airplane for hauling ton of kids and grand kids. Even without wing lockers it will carry as much or more luggage than a mini van. We do run ours LOP without Gamis because the induction is so well engineered. Gami spread on left engine is .5 and right is .7 gph. We cruise at 60-61% power with a total fuel burn 0f 25gph and true 172 KTAS at 7000 feet. For the same burn TAS goes up about 1.9KTS per thousand feet of climb. Recently flew from TPA to ABE non stop in about 5.2 hours and landed with an hour 20 minutes of fuel left. We usually keep the outboards only half full unless doing a really long trip like the one above. That gives us 700 NM range with reserves, improves single engine climb performance, and the ability to carry 1250 lbs of people and luggage. I also recommend the aftermarket electric AC if the plane doesn't already have AC. In a really hot, humid location it gives you the option of hooking up a GPU and pre cooling the cabin. Please feel free to PM or email with questions lvcollazo@gmail.com. By the way our engines have 1650 and 1900 hrs since overhaul with compressions in the mid 70s and have only had to overhaul 1 cylinder for an oil leak through the valve stem.


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 08:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/05/11
Posts: 314
Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
Username Protected wrote:
You just missed a really nice Navajo that was advertised on BT by Jesse Johnson. It's under contract now, I believe.

As you know, it's a big step from a Baron or Seneca or 310 up to a Navajo or 400-series Cessna twin. Most people apply the 80/20 rule and buy the smaller plane which works for most of what you want to do. Some lucky people can buy the bigger plane and have room for the add-on passengers and luggage.

I like that rule. Works for me. 80/20 = less cost more enjoyment. :peace:


Top

 Post subject: Re: The Piper Navajo
PostPosted: 09 Dec 2017, 10:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/01/16
Posts: 335
Post Likes: +386
Location: Chicago suburbs
Aircraft: Working on it...
I’m for sure on board with the 80/20 rule which in the Beech world would lead to to a Baron. I like the 58. However, I also want to buy my last airplane first. I want to only do this once. Now, I’m 6’4” and run about 260 pounds. With 3 kids, 2 of them boys who will grow up to be probably about my size I’m worried I’ll outgrow a Baron by the time the boys are in their teens. So maybe a little larger ship now that we can grow into as opposed to a slightly smaller one we will potentially outgrow. Maybe I’m over thinking this.

_________________
Maidens rescued.
Dragons slain upon request.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next




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 post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.