Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Your Opinions on a Navajo P

  • Thread starter Thread starter dhc8fo
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 13

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
FlyingFisherman said:
I'm not sure how 421 motors and the like are geared...but the FW-149D's motor was a Lycoming design made by BMW.

Now...it's geared 'up' meaning that on takeoff, the propeller was turning something on the order of 3600rpm. Do the 421's and other geared motors do the same or are they geared down in rpm?
FyingFisherman...
I've never flown a FW-149D, so I know nothing about them, but never the less, I'd question a motor that "geared up" the propeller to turn faster - it doesn't really make sense. Typically, gearing is provided to allow the motor to turn faster than the propeller allowing the engine to be in its optimal power band while permitting the propeller to be operated at its optimal RPM without the tip speeds going supersonic - their efficiency drops off dramatically after that.

'Sled
 
Flying Fisherman has it backwards, the -149 has a Lycoming GO-480 hung on the front. Same base engine as the Aero Commanders use. Engine turning some where in the neighborhoold of 3200 revs slinging the prop at 2200 ish. Not sure about the exact numbers.
 
dhc8fo said:
Actually, a 414 would be nice because I already take a yearly hit for the 300 series training at FSI. They cover the 400 series in the same training so there is a little savings for me!

SO, anything in particular to look at for in a 414? What about the recent wing spar AD?
It's been a LONG time since I last flew a 414, but once upon a time you only had to take an oral to cover the differences between any of the twin Cessnas (excluding the 336/337). If you're aready taking a checkride in a 310 or 340 then you may be practically good to go in a 400 series airplane.

As far as the spar AD goes, you'll want to talk to some knowlegable maintenance people and see how it's going out in the field.

'Sled
 
The way I understand it the P Navajo had a geared Lycoming with well over 400 HP. It was unreliable, expensive to operate, and had a 1200hr TBO.
It was replaced by the Mojave with a 350 HP (not geared) Chieftan engine. This was basically a Chieftan powered Cheyenne. The Mojave had 350 HP - the Cheyenne (PT6-28) had 680 HP flat rated to 620 HP.
Compaired to the P Navajo, the Mojave had longer TBO (2000hr), better economy, more reliabilty, but it was underpowered. Not too bad with light loads, but I feel that if you need to carry 6 passengers in the flight levels you need turbine power.

HEADWIND
 
i may be wrong, but i too recall that the p-nav's engines were orphans. if you are looking at one that is ready to be replaced, you are likely going to have to overhaul that unit, as there is no ready supply of re-manned engines waiting to be shipped to you. if i recall, the specific model and series used on that airplane were for that airframe only, thus the short supply. some of you mtc guru's can double check me on that.

for what you described (keeping it piston powered), my vote would go to the 421c. geared engines in and of themselves are not a bad thing, and there are a ton of late production airplanes with good mod status to choose from.

-casper
 
Trying to run charter operation using a single P-Navajo is a sure way to go broke fast, as others have pointed out.

Using a single aircraft, orphaned airframe and engines, parts getting hard to find, is just asking for lots of expenses and downtime.

The main part of having a charter aircraft, is having a plane that is up as much as possible, which the P-Navajo would not be. If you had 2-3 planes, to ensure one was always up, would be better, but even more expensive too, unless you just found 3 real cheap, and could keep 1 up, 1 for a backup and 1 to part out. Suncare uses a fleet of P-Navajos (as of 2002), but even then they were talking about reengining with PT-6 in the future. Maybe they have by now.

Some people who try to operate P-Navajos or even Cheyennes are starting to look for junked airframes to buy, to have as a parts source. A cheyenne would make a far better charter aircraft, but still the same issues of airframe parts.

There is a reason a P-Navajo will be cheap, its because of low demand, for all the reasons listed in this thread. A standard Navajo would be better, as would a 414 too.
 
Try an Aero Commander 500S - 6 Passenger configuration (7 including pilot), Lycoming IO-540 engines (not geared).

Its older sister (AC500B) has been very good to me over the past year as a cargo bird
 
erj-145mech said:
Flying Fisherman has it backwards, the -149 has a Lycoming GO-480 hung on the front. Same base engine as the Aero Commanders use. Engine turning some where in the neighborhoold of 3200 revs slinging the prop at 2200 ish. Not sure about the exact numbers.

You're absolutely right. I got so used to reading 3000+ on the tach I just went right to thinking "prop"

With that huge 3 bladed prop at 3200rpm those tips would be comfortably supersonic. Whoopsie :)
 
And for those that might know...what's a 421 run at as far as prop rpm? I remember seeing 1800rpm somewhere but I was only a guest not the driver.
 
And for those that might know...what's a 421 run at as far as prop rpm? I remember seeing 1800rpm somewhere but I was only a guest not the driver.

I got to fly an A model 421, about 2 years ago. I think it was 2200 for takeoff, 2100 climb, and 1700 for cruise. 1700 rings true to me.
 
"Stay away from geared engines?"

Anyway, the CE-421 is a good airplane, not too bad on maintenance if you operate it properly, the B model should be in your price range.
 
I share a hangar with a guy who's trading his Seneca V in on a Chieftan.

We climbed up in it yesterday as a matter of fact, while it's sitting on our ramp waiting for the pre-buy inspection on Monday. The guy and his son were more than anxious to invite us in as we walked by to show it off.

It's nice and roomy and would be very comfortable to ride in for an extended period of time and enjoy the view out those large windows, but I don't understand his desire to pour alot of avgas through those big Lycomings to fly low and slow, or in the mid-teens with a tube up his nose, just to have a large cabin for his wife, 2 kids, and 2 dogs to be "comfortable".

He's not using it for business (he's a famous Hollywood actor who lives here instead of California), it's a toy/hobby plane, and he can afford it, so I guess it doesn't matter.

But it isn't one I'd ever consider....I got tired of a hose up my nose a long time ago.
 
If your not afraid of the geared engines, and dont need or want the pressurization, look into the Cessna 404. It has a huge cabin, and because it shares the wing with the bigger conquest it holds a tremedous amount of fuel for a very impressive range. Trailing link gear, and a really nice ramp presence. the engines are the same as the 421, 375 Hp geared. Cruise prop rpm is 1700 so it is very quiet for a piston aircraft. You would also never have a problem taking whatever load you need in that bird. I used to carry 1900-2000 lbs in the back with 2.5 to 3 hours fuel. Long range at reduced power your looking at 10 hours of duration, not that your bladder can handle that.
 
NoPax your numbers are correct for the C-421. I flew a B model for a couple of years and thats the numbers I used. I think the engine turns 1.5 rmp for each turn of the prop.
I agree that a B model 421 would be a much better choice than the P-Navoje. The 421 is very quiet and has a nice cabin. We sometimes would fly at gross in hot weather and it was a dog (600fpm) in those conditions. With 3 pax and 100 gallons it handles very well.
We did regular maintenance and treated the engines proper. Never had the problems you hear from people who have never operated one.

HEADWIND
 

Latest resources

Back
Top