Navions

[Tri Pacer Pilot]

I currently have a 150hp Piper TriPacer that I've upgraded pretty well but
I'm beginning to feel the need for a larger airplane. Not necessarily a
huge step up in speed and range but more in room and stability. It's hard
to fit two larger fellows into a TriPacer even if the weight isn't a
problem.

I've looked at Cherokee 180s, Cessna 182s / 210s and am becoming more and
more interested in Navions. The popular culture says that they are well
(0ver) built and very stable and allegely easy to fly. I'm hoping someone
could help me with ...

How do they perform on the E185 Continental
Are the hydraulics hard to maintain or troublesome
Are there any major AD gotchas that I should be careful of
Would they be harder to fly than, say, a Piper Arrow in terms of being a
complex aircraft?
Are they certified in Normal and Utility catagories (ie, can they be spun
intentionally?)

I have my commercial and instrument ratings and about 500 hrs TT.

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

Rod Wagoner
Tucson, AZ

[rip]

For more than you will ever want to know about NAvions, go to:
http://rip.tzo.com/index.html

> I've looked at Cherokee 180s, Cessna 182s / 210s and am becoming more and
> more interested in Navions. The popular culture says that they are well
> (0ver) built and very stable and allegely easy to fly.
True, IMHO.
>
> How do they perform on the E185 Continental
I have this engine. Performs well, but the IO470, 520, 540, and 550 are
the engines of choice. The E series engines use a Hartzell prop subject
to a repetitive AD. No NAvion is a speed demon, although there are those
who specialize in extracting some very repectable airspeeds from such a
large and roomy plane.

> Are the hydraulics hard to maintain or troublesome
Not at all. As an A&P, I find the NAvion hydraulics easier to deal with
than electrical/mechanical systems. Very straightforward, very simple.

> Are there any major AD gotchas that I should be careful of
Any 50 year old (+) airplane has AD's, but there are very few repetitive
ones on the NAvion, and those that remain are by and large very simple
inspections. Get the AD list from the site above. Most AD's should have
been complied with years ago.

> Would they be harder to fly than, say, a Piper Arrow in terms of being a
> complex aircraft?
No. The only real difference is turning on the hydraulics when needed,
and turning it off when done. Some NAvions still have their original
adjustable props (not constant speed), but they're getting rare.

> Are they certified in Normal and Utility catagories (ie, can they be spun
> intentionally?)
They are certified in both the Normal and Utility catagories.
"Aerobatics" beyond those required for a Commercial exam are not
approved, including spins.
>
> I have my commercial and instrument ratings and about 500 hrs TT.
Congratulations! The NAvion might be the best next plane for you. Join
the NAvion discussion group at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/navion_aircraft_mail/

Rip

>
> Any help or advice would be much appreciated.
>
> Rod Wagoner
> Tucson, AZ
>
>
>

[Ron Natalie]

"rip" > wrote in message . com...
> I have this engine. Performs well, but the IO470, 520, 540, and 550 are
> the engines of choice. The E series engines use a Hartzell prop subject
> to a repetitive AD.

There is a Hartzell prop available without the AD, but you are right, your
choices are greater with the flanged crank rather than the splined one.

> No NAvion is a speed demon, although there are those
> who specialize in extracting some very repectable airspeeds from such a
> large and roomy plane.

Sort of like souping up a Volkswagon. You can put all these mods on, but
she's still a volkswagon :-)

>
> > Are the hydraulics hard to maintain or troublesome
> Not at all. As an A&P, I find the NAvion hydraulics easier to deal with
> than electrical/mechanical systems. Very straightforward, very simple.

The Navion gear is simplicity itself compared with most other retracts.

> > Are they certified in Normal and Utility catagories (ie, can they be spun
> > intentionally?)
> They are certified in both the Normal and Utility catagories.
> "Aerobatics" beyond those required for a Commercial exam are not
> approved, including spins.

Note that if you have a larger engine (from the 260 HP up or so), your
utility category load area is very small. While the extra HP and other mods
up the gross weight, they don't open open up the utility envelope. I can't
really fly in the utility envelope with anything other than myself and a small
fuel load.

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:28:16 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>
>"rip" > wrote in message . com...
>> I have this engine. Performs well, but the IO470, 520, 540, and 550 are
>> the engines of choice. The E series engines use a Hartzell prop subject
>> to a repetitive AD.
>
>There is a Hartzell prop available without the AD, but you are right, your
>choices are greater with the flanged crank rather than the splined one.
>
>> No NAvion is a speed demon, although there are those
>> who specialize in extracting some very repectable airspeeds from such a
>> large and roomy plane.
>
>Sort of like souping up a Volkswagon. You can put all these mods on, but
>she's still a volkswagon :-)

Yah, but a very roomy and comfortable VW, unlike its ground bound
counterpart. <:-))

<snip>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ron French]

"Tri Pacer Pilot" > wrote in message .net>...
> I currently have a 150hp Piper TriPacer that I've upgraded pretty well but
> I'm beginning to feel the need for a larger airplane. Not necessarily a
> huge step up in speed and range but more in room and stability. It's hard
> to fit two larger fellows into a TriPacer even if the weight isn't a
> problem.
>
> I've looked at Cherokee 180s, Cessna 182s / 210s and am becoming more and
> more interested in Navions. The popular culture says that they are well
> (0ver) built and very stable and allegely easy to fly. I'm hoping someone
> could help me with ...
>
> How do they perform on the E185 Continental
> Are the hydraulics hard to maintain or troublesome
> Are there any major AD gotchas that I should be careful of
> Would they be harder to fly than, say, a Piper Arrow in terms of being a
> complex aircraft?
> Are they certified in Normal and Utility catagories (ie, can they be spun
> intentionally?)
>
> I have my commercial and instrument ratings and about 500 hrs TT.
>
> Any help or advice would be much appreciated.
>
> Rod Wagoner
> Tucson, AZ

I had most of my time in Cherokees and Arrows before purchasing my
first Navion. It was a very easy transition. It only took a couple
of hours to feel comfortable in the plane. It flys a lot like a
Cherokee. I would recommend the biggest engine you can afford,
especially if you fly out west in the mountains.

Ron French
Navion N4969K

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron French" > wrote in message om...

> I had most of my time in Cherokees and Arrows before purchasing my
> first Navion. It was a very easy transition.

Yep... I landed the Navion the first time from the right seat and
it was really sweet. The only thing odd about flying the navion over
a Cessna or Piper is that there are a lot more knobs and levers to
fiddle with on takeoff and landing. The airplane flies and lands
very benignly. It taxis like a pig.

[Ray Andraka]

How does a pig taxi?

Ron Natalie wrote:

> The airplane flies and lands
> very benignly. It taxis like a pig.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Stu Gotts]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:33:20 -0500, Ray Andraka >
wrote:

>How does a pig taxi?

About like a Navion!

>
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> The airplane flies and lands
>> very benignly. It taxis like a pig.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message ...
> How does a pig taxi?

Slowly and with a lot of throttle :-)

[rip]

Ron, are you sure your brakes aren't dragging? Mine taxis quite
sprightly, though coincidentally I call my plane "The Pig".

Rip

Ron Natalie wrote:
> "Ray Andraka" > wrote in message ...
>
>>How does a pig taxi?
>
>
> Slowly and with a lot of throttle :-)

[Ron Natalie]

"rip" > wrote in message . com...
> Ron, are you sure your brakes aren't dragging? Mine taxis quite
> sprightly, though coincidentally I call my plane "The Pig".
>
They're not dragging. I do have the 7.00x8 (original) on it. Actually, it's not
all that bad (unless you're in a crosswind, lots of sail area to a Navion). But, you
may be immunized to it. Go back and try something light on the wheels. I used
to pop back and forth between my Navion and a friends 170. The 170 is like
roller skating.

[Michael]

"Tri Pacer Pilot" > wrote
> I've looked at Cherokee 180s, Cessna 182s / 210s and am becoming more and
> more interested in Navions. The popular culture says that they are well
> (0ver) built and very stable and allegely easy to fly. I'm hoping someone
> could help me with ...
>
> How do they perform on the E185 Continental
> Are the hydraulics hard to maintain or troublesome
> Are there any major AD gotchas that I should be careful of
> Would they be harder to fly than, say, a Piper Arrow in terms of being a
> complex aircraft?
> Are they certified in Normal and Utility catagories (ie, can they be spun
> intentionally?)
>
> I have my commercial and instrument ratings and about 500 hrs TT.
>
> Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

I don't own a Navion, but I know someone who does. I've flown his,
and I've helped him work on it - but very little of both, so take this
with a grain of salt.

You will not have a problem flying it. Few airplanes are more stable
than a TriPacer, but this is one of them. It's a rock-solid
instrument platform - if you're only going to fly a little IFR, this
is perfect. I've safetied for the owner, who really doesn't fly all
that much, and I could sit there and watch him periodically fixate,
but the airplane is so stable and solid it just keeps going in a
straight line. There is no complexity to speak of, and nothing
happens very quickly. I've flown a Piper Arrow, and consider it to be
the second-easiest 'complex' airplane I've flown. The easiest? The
Navion.

The plane is VERY roomy. I've never been in the back seat, but the
front seat has more cabin room than a Bonanza. Two fat guys can sit
there in comfort. The control and instrument layout is haphazard, but
that's common for planes of that vintage. Ergonomics? What's that?

The E-185 engine is an orphan, and conversion to something else is NOT
cheap. Performance on the E-185 is actually OK - no worse than the
TriPacer in climb, and definitely better in cruise. Most people only
convert once the engine needs very major work and they discover how
difficult it is to get parts.

The downside is the maintenance. Unless you're planning to do a lot
of your own wrenching, stay away. Nothing is particularly
complicated, but everything is time consuming. There are two kinds of
Navion hydralic systems - those that are maintained by people who
really understand them (a distinct minority among A&P's these days)
and those that leak constantly and are nothing but trouble.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Michael" > wrote in message om...
]> The downside is the maintenance. Unless you're planning to do a lot
> of your own wrenching, stay away. Nothing is particularly
> complicated, but everything is time consuming.

Nothing is particularly time consuming. Much of it is actually easier than the
Arrow. However, Navion's are different. The biggest problem is dealing
with an ignorant mechanic who won't spend the time to read the book or
call someone about Navion-specific issues. Airframe parts availability is
also not a major issue. The major parts problem, are as you alluded to,
the availability of engine/accessory parts for the older engines.

>There are two kinds of
> Navion hydralic systems - those that are maintained by people who
> really understand them (a distinct minority among A&P's these days)
> and those that leak constantly and are nothing but trouble.

I have no idea what the above statement is intended to mean. With the
exception of the master control valve (which most mechanics are probably
advised to send out for repairs), there is nothing odd about the Navion
hydraulic system. It's just a bunch of tubing. If it leaks, anywhere other
than the MCV, then it's just a fitting or actuator that needs attention, just
like any other hydraulic device (even your beloved Arrow). The MCV
leaks are readily apparent as pilot gets red stains on his right knee. I've
never had a problem with my hydraulic system and it's never been "maintained"
by any extraordinary means. There was a leak in the flap actuator when
I bought it which was easily fixed by a mechanic who'd never seen a Navion
before.

[Ron French]

> I have no idea what the above statement is intended to mean. With the
> exception of the master control valve (which most mechanics are probably
> advised to send out for repairs), there is nothing odd about the Navion
> hydraulic system. It's just a bunch of tubing. If it leaks, anywhere other
> than the MCV, then it's just a fitting or actuator that needs attention, just
> like any other hydraulic device (even your beloved Arrow). The MCV
> leaks are readily apparent as pilot gets red stains on his right knee. I've
> never had a problem with my hydraulic system and it's never been "maintained"
> by any extraordinary means. There was a leak in the flap actuator when
> I bought it which was easily fixed by a mechanic who'd never seen a Navion
> before.


That has been my experience as well. I had to have the MCV rebuilt
after the plane was down for a couple of years, probably due to air in
the lines and the O-rings drying out. Other than that, I have had no
problems. If there is a leak elsewhere, a couple of O-rings will
usually correct the situation. Over all, the hydraulic system has
been very reliable and trouble free.

Ron French
Navion N4969K