Turbine Chieftain

In commuter configuration, no less. Why would they need it to be turbine? Piston engines are much more efficient and not much slower on shorter routes down low.
 
The Beech 99 isn't pressurized either, and lives around the same altitudes as a Chieftain with TIO-540's on it.
 
I saw that airplane last week at Wilson Air Center in HOU. I didn't know they even made a turbine chief, although it's not a bad idea. The piston chiefs are horrible on one engine.

Baronpilot244 said:
Anyone ever flown one of these? Seems like a waste not being pressurized. Wonder what the fuel flows are like - I seem to remember the one I flew (IO-540) ate about 40 an hour or so.


http://www.controller.com/listingsd...BINE/1982-PIPER-CHIEFTAIN-TURBINE/1165229.htm

Interesting plane, but I would have thought it would have been less hassle to just go out and buy a Cheyenne.

Bp244
Click to expand...
 
jtrain609 said:
The Beech 99 isn't pressurized either, and lives around the same altitudes as a Chieftain with TIO-540's on it.
Click to expand...

True, but a Beech 99 is a bigger aircraft that could carry more people and payload. A turbine Chieftain would be competing with the likes of a 402 or straight Navajo, and both would blow it out of the water on short routes in terms of fuel burn. Sure, the turbine one would get there sooner, but not by much.

By the way, I notice this Chieftain has some pretty decent payload (~4300# empty with ~9000# MGTOW), but you'd bulk that thing out waaaaaaay before you'd see 9000 lbs. I suppose the only benefit there is that you could carry more fuel, but you're only doing that because your fuel burn sucks.
 
dasleben said:
True, but a Beech 99 is a bigger aircraft that could carry more people and payload. A turbine Chieftain would be competing with the likes of a 402 or straight Navajo, and both would blow it out of the water on short routes in terms of fuel burn. Sure, the turbine one would get there sooner, but not by much.

By the way, I notice this Chieftain has some pretty decent payload (~4300# empty with ~9000# MGTOW), but you'd bulk that thing out waaaaaaay before you'd see 9000 lbs. I suppose the only benefit there is that you could carry more fuel, but you're only doing that because your fuel burn sucks.
Click to expand...

I wonder how they got the MGTOW that high. Chieftain's normally gross out at 7,000 lbs.
 
LOL its still a Chieftain POS!

Did you know AMF holds the STC to convert the Chieftain's to turbine conversions.


Buy a cessna f406
 
JayAre said:
LOL its still a Chieftain POS!

Did you know AMF holds the STC to convert the Chieftain's to turbine conversions.


Buy a cessna f406
Click to expand...

Yup, they were going to follow through with it years ago, but the deal with Pratt fell through.
 
Patrick said:
+1. ???
Click to expand...

Well, with the MZFW that high, I'd imagine they've beefed up a lot of the structure, gear, etc. The high MGTOW is simply a function of that and Pratt & Whitney. :) It's still fairly useless, though; in a 9-passenger commuter configuration, people weights tend to be less than 2000 lbs, and bag weights are generally less than 400 lbs. Not anywhere near the 4000+ lbs of payload the manufacturer allows. You could carry all that and full fuel (a 402 or basic Navajo can't do that), but do you think people would want to be crammed into that plane for that long? No way.
 
JayAre said:
LOL its still a Chieftain POS!

Did you know AMF holds the STC to convert the Chieftain's to turbine conversions.


Buy a cessna f406
Click to expand...

Its not an STC. It's a Navajo 1040. PAT4 by ATC classification. It was essentially an unpressurized Cheyenne meant to compete with the B99. It has alot of nice features such that were farely advanced such as fire bottles for each engine. It was the timing that ruined this airplane(1982) and there were subsequently only 29 or so made.
 
WalterSobchak said:
Its not an STC. It's a Navajo 1040. PAT4 by ATC classification. It was essentially an unpressurized Cheyenne meant to compete with the B99. It has alot of nice features such that were farely advanced such as fire bottles for each engine. It was the timing that ruined this airplane(1982) and there were subsequently only 29 or so made.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thanks for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top