Re: Chieftain Pilot Questions

[DO328FLYER]

Re: Chieftain Pilot Questions

A few questions for you Chieftain pilots. I am "considering" using a Chieftain for a new charter operation in TX. It will remain on its current certificate while I get my new one. How well accepted has the plane been for you guys in this day of turbine & jet charters? Has it been reliable? Affordable? Has the performance been acceptable? Operating costs? Any specific or general input would be greatly appreciated.

 

[pilotguy5]

Hello,
I work for a company that has a Navajo on its part 135 certificate. We also have an Aerostar and 2 Cheyennes. I don't fly for the charter part of the company but I can tell you the Navajo flies the least next to the aerostar. These airplanes are great personal use airplanes, but the days of using them for charter are dwindling. They are good for really short trips. Most folks calling up for charter quotes use the Cheyenne and they always ask for a jet, which we don't have. Although more expensive, thats what people want. Status, quieter ride, faster.

Ken

 

[mavrck]

upgrade to a King Air. Even a lil C90 will do. The differences is obvious, but when u compare the price for insurance on a piston on a 135 to a turbo prop, i bet u would be surprised.

Our insurance on pistons tripled after 9/11. Turbo probs reamined the same.

 

[flyinloki]

Overall a turboprop will probably be more reliable. Been flying a Chietain for a couple months now and they do seem to break often. Actually had to pump the gear down last week. It blew an o-ring in the left hand hydraullic filter and leaked fluid and then the right hydraulic pump was dead as well. I just wish they actually had a gauge in those things that tell you levels and pressure cause all they have is that d@mn gear handle. Good airplane though and fun to fly. Turboprop is just less likley to break with less moving parts and all. Cheyenne would probably be nice. Does get kinda loud in the Chief too. They are overall probably better to use for the light cargo hauling stuff. Good for that. 2400 lb useful load and all.

 

[Hpilot]

Cheiftain

That's funny I had the same thing happen in a Chieftain. Pumped the gear down twice. Also lost a fuel line(ATC nicknamed me fireball). While I was there they replaced both motors at I believe 2200 hrs ea. Back seven years ago they were $50,000 a piece. The aircraft was great to fly, but definately took maintenance.

 

[AutoBus]

I guess the Chieftain has it's place, but overall it's not a friendly aircraft to fly or operate. I flew one single pilot in a commuter operation 17 years ago. It was fun to fly VFR, but when things got busy you had many things to manage, EGT, Cowl flaps, props sync. shock cooling,etc.

I flew it for 9 months (about 700 hours) had one engine failure, numerous flap and gear problems. hey the aircraft was old for a piston workhourse back then and considering they have not built any since then I wonder how reliable it would be today. As someone said it is probablly a since personal aircraft, but if your trying to make money, you need reliability.

A good king air or a low end citation might be better, certainly they are easier to fly from a pilot's perspective

 

[Tinstaafl]

The PA31 is no more difficult to operate than any other turbo'd medium twin, and easier than some. Compare the simple fuel system to that of a C310 or C402, for example.

As for pax. preference, it depends on your market & what the punters are willing to pay. The mob I work for gets a lot of use out of our PA31-310. It has a VG kit so that ups the useful load by ~300lb. The aircraft gets enough work that we've recently obtained a Chieftan. I hope it gets the VG kit treatment too.

Some things that dramatically improve the useability of the aircraft:

* Crew door! It's a royal pain in the arse to close the pax door if you have a passenger in every seat. OK if you have ground crew to do it but very bloody squeezy if you have to do it yourself.

* Wing lockers. The type has limited baggage volume compared to Cessna's 400 series and their voluminous nose locker (plus wing lockers...)

* VG kit. Our Navajo has nearly the same weight lift as a Chieftan.f

* Airconditioning. Admittedly that depends on region of operation and applies to just about everything that flies.

 

[HiFlyChick]

I fly the straight Navajo (PA31-310), not the Chieftain, but I agree with Tinstaafl - it may be nice having a jet, but the folks we fly aren't interested in paying the price. We also have a King Air A100, so some take that, but a lot of our customers will take whichever one will hold the load and is the cheapest. I don't know if the Chieftain has more maintenance issues than the straight Navajo, but I've had very few problems for the 1500+ hrs I've flown it. We baby our aircraft, though (i.e. in cold wx, power reductions of 1" every min, etc), but we've made out alright because of it.

Since I don't know where Tinstaafl is from, I'll disagree slightly with him based on geography - none of our aircraft have air conditioning, but all have an aux heater kit installed. The old janitrols are cantankerous (sp?) at best and the aux just ducts warm air from around the exhaust (like a C172)

 

[Jeff Helgeson]

Turbine in better, however....

.....I would add a few notes to what the other PA31 drivers have said. First, you will need to have a good A/C system operating out of Texas, period. If not, you will fail to get any repeat business. I flew the PA31, and the model that had the A/C was much nicer.

On a negative note, the turbine market is better. I would check out the demand and compare what you would need to charge to make a profit and then price out competitive trips with turbine equipment in your area. That alone may help you decide whether to use the PA31.

Good Luck,

Jeff


PS: The PA31-310 was one of the funnest planes I have ever flown, but I'm a pilot and love planes. Plus, I was younger then.

 

[flyinlow67]

My company has everything from a Baron to an Excel. I fly the Cheiftian on several occasions a month. Mostly 1-2 hour legs. Passengers like the cabin and room compared to the Baron, and the lower cost compared to the turboprops and jets.
I haven't had any major malfunctions with our aircraft, but we have an unusually high level of maintenance compared to some other operators I have worked for.
Overall, I think it is a good entry level or back up aircraft, but you are going to have to add something faster to sustain an operation over the long haul.