Unfortunately painting over logos or the rego can result in what's known as the Streisand effect...

Are you absolutely sure about that? The CASA aircraft register has it as a PA-31 - not a PA-31-310.

VH OFF
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Piston engines

Manufacturer: PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP
Model: PA-31
Serial number: 31-7812064
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 01 November 1985
Year of manufacture: 1978

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 02 May 2006
LUCAS, David
PO Box 143
BRIGHTON SA 5048
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 02 May 2006
LUCAS, David
PO Box 143
BRIGHTON SA 5048
AUSTRALIA

DF.

Google PA 31-7812064.

You will see all the references are for Piper Navajo C PA31-310 which is the non counter rotation version. The counter rotating versions were 325 HP.

DF,

They are all PA-31 aircraft, variants were; (Source Wikipedia)

PA-31 NavajoInitial production version, also known unofficially as the PA-31-310.

PA-31-300 NavajoVariant of the Navajo with normally aspirated engines; 14 built.

PA-31 Navajo BMarketing name for 1971 improved variant with 310 hp (231 kW) Lycoming TIO-540-E turbo-charged piston engines, new airconditioning and optional pilot access door and optional wide utility door.

PA-31 Navajo CMarketing name for 1974 improved variant with 310 hp (231 kW) Lycoming TIO-540-A2C engines and other minor improvements.

PA-31P Pressurized NavajoPressurized version of the PA-31 Navajo, powered by two 425-hp (317-kW) Lycoming TIGO-541-E1A piston engines.

PA-31-325 NavajoReferred to as the "Navajo C/R" for Counter Rotating; variant of Navajo with counter-rotating propellers introduced with the PA-31-350 Chieftain. 325 hp (242 kW) Lycoming TIO-540 / LTIO-540 engines PA-31-350 ChieftainStretched version of the Navajo with more powerful 350-hp (261-kW) engines that rotate in opposite directions (a Lycoming TIO-540 and a Lycoming LTIO-540) to eliminate critical engine issues. PA-31P-350 MojavePiston-engined variant of the PA-31T1 Cheyenne I; 50 aircraft built.

PA-31-350T1020Also known as the T1020/T-1020; variant of the PA-31-350 Chieftain optimised for commuter airline use, with less baggage and fuel capacity and increased seating capacity (nine passengers). First flight September 25, 1981. 21 built.

PA-31T3Also known as the T1040/T-1040; turboprop-powered airliner with fuselage of the PA-31-350T1020, and wings, tail and Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-11 engines of PA-31T Cheyenne. First flight July 17, 1981. 24 built.

PA-31-353Experimental version of PA-31-350; two built


Even if both props were feathered, surely they would still be rotating in the correct sense unless stopped. Even then, the angle of incidence to the direction of travel should still be positive with regard to the normal rotation direction. A yawing moment (nose left) might account for the opposite rotational damage?

Creamie, do I get a Chocolate Frog?

DF you will notice that ALL Navajos and Chieftains have a serial number of 31-YYMMxxx

The YY is the year of manufacture and the next 2 digits indicate the model.

Check out VH-IXP or VH-WAD or VH-NMP for example

31-80 52 185
31-75 52 018
31-78 52 149 respectively

...so there ya go!

Bazinga.
As 27/09 sez and look at the pics, count the windows and look at the props.

Have you actually flown one, DF?
Check. Cheiftains go on the casa register as PA-31-350s.

Yeah I'm sure.:cool:

It all depends. If it was a training flight and the instructor cut a mixture to simulate engine failure but failed to re-start quickly and set zero thrust on the simulated failed engine, the drag from the windmilling prop would prevent any reasonable climb

What about the one that went in off East Point in Darwin a few years back. Not even half full and couldn't maintain height.

They only need to meet the climb requirements under iSA conditions.:cool:

I would have thought a Chieftain with a chopped and shorten fuselage would have no problems on one engine.:rolleyes:

Neither Navajo nor Chieftain is my favourite piston twin. I was told by a very old hand in the game that if one got low and slow in a Chieftain, do not add a little power, add it all, as the time taken to overcome the drag and accelerate is much greater than the time to decelerate to VMC..., or some such.

I once saw a Chieftain conducting training at Eulo, south west Queensland, in the winter, about 5 deg C, and 1030 mb., well above ISA conditions. I'm assuming it was training a training flight as the pax got off and then the two crew (one old fart and one young buck) got back in and took off. I watched them conduct circuit work including asymmetric approach and go-rounds.

The poor old thing was still descending in the go-round 2 out of 3 times at training weights. Pilot mishandling... not likely.

Realistically, most GA pilots get to train in this scenario one per year, at training weights, and they know it's about to happen. They (we) still sweat profusely. In the real event, in an average 40 year old piston conducting charter, I think the best scenario may just be land straight ahead. Not to say it can't be done, just unlikely to have a positive outcome at near MTOW.

I hope to never be in that situation. One has to follow the mandated initial actions, whilst it may just be worsening the situation. Fortunately all of my 'abnormal situations' have occurred at altitude. :D


.

Hi.
 

601, it is shorter, but also has less power.

If it was Aux fuel tank selection then that could have un- ported the fuel, then regained power as it lowered the nose and landed, it would explain the engine delivering power on impact/landing - as one previous post suggested.

The Chieftain does have counter rotating props, as correctly mentioned before. The Navajo does however have conventional rotating props (and if it was VH-OFF as shown in the pic by RobShan - it is clearly visible).
And if I read correctly before, the report was a yaw to the left (ABC Report) meaning the loss of the critical engine.

If it was indeed only at 50 ft, it may be still between blue line and red line (depending on pilot technique).
The Pa-31 manuals require the Prop to be feathered before retracting the gear in the case of an engine failure during take-off. This is because of the significant increase in drag when the flipper doors open to retract the gear.

So one scenario could have been the loss of the critical engine, retraction of gear with prop wind-milling, increasing drag beyond a point where flight could continue.

Food for thought.....

2Dogs, I don’t know anything about any Piper aircraft! My apologies if my questions gave the impression that I know some esoteric technical fact that provides a vital clue about what model aircraft OFF may be! (But you’re welcome to a Choccie Frog…) :ok:Who sez, Arnold? :confused:Ya got that right! :D

I’m still completely amazed that any intelligent human being could think it will do anything other than draw extra attention and energy to finding out and publishing the rego and identity of the operator!

And then there’s the teensy problem that the registration holder for the aircraft commits an offence if the registration markings are not legible (CASR 45.085) …

Allegedly lost a degree of power to one engine at about 100ft after takeoff at which point the wheels were retracted and a suitable place was found to put her down.... :oh:

Once you are single engine below blue line in any PA31 you will probably need to trade altitude for an increase in airspeed. The aircraft develops very high drag below that speed and is very evident at high weight the time it takes to accelerate from rotate to blue line on two engines, then from that point it pretty much climbs at the same rate for the next 40 kts.

If an engine fails early on below blue line you are in a very nasty place, however with two on board (assuming no freight) it should be able to accelerate if the aircraft is cleaned up fast. This all depends on what rotate speed you use and what sort of terrain you have to accelerate over.

Windmilling prop and you have no chance of climb.

Last time I did training in a PA31-350 we had 2 on board, full fuel and ballast and the aircraft climbed at 500fpm on one engine on an ISA +5 day.

I know directly of two occasions where a chieftain engine has failed just after take off and the pilot has managed to climb to circuit height and return for a safe landing. Both with more than 2 on board in ISA +10 or worse.

This shows a big problem with the particular aircraft if it was not pilot error and the aircraft did not eventually climb. The reason for a single engine committal height is so you can use that altitude to clean up and accelerate back to blue line and climb away. If you are below that height you land no matter what due to lack of performance.

Full power on the Navajo engines is regulated by the density controllers, if these are not adjusted regularly for seasonal atmospheric changes you could be running at far less than maximum power at full throttle. Also small things like the rigging of gear doors can have a big influence on performance so good maintenance is essential.

I think plenty can learn from these incidents via PPrune, ya just gotta take most of it cautiously . With these old airframes now well & truly worn the original certification for SE capability would be dubious at best. Remember the cost of operating one of these old girls is enormous, there's little money to be made in this mugs game & it's usually at the expense of two things, money paid to the driver & maintenance, the less the better in both cases for the owner.

When ever I flew one of these old beasts a 100 yrs ago I always had a plan if I lost a fan below circuit height & that involved heading for an open area to guts it & 'IF' I was able to maintain height on the way to said resting place then that would have been plan B, to get back & land on the black bit. With this plan in mind at least I had the location already picked & wasn't confronted with sh1t it's going down where am I gunna put this piece of junk!! Worked for me on all piston eng machines, Turbines a diff story especially the 31T, loved that machine you had power to spare in the same airframe:-)
One day out of Roxby Downs late in the day temp up around 40 degs with a full load of grubby smelly engineers heading back to 'Port a Gutta' when I took off selected the gear up the gear just sat there refusing to retract, the result was pretty much full power around the circuit to land only pulling the power off on short final, scared the crap out of me! If I had have lost even a magneto I was dirt fodder! These airframes are bloody dangerous, lucky they where built like tanks from day one !




Wmk2

So is CASA going to start hanging around paint shops waiting to ping full resprays now?:}

I had a long-time Chieftain engineer tell me that he will not set the density controllers to provide more than 40-42" because "If your pilots have a cold day they will blow the pots off". :hmm:

POH says 49" max power :confused:

A brave man or woman would remove a rego at the crash site. If they had time to spray that out, what else did they tamper with?

Never heard that one and if I did I would refuse to fly the aircraft as any single engine performance will be woefull. Correct power adjustment for the Chieftain for full power at sea level, ISA conditions would be around 43 inches. Not many places in Australia would come in under ISA conditions for most of the year.

Setting 40 Inches is effectively running the engine at 95% power at full throttle and that's if its ISA. ISA+ and who knows how much power you are losing.

Yeah the ensuing conversation was fairly to-the-point :ok: