Piper Navajo Chieftain

NealRomeoGolf

NealRomeoGolf

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,123
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
NRG
Anyone flown a Chieftain or know much about then? They have twin TIO-540s (I fly a single non turbo version) so I assume they burn somewhere between 15 and 18 per side per hour? The specs I find on the internet say it has less than 700nm of range. That makes it just over a 3 hour airplane. My Lance can go nearly 6 hours if I want it to. What's the point of having a potty (on the Chieftain) if you have to land so frequently?

I'll never be able to own one, but was just daydreaming...
 
Disclaimer… I haven’t flown one but a friend who does tell me for planning purposes they figure 50 GPH… the Mike Jones conversions they’ll plan for 60 GPH. They are very roomy but have large dimensions so corporate hangars at the minimum. With the days of $7 AVGAS I can’t imagine they are very popular at the moment.
 
Like everything, I guess it depends...

https://www.avweb.com/features/piper-navajo/

First two entries are from the article. Third is reader feedback from the owner of an air taxi business.

  1. First hour fuel burn is 50 gallons with 40 to 42 GPH in cruise at 65 percent which on a standard day at 10,000 feet yields about 200 knots TAS with a takeoff weight of 6000 pounds.

  2. The TIO-540-J2B and J2BD engines have been around for a long time and are reliable if, but only if, they are operated properly. These are stump puller motors generating over 700 ft./lbs. of torque, pulling 43 to 45 inches MP on takeoff, using 90 GPH.

  3. Performance-wise, it is surprising how much TAS is related to takeoff weight. We run with the VG kit for a max takeoff weight of 7368 pounds. We see about 185 knot at 5500 pounds takeoff and 170 knots at gross. Fuel consumption runs at factory minimums of 30 GPH per side in the climb (giving about 1200 FPM at 130 knots) and can be reduced to 16 GPH a side in cruise.
 
Nothing to add about flying the plane, but a Navajo Chieftain is the plane I was a passenger in for a few years. its the plane that got me sold completely into aviation. A partner in my firm would travel to Toronto about once a month and I would hitch a ride if I needed to do work in that office.

The rear door leaked a lot, so there was a pile of blankets for people sitting there, and one engine always leaked oil, even after a full rebuild. Which I learned was ok after my first flight in it and watching a small streak of oil coming out of it.

I always wondered why the pilot kept saying hotel hotel on the radio. I had no idea at the time.
 
I've got a couple hundred hours in them. They drink fuel, I don't remember the exact burns but it was a lot. Ours were beat to hell freighters, but they flew fine. If you could get it in the door, they'd haul it. Even at high density altitudes, it was never an issue. They were built to haul people short distances, not 2 people for 6 hours.
 
The only potty I ever saw on a Chieftain was one that had a relief tube. It was very dry rotted and there was no way in hades I was going to use it. Then again, a potty would displace revenue.

Echoing others we planned 50 gph. Since most of the flying we did was at 1500 agl and less and legs of usually 30 minutes, 50gph was standard fuel planning. Since fuel displaced revenue, I always carried minimum fuel for the trip.

Then again the Chieftain was a work horse that pretty much carried anything that could be stuffed inside it. I once carried a complete dead moose which went US Mail, not freight, complete with stamps on it.

I also once ground looped a Chieftain.
 
Zeldman said:
Then again the Chieftain was a work horse that pretty much carried anything that could be stuffed inside it. I once carried a complete dead moose which went US Mail, not freight, complete with stamps on it.
Click to expand...

Pictures man! Pictures!
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Anyone flown a Chieftain or know much about then? They have twin TIO-540s (I fly a single non turbo version) so I assume they burn somewhere between 15 and 18 per side per hour? The specs I find on the internet say it has less than 700nm of range. That makes it just over a 3 hour airplane. My Lance can go nearly 6 hours if I want it to. What's the point of having a potty (on the Chieftain) if you have to land so frequently?

I'll never be able to own one, but was just daydreaming...
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't know anything about them but did get to ride in one during a checkout.
My buddy's long time friend /IA is a DOM for a fleet of chieftains. They are used for aerial surveys. They carry million dollar cameras. I go with him to help with his annuals for his plane and sometimes he does checkrides for the chieftains pilots like this day. Here are pictures for your entertainment.
IMG_0506.JPG

IMG_0509.JPG

IMG_0504.JPG

IMG_8563.JPG
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting those picture, Gary.

I flew in the right seat of a Chieftain from Fairbanks, loop to Central, Circle, Eagle, and back to Fairbanks.

From Circle, we flew low enough to see the moose tracks in the Yukon River mud, but the animals were bedded down in the willows and alders. We were lower than the airport at Eagle, the climb burned off the airspeed as we entered the pattern.

Cheap round trip tourist special, but one of the most memorable flights of my life. My wife enjoyed it too, a major plus, but her memories are much less complete. Those are fine planes, and the smoothness of those engines is hard to equal. Alaska standard at that time had added an IFR LORAN to the ADF and VOR's.

With a total of just 3 people, and maybe a hundred pounds of mail, we made a fast climb over the mountains returning to Fairbanks. The no show passengers we were scheduled to pick up in Eagle would have filled all the seats in the cabin, and I now understood why the manager was so pleased when I requested flying in the co pilot seat back at Fairbanks.
 
Gary Ward said:
Sorry I don't know anything about them but did get to ride in one during a checkout.
My buddy's long time freind/IA is a DOM for a fleet of cheiftains. They are used for aerial surveys. They carry million dollar cameras. I go with him to help with his annuals for his plane and sometimes he does checkrides for the cheiftain pilots like this day. Here are pictures for your entertainment.
IMG_0506.JPG

IMG_0509.JPG

IMG_0504.JPG

IMG_8563.JPG
Click to expand...
When I read the first post I thought to myself "Potty? More likely to find a camera hole in these." You didn't disappoint with this follow up.
 
I did get a right seat ride in the pattern after he dropped off my buddy Greg.
Jim said he changes clys on the motors when the oil usage gets to more than 1 qt per hour. He had 12 of them sitting there for one plane the day I was there. Told us story's how he knows if the pilot is looking after the motors by how much oil is used during each trip. Wow 40-50 gals an hour fuel? couple qts per hour oil is nothing compared to fuel.
 
Last edited:
I have about 1,000 hours in the Baby Navajo (310 hp) and close to that in the Chieftain. The 310 hp is more reliable and less touchy than the 350 hp. They are the same engine except a bigger turbo on the Chieftain. The 310 runs about 33-34 gallons per hour in cruise. The Chieftain 41-42 gph. The useful load of the Chieftain is really only good for about one more person, but there is more space for certain. Both are great flying airplanes. The Chieftains I flew had about 17,000 hours on them and were likely good for 1,000's of hours more. One operator in Alaska ran one to almost 40,000 hours.

At 186 gallons usable fuel, you are a bit range limited. The baby Navajo is better by about an hour which translates to about 4.5 hours or about 800 nm or so. The Chieftain is more like 650 nm range. As pointed out, load definitely affects speed.
 
I've got something around 450 hours in piston-powered PA-31s, and then another 75 or so in Cheyenne IIs (which are basically turbine powered pressurized Navajos - PA-31T-620). The PA-31 is one of my favorite airplanes.

As mentioned above, around 36 GPH combined for the short body Navajos, and around 40 for the Chieftain. But it does depend on how you choose to fly it, like any other plane. We got cruise fuel burn at 50 GPH in the Chieftain when the pax "didn't buy this plane to go slow", and I got the short body down to around 32 combined when I was trying to get better economy (because I was paying for the fuel).

I far prefer short body Navajos to Chieftains. They fly better, more responsive, quieter (that extra 2 feet of cabin space puts the pilots closer to the propellers), really just everything is better. It's what the airframe was designed around, and then like any stretched aircraft, it might've been certifiable, but it just wasn't the design was originally for. They're just nice flying airplanes, and with 40 degree flaps you can do some wonderful brick approaches.

The wing lockers are nice for storage, but they do something that seems to hurt wing airflow and lift overall. What would be really nice would be a short body with the 350 HP engine upgrade.

The Cheyennes remain one of my favorite personal twin turboprops. King Airs are boring. MU-2s have small cockpits and aren't for everyone as far as flying characteristics go. Turbine Commanders are... odd. The Cheyenne is enjoyable to fly (I think) with all the positive characteristics of the Navajo, spacious cockpit, comfortable cabin, and good range. I've recommended them to more than one person, and everyone I know who's bought one has loved it.

So when it comes to PA-31s, to quote Bueller:

so-choice-if-you-have-the-means.gif
 
Speaking of the big Pipers, a few days ago I saw a Cheyenne IV on the ramp. It was a beautiful aircraft.

The Cheyenne IV does some things very well. Its TPE 331-14 engines allow an easy 300+ knot cruising speed. It has good range when carrying 1,500 lbs of passengers and crew, about 1,200 miles with IFR reserves. I don't know how often they're operated at FL410, but it's certified to that altitude.

There are a couple really nice examples for sale on Controller. One with glass avionics and nearly new P&I is priced at $1.35 million. The ad doesn't provide clear information about engine time, which probably isn't unintentional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top