Aztec or Navajo

[Apache123]

Before the kids were born my 90% mission (maybe even 100%) was 4 adults in the Apache.

I was close to buying a 4-seat single that didn't work out for reasons (sucked worse for the seller due to the problem uncovered -- sorry dude!). Then a proverbial ass-load of money made it my way, so I'm opening up the asylum and shopping for twins again.

I figure an Aztec or a Navajo -- my multi time (just over 100hrs) is all from an Apache and an Aztec. The four of us have a combined total of 3 kids (two toddlers and a baby). I'm thinking Aztec for now, but kids grow fast and soon enough they'll likely have friends they'll want to bring along on our weekend hikes.

I'm still VFR, generally working on some hood time with a cfii friend in his DA-20.

I wouldn't mind getting an Aztec just for the time being, but selling a twin right now is more painful than a prop-strike go-around I figure. So maybe Navajo right out of the gate?

 

[Zeldman]

You should be able to carry 7 adults in a Chieftain and luggage. The Chieftain is a truck with wings. One thing is isn't is fast.

I have heard a lot of positive comments on the Aztec but I have never flown one.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I've flown both a PA-27 and the PA-31-350. If you've got passengers you want to bring along in any form of comfort, just get a PA31. The PA31 was a truck with wings, we would stuff it full of boxes, the entire cabin, the wings, the nose, everything. Never had a problem with it where I wanted more power. Took it up to FL200 once, was flying just fine (but it was cold).

 

[eman1200]

ass-load of money. sht like that never happens to me, lucky bastid.

 

[champ driver]

I have lots of Aztec time from years ago, but nothing in a Navajo, so I can't help you compare them.
The Aztec is easy to fly, has simple systems and is a good IFR platform. It's not too fast or pretty, but it's a pickup truck. It'll carry a load of ice and with that big fat Cub airfoil and it doesn't take too big of a hit with speed because of the ice, not like the Cessna's. It's pretty good for short or sod strips, if that's where you may go.
I used to burn about 25-27 gph if I remember correctly, and we had the Metco tip tanks in addition to the standard 4-36 gal tanks. I believe that was 188 gallons and gave us over 6 hours range.

 

[drotto]

Aztec from a relative perspective is going to be cheaper to fly burning in the mid 20's per hour, and is also considered a truck. Some have a very nice STC that puts a cargo area behind the rear seat and into the first part of the tail which a person can sit in. Its the one all the drug runners like.

The biggest knock I have heard against the Navajo line is short range and high fuel burn.

 

[ronnieh]

I have a couple thousand hours in the Chieftain but, none in the Aztec. Seven adults and luggage and full fuel is not going to happen in most Chieftens. The last one I flew was a Colemill, which gives up some useful load for the winglets and four blade props. Range can be a problem with about 4:30 no reserve. A three hour leg with reserve is about it. That will be less than 600 NM. With full fuel figure on 900 lbs useful load, maybe.
I always removed the seat by the door for more room and easier to get in and out of. That saves a few pounds and leaves the potty seat, four club seats and pilot and co pilot seats.
If you can get the passengers to use oxygen it does well in the low teens. Most of my time was spent in the 9K -12K range and you can figure 180-185 knots in cruise. Figure 165 knots block time. It is not the greatest climber and you are sucking a lot of fuel in the climb. It is a great flying plane, good instrument platform. It can be a bit of a hand full on one engine especially if you are very heavy. Don't know how it compares to an Aztec. Also, I would only consider the Chieftain in the Navajo series.

 

[Kristin]

Aztec from a relative perspective is going to be cheaper to fly burning in the mid 20's per hour, and is also considered a truck. Some have a very nice STC that puts a cargo area behind the rear seat and into the first part of the tail which a person can sit in. Its the one all the drug runners like.

The biggest knock I have heard against the Navajo line is short range and high fuel burn.

Range about 800nm IFR and 900 VFR, at 65% for the Navajos.

 

[Kritchlow]

I have some Navajo time, but no Aztec time. I definitely think the Navajo would be my choice. It is a nicer looking machine IMO, plus it can indeed carry some bulk.

That said, the final decision, Aztec, Navajo, or other, would probably depend what I found on the market vs the exact size of my ass load.

 

[Kristin]

I've flown both a PA-27 and the PA-31-350. If you've got passengers you want to bring along in any form of comfort, just get a PA31. The PA31 was a truck with wings, we would stuff it full of boxes, the entire cabin, the wings, the nose, everything. Never had a problem with it where I wanted more power. Took it up to FL200 once, was flying just fine (but it was cold).

That is one of the problems with the Chieftain. They are not warm in the winter, unless you have the second heater in the tail. Piper ducted the heat into the spar box which acts as a big heat sink. The short body Navajos are warm in all conditions. Aztec, not so much. I have run all three out of Michigan in the winter, so have some experience here.

 

[Ted]

The Aztec will be cheaper to operate without a doubt, so part of the question is how much you want to spend per hour on ownership.

I'm not sure what you're saying your mission is. If it's 7 people and you think it will stay that way, the Aztec is a 6 seater and that won't work for long. Plus, the third row in the Aztec is a pain.

Navajos have very high resale value for the most part. Given your use you could buy an older short body Navajo (which can still be an 8 seater) that would probably be cheaper to purchase and own, as they're a hair more efficient. Some of the very early Navajos were naturally aspirated which would be cheaper still to own. Other options would be Cessna 401s or 402s. Some 401s are 7 seaters. You could even go with an old 421A, but the GTSIO-520s are still $60k each to overhaul. Then again, a -J2BD is $50k. I've thought a 401 would be nice for us, and the 402 has the advantage of the crew door (some Navajos had those too) which is nice for pilot entry/egress. Aztec will burn about 21 GPH LOP. I never flew the Navajos LOP for a trip (boss threatened to castrate me if I did), but they will do it and probably get fuel burn in the 30ish GPH or a bit less. Figure about the same for the Twin Cessnas.

If you truly expect 7 people, don't buy the Aztec.

None of these planes when heavy will have much for OEI, but since you came from an Apache, I assume you don't care about that.

 

[ronnieh]

In the real world you are not going to do 800 nm IFR. Most of us want one hour in the inboard tanks upon landing. Considering the climb and the approach at the end you are only going to climb, cruise and descend about 3 to 3.5 hours. If you could average 170 knots true (no wind) for the entire trip you would be doing exceptional.

Do the math. As I recall there is 187 gal usable (means you have to run the outboards dry to get this). From brake release to 10,000 feet will take 16-18 gallons and you will travel about 24 miles. The next 3.4 hours (including descent) will use about 116 gallons and you will travel approx 612 miles. I would like to have 10 gallons to shoot the approach. So in this trip with no wind you will use a total approx 144 gallons and traveled 636 miles and assuming you ran the outboards dry you should have 43 gallons left or just over an hour at cruise. What about alternates?? 600 nm is about it in reasonable IFR and low IFR might take a little more careful planning. Been there and done that many times and got the T shirt to prove it.

I never had any problem with the heat except the cockpit would be a little warmer than I like it when keeping women warm in the cabin. Never had a complaint out of the cabin passengers

 

[Apache123]

The Aztec will be cheaper to operate without a doubt, so part of the question is how much you want to spend per hour on ownership.

Yeah, if the new gig works out I'll suspect a flying budget of about 2k/mo for fuel/oil. I'm trying to think of something that'll give passenger comfort but also let me fly low and for fun when I want (not something that has to live up high).

I'm not sure what you're saying your mission is. If it's 7 people and you think it will stay that way, the Aztec is a 6 seater and that won't work for long. Plus, the third row in the Aztec is a pain.

I suspect it will be typically 4 adults and 3 children on average. My wife and I plus our two boys, plus another adult or two and their kid(s).

Navajos have very high resale value for the most part. Given your use you could buy an older short body Navajo (which can still be an 8 seater) that would probably be cheaper to purchase and own, as they're a hair more efficient. Some of the very early Navajos were naturally aspirated which would be cheaper still to own.

Any idea on the performance of the NA navajos? Seems like it'd be way underpowered for that much plane and seat-count.

If you truly expect 7 people, don't buy the Aztec.

None of these planes when heavy will have much for OEI, but since you came from an Apache, I assume you don't care about that.

Yarp, that's why I'm opening up to the idea of a Navajo -- just me, the wife, and the boys will be 4 now (once our one year old is no longer in-arms), so to bring anyone else with adds seats -- most of our friends have a kid or two at this point.

OEI? Over the great lakes 10' AGL is good enough =D

 

[Ted]

The N/A Navajos are still 300 HP engines. Short body turbo Navajos are 310. Not really a significant difference. But they will be a bit more efficient (high compression vs low compression) and I'd expect you could get fuel flows in the mid 20s LOP, but I'm not sure what speed. Probably 165-170ish KTAS. Yeah, it'd be a bit anemic higher up but I don't get the feeling you're in a hurry. Happy down low and up high. Might be a good option for you.

I would go turbo if I got a Navajo, but that's because I do longer trips where the altitude performance would help.

You really need to define the mission, though. 4 people in an Aztec/310/Baron is great. If you truly expect to haul a second family around most of the time, you will need a Navajo or other cabin class.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The N/A Navajos are still 300 HP engines. Short body turbo Navajos are 310. Not really a significant difference. But they will be a bit more efficient (high compression vs low compression) and I'd expect you could get fuel flows in the mid 20s LOP, but I'm not sure what speed. Probably 165-170ish KTAS. Yeah, it'd be a bit anemic higher up but I don't get the feeling you're in a hurry. Happy down low and up high. Might be a good option for you.

I would go turbo if I got a Navajo, but that's because I do longer trips where the altitude performance would help.

You really need to define the mission, though. 4 people in an Aztec/310/Baron is great. If you truly expect to haul a second family around most of the time, you will need a Navajo or other cabin class.

One problem of the NA Navajo (which their are few around) is while it's rated at 300 hp, that's SL/59 degree day. Up the DA and that TO power declines from 300 hp. With the turbo version you will still get 300hp, which on the Navajo airframe is significant.

I owned a 325CR Navajo with the Colemill Panther conversion (350 hp). It was an OK airplane, but they are on the pricey side to maintain and operate.

 

[ronnieh]

Ted, there was like a dozen or so NA built all together. I doubt if there are any still flying.
On the turbo models I would not even look at anything besides a Chieftain. The CR and the Chieftain will have almost the same operating costs per mile. Why give up the room? The Chieftain is pretty good for pilot plus five if one passenger sets in the co pilot seat. The potty seat is OK but the passenger is kind of isolated. The eighth seat is a joke. I have flown a Navajo perhaps a half dozen times with that seat installed.
For what the OP describes it seems a Chieftain might be a pretty good fit. It does nothing great, not real fast, doesn't have great range, not real good on one engine, the TIO540 are so so on maintenance and they do like fuel. I never had much luck trying to run them lean of peak, others may disagree on that.
On the other hand it doesn't do anything real bad. 180 knots is not too bad on a 400-500 mile trip, most people do not like to set in a small plane more than 3 hours anyway, has countra rotating engines so you don't have a critical engine (some would say it just makes both engines critical ) the engines are well supported and most facilities would be able to make repairs.
Also there are a lot out there to choose from.

 

[Dr. O]

Aztec is my vote for a personal airplane based on what you have posted.
Navajo is going to be a whole lot more money to operate.
I looked hard at this issue 15 years ago
(and chose the Apache - and have been happy)
Navajo with the high output engines was not even in the running when I calculated the cost per hour against our needs.
The Apache has moved four adults and their baggage all over the Eastern USA at times in the past 15 years
Only once in a while I wished to be back in the Aztec - and the couple of times I 'needed' to carry a big load, I rented an Aztec.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

That is one of the problems with the Chieftain. They are not warm in the winter, unless you have the second heater in the tail. Piper ducted the heat into the spar box which acts as a big heat sink. The short body Navajos are warm in all conditions. Aztec, not so much. I have run all three out of Michigan in the winter, so have some experience here.

Sounds like fun, 2x the amount of chances for one of those heaters to catch fire!

None of these planes when heavy will have much for OEI, but since you came from an Apache, I assume you don't care about that.

I feel like a PA31 is going to do a lot better than an Aztec OEI. The PA31 gives you more room to get people on board and fuel and still be under MTOW by some margin.

In the real world you are not going to do 800 nm IFR. Most of us want one hour in the inboard tanks upon landing. Considering the climb and the approach at the end you are only going to climb, cruise and descend about 3 to 3.5 hours. If you could average 170 knots true (no wind) for the entire trip you would be doing exceptional.

Do the math. As I recall there is 187 gal usable (means you have to run the outboards dry to get this). From brake release to 10,000 feet will take 16-18 gallons and you will travel about 24 miles. The next 3.4 hours (including descent) will use about 116 gallons and you will travel approx 612 miles. I would like to have 10 gallons to shoot the approach. So in this trip with no wind you will use a total approx 144 gallons and traveled 636 miles and assuming you ran the outboards dry you should have 43 gallons left or just over an hour at cruise. What about alternates?? 600 nm is about it in reasonable IFR and low IFR might take a little more careful planning. Been there and done that many times and got the T shirt to prove it.

I never had any problem with the heat except the cockpit would be a little warmer than I like it when keeping women warm in the cabin. Never had a complaint out of the cabin passengers

Where I flew them, SOP was takeoff on the inboard tanks, passing 3000 ft AGL or so, switch to the outboards and run them dry. Some planes you would see the annunciator in time, some the first clue was the engine starting to sound funny.


I will say this, the place I worked operated a fleet of nearly 30 PA-31's for years and years with pilots that had barely 1200 hours and maybe 25 hours of multi. It isn't a hard airplane to fly and generally isn't out to eat you, even OEI, as long as you do your part.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I will say this, the place I worked operated a fleet of nearly 30 PA-31's for years and years with pilots that had barely 1200 hours and maybe 25 hours of multi. It isn't a hard airplane to fly and generally isn't out to eat you, even OEI, as long as you do your part.

The big difference was they are operated on Part 135. The maintenance is more controlled and the pilots trained, plus they receive recurrent training.

In the hands of a Part 91 pilot with a "check out" and never sees recurrent, and takes his plane to "shade tree Bob" A&P the out come is not as good.

 

[Kritchlow]

Many years ago I was flying a Cheftain from LGA to HTO on a part 135 flight with a fullly loaded airplane. Apparently some sort of oil return line came loose and we were rapidly losing oil. I shut the engine down and we landed just fine at ISP. Now granted, we were at cruise, not initial climb. That said, we were just at our landing weight on a hot day and it had no issues holding altitude. Maybe I just got lucky.

PS- MTC said the engine was just a few seconds from seizing before I got it shut down.

 

[Ted]

One problem of the NA Navajo (which their are few around) is while it's rated at 300 hp, that's SL/59 degree day. Up the DA and that TO power declines from 300 hp. With the turbo version you will still get 300hp, which on the Navajo airframe is significant.

I owned a 325CR Navajo with the Colemill Panther conversion (350 hp). It was an OK airplane, but they are on the pricey side to maintain and operate.

Absolutely agree the turbos are better, and good point about the hotter than standard day.

My point was more that Steve isn't looking at the sort of serious/professional type flying that you, Ronnie, and I are used to, and his desired OEI performance is also different. So, it may be a consideration for him. For us, definitely not a viable option.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

The big difference was they are operated on Part 135. The maintenance is more controlled and the pilots trained, plus they receive recurrent training.

In the hands of a Part 91 pilot with a "check out" and never sees recurrent, and takes his plane to "shade tree Bob" A&P the out come is not as good.

I agree 100%. But push comes to shove, put the same amount of people and the fuel to get to destination, I'd bet 9 times out of 10 the PA31 is going to have better OEI performance than a PA27.

And anything bigger than 6 seats, even GA pilots need to be operating it like its a job, it ain't just a fun time anymore.

 

[Ted]

And anything bigger than 6 seats, even GA pilots need to be operating it like its a job, it ain't just a fun time anymore.

I'd argue that's true for anything with two engines or 6+ seats, but reality is people are going to do what they do.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I'd argue that's true for anything with two engines or 6+ seats, but reality is people are going to do what they do.

Stupid is as stupid does. It doesn't surprise me any more to see news stories on GA crashes, with the lack of any kind of recurrent training.

 

[Kristin]

In the real world you are not going to do 800 nm IFR. Most of us want one hour in the inboard tanks upon landing. Considering the climb and the approach at the end you are only going to climb, cruise and descend about 3 to 3.5 hours. If you could average 170 knots true (no wind) for the entire trip you would be doing exceptional.

Do the math. As I recall there is 187 gal usable (means you have to run the outboards dry to get this). From brake release to 10,000 feet will take 16-18 gallons and you will travel about 24 miles. The next 3.4 hours (including descent) will use about 116 gallons and you will travel approx 612 miles. I would like to have 10 gallons to shoot the approach. So in this trip with no wind you will use a total approx 144 gallons and traveled 636 miles and assuming you ran the outboards dry you should have 43 gallons left or just over an hour at cruise. What about alternates?? 600 nm is about it in reasonable IFR and low IFR might take a little more careful planning. Been there and done that many times and got the T shirt to prove it.

I never had any problem with the heat except the cockpit would be a little warmer than I like it when keeping women warm in the cabin. Never had a complaint out of the cabin passengers

You are talking Chieftain, apparently. I am talking Navajo C. I don't have to do the math as I have done the flights. That is flying 65%, 33 gph was block fuel, 180-185 KTAS. Admittedly, it will be a bit less than 800 if you need an alternate, but I did say "about 800 nm".

I never ran the Chieftain we had on long trips. It was on a more steady schedule of 1:15 legs. The Navajo C was the charter airplane and made the longer flights.

For what the OP wants to do, I would go with a Navajo C, or other 310hp Navajo. Ours had only 150 lbs less useful load than the Chieftain, performed better OEI, was faster, burned less fuel, and the engines are a bit cheaper to overhaul.

 

[Ted]

Stupid is as stupid does. It doesn't surprise me any more to see news stories on GA crashes, with the lack of any kind of recurrent training.

Blame the insurance companies.

 

[ronnieh]

Kristan, we will just have to agree to disagree. The 310 will of course have a little lower fuel burn. I think their gross weight is 500 pounds less also. I have no time in a 310 hp model. Your speeds seem a little optimistic to me but, I don't know. Your numbers may work for the C model but not a CR or Chieftain. Are there many or any 310 hp models still flying? I still maintain for my money I will stay with the room in the Chieftain. If I am going to pay for the care and feeding of a cabin class then I want all the room I can get. I have never heard an owner complain about too much room. JMO.

KS and others. The OP did not ask about the feasibility of a low time VFR pilot operating a cabin class aircraft, therefore I did not address it. I suspect the insurance companies will address that situation. I do agree with the general comments of Ted and KS. I hope the OP plans on using a baby sitter for quite a while as he increases his experience and skill set and takes advantage of recurrent training. JMO.

 

[Ted]

Ronnie, my experience with baby Navajos is inline with Kristin's numbers. I burned a bit more fuel because the boss wanted it that way.

Insurance has become very liberal with allowing upgrades these days. Having Apache time to start out will help as well.

 

[Apache123]

Ronnie, my experience with baby Navajos is inline with Kristin's numbers. I burned a bit more fuel because the boss wanted it that way.

Insurance has become very liberal with allowing upgrades these days. Having Apache time to start out will help as well.

Indeed. That's one of the questions is the step from aztec to navajo. The aztec I flew was an E model non-turbo -- the only real difference I noticed was the need to slow down before getting to the pattern. Part of this is a question of that transition -- is stepping up to a navajo with only 100hrs multi going to kill me?

 

[Ted]

Indeed. That's one of the questions is the step from aztec to navajo. The aztec I flew was an E model non-turbo -- the only real difference I noticed was the need to slow down before getting to the pattern. Part of this is a question of that transition -- is stepping up to a navajo with only 100hrs multi going to kill me?

I would argue probably not, but you'd be best off with a babysitter for a while (for you, not the kids) and keeping lightweight as you learn the plane. Lightweight is a good idea anyway for OEI performance. At 100 hours multi you at least are used to twin flying. I babysat someone who started flying a Chieftain after 1000 hours in a 172. He had a few issues in transition, but overall did well.

For perspective, there are 500TT 0 multi pilots who buy a 421 to start. I don't like that idea, but it's done.

The Navajo is an easy flying plane, and the benefit is that if you're coming from Pipers, it's still a Piper. But the market has overall stated that Navajos aren't preferred for private transport, mostly due to comfort reasons.

 

[ronnieh]

The problem Ted, is he is not IR. I know he is working on it but IMO a cabin class FIKI plane without an IR is pretty much worthless. Even with the new rating he will have a ways to go to be competent in the Navajo on instruments.

It has been many, many years since I have even thought about insurance requirements so I defer to you on that. It would seem to me without the IR the insurance companies would be a little shy, but I again defer to others that have dealt with insurance in the past couple of decades.

I do agree with you, Ted, that it is a fairly simple plane to fly as far as cabin class goes. Systems are simple and easy to understand. Doesn't do anything stupid, straight forward and goes where you point it. Taxi will feel funny due to the weight on the nose. If you have no passengers or baggage in the cabin it will be nose heavy, especially with somebody in the co pilot seat.

Apache, the only problem with speed control in the Navajo is trying to get it to go faster, not slow down

I still say go with the Chieftain if you look at Navajos

 

[brian]]

Sorry... Lots of money and wanting a twin... Beech 18 came to mind. Or a T bone and save a little money!

Back to the smarter folks...

 

[Ted]

The problem Ted, is he is not IR. I know he is working on it but IMO a cabin class FIKI plane without an IR is pretty much worthless. Even with the new rating he will have a ways to go to be competent in the Navajo on instruments.

Well, certainly the utility without an IR is limited, as with any aircraft. But it's certainly not useless. Keep in mind even Cape Air does a lot of VFR flying in their 402s. Remember, he was talking about an Aztec vs a Navajo basically for reasons of passengers, not mission. I've seen people use 421s as oversized Piper Cubs (their words).

 

[ronnieh]

Useless for its intended purpose IMO.

 

[N747JB]

I think the OP needs to get his IR first, then buy a twin. You do not want to be training in a 25-40 GPH twin while learning to enter holding patterns, do that in a 172.
I would do the following:
1. Get IR.
2. Get multi-engine training and rating with a school, quicker, more efficient.
3. Then shop for airplanes.
Actually, that's pretty much the route I took, except I bought the 310 and got my multi before we took delivery.

 

[ronnieh]

The OP already has his multi rating. He just needs his IR.

 

[weilke]

The OP already has his multi rating. He just needs his IR.

So he either needs to
- do a single IR followed by an add-on multi IR ride (one OEI approach and some maneuvers as per PTS).
- do the experience requirements in the twin and do the entire multi ride in the twin.

Logisticswise it is probably easier to combine it all with the transition training in the plane he will eventually fly.

 

[Ted]

Logisticswise it is probably easier to combine it all with the transition training in the plane he will eventually fly.

Agreed.

 

[150Mike]

I'm kinda getting the impression that a lot of the advice offered here is predicated on an "all things being equal" assumption - mostly focused on comparing flight (speed, range, & payload) performance. Only when the subject of the n/a PA-31-300 Navajos came up did a bit of "real world" intrude into the conversation - the fact that there just aren't that many of them around - period, much less "on the market."

By the same token, I would like to point out that during my own research into this same arena, I saw very few PA-31 Navajos on the market with less than 10,000 hours on them. Some with well over 20,000 hours. For good reason, they have been popular with 135 charter & freight operators (also under 91) for 30+ years, so the entire fleet is trending toward "old" and essentially worn out. Granted there may be exceptions, but for example a local Part 91 freight operator scrapped 4 Navajo airframes a couple of years ago because they were so worn out, they both couldn't find parts for them and couldn't sell them. Think about what that means for a second or two....

Because they are more likely to have been operated as personal airplanes, Aztecs can still be found with less than 7,000 hours on them. I saw many with anywhere from 2,500 up to 5,000 hours.

I have flown both types, albeit only a little bit of time in a couple of Chieftains, and both are fine airplanes in the air. To me the Aztec is an exception to the adage that a pretty airplane flies the same; I think it's kind of ugly, but it sure flies sweetly (but not all that fast) with that big, fat Super Cub airfoil.

As a mechanic on the other hand, I was less enamored of old Aztecs maintenance requirements and the cowlings with the extended "tiger shark" nose bowls (all models after the Aztec "B") were probably the worst, biggest headache/PITA cowlings that I have ever encountered - it seems like it took an hour and a half to de-cowl each engine! The Navajo by contrast has one of the nicest and most simple engine cowlings ever devised. I bring up those points because in either case, engine maintenance is going to be one of your biggest concerns.

I hope I have given you some more useful things to consider....

 

[weilke]

By the same token, I would like to point out that during my own research into this same arena, I saw very few PA-31 Navajos on the market with less than 10,000 hours on them. Some with well over 20,000 hours. For good reason, they have been popular with 135 charter & freight operators (also under 91) for 30+ years, so the entire fleet is trending toward "old" and essentially worn out. Granted there may be exceptions, but for example a local Part 91 freight operator scrapped 4 Navajo airframes a couple of years ago because they were so worn out, they both couldn't find parts for them and couldn't sell them. Think about what that means for a second or two....

That mostly applies to Chieftains.

A look through controller shows several CRs with less than 6000hrs. Here are the hrs for the listings (where included):
4850 Hours
3000 Hours
3794 Hours
2765 Hours
2870 Hours
5500 Hours
3919 Hours
3824 Hours
11076 Hours
6613 Hours
8170 Hours


If you start looking for 'C' or 'B' models, there are indeed few on the market, and as most of them are pre 1975 they tend to have high hours.