Navion Thoughts

J

JasonCT

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
1,547
Location
Eastern, CT
Display Name
Display name:
JasonCT
I went to see someone about a plane recently and he also owned a Navion. In passing he mentioned that he would sell it to me if I was interested so I decided to check it out.

I know nothing about them, other than this was a fully restored (nice IFR panel, leather, etc.) 1949 with an IO-520 with a freshly overhauled engine with about 20 hours SMOH.

So what do you all know about the Navion?
Mx hog? Death traps? Rugged? Versitile? anything you can share would be appreciated.
 
Very good old aircraft with the 520 upgrade will be a nice ride, some parts are getting difficult to find but with a fresh restoration that shouldn't be much of an issue.

Their type club is one of the better ones and a must to join if you own one.

http://www.navion.com

A nice write up

http://airbum.com/pireps/PirepNavion.html
 
Last edited:
It's not a spring chicken. Has enough hydraulics to keep you entertained - tip: A drip pan under the panel can reduce the amount of hydraulic fluid in the carpet. :)

Like any older aircraft, a lot will depend on what kind of shape it is in. If it's well maintained and flown - good to go. A run down hanger queen? Good luck.

Airframe damage during a wheels up landing is minimal - the step will be lost, but it sets down on the nosewheel and flap hinges.

Lots of variations / models / upgrades out there some research would be in order. Flush windows, tip tanks, aux tanks, etc. etc. etc.

It's not a lightweight airplane - you get a nice solid ride. Seem to be reasonably rugged.

They have always had a loyal following.

Oh - and if you want to re-paint, there is a boatload of rivet heads that you have to clean around when you strip the old paint. Don't ask how I know...
 
Last edited:
I think its a fantastic airplane. There are 3 or 4 on the field where I work right now; there is a guy here who is somewhat of an expert on the Navion. He has done many many restores for people. I actualy have a friend who just bought two of them. We are going to try and get them back together; they are in pieces right now. Sounds like you have the upgraded engine. From what I understand a lot of Navion owners get bit by a nasty AD from Hartzell. Just something to look out for. Great airplane.
 
It was the first fixed wing aircraft I flew in and worked on towards my A&P while in the Army. Yes it was very heavy, stable and lots of hydraulics as already mentioned.
 
Mandatory and rather costly, and rather unneeded AD on the fuel selector. The only people that sell it are the new type club, and they get plenty for it.

Rugged, slow(for fuel burn), stable, great vis, and ramp presence.

Know your hydralics well. Some nice mods are: Palo Alto tail, Gear fairings, wing root fairings, down draft cooling(IO-520 has that), single windscreen, shoulder harness, and ext bag door.
 
docmirror said:
Mandatory and rather costly, and rather unneeded AD on the fuel selector. The only people that sell it are the new type club, and they get plenty for it.

Rugged, slow(for fuel burn), stable, great vis, and ramp presence.

Know your hydralics well. Some nice mods are: Palo Alto tail, Gear fairings, wing root fairings, down draft cooling(IO-520 has that), single windscreen, shoulder harness, and ext bag door.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the great info, I know there's a step mod too for walking up the back wing.
I am NOT a low winger, but man the visibility was GREAT and ROOOOMY for a big guy like myself.
 
The type club is the American Navion Society. The site is http://www.navionsociety.org.
I am on the board of directors. The site quoted above is the so-called manufacturer. Sierra Hotel, who at the time had been a respected Navion restorer, bought the type certificate a few years ago and has spent the time since doing some rather dubious business moves.

The Navion is a pretty sturdy airframe. Not a whole lot of AD's (most of which are one-times that were dealt with a long time ago). The old E-series and Geared engines are getting a little long in the tooth on parts, but these days a lot that are still flying have been retrofitted with more modern injected continentals. I have an IO-550 in mine. Airframe parts aren't too hard to come by.

The plane is rugged. I take mine into grass strips (in fact I live on one) and has very good short field performance. The plane is very stable in flight and it lands slow and easy. Stalls are non-events. The only thing is that the systems are a bit more involved than many others. The gear and flaps are hydraulic. There's no squat switch (at least not from the factory). However, it's not too quirky. Just make sure the big handle is DOWN before cranking the engine and again before landing.

The Navion Society has a book (I think it's back in print) on what to look for when shopping for a Navion. It has a nice little checklist to inspect.

I've only had one hydraulic leak in the cockpit. That was caused by the mechanic who isntalled my hydraulic gauge apparently boogered the o-ring. Still it's no big thing.

The fuel selector AD is an annoyance. The idiots at the factory forced it through figuring everybody would buy one of theirs. While the FAA ACO guy wasn't willing to accept their justification as statistical bunk, he was willing to approve just about every other alternative means of compliance that people came up with. THe ANS developed their own version of the same valve actually improved over the idiot SH design (it still sits recessed in the floor, as a secondary stop to keep you from inadvertantly being turned off, and uses A/N fittings rather than the banjo ones on the SH valve). One of the major producer of aux tanks (JLOsborne) issued their own replacement valve (oddly it looks identical to the JLOosborne valve that came with my tanks except that it now has a serial number and ICA paperwork associated with it). Several others have gotten one-off approvals for Aircraft Spruce Andair valves (which both the ANS and SH valves are).

Let me know if you have any other questions.
 
flyingron said:
The type club is the American Navion Society. The site is http://www.navionsociety.org.
I am on the board of directors. The site quoted above is the so-called manufacturer. Sierra Hotel, who at the time had been a respected Navion restorer, bought the type certificate a few years ago and has spent the time since doing some rather dubious business moves.

The Navion is a pretty sturdy airframe. Not a whole lot of AD's (most of which are one-times that were dealt with a long time ago). The old E-series and Geared engines are getting a little long in the tooth on parts, but these days a lot that are still flying have been retrofitted with more modern injected continentals. I have an IO-550 in mine. Airframe parts aren't too hard to come by.

The plane is rugged. I take mine into grass strips (in fact I live on one) and has very good short field performance. The plane is very stable in flight and it lands slow and easy. Stalls are non-events. The only thing is that the systems are a bit more involved than many others. The gear and flaps are hydraulic. There's no squat switch (at least not from the factory). However, it's not too quirky. Just make sure the big handle is DOWN before cranking the engine and again before landing.

The Navion Society has a book (I think it's back in print) on what to look for when shopping for a Navion. It has a nice little checklist to inspect.

I've only had one hydraulic leak in the cockpit. That was caused by the mechanic who isntalled my hydraulic gauge apparently boogered the o-ring. Still it's no big thing.

The fuel selector AD is an annoyance. The idiots at the factory forced it through figuring everybody would buy one of theirs. While the FAA ACO guy wasn't willing to accept their justification as statistical bunk, he was willing to approve just about every other alternative means of compliance that people came up with. THe ANS developed their own version of the same valve actually improved over the idiot SH design (it still sits recessed in the floor, as a secondary stop to keep you from inadvertantly being turned off, and uses A/N fittings rather than the banjo ones on the SH valve). One of the major producer of aux tanks (JLOsborne) issued their own replacement valve (oddly it looks identical to the JLOosborne valve that came with my tanks except that it now has a serial number and ICA paperwork associated with it). Several others have gotten one-off approvals for Aircraft Spruce Andair valves (which both the ANS and SH valves are).

Let me know if you have any other questions.
Click to expand...


Ron thanks so much for the detail! I was surprised how much I liked this plane. I'll be sure to keep in touch should the deal go through, and will check out the Navion Society. Always enjoy people that are passionate about their plane!
 
I have always wanted a canopy Navion. Unfortunately, out here in Denver, I need more speed.
Back east, 2 hours as 120kts there were a million places to go. Out here, 2hrs at 120kts is about half way to anywhere worth going.
 
Jay... you and I both know the wheel is in the wrong spot :) You neglect to tell these good people the choice is between a Navion and a Maule... the Maule is bound to be way more fun :goofy:
 
flyingmoose said:
I think its a fantastic airplane. There are 3 or 4 on the field where I work right now; there is a guy here who is somewhat of an expert on the Navion. He has done many many restores for people. I actualy have a friend who just bought two of them. We are going to try and get them back together; they are in pieces right now. Sounds like you have the upgraded engine. From what I understand a lot of Navion owners get bit by a nasty AD from Hartzell. Just something to look out for. Great airplane.
Click to expand...

Indeed, he keeps asking me when I am going to trade up to a "real" airplane.:lol:

If it has the 520 you should be clear of the prop ADs

There is one on the tail to have closely checked.
 
I think so, I am not really up to snuff on it, I was just told that often it is not correctly complied with.
 
The Texas Patch terminates that AD. It's easy to verify as you can see the Texas patch on the outside of the aircraft. There's a rudder horn inspection that gets done at the annual and it's pretty easily accomplished.
 
There ya go,

The one I flew had the OE engine on it still. Flew like a truck in all the right ways. Performance and payload wise it was so close to my 182 as to be a wash.

I've always thought an upengined range master would be a sweet ride.
 
The only thing that has me hesitent is the fuel burn on the IO-520
But, man it was a comfortable ride!
 
JasonCT said:
The only thing that has me hesitent is the fuel burn on the IO-520
But, man it was a comfortable ride!
Click to expand...

I'd like to fly one with a 520/550, the C205 was "enough" engine, but far from earth shattering either.
 
The Rangemasters came with 470H's at 260 at first, but quickly upgraded to the 520.

I've got a 550 in my B model. She moves along. I burn about 14/hour.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Jay... you and I both know the wheel is in the wrong spot :) You neglect to tell these good people the choice is between a Navion and a Maule... the Maule is bound to be way more fun :goofy:
Click to expand...


If I was much younger I would be tempted to take a Navion and modify it heavily under Canada's Owner-Maintenance rules, if they'd let me take it that far. The Navion was designed by the same guys (and company) that designed the P-51, and if you look at a three-view, you see the heritage clearly.

Put the main gear ahead of the wing spar instead of behind it, toss the nosewheel, attach some local reinforcing for a tailwheel under the aft fuselage, and hang a Chev 350 with a PSRU driving a four-bladed constant-speed prop on it. Short little exhaust stacks.

Pipe dream, at my age, but sure would be fun. And noisy if not fast.

Dan
 
JasonCT said:
I went to see someone about a plane recently and he also owned a Navion. In passing he mentioned that he would sell it to me if I was interested so I decided to check it out.

I know nothing about them, other than this was a fully restored (nice IFR panel, leather, etc.) 1949 with an IO-520 with a freshly overhauled engine with about 20 hours SMOH.

So what do you all know about the Navion?
Mx hog? Death traps? Rugged? Versitile? anything you can share would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Rugged and versatile and with that engine a very capable high performance plane. Canopy has advantages and disadvantages you'll want to weigh carefully.
 
flyingron said:
The Rangemasters came with 470H's at 260 at first, but quickly upgraded to the 520.
I've got a 550 in my B model. She moves along. I burn about 14/hour.
Click to expand...

What TAS do you get for 14gph?
 
PilotAlan said:
What TAS do you get for 14gph?
Click to expand...

This is down low (3000) doing typically around 140Kts. I can do better up higher. As someone pointed out, the numbers aren't too far off a 182. It's just a touch slower than a similarly engined Bonanza (that being one of it's major commercial downfalls).

Yep, the Navion was the attempt to repurpose the wartime manufacturing capacity at North American. The idea was that all those pilots we trained in WWII were going to come home and buy airplanes like family cars. Didn't happen. The first thousand or so were built and then the whole kit and caboodle was sold to Ryan (mine is one of the last Ryans). That got up to about 2400 total. That production shutdown in 1951. A few successor companies built them in small quantities until the Navion Aircraft Company (in Texas) tried building Rangemasters. Even then they never really got into the big quantities.

Canopy is great except for two things:

1. Not so nice getting out when it is raining.
2. No real great place for mounting shoulder harnesses. There are a few retrofits available. Ron Judy has the best I've seen, but none are really ideal as the proper way to do it would be to install a roll bar or something to get the mount up high enough.
 
They're definitely a big airplane. My Mooney mechanic was a Navion owner and huge fan. On of my students hangars with one of the prettiest examples I've seen, along with a second one undergoing restoration. Hope to fly in one sometime soon.
 
flyingron said:
This is down low (3000) doing typically around 140Kts. I can do better up higher. As someone pointed out, the numbers aren't too far off a 182.
Click to expand...


What is your useful load? IIRC the one I flew was in the 1100-1200lb range, it did about 130kts on 12-13GPH.

Your numbers for speed and fuel burn very closely match that of a Pponk 182.

Like I said, it was so close to a 182 that any differences would be no more than from Skylane to Skylane, and given the popularity of the 182 I would say that that is a good thing.

The bad is you have a much more complicated airplane to get that performance, and I think that is a non starter for most people.

The good is you get a seriously cool plane for not a lot of money with decent performance.

Oh and what I haven't seen mentioned yet, they are built like tanks. Bang (NICELY) on the side of one then try the same on a comperable aluminum plane...

No RV driver will be able to honestly call you a spamcan if you are driving a Navion:lol:
 
That's about right for the useful load. Of course I have even better short field performance and the big squishy tires and large travel oleos make it a non-event on unpaved surfaces. It's not all that complex. I'll stand up the Navion hydraulic flaps to a 182 (if you've got a later one) electric flaps any day. The Navion gear is dirt simple compared to a 182RG gear system. Just raise the gear. It flies and lands better than the 182.
 
Yeah your gear is simper than a 182RG's but your performance is on par with a FG.

But we could bicker about who's plane is better all day!

Here is my honest opinion:

The smart MONEY buys the 182, with it's full factory support, fixed gear, and that's familer to every CFI and A&P out there...

The lustful heart says screw that and buys the Navion, we know that we don't buy a plane because it is a good financial decsion...


Had I known what I know now when I purchased my plane I might not have a 182 if you follow me;)
 
flyingron said:
This is down low (3000) doing typically around 140Kts. I can do better up higher. As someone pointed out, the numbers aren't too far off a 182. It's just a touch slower than a similarly engined Bonanza (that being one of it's major commercial downfalls).
Click to expand...

Well, a similar engine in a Bonanza will produce 170-178kts.

No disrepect to the big comfy Navion, but they all hit a brick wall at around 140kts. You can hang HP till the cows come home, but that's about all there is with that airframe.

double tapered wing, fully enclosed gear, cone fuselage, flush riveting, and cowl flaps are worth something.
 
docmirror said:
Well, a similar engine in a Bonanza will produce 170-178kts.

No disrepect to the big comfy Navion, but they all hit a brick wall at around 140kts. You can hang HP till the cows come home, but that's about all there is with that airframe.

double tapered wing, fully enclosed gear, cone fuselage, flush riveting, and cowl flaps are worth something.
Click to expand...

Maybe I was seeing things but I'm pretty sure we were cruising at 160-165kts :dunno:
 
JasonCT said:
Maybe I was seeing things but I'm pretty sure we were cruising at 160-165kts :dunno:
Click to expand...

Buy it instantly. If you can do 160kts on an O-520, when Ron can only do 140kts on an IO-550 you've really got something wild.
 
When it's cooler I have no problem putting the ASI up in the yellow arc (160 its or so). The higher you go the better the economy until the winds kill you (or help you). I've seen 230+ kts ground speed up at 17000.
 
docmirror said:
Buy it instantly. If you can do 160kts on an O-520, when Ron can only do 140kts on an IO-550 you've really got something wild.
Click to expand...

Maybe an anomoly - I hope I have the engine right, it's the 285 fuel injected, I'm pretty sure he said the IO520.
 
I fly an old, lightweight Bo, and I see 230Kts ground coming back from CO to TX sometimes in the mid teens. Has nothing to do with the physics of the two airplanes. The Navion gets no free lunch for it's big size, draggy(pretty) cowl, updraft cooling, exposed gear, button rivets, and fat wing.

Again, not bashing the Navion, I've shopped plenty of them and would love to drive one. Great ramp presence, but you ain't going anywhere in a big hurry with that dude.
 
docmirror said:
I fly an old, lightweight Bo, and I see 230Kts ground coming back from CO to TX sometimes in the mid teens. Has nothing to do with the physics of the two airplanes. The Navion gets no free lunch for it's big size, draggy(pretty) cowl, updraft cooling, exposed gear, button rivets, and fat wing.

Again, not bashing the Navion, I've shopped plenty of them and would love to drive one. Great ramp presence, but you ain't going anywhere in a big hurry with that dude.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I've pretty much taken away from the reading on them. They sort of remind me of a nice Buick :yesnod:
 
JasonCT said:
Maybe an anomoly - I hope I have the engine right, it's the 285 fuel injected, I'm pretty sure he said the IO520.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the right engine. Check for these things: gear leg doors, wing root fairings, one piece windscreen, flush one piece side windows, flap/gap seals.

I can do +160kts on about 10-11 GPH with my E engine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top