Queen Air Excalibur vs Navajo Chieftian

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

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

Jim (the old parts guy at Bemidji) was a customer of mine when I was working product support for Beech in the early 90s. They (Bemidji) loved the Excalibur Queen Airs enough that they bought the STC. RayJay STILL has an STC and the parts to equip each engine with 2 turbos for turbo-normalization.
 
Henning said:
I still see a few working Queen Airs around here doing the Bahamas runs, they are all Excalibur conversions though. It's not a bad plane with the 720s, and really, the 720s aren't that difficult to support. I flew a Pawnee Brave for a season and thought it was a nice engine. You do have to respect that it's a direct drive over half a horsepower per cubic inch with 25% more depth to reduce cooling at the back cylinders. I flew it the same speeds as a smaller 260 Pawnee, but having 400 hp for a few seconds to get the load lifted, especially on the high plains, is really nice. Operated like that I never had CHT issues even in the heat of summer evenings.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't. Lycoming did a good job in "idiot-proofing" those engines. A based customer owned one of the old U-8Fs (military Queen Air) when I worked for Stevens-BNA. They loved that bird, but wished it had longer wings (it was a straight tail 65...short wings).
 
Last edited:
hurryinhoosier said:
Don't fool with "piston pounders" much, do you?
Click to expand...

I'd say Ted has "fooled around" with his share of Lycomings.....:rolleyes:

hurryinhoosier said:
BTW....NO King Air ever used a piston engine, unless you count that Orenda abortion that Stevens got "con'd" into when I worked for them (mid 90s). It was a case of trying to polish a turd.......
Click to expand...

The Queen Air 88 (pressurized) is a 90 KA with piston engines.
 
hurryinhoosier said:
Don't fool with "piston pounders" much, do you? IO-720= 8 cylinders X 90 cubic inches per cylinder. What other Lycoming engines use the 90 cubic inch cylinder? IO-360 AND IO-540. In essence, the IO-720 uses the SAME "jugs", pistons, bearings, lifter bodies, oil pumps, connecting rods, push rods, accessory drives, gaskets, etc. as the IO-540, which is STILL in production. Cases, cams and cranks would be available from Lycoming with a lengthy lead time due to the fact that the IO-720 is considered a "legacy" engine. BTW....NO King Air ever used a piston engine, unless you count that Orenda abortion that Stevens got "con'd" into when I worked for them (mid 90s). It was a case of trying to polish a turd.......
Click to expand...

:rofl:

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

That's kinda funny knowing that Ted was an engineer for Lycoming for quite a few years. You're new it will wear off soon
 
Last edited:
RotorAndWing said:
I'd say Ted has "fooled around" with his share of Lycomings.....:rolleyes:



The Queen Air 88 (pressurized) is a 90 KA with piston engines.
Click to expand...

WRONG. The Queen Air 88 was a Queen Air 88. It has a Queen Air(Model 65) type certificate (65-88), not a King Air (Model 90). I spent too many years working for Beech.
 
Last edited:
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
I've seen a few of these Queen Air Excaliburs advertized for sale. They claim to outperform the Navajo Chieftian, cost less to aquire and operate, and kick Chuck Norris's ass.

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

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

I saw one out in California that had a pair of turbo normalizers on each side.
 
tmyers said:
That's kinda funny knowing that Ted was an engineer for Lycoming for quite a few years. You're new it will wear off soon
Click to expand...

Spent 6 years working in an aircraft engine overhaul shop ('83-'89) and 1989-2004 as a mechanic/tech sales rep. All I can say is Ted didn't learn very much while working for Textron Lycoming IF he doesn't know that engine (IO-720) is STILL listed in production by Lycoming. :yes::yes:
 
I realize my comprehension skills may be a bit weak, but after re-reading the thread I can't find where Ted said the 720 was no longer supported or in production. I really can't figure out what kind of point you are even trying to make. I am also pretty sure he understands the relationship between the 360, 520, and 720, as do most of us on the board. You may be an excellent A&P but your people skills could use some tweaking.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top