Caravan/Navajo Pilots

[HAZ-MAT]

if it were up to me I would prefer the "2" engines versus the "1"

I think if you ask anyone they'll say that, but if i had to go single engine, i'd want a PT-6 under the hood. As far as icing. It has a lot of "stuff" that hangs out there while you fly, In certain situations I thought i didnt have that much ice until i got on the ground and you could see it forming on top of the wings and top of the fuselage. But like other people are saying on this thread, BE SMART.
Safe Flying

 

[wingnutt]

...far be it for me to agree with Wright but having done pretty much the same flying, id hafta go with the Van also. granted, my twin recip time was in 402's, and back then i thought that was the shiznit. but then i got a van job for a year...it dosent even compare.

-easier to start (esp when hot) start switch ON, low fuel @ +12%
-easier to fly (props are always set, gear always down)
-easier to maintain (can you say 8,000 hour TBO)

granted, it can be slower (depends on max ITT). and more expensive when TBO does come around, but everything ive seen in regards to that actually works out cheaper in the long run.

yea, the debate rages on. lose on engine in a 402 on a hot day at max gross and youve got a whole lot to worry about. but im trying to recall the last time i heard of a van engine shutting down....even if it did, im guessing that Navaho has nowhere near the 11:1 glide ratio

i dont know what to say about pax "comfort level". id wager a bet that if they were parked next to each other on the ramp, and the pax were given the option...that van would see alot of work. short of that, you cant deny the perception that 2 engines is supposedly "safer".

 

[Citationkid]

[B
i dont know what to say about pax "comfort level". id wager a bet that if they were parked next to each other on the ramp, and the pax were given the option...that van would see alot of work. short of that, you cant deny the perception that 2 engines is supposedly "safer". [/B]

Depends on the aircrafts conditions. If it were a P-Navajo with the Panther conversion compared to a beaten up Cargo Caravan the PAX might choose the Navajo first, but if it were a new Caravan............

 

[340drvr]

You didn't mention where you'd operate. If you need to go high, pressurization is an issue. (Not too many pax want to use a mask, or would wnat to sit there while you wore one.)
Don't mind me, I'm just used to flying around the Rockies.

 

[Citationkid]

You didn't mention where you'd operate. If you need to go high, pressurization is an issue. (Not too many pax want to use a mask, or would wnat to sit there while you wore one.)
Don't mind me, I'm just used to flying around the Rockies.

You could always get the P-Navajo.

 

[LAXSaabdude]

You could always get the P-Navajo.

I've never heard anything good about that airplane.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[Citationkid]

Does it have a lot of payload problems like the P-baron. Or is it just a mantince hog.

 

[LAXSaabdude]

Does it have a lot of payload problems like the P-baron. Or is it just a mantince hog.

Maintenance is a problem (I believe it has geared engines, which can be very expensive to work on).

Also, despite having something like 425hp per side, I think it performs very poorly on one engine.

Never flown one. There aren't many around. I do have about 200 hours in the straight Navajo 310, and that could just about carry everything you could close the doors on.

LAXSaabdude.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

It'll pretty much be under 10k, some only about 3k. Some trips may only be 25-50 miles, one or two may be between 100-200. These replies are very helpful.


Mr. I.

 

[WrightAvia]

You could do a search on the NTSB site and look to see how many crashes etc occured with either plane and look at the trends. There are fractionals using single turbines. The state of wisconsin got rid of a bunch of un-geared engined queen airs for single engine turbines. There is a scheduled pax outfit using the caravan on the west coast. Including piston singles and turbine twins, the statistics do point out that in a crash pertaining to engine failure, that a lot of people survive crashes in singles. In crashes with twins involving engine failure, most people didn't.

I know a guy that was flying a Baron and him and his passengers were killed by an inflatable door seal. The only way he could have possibly saved their lives, would have been to have shut the master off and kill both engines, landing off airport. Two engines don't always guarantee that you'll be safe.

Here is another thing you have to look at. Resale value. I was told the other day, that a Caravan was being advertised for sale that was a first year of manufacture caravan. They were asking a million bucks for it.

Somebody mentioned in an earlier post, that the Navajo will carry 7 passengers o.k. The Caravan could easily carry 10 passengers and you don't have any limitations of "Zero Fuel Wt". One up front and 9 in the back, if you are configured with 9 pax seats. If you put 8 in the back of a navajo, you are going to have to hand fly in turbulence...cause the auto pilot won't keep up but at least that will keep your mind off of the smell of them guys back there passing a waste basket around and puking. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

 

[transienttorque]

I know a guy that was flying a Baron and him and his passengers were killed by an inflatable door seal. The only way he could have possibly saved their lives, would have been to have shut the master off and kill both engines, landing off airport. Two engines don't always guarantee that you'll be safe.

What happened?

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I flew the Navajo/Chieftain for about 800 hours in Part 135 and I loved it. I've never flown a C-208 but they seem like great airplanes. The Navajos/Chieftains are old, the youngest I flew was built around 1980 I think. I've seen a lot of new C-208s though. If you want a PA-31 go with the Chieftain (PA-31-350) with 350 hp a side and counter-rotating props. It has extra hp over the PA31-310 (310 hp) which doesn't have counter-rotating props. The Chieftain has a roomier cabin (2 feet longer) and they fixed a lot of little annoying things the straight Navajo had. (Whichever you get, get one with a crew door.) It's a good airplane and handles well on one engine if you're not too heavy or hot. They are old and hence require a lot of maintenance to keep them going (as does any older airplane) but I never had an engine quit or any major malfunction. They are faster than a C-208. We would routinely fly the same route as a FEDEX Feeder and pass them all the time. But on short legs that speed won't make much difference. You may be comparing apples and oranges though. If you want a twin I'd recommend a King Air 90 maybe. You'd have the reliability of turbine power plus two engines. Or a Pilatus PC-12 or TBM-700 for nice fast turbine singles (more costly though I imagine). Or a Baron or any twin cessna for other piston twin options. It all depends on what your stage lengths, altitudes, weather flying, and payload are. Oh, and also how big your pocketbook is.

 

[WrightAvia]

What happened?

A misinstalled electric door seal system. A magazine article I had read, said that the resistor kit was rigged for one voltage but wasn't the appropriate voltage for the aircraft. Also cited in the article was the fact that the wiring ran across the two fuel lines feeding the fuel pressure guages, with the hot wires burning through and causing a fuel fire.

The following NTSB report doesn't mention the fuel line thing, but I had even heard about that detail from our chief pilot, who knew the state pilot pretty well.

Here is that link....

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11010&key=1