I am curious as to why I can't seem to find much in the way of evidence of Navions being used as quasi bush planes?

Of course tricycles are not the first choice, but if you did have to have a trike, have you seen how stout the gear is on a Navion? The aircraft stands quite high off the ground and would provide good ground clearance. The rest of the aircraft is hell for stout too.

Compared to a 182, they take off and land shorter, have similar useful load, they are much more robust pretty much everywhere, and they are cheaper to purchase.

They are a slightly rarer aircraft. But I wouldn't say they are really rare. You can find nice examples with io520's and 550's that really perform.

I'm drawing a blank as to why they aren't more popular in the back country.

I got to fly one several times. A long time ago. A member of my first flying club was a wrung out Naval instructor who flew another pilots Navion when he was gone on business. Got some dual time in the process. Plane was stable at 45 Mph hands off - with top canopy open. Believe Palo Alto, Ca. used to have a bunch of them. Sort of like Navion central. Do not remember about baggage.

Currently reading a, not to well written, book that mentions at least one Navion in the back country - maybe just Idaho. Should have good visibility on roll-out.

Saddest Navion story: I used to be "Line Boss" evenings and weekends at Palo Alto. A doctor had rebuilt the best black Navion on the airport. Had a total of seven fuel tanks. For some reason he sold it to a real arrogant ass of a fast rising business exec. who thought he new it all - to the extent that he refused to take a check ride. The Saturday after he bought it, he taxis up to the fuel island. The younger fellow working with me wanted to service it. So I let him. I can still see this next statement. When the kid was finished fueling - the new A** H***le owner stuck a cassette recorder down from the open cockpit and into the kids' face and asked, "Did you get it full?" "Yes sir." replied the kid.

Sunday report: Buzz all around the place was that the jerk apparently figured the total fuel was enough - which it was if you had had a check out on how to manage the fuel. He emptied the main tank, set it down on a golf course and promptly totaled it into a pile of manure.

Late 50s - Early 60s.

Chris C

Most airplanes were designed when the many small town airports were short and usually grass. Today the design is very similar but gross weight is much higher and engines are much more powerful. Parts availability make keeping legal the models not supported by a parts supplier difficult and expensive.

Except for the exotic and expensive, I think technique has more to do with where an airplane can operate than does model.

After flying in one for 20 minutes, I couldn't understand ever wanting to fly one again. Big, heavy, non-friendly access, and boring performance. .02

My hangar neighbor at old Downtown Fort Collins had one, nicely restored, and his son out in CA also had one. Then one day the nose gear collapsed, which of course created the need for an engine tear-down and prop replacement. The rest of the airplane wasn't hurt much. My IA was assisting our local warbird repair shop, and mentioned to me that although the mains are hell for stout on Navions, the nose gear's a weak link in the chain. So maybe that's a reason they're not frequenters of the back country.

Cary

Low wing, larger tires don't fit, really hard to load, nose landing gear, not STOL, limited to nonexistent parts support, additional maintenance and insurance cost with the retractable gear to name a few. Most of the same reasons that Bonanzas aren't common in the back country, though the Bo would still be a better choice.

A Bonanza in the right hands can do surprisingly well in the back country for what it is.

G44 wrote:A Bonanza in the right hands can do surprisingly well in the back country for what it is.

You got that right!
JH

If fuel prices wasn't an issue, I'd sell my planes and get a Twin-Bo.

AKJurnee wrote:If fuel prices wasn't an issue, I'd sell my planes and get a Twin-Bo.

I have always thought that the Twinbo was a cool plane with it's spacious interior and massive ramp presence. I poached this old shot from SCR's website.



It's hard to imagine a nose gear that looks like that not handling most anything that you put it through.

Well, the NAvion was used to land on aircraft carriers, without a tailhook (and with General MacArthur as the passenger). Does that qualify as STOL?

No argument about the small nosewheel, probably won't see any youtube videos of water-ski landing on a gravel bar with a NAvion anytime soon.

EZFlap wrote:Well, the NAvion was used to land on aircraft carriers, without a tailhook (and with General MacArthur as the passenger). Does that qualify as STOL?

That would be STOL, it seems. Never heard that story.

I would think that under most circumstances, most of the folks here could land their own airplanes on a carrier, sans tail hook. If the carrier moves through the water at 30 knots, and let's assume it's heading into a 10 knot wind, that cuts off 40 knots of the approach speed. If the typical Cessna has a 49 knot stall speed and the pilot uses 1.2 Vso as his short final approach speed, his forward speed relative to the carrier's deck is less than 20 knots. It wouldn't take much braking to stop from a 20 knot touchdown speed.

Now try it at night and with the deck pitching and rolling, maybe not.

Cary

Scolopax wrote:

AKJurnee wrote:If fuel prices wasn't an issue, I'd sell my planes and get a Twin-Bo.

I have always thought that the Twinbo was a cool plane with it's spacious interior and massive ramp presence. I poached this old shot from SCR's website.



It's hard to imagine a nose gear that looks like that not handling most anything that you put it through.

It's not the Nose gear; it's the Mains!

If anyone has read The Immortal Beaver by Sean Rossiter, there is an anecdote telling the story when the Beaver was going through the Air Force STOL qualifications, and was pitted against the Navion, Helio Courier and others, including the prototype Twin Bonanza. The pilot flying the Twin Bo accidentally stuck one of the Mains through the top of the Wing on landing; the ensuing patch job included using one of the Beaver's tires on the Twin Bo, and essentially using the Twin Bo with fixed Landing gear for the rest of the Qualification...

(Rossiter, ppg. 93-95)

Alan

Cary wrote:I would think that under most circumstances, most of the folks here could land their own airplanes on a carrier, sans tail hook. If the carrier moves through the water at 30 knots, and let's assume it's heading into a 10 knot wind, that cuts off 40 knots of the approach speed. If the typical Cessna has a 49 knot stall speed and the pilot uses 1.2 Vso as his short final approach speed, his forward speed relative to the carrier's deck is less than 20 knots. It wouldn't take much braking to stop from a 20 knot touchdown speed.

Now try it at night and with the deck pitching and rolling, maybe not.

Cary

Years ago an Aircraft carrier came to Anchorage. I was crossing from pt Makenzie to land at lake hood strip in a cub...had serious thoughts of declaring an emergency and landing on the carrier deck. But common sense prevailed and I passed. But there is no doubt in my mind I could have done it

EZFlap wrote:Well, the NAvion was used to land on aircraft carriers, without a tailhook

Big deal, so did a C-130

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've been goosed by Don C:
Yes I flew a couple of Navions, had a friend who had one but no license, I would fly him and the plane all around ANC up to Paxson, over to Healy and back to ANC. Landed on the gravel but no gravel bars. The plane flew real stable but not lots of power. Back then I would fly anything to get into the air. Later flew one a bunch down in mts of Arizona. Landing gear would hang down after a while and it was under powered for that high altitude. I would say if a Mooney can land in a hay field so could a Navion, depends more on the pilot.

But the Navions did it without reverse thrust.