Navion in flames.

[John[_9_]]

Just saw a brief news clip of a burning Navion L-17 at Marlborough,
MA. (about 5 miles from my home) Apparently everyone got out o.k., so
that's a relief. The shot showed the plane with the nose gear
collapsed and flames shooting out the cabin.

We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.

John Dupre'

[Jay Honeck]

> We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
> the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.

Navions are just so much cooler than Bonanzas. Anything with that
"North American" prefix is gonna have way more chops than anything
callled a "Beechcraft", which sounds too much like a boat company, I'm
afraid.

The Navion's huge cabin, and those classic lines, so reminiscent of
the Mustang, just make it a real piece of American history. If I were
to buy a 4-place classic aircraft, it would be a toss-up between a
Beech Staggerwing and a Navion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
>>the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.
>
>
> Navions are just so much cooler than Bonanzas. Anything with that
> "North American" prefix is gonna have way more chops than anything
> callled a "Beechcraft", which sounds too much like a boat company, I'm
> afraid.
>
> The Navion's huge cabin, and those classic lines, so reminiscent of
> the Mustang, just make it a real piece of American history. If I were
> to buy a 4-place classic aircraft, it would be a toss-up between a
> Beech Staggerwing and a Navion.
>
Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!! Also
for years a Navion (although 5 knots slower) could be found cheaper than
a Bo. Navions are indeed quite cool. BTW we came out of annual some
time between two weekends (damned this work crap is getting in the way
of my airplane!) with a few minor "we need to do that sometime in the
next couple of months" issues. Then after not having flown in 3 months
(damned husband gets to fly just cause it looks like we might go IFR at
some point, yes, I know, I should get my instrument rating), did my BFR
with a former U2 pilot (who asked if I'd seen some video on "that Alexis
website" :-) without difficulty (except my steep turns started out
really ugly). He needed a few landings so I managed to sit on my hands
while someone else flew my plane from the right seat to a landing (mind
you the right seat has no brakes). Now I'd flown with him in a CAP 182
when he was the CAPUSAF and I've never seen anyone handle a plane like
that, so I did ok. His wife was in the back as they haven't been flying
in a while (new house syndrome) and she wasn't fond of the stalls. We
flew around for a couple of hours and had a great time. I think my slow
flight is better than it ever was!

Only one fatality yesterday, I ran over a mouse while pulling the plane
out. After finding the rather squished body I took a really good look
inside the wing over the wheel that did the damage and could find no
evidence of a nest, etc. Lights worked, strobes worked, I wish I knew
where that little sucker came from!

It was GREAT to be able to fly again. Now it looks like spring might
get here and I'm going to try to get out much more often.

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!

Crap -- the secret is out. You always thought we loved you (and Ron),
but in reality it's your airplane we lust after...

;-)

> It was GREAT to be able to fly again. Now it looks like spring might
> get here and I'm going to try to get out much more often.

Glad you're back in the air! You guys gonna zip down to Sun N Fun
this year?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>
> Crap -- the secret is out. You always thought we loved you (and Ron),
> but in reality it's your airplane we lust after...
>
And we had to wait years to see the plane! Despite being worth the
wait, it was just so....cruel :-)



--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
>> the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.
>
> Navions are just so much cooler than Bonanzas. Anything with that
> "North American" prefix is gonna have way more chops than anything
> callled a "Beechcraft", which sounds too much like a boat company, I'm
> afraid.

Ohhhh....yer askin' for it.

>
> The Navion's huge cabin, and those classic lines, so reminiscent of
> the Mustang, just make it a real piece of American history. If I were
> to buy a 4-place classic aircraft, it would be a toss-up between a
> Beech Staggerwing and a Navion.

Instead, you got a Piper, which sounds like it comes from a manufacturer of
flutes. :~)

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
>>> the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.
>> Navions are just so much cooler than Bonanzas. Anything with that
>> "North American" prefix is gonna have way more chops than anything
>> callled a "Beechcraft", which sounds too much like a boat company, I'm
>> afraid.
>
> Ohhhh....yer askin' for it.
>
>> The Navion's huge cabin, and those classic lines, so reminiscent of
>> the Mustang, just make it a real piece of American history. If I were
>> to buy a 4-place classic aircraft, it would be a toss-up between a
>> Beech Staggerwing and a Navion.
>
> Instead, you got a Piper, which sounds like it comes from a manufacturer of
> flutes. :~)

And let's not even talk about Cess ... na! :-)


Matt

[Margy Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>
>
> Crap -- the secret is out. You always thought we loved you (and Ron),
> but in reality it's your airplane we lust after...
>
> ;-)
>
>
>>It was GREAT to be able to fly again. Now it looks like spring might
>>get here and I'm going to try to get out much more often.
>
>
> Glad you're back in the air! You guys gonna zip down to Sun N Fun
> this year?
> -
Nah, I have to work. The bad thing about the new job is not much
vacation time. We have a Navion fly-in the end of June and Oshkosh and
that will burn every minute of vacation and comp time I have.

Margy

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message oups.com...
:> We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
: > the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.
:
: Navions are just so much cooler than Bonanzas. Anything with that
: "North American" prefix is gonna have way more chops than anything
: callled a "Beechcraft", which sounds too much like a boat company, I'm
: afraid.
:
: The Navion's huge cabin, and those classic lines, so reminiscent of
: the Mustang, just make it a real piece of American history. If I were
: to buy a 4-place classic aircraft, it would be a toss-up between a
: Beech Staggerwing and a Navion.
: --
: Jay Honeck
: Iowa City, IA
: Pathfinder N56993
: www.AlexisParkInn.com
: "Your Aviation Destination"
:

The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...

[Newps]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!

What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final with
one person and a half tank of gas?

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>
> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final with
> one person and a half tank of gas?

What does this have to do with "cool?"

Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>
>>
>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final
>> with one person and a half tank of gas?
>
>
> What does this have to do with "cool?"

Cool is in the eye of the beholder. Guy in a hangar near me has a
Stearman. I look at that turd and just shake my head. Has about 600 HP
and can barely get out of its own way. Makes a lot of noise, though.
Seems to be its only skill.

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>
> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final with
> one person and a half tank of gas?

With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.

Approach speeds are very much skyhawk-like. I think the Vso is 47
in knots. You gotta be below 87 to even drop the gear.

[Ron Natalie]

Blueskies wrote:

>
> The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...
>
>

Doors are for barns.

[Steve Foley]

"John" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Just saw a brief news clip of a burning Navion L-17 at Marlborough,
> MA. (about 5 miles from my home) Apparently everyone got out o.k., so
> that's a relief. The shot showed the plane with the nose gear
> collapsed and flames shooting out the cabin.
>
> We seem to have a number of Navions hereabouts. Always wondered what
> the attraction was. Seems a Bonanza is more efficient.
>
> John Dupre'
>

<quote>G. Robert Stetson Jr., the owner and manager of the Marlboro Airport,
685 Farm Road, said the crash occurred at least 800 feet from any other
aircraft. Mr. Stetson said yesterday he was unsure of the cause of the
crash.

"I'm sure nobody knows yet," he said, adding that the pilot was wearing a
seat belt and was not traveling at excessive speed at the time of the crash.
</quote>

I think the reporter missed the sarcasm.

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070402/NEWS/704020536&SearchID=73276826687677

[Blueskies]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message ...
: Blueskies wrote:
:
: >
: > The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...
: >
: >
:
: Doors are for barns.

A neighbor friend who has a Meyers says it taxies faster than the Navion... ;-)


btw, the second plane I ever rode in was a way cool Navion, so don't get me wrong...

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>
>>
>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final
>> with one person and a half tank of gas?
>
>
> With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.
>
> Approach speeds are very much skyhawk-like. I think the Vso is 47
> in knots. You gotta be below 87 to even drop the gear.


OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because it
was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough areas and
you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200 foot strips
shouldn't be a problem?

[Montblack]

("Newps" wrote)
> I assume because it was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land
> in rough areas and you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated.


As opposed to entering production 60 years ago. <g>

2007 - 1947 ....first Bo


Montblack

[Newps]

Oh no, mine's much newer. It just looks like the first one.



Montblack wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>
>>I assume because it was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land
>>in rough areas and you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated.
>
>
>
> As opposed to entering production 60 years ago. <g>
>
> 2007 - 1947 ....first Bo
>
>
> Montblack
>
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>
>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final with
>> one person and a half tank of gas?
>
> With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.

Clearly, you need to invest in some more speed mods. :-)

(For those not familiar, there are about a bazzilion that are available for
Navions - from different window gaskets to fairings to re-assembling the
thing with flush rivets...)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
> powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because it
> was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough areas and
> you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200 foot strips
> shouldn't be a problem?

You should watch the sales video they did in Texas. VERY short approach
and landing over tall trees.

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final
>>> with one person and a half tank of gas?
>>
>>
>>
>> With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.
>>
>> Approach speeds are very much skyhawk-like. I think the Vso is 47
>> in knots. You gotta be below 87 to even drop the gear.
>
>
>
> OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
> powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because it
> was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough areas and
> you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200 foot strips
> shouldn't be a problem?
It's a Navion, it's always been a bit slower than a Bo. It was designed
to land in rough fields and I pull off mid-field on a 3,000' grass strip
without doing a short field landing and not landing anywhere near the
end. I think if I worked at it I could get 800', but I don't work that
hard :-).

Margy

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>> The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...
>
>Doors are for barns.

And Rangemasters :-))


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200704/1

[Rip]

Margy Natalie wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final
>>>> with one person and a half tank of gas?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.
>>>
>>> Approach speeds are very much skyhawk-like. I think the Vso is 47
>>> in knots. You gotta be below 87 to even drop the gear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
>> powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because
>> it was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough areas
>> and you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200 foot
>> strips shouldn't be a problem?
>
> It's a Navion, it's always been a bit slower than a Bo. It was designed
> to land in rough fields and I pull off mid-field on a 3,000' grass strip
> without doing a short field landing and not landing anywhere near the
> end. I think if I worked at it I could get 800', but I don't work that
> hard :-).
>
> Margy
With a 10 knot headwind, and honking the brakes more than I like, I can
get down and off the runway in 380 feet. And actually live to tell about
it! ;-)
Figures are from the extended threshold at Danbury (DXR)RWY26 to the
first exit (Taxiway Bravo).

Now, getting off again with my E-185 engine is another matter altogether.

Rip
5186K

[Newps]

Margy Natalie wrote:

>
> It's a Navion, it's always been a bit slower than a Bo. It was designed
> to land in rough fields and I pull off mid-field on a 3,000' grass strip
> without doing a short field landing and not landing anywhere near the
> end. I think if I worked at it I could get 800', but I don't work that
> hard :-).

That was my main concern when I decided to sell the 182 and get the
Bonanza. I wanted to be able to get to most of the strips I used in my
182. The Bonanza folks are no help because all they care about is going
fast and most of them are scared to death to get slower than 100 mph
unless they are directly over the runway. My Bo only needs 100 feet
more runway than the 182 with the same load, me and 40 gallons. I can
takeoff in 550 feet and land in the same distance of total runway used.
That's at a DA of 5000. You should be able to get that Navion stopped
more like my 182, about 450 feet.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:28:25 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>>
>>>
>>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final
>>> with one person and a half tank of gas?
>>
>>
>> With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.

I get about 160 to 165 with an IO470N and 14 GPH.

>>
>> Approach speeds are very much skyhawk-like. I think the Vso is 47
>> in knots. You gotta be below 87 to even drop the gear.

And I though 140 was bad in the old Deb.

>
>
>OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
>powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because it

Even book figures on a Bo (at least the older ones) are shorter than a
172. Final is only slightly faster. According to the AirSafety
Foundation and American Bonanza Society the vast majority of Bo pilots
land they way too fast.

>was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough areas and
>you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200 foot strips

I might make the 60 MPH as Vso is 55 (Me and half fuel) or 60 at
gross, but I do like a bit more of a cushion than that. 1.3 X 55 = 71,
while 1.3 X 60 = 78. I typically fly final some where between 75 and
80 MPH. The Bo can get in and out of very short fields, BUT that tiny
nose gear was not meant for rough fields.
OTOH I have flown in and out of a friends pasture a few times. He had
one *relatively* flat strip for his 150.

I was flying in and out of a friends 1200 foot strip for several
years. OTOH he didn't have any trees at either end, but he did have
telephone lines at the one end.

>shouldn't be a problem?

I'd think the Navion would handle rough fields far better than the Bo.

A couple years ago we had a pair of Navions take off together and
those two blade props were deafening. Naturally they did it off 18
which put them right over the noise sensitive area at just a few
hundred feet <:-)) I keep saying we need a couple of T-6s on the
field, or a Skyraider.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:10:46 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>Oh no, mine's much newer. It just looks like the first one.

Mines the first one off the assembly line (straight tail), but it
looks like a modern F-33. (Airworthyness cert is 9/11/59) It has 30
hours of pre production flight testing in the log.

>
>
>
>Montblack wrote:
>> ("Newps" wrote)
>>
>>>I assume because it was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land
>>>in rough areas and you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated.
>>
>>
>>
>> As opposed to entering production 60 years ago. <g>
>>
>> 2007 - 1947 ....first Bo
>>
>>
>> Montblack
>>
>>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:49:33 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a Navion, it's always been a bit slower than a Bo. It was designed
>> to land in rough fields and I pull off mid-field on a 3,000' grass strip
>> without doing a short field landing and not landing anywhere near the
>> end. I think if I worked at it I could get 800', but I don't work that
>> hard :-).
>
>That was my main concern when I decided to sell the 182 and get the
>Bonanza. I wanted to be able to get to most of the strips I used in my
>182. The Bonanza folks are no help because all they care about is going
>fast and most of them are scared to death to get slower than 100 mph

You should have heard them when they were told we'd be flying book
figures for TO and landing at Bo specific proficency training. That
and calculating speeds for each.

>unless they are directly over the runway. My Bo only needs 100 feet
>more runway than the 182 with the same load, me and 40 gallons. I can
>takeoff in 550 feet and land in the same distance of total runway used.
> That's at a DA of 5000. You should be able to get that Navion stopped
>more like my 182, about 450 feet.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Ron Natalie]

Newps wrote:

>
> OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
> powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because it
> was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough areas and
> you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200 foot strips
> shouldn't be a problem?

The ground roll with the Gopher engine was 850', 1100 for the 50'
obstacle. Certainly we were off by midfield on a 2400 strip.
I operate off a 3000' grass, and I'm certainly off by midfield
with the current engine.

The thing has huge squishy 7.00x8 tires in addition to big oleos on the
mains. It was designed for unimproved strips.

[Newps]

Roger wrote:

The Bo can get in and out of very short fields, BUT that tiny
> nose gear was not meant for rough fields.

That nose gear is stronger than the nose gear on a 182. The 182 gear is
attached to the firewall and is a well known weak link. It also is
quite a ways behind the prop so any time you put your nosewheel in a
hole the prop gets lower than the hole is deep. The Bo nosewheel is
immediately behind the prop so doesn't have that problem plus the
attaching points are much better than a 182. The limiting factor is
tire size, you have to use the 5.00x5 tire because that's all that will
fit in the well. But the gear itself is hell for stout.

[Newps]

Ron Natalie wrote:

>
> The ground roll with the Gopher engine was 850', 1100 for the 50'
> obstacle. Certainly we were off by midfield on a 2400 strip.
> I operate off a 3000' grass, and I'm certainly off by midfield
> with the current engine.

That seems a little long. You can't get that thing off the ground in
about 600 feet with the 550?


>
> The thing has huge squishy 7.00x8 tires in addition to big oleos on the
> mains. It was designed for unimproved strips.

Just like mine.

[Dave[_1_]]

Ummm.... DOORS?....off a Navion?

Dave


On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:38:22 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote:


>:
>
>The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...
>

[Margy Natalie]

Rip wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ron Natalie wrote:
>>>
>>>> Newps wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Margy Natalie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jay, I now know you understand what a really cool airplane is!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What does the Navion cruise at at 75%? How slow can it go on final
>>>>> with one person and a half tank of gas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With the IO-550 ours bops along at 160 kts ground speed quite nicely.
>>>>
>>>> Approach speeds are very much skyhawk-like. I think the Vso is 47
>>>> in knots. You gotta be below 87 to even drop the gear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, so it's a little slow in cruise, 10-12 knots less than my 520
>>> powered Bo, but looks like you can land it short. I assume because
>>> it was designed 100 years ago the gear was made to land in rough
>>> areas and you could fly final at about 60 MPH indicated. So 1200
>>> foot strips shouldn't be a problem?
>>
>>
>> It's a Navion, it's always been a bit slower than a Bo. It was
>> designed to land in rough fields and I pull off mid-field on a 3,000'
>> grass strip without doing a short field landing and not landing
>> anywhere near the end. I think if I worked at it I could get 800',
>> but I don't work that hard :-).
>>
>> Margy
>
> With a 10 knot headwind, and honking the brakes more than I like, I can
> get down and off the runway in 380 feet. And actually live to tell about
> it! ;-)
> Figures are from the extended threshold at Danbury (DXR)RWY26 to the
> first exit (Taxiway Bravo).
>
> Now, getting off again with my E-185 engine is another matter altogether.
>
> Rip
> 5186K
Ok, Once at Dulles I had a honking headwind and exited the runway at the
second entrance taxiway MUCH closer than the first high speed. Poor
controller couldn't figure out how I did it.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a Navion, it's always been a bit slower than a Bo. It was
>> designed to land in rough fields and I pull off mid-field on a 3,000'
>> grass strip without doing a short field landing and not landing
>> anywhere near the end. I think if I worked at it I could get 800',
>> but I don't work that hard :-).
>
>
> That was my main concern when I decided to sell the 182 and get the
> Bonanza. I wanted to be able to get to most of the strips I used in my
> 182. The Bonanza folks are no help because all they care about is going
> fast and most of them are scared to death to get slower than 100 mph
> unless they are directly over the runway. My Bo only needs 100 feet
> more runway than the 182 with the same load, me and 40 gallons. I can
> takeoff in 550 feet and land in the same distance of total runway used.
> That's at a DA of 5000. You should be able to get that Navion stopped
> more like my 182, about 450 feet.
I should, but I learned to fly at Dulles and I like flying over the
first 1,000' of runway :-).

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>>
>> The ground roll with the Gopher engine was 850', 1100 for the 50'
>> obstacle. Certainly we were off by midfield on a 2400 strip.
>> I operate off a 3000' grass, and I'm certainly off by midfield
>> with the current engine.
>
>
> That seems a little long. You can't get that thing off the ground in
> about 600 feet with the 550?
>
>
>>
>> The thing has huge squishy 7.00x8 tires in addition to big oleos on the
>> mains. It was designed for unimproved strips.
>
>
> Just like mine.
>
I think we are way off by midfield with an easy start to roll. If we
did a short field I'm sure we be off much sooner!

Margy

[Blueskies]

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
::
: You should watch the sales video they did in Texas. VERY short approach
: and landing over tall trees.


Tall trees....in Texas?


;-)

[Blueskies]

"Dave" > wrote in message ...
: Ummm.... DOORS?....off a Navion?
:
: Dave
:
:
: On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:38:22 GMT, "Blueskies"
: > wrote:
:
:
: >:
: >
: >The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...
: >
:

Uh, yea, that's it...the gear doors...


;-)

[Ron Natalie]

Blueskies wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message ...
> : Ummm.... DOORS?....off a Navion?
> :
> : Dave
> :
> :
> : On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:38:22 GMT, "Blueskies"
> : > wrote:
> :
> :
> : >:
> : >
> : >The Meyers 200 blows the doors off a Navion, tho', and has the way cool looks also...
> : >
> :
>
> Uh, yea, that's it...the gear doors...
>
>
No gear doors on the mains either.