Queen Air Excalibur vs Navajo Chieftian

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I've seen a few of these Queen Air Excaliburs advertized for sale. They claim to outperform the Navajo Chieftian, cost less to aquire and operate, and kick Chuck Norris's ass.

Is this just all advertizing hype? or is there some truth to the claims??

It would seem to me that the naturaly aspirated IO-720's would lose a lot of horsepower above 15,000ft compared to a TIO-540. However, I'm just a drag racer and I don't know, which is why I ask these questions.

 

[Ted]

Not knowing much about the performance of the Queen Air Excalibur, a few thoughts:

1) The Queen Air isn't a particularly common aircraft, and finding parts for it will be difficult. Navajos were and are still very popular aircraft.
2) The IO-720 is still supported, but being naturally aspirated at 400 hp vs. the Navajo Chieftain's turbocharged 350 hp I think will end up being a significant detriment once you get not too far above sea level. You will notice the difference in power well before 15,000 ft, it will be more like 5,000 ft.
3) If you want to outperform the Navajo, they made the P-Navajo with 425 hp per side engines. That gives you pressurization and more power. If you don't want that, they made the Cheyenne, which has a number of similarities to the P-Navajo, but with PT-6s instead of geared 540s.

 

[Lance F]

I've flown both a little bit (honest). I find it hard to believe a QA could outperform a Navajo C.

 

[weilke]

I sat at MSP in a Delta MD-88 saturday morning waiting for departure. While I sat there, I could watch 8 Excalibur QAs in a row take off. So depending on where you are in time and space, they can be quite common .

If you follow them on flightaware, they rarely fly higher than 8000ft. So while their SE ceiling is quite a bit higher, the main operator doesn't even fly them that high.

If you are based in the midwest/upper plains, with ready access to the guys who do the conversion, it may be a worthwhile choice for the 'big bucket to haul sheet' category.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Not knowing much about the performance of the Queen Air Excalibur, a few thoughts:

2) The IO-720 is still supported, but being naturally aspirated at 400 hp vs. the Navajo Chieftain's turbocharged 350 hp I think will end up being a significant detriment once you get not too far above sea level. You will notice the difference in power well before 15,000 ft, it will be more like 5,000 ft.

Ahh, that's what I was expecting, in other words the Excalibur can only match the Navajo at low altitudes.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I've flown both a little bit (honest). I find it hard to believe a QA could outperform a Navajo C.

Yeah, me too, but that's what the advertizing hype was.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

I sat at MSP saturday morning waiting for departure and watched 8 Excalibur QAs in a row take off. So depending on where you are in time and space, they can be quite common .

If you follow them o flightaware, they rarely fly higher than 8000ft. So while their SE ceiling is quite a bit higher, the main operator doesn't even fly them that high.

If you are based in the midwest/upper plains, with ready access to the guys who do the conversion, it may be a worthwhile choice for the 'big bucket to haul sheet' category.

That makes sense. Those of us out in the west who have to fly over mountian ranges wouldn't want one of these then. It's a plane with a particular niche.

 

[weilke]

That makes sense. Those of us out in the west who have to fly over mountian ranges wouldn't want one of these then. It's a plane with a particular niche.

This was the comment an owner posted on beechtalk when the QA was discussed:

I live in the UK and have an Excalibre Queenair with 720s, they are an exceptional aircraft I operate out of my 3000' grass strip and only ever use half for both TO and landing. At 26gph and 10000' you get 200mph, at sea level on one you get 540 FPM easily, on one an 11000' ceiling and a dry tank range of in excess of 1700 nm. All this with a useful load of 2600lbs, why would you want a King air !!!

 

[Ted]

This was the comment an owner posted on beechtalk when the QA was discussed:

I live in the UK and have an Excalibre Queenair with 720s, they are an exceptional aircraft I operate out of my 3000' grass strip and only ever use half for both TO and landing. At 26gph and 10000' you get 200mph, at sea level on one you get 540 FPM easily, on one an 11000' ceiling and a dry tank range of in excess of 1700 nm. All this with a useful load of 2600lbs, why would you want a King air !!!

I could see it as being an attractive alternative to a King Air if you lived in an area where you never had a real need to go up high, and that statement doesn't surprise me. It seems that once you upgrade an aircraft from base engines to a significant power boost, they do well.

It can be odd to think of aircraft with 500+ combined rated horsepower as "underpowered", but I'm coming to the conclusion that most aircraft as they are built are underpowered. Comanche 400 is a good exception.

 

[weilke]

It can be odd to think of aircraft with 500+ combined rated horsepower as "underpowered",

...until you stand next to one.

They are about the size of a 100 series King Air, and that has what, 1100hp ?

 

[Ted]

...until you stand next to one.

They are about the size of a 100 series King Air, and that has what, 1100hp ?

Actually, in that case I was referring to some of the smaller twins like Aztecs, 310s, and Barons, which I think from the factory end up with just sufficient power, but not as much as they should ideally have. A Queen Air with only 500 hp combined is definitely underpowered.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

A Queen Air with only 500 hp combined is definitely underpowered.

Maybe that's why they never had 500hp combined.

As far as I can find, the lowest-power Queen Airs had 340 hp/side, or 680 combined.

The non-Excalibur QA's were also supercharged, but they weren't pressurized (except the rare 88).

 

[flyersfan31]

Neat looking planes. I like them.

But saying a Beech is cheaper than anything to operate, particularly the Navajo with maybe a billion still in service? That just doesn't pass the smell test. :wink2:

 

[Henning]

Not knowing much about the performance of the Queen Air Excalibur, a few thoughts:

1) The Queen Air isn't a particularly common aircraft, and finding parts for it will be difficult. Navajos were and are still very popular aircraft.
2) The IO-720 is still supported, but being naturally aspirated at 400 hp vs. the Navajo Chieftain's turbocharged 350 hp I think will end up being a significant detriment once you get not too far above sea level. You will notice the difference in power well before 15,000 ft, it will be more like 5,000 ft.
3) If you want to outperform the Navajo, they made the P-Navajo with 425 hp per side engines. That gives you pressurization and more power. If you don't want that, they made the Cheyenne, which has a number of similarities to the P-Navajo, but with PT-6s instead of geared 540s.

The one Excalibur I flew and the other two I worked on all had 2 turbos per engine. The P-Navajo has TIGO-541 engines on it which are even more expensive to maintain than the 720s.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm coming to the conclusion that most aircraft as they are built are underpowered. Comanche 400 is a good exception.

Somewhere recently, I saw an article about a Comanche 400 that was supercharged.

I really want to fly it!

 

[Ken Ibold]

Neat looking planes. I like them.

But saying a Beech is cheaper than anything to operate, particularly the Navajo with maybe a billion still in service? That just doesn't pass the smell test. :wink2:

A guy in Tennessee, Mike Jones, takes Chieftains and Navajos and remanufactures them, then sells 'em for close to $1 mil apiece. Sounds like a chunk of change, but his work is really top notch. I visited him once for a story, and came away very, very impressed. He calls them "Lock & Key" and they even have their own section on some of the sales web sites and at the insurance companies.

 

[Ted]

The one Excalibur I flew and the other two I worked on all had 2 turbos per engine. The P-Navajo has TIGO-541 engines on it which are even more expensive to maintain than the 720s.

If you had Excaliburs with turbo engines then that's a different animal, and I'd agree would be better than the TIGO-541s (I'm well aware of the headaches on the 541s). The ones I'd seen advertised only had IO-720s. Depending on your application, the turbos may or may not be beneficial.

 

[Everskyward]

Just anecdotally, I know one guy who has a lot of time in Navajo Chieftains doing freight and said he would choose it as his personal airplane for himself and his family. I know someone else who actually has one as his personal airplane. He took it to Europe for a vacation a couple summers ago. It's the nicest Chieftain I have ever seen. Most of them are pretty rough as they are generally used for freight.

 

[Ted]

Just anecdotally, I know one guy who has a lot of time in Navajo Chieftains doing freight and said he would choose it as his personal airplane for himself and his family. I know someone else who actually has one as his personal airplane. He took it to Europe for a vacation a couple summers ago. It's the nicest Chieftain I have ever seen. Most of them are pretty rough as they are generally used for freight.

One of the interesting things I've noticed is that it seems like you've got more Beechcraft and Cessna twins for personal aircraft and fewer Pipers, but at least in my area the Piper twins are the favorite for freight ops. I'd imagine a lot of the reasons to be the fact that Piper twins are less attractive than their Cessna and Beech counterparts, and the Cessna/Beech twins tend to be a bit faster, albeit a bit smaller.

 

[flyboy20]

Just some information,
As you know, reputation can “make or break” the success of a product in general aviation whether the reputation is good or bad, deserved or not. Hence our discussion here of the Queen Air and the conversion of the Queen Air to the very reliable Excalibur 800, Following are the differences:

The Beech Queen Air was an excellent airplane but the original powerplants were not very reliable. They were either Lycoming IGSO-480 (producing 340 HP) or IGSO-540 (producing 380 HP) supercharged, gear driven propeller engines. The Queen Air’s less than stellar reputation came from the original engines not the airframe. Beech decided they had a very reliable, stable, and easy to fly airplane but needed reliable powerplants. Beech decided to put Pratt & Whitney PT-6A Turbine Engines on it and it became the worlds most popular (comfortable, reliable, safe, and easy to fly) cabin class turbine airplane. Ed Swearingen figured if good reliable piston engines could be found for the Queen Air that it too would be a great airplane.

The Lycoming IO-720 engine was originally developed for the ag plane industry, which needed high horsepower, low maintenance, reliable “bulletproof” engines. The IO-360 engine has 360 cubic inches with 4 cylinders producing 200 HP. By adding 2 more cylinders you have the IO-540 with 540 cubic inches and 6 cylinders producing 300 HP. If you add 2 more cylinders you have the IO-720, 720 cubic inch, 8 cylinders producing 400 HP. All of these engines have an excellent reputation in the industry for being very reliable.

From our 13 year experience and thousands of hours, these engines have proven to be almost “bulletproof”. Using them on the Excalibur Conversion has taken a very reliable, low maintenance airframe proven over the years in the King Air (even though a much more complex version of the same airframe as the Queen Air) and mated a pair of engines originally built for reliability.

The problems with the original Queen Air were all engine related, such as engine fires, blowing cylinders, exhaust problems, power management, low TBO, etc. All of this went away with the Excalibur 800 Conversion. The Excalibur 800 Queen Air is the only cabin class twin with normally aspirated engines (no supercharger or turbo). There are no supercharger or turbocharger associated problems with overboosting, cylinder problems, engine fire, etc. There is also no gearbox to content with.

In short, the Excalibur Queen Air is a very easy airplane to fly and manage, even for low time pilots. It has an excellent useful load, wide center of gravity, easy to manage engines (same as Cherokee 6/Saratoga series airplane), is very forgiving in takeoff and landing phase, very stable on approach, and especially stable in instrument conditions. I have taken many low time pilots flying with me that had a fresh multi-engine rating or just working on their multi-rating and the comments are always the same. They cannot believe how easy the Excalibur Queen Air is to fly. If fact, they say it is easier to fly than the Piper Seminole, Seneca I, or other similar training aircraft.

 

[Skylane81E]

Hmm, somehow I think that the 350hp engine with a critical altitude of (IIRC) 19k will do better at most altitudes than the 400hp na engine

Then again we alwaysed used chieftains for our 135 and have been served well

 

[Henning]

The main reason you see Cessna twins preferred over Navajos and Queen Airs in private cabin class twin service is because very few of the later are pressurized while many of the former are. Freight operators don't want to give up the load (profit) for pilot comfort on the short range missions they use these planes for so they go with the lowest cost unpressurized airframe.

 

[weilke]

Matt, are you with Bemidji Aviation ?

How much is it to convert a good airframe into an Excalibur ?

 

[rainsux]

The geared engines are expensive do overhaul, but don't know how they compare to
the IO-720 ... which is itself, a small population.

 

[Henning]

The geared engines are expensive do overhaul, but don't know how they compare to
the IO-720 ... which is itself, a small population.

As long as you don't need a crank, the 720 doesn't cost outrageously more to overhaul but best I remember it's on the order of doing a GTSIO 520.

 

[Ted]

Hmm, somehow I think that the 350hp engine with a critical altitude of (IIRC) 19k will do better at most altitudes than the 400hp na engine

How often does one really fly a Navajo much above 10k ft? I'm sure out west it's more common, but it's pretty rare - even rarer on 135. Our typicaly altitudes are 7-9k. We'll fly it at 10-12k if we're heading out on a long Part 91 trip and the winds favor it.

Your 65-75% power settings on the 720s will still be more power than the Navajo engines, probably on similar or lower fuel burn since they're naturally aspirated.

 

[LearDriver]

What about a Aero Commander 685 with the 720 conversion?

 

[wabower]

Olive Ann Beech evidently agreed with your impression of the QA line. They made a 65 and then an 80 for her, both specially painted and interior outfitted in her favorite baby blue color. She wouldn't fly in either of them, instead using her similarly decked-out tricycle-gear 18.

Just some information,
As you know, reputation can “make or break” the success of a product in general aviation whether the reputation is good or bad, deserved or not. Hence our discussion here of the Queen Air and the conversion of the Queen Air to the very reliable Excalibur 800, Following are the differences:

The Beech Queen Air was an excellent airplane but the original powerplants were not very reliable. The Queen Air’s less than stellar reputation came from the original engines not the airframe. Beech decided they had a very reliable, stable, and easy to fly airplane but needed reliable powerplants. Beech decided to put Pratt & Whitney PT-6A Turbine Engines on it and it became the worlds most popular (comfortable, reliable, safe, and easy to fly) cabin class turbine airplane. Ed Swearingen figured if good reliable piston engines could be found for the Queen Air that it too would be a great airplane.

The Lycoming IO-720 engine was originally developed for the ag plane industry, which needed high horsepower, low maintenance, reliable “bulletproof” engines. The IO-360 engine has 360 cubic inches with 4 cylinders producing 200 HP. By adding 2 more cylinders you have the IO-540 with 540 cubic inches and 6 cylinders producing 300 HP. If you add 2 more cylinders you have the IO-720, 720 cubic inch, 8 cylinders producing 400 HP. All of these engines have an excellent reputation in the industry for being very reliable.

From our 13 year experience and thousands of hours, these engines have proven to be almost “bulletproof”. Using them on the Excalibur Conversion has taken a very reliable, low maintenance airframe proven over the years in the King Air (even though a much more complex version of the same airframe as the Queen Air) and mated a pair of engines originally built for reliability.

The problems with the original Queen Air were all engine related, such as engine fires, blowing cylinders, exhaust problems, power management, low TBO, etc. All of this went away with the Excalibur 800 Conversion. The Excalibur 800 Queen Air is the only cabin class twin with normally aspirated engines (no supercharger or turbo). There are no supercharger or turbocharger associated problems with overboosting, cylinder problems, engine fire, etc. There is also no gearbox to content with.

In short, the Excalibur Queen Air is a very easy airplane to fly and manage, even for low time pilots. It has an excellent useful load, wide center of gravity, easy to manage engines (same as Cherokee 6/Saratoga series airplane), is very forgiving in takeoff and landing phase, very stable on approach, and especially stable in instrument conditions. I have taken many low time pilots flying with me that had a fresh multi-engine rating or just working on their multi-rating and the comments are always the same. They cannot believe how easy the Excalibur Queen Air is to fly. If fact, they say it is easier to fly than the Piper Seminole, Seneca I, or other similar training aircraft.

 

[Henning]

Olive Ann Beech evidently agreed with your impression of the QA line. They made a 65 and then an 80 for her, both specially painted and interior outfitted in her favorite baby blue color. She wouldn't fly in either of them, instead using her similarly decked-out tricycle-gear 18.

I heard that story before, never could blame her; if you can fly in an 18, why would you get in a QA? Give up a pair of 985 Pratts for a pair of IGSO Lycomings? Couldn't imagine being her and doing that.

 

[hurryinhoosier]

Not knowing much about the performance of the Queen Air Excalibur, a few thoughts:

1) The Queen Air isn't a particularly common aircraft, and finding parts for it will be difficult. Navajos were and are still very popular aircraft.
2) The IO-720 is still supported, but being naturally aspirated at 400 hp vs. the Navajo Chieftain's turbocharged 350 hp I think will end up being a significant detriment once you get not too far above sea level. You will notice the difference in power well before 15,000 ft, it will be more like 5,000 ft.
3) If you want to outperform the Navajo, they made the P-Navajo with 425 hp per side engines. That gives you pressurization and more power. If you don't want that, they made the Cheyenne, which has a number of similarities to the P-Navajo, but with PT-6s instead of geared 540s.

I guess you're NOT familiar with the applicability codes for Beech. The 50- code on the part number means it is useable on Models 50, 65, A65, A65-70, A65-80, A65-8800, 90,99, 100, 200, 300. The major rotatable mechanical components for the Model 65 series (Queen Air) are nearly identical to the SAME mechanical rotatable components on the 90 series King Air. Airframe structure parts are IDENTICAL, since the King Air was developed from the Queen Air. Questions?

 

[Dennis McKim]

Thread necromancy?

 

[RotorAndWing]

I guess you're NOT familiar with the applicability codes for Beech. The 50- code on the part number means it is useable on Models 50, 65, A65, A65-70, A65-80, A65-8800, 90,99, 100, 200, 300. The major rotatable mechanical components for the Model 65 series (Queen Air) are nearly identical to the SAME mechanical rotatable components on the 90 series King Air. Airframe structure parts are IDENTICAL, since the King Air was developed from the Queen Air. Questions?

Yes. Why are there so few Queen Airs flying anymore?

 

[weilke]

I'

It would seem to me that the naturaly aspirated IO-720's would lose a lot of horsepower above 15,000ft compared to a TIO-540. However, I'm just a drag racer and I don't know, which is why I ask these questions.

Neither of them is pressurized. Few good reasons to be at 15k.

Bemidji air flies Excalibur queens in the upper midwest. They are usually at 4-5k.

 

[Henning]

I've seen a few of these Queen Air Excaliburs advertized for sale. They claim to outperform the Navajo Chieftian, cost less to aquire and operate, and kick Chuck Norris's ass.

Is this just all advertizing hype? or is there some truth to the claims??

It would seem to me that the naturaly aspirated IO-720's would lose a lot of horsepower above 15,000ft compared to a TIO-540. However, I'm just a drag racer and I don't know, which is why I ask these questions.

If I had a need for that plane, I would take the Chieftain unless I came across a good deal on a C-404. Chieftain is an all around winner in class, but if I could have a 404 at the same price and quality as a Chieftain, IMO it's a better flying plane. I haven't priced them in a long time but they used to be around twice as much as a Chieftain.

The Queen Air is more comparable with a Navajo 310 unless it's pressurized, then more like a slow C-340.

 

[James331]

Just a observation.

I've seen quite a few working Navajos and a few private ones too, I've never seen a working queen air, most queen airs I've seen have been ramp mummies.

 

[Henning]

Just a observation.

I've seen quite a few working Navajos and a few private ones too, I've never seen a working queen air, most queen airs I've seen have been ramp mummies.

I still see a few working Queen Airs around here doing the Bahamas runs, they are all Excalibur conversions though. It's not a bad plane with the 720s, and really, the 720s aren't that difficult to support. I flew a Pawnee Brave for a season and thought it was a nice engine. You do have to respect that it's a direct drive over half a horsepower per cubic inch with 25% more depth to reduce cooling at the back cylinders. I flew it the same speeds as a smaller 260 Pawnee, but having 400 hp for a few seconds to get the load lifted, especially on the high plains, is really nice. Operated like that I never had CHT issues even in the heat of summer evenings.

 

[Ted]

I guess you're NOT familiar with the applicability codes for Beech. The 50- code on the part number means it is useable on Models 50, 65, A65, A65-70, A65-80, A65-8800, 90,99, 100, 200, 300. The major rotatable mechanical components for the Model 65 series (Queen Air) are nearly identical to the SAME mechanical rotatable components on the 90 series King Air. Airframe structure parts are IDENTICAL, since the King Air was developed from the Queen Air. Questions?

Since I was mostly referring to the engines, yes. Which King Air used 720s?

 

[hurryinhoosier]

Yes. Why are there so few Queen Airs flying anymore?

Because many of their systems are OBSOLETE, especially the engines. Turbine powered, pressurized aircraft such as the King Air replaced them. IMO (as a retired maintenace professional), the Queen Air was a victim of technology and its success, just as the Beech 18 was a victim of technology and its success. The Queen Air is a GOOD aircraft, airframe wise. The 70 and 80 series with their longer wings (same as the B/C 90s) would be my choice for the Excalibur conversion IF that conversion was still being done today, but avgas costs would be a limiting factor in operating one of these aircraft not parts availability.

 

[hurryinhoosier]

Since I was mostly referring to the engines, yes. Which King Air used 720s?

Don't fool with "piston pounders" much, do you? IO-720= 8 cylinders X 90 cubic inches per cylinder. What other Lycoming engines use the 90 cubic inch cylinder? IO-360 AND IO-540. In essence, the IO-720 uses the SAME "jugs", pistons, bearings, lifter bodies, oil pumps, connecting rods, push rods, accessory drives, gaskets, etc. as the IO-540, which is STILL in production. Cases, cams and cranks would be available from Lycoming with a lengthy lead time due to the fact that the IO-720 is considered a "legacy" engine. BTW....NO King Air ever used a piston engine, unless you count that Orenda abortion that Stevens got "con'd" into when I worked for them (mid 90s). It was a case of trying to polish a turd.......

 

[Cpt_Kirk]