Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
New jump plane in our future?

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

kcb203  (B License)

Dec 4, 2017, 10:18 AM
Post #26 of 41 (1577 views)
Shortcut
Re: [colossus] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

colossus wrote:
OMG, did you see the specs for the door? 87X69. I think the Otter's door is 56x50. So, that means then... wow. You can have a hell of a lot of people hanging out there (if it doesn't stall that is)!

It it possible that the door is too big and couldn't be operated with an open-jump door configuration? Perhaps the door has some structural features when closed and can't simply be removed and replaced with a slide-up jump door.


(This post was edited by kcb203 on Dec 4, 2017, 11:39 AM)


DanG  (D 22351)

Dec 5, 2017, 9:21 AM
Post #27 of 41 (1260 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
i am not a dzo but i think in order to make a twin viable these days it needs to turn around 40 minimum efficiently. because there are singles that turn 20 efficiently now. and 40 per load means a lot of jumpers on the dz so that means only the largest events. a 30 year old dash 8 100 series combi converted for skydive would carry almost 50 and with 1900hp per side i think would be fast up and down! but they must be 5M at least also. i think the supervan or similar alternate (single) will be around for some time.

Huh? Are you saying all those hundreds of DZs running Twin Otters are doing so at a loss because they can only load 22-24 jumpers per load? How are they all staying in business?


RMURRAY

Dec 5, 2017, 1:56 PM
Post #28 of 41 (1199 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DanG] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

as time goes on, twin otters are getting old and being replaced with supervans. much more efficient.

edit,,,i am wondering if a twin is going to be as efficient it may need to carry more than 22.


(This post was edited by RMURRAY on Dec 5, 2017, 3:49 PM)


Premier billvon  (D 16479)
Moderator
Dec 5, 2017, 4:37 PM
Post #29 of 41 (1153 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

>i am not a dzo but i think in order to make a twin viable these days it needs to turn around
>40 minimum efficiently. because there are singles that turn 20 efficiently now. and 40 per load
> means a lot of jumpers on the dz so that means only the largest events.

A "40 jumper per load" aircraft is just not going to work for most DZ's. Such an aircraft generally won't be economic to operate unless the aircraft is near capacity, which means ~30 people to put a load up. That's 15 tandems, or 10 with outside video. That's 10 AFF's. And that means you need 15 tandem rigs or 10 AFF rigs (with students attached) to be able to even get the plane off the ground. Or 30 tandem rigs, or 20 AFF rigs, to turn the plane.

So that means lots of gear, lots of instructors, lots of stops and starts, more engine maintenance, more fuel and more pilot hours compared to a smaller aircraft. What small (or even medium size) DZ can afford that when they are competing with someone with a Caravan, who can turn it all day while maintaining a single engine? Even Otters, which barely work for medium size DZ's, have trouble filling loads and turning on many days.

That being said it would certainly see use during bigways, boogies and the like, and if it's economical to operate with smaller loads, great. And if you are Eloy or Perris you'll be able to fill and turn a plane like that. But it is certainly not going to be a viable aircraft for most DZ's.


Unstable  (D 28930)

Dec 6, 2017, 7:27 AM
Post #30 of 41 (1022 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
as time goes on, twin otters are getting old and being replaced with supervans. much more efficient.

Agree. Seems there is also a trend for older King Airs as a B90 with mid-life engines can be purchased for less than the cost of a single replacement PT6. Use the airplane up and then throw it away.


Divalent  (C 40494)

Dec 6, 2017, 12:19 PM
Post #31 of 41 (912 views)
Shortcut
Re: [billvon] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

billvon wrote:
A "40 jumper per load" aircraft is just not going to work for most DZ's. Such an aircraft generally won't be economic to operate unless the aircraft is near capacity, which means ~30 people to put a load up. That's 15 tandems, or 10 with outside video. That's 10 AFF's. And that means you need 15 tandem rigs or 10 AFF rigs (with students attached) to be able to even get the plane off the ground. Or 30 tandem rigs, or 20 AFF rigs, to turn the plane.

So that means lots of gear, lots of instructors, lots of stops and starts, more engine maintenance, more fuel and more pilot hours compared to a smaller aircraft. What small (or even medium size) DZ can afford that when they are competing with someone with a Caravan, who can turn it all day while maintaining a single engine? Even Otters, which barely work for medium size DZ's, have trouble filling loads and turning on many days.

That being said it would certainly see use during bigways, boogies and the like, and if it's economical to operate with smaller loads, great. And if you are Eloy or Perris you'll be able to fill and turn a plane like that. But it is certainly not going to be a viable aircraft for most DZ's.

I would think another important consideration would be the length of the jump run. Unless they drop in two passes (which would require the difficult task of ensuring no one on the first pass had to open high), how many DZs could accommodate a jump run nearly twice as long as a typical otter jump run.


DJL  (D License)

Dec 6, 2017, 12:37 PM
Post #32 of 41 (903 views)
Shortcut
Re: [colossus] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

colossus wrote:
OMG, did you see the specs for the door? 87X69. I think the Otter's door is 56x50. So, that means then... wow. You can have a hell of a lot of people hanging out there (if it doesn't stall that is)!

You'll hear skydivers bitching about the size of an Otter door within the year.


Phil1111  (D 315)

Dec 7, 2017, 7:49 AM
Post #33 of 41 (764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DJL] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

Viking has delivered about 75 new build twin otters since they started in 2007. They may have to sharpen their pencils on pricing once this new competitor comes on the market. If its in fact a competitor because of the STOL nature of the twin otter. The Cessna may have no effect on Viking AC buyers.

The new Cessna has 350 more ponies a side and I haven't seen climb numbers published. But that's irrelevant until Fed-ex, and others, racks up the 15-19k hours. That most commercial operators would run until they sell them off to the used market.


mrkeske  (D 81396)

Dec 7, 2017, 7:59 AM
Post #34 of 41 (760 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Phil1111] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

40 people on one jump run? Imagine 20 tandem pairs exiting, or several 2/3/4 Ways...

Realisticaly speaking, in the future it may be used on oasional boogies, but the skydiving jump planes are going to be mostly single-engine(182/Caravans/Pacs beeing the majority), with a select few busy DZs with Twin-Otters or other more "exotic" planes.


DJL  (D License)

Dec 7, 2017, 8:08 AM
Post #35 of 41 (748 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mrkeske] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

mrkeske wrote:
40 people on one jump run? Imagine 20 tandem pairs exiting, or several 2/3/4 Ways...

Realisticaly speaking, in the future it may be used on oasional boogies, but the skydiving jump planes are going to be mostly single-engine(182/Caravans/Pacs beeing the majority), with a select few busy DZs with Twin-Otters or other more "exotic" planes.

Agreed, very few DZ's (as in fewer than 5) could economically run a 40 passenger jump-ship.


RockSkyGirl  (D 35756)

Dec 7, 2017, 11:14 AM
Post #36 of 41 (697 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mrkeske] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

When SDAZ runs the DC-3, which seats 43, we run two passes, no matter how big the groups are. The smaller groups typically break off lower and don't track as far, while the big groups (we had a 20-way speed star with video out of that plane a couple weeks ago) break off higher and track farther and hence need more separation at exit. And we have a LOT of open desert to land in, lots of outs.
Agreed that it doesn't seem feasible to run a full 40-jumper plane with a single-pass jump run.

However, it could be an asset, at certain times of the year, for large dzs which have a steady tandem business as well as a lot of teams training. A plane that large could let out some h&ps at 4500, then do a team pass at 10,500, and still take a full Otter load's worth of jumpers up to 13k.


RMURRAY

Dec 7, 2017, 11:51 AM
Post #37 of 41 (684 views)
Shortcut
Re: [DJL] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

a dash 8 100 series freighter can carry up to 10000 lbs cargo. and is approved for flight without the rear cargo door,,,i believe. so that is up to about 50!


DJL  (D License)

Dec 7, 2017, 1:34 PM
Post #38 of 41 (650 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

RMURRAY wrote:
a dash 8 100 series freighter can carry up to 10000 lbs cargo. and is approved for flight without the rear cargo door,,,i believe. so that is up to about 50!

One of those almost took me out. Was doing a high pull and the pilot knew the FedEx plane was coming through after jumpers were out so he maintained altitude and circled back around. I only saw him after he went by but the pilot said he was headed straight at me and turned either because of a visual on our jump plane or because ATC saw both blips and gave a course correction.


riggerrob  (D 14840)

Dec 9, 2017, 5:56 PM
Post #39 of 41 (341 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RMURRAY] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

Back during the glory days of skydiving (1990s) only a handful of the busiest American DZs flew 30-seat CASA 212s. Those CASAs also flew at a few of the larger boogies.
These days twin-engined jump-planes have largely been replaced by single-engined turbines: Cessna Caravans, PAC 750s and Quest Kodiaks. My favourite is the Kodiak because it has a door almost as big as a Twin Otter, but does not need a boarding ladder.
These singles carry almost as many jumpers (18) as a Twin Otter (up to 24) but cost perhaps half as much to operate and can be turned with fewer jumpers.


hardhatpat  (B 43397)

Dec 12, 2017, 1:53 PM
Post #40 of 41 (121 views)
Shortcut
Re: [riggerrob] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
These singles carry almost as many jumpers (18) as a Twin Otter (up to 24) but cost perhaps half as much to operate and can be turned with fewer jumpers.

I can't imagine the second spinny thing actually makes the cost of operation double.

According to an article the blackhawk caravan burns up to 65gph while a twin otter burns 90gph. Assuming you can do four full loads per hour in the blackhawk and three in the otter that makes 72 jumpers per hour for each craft.

Assuming you pay $20/load and fuel costs $3/gal the blackhawk will cost $275/hr while the otter will cost $330/hr.

So yeah, a B model blackhawk is more efficient than an otter but not by double, more like 20%.


gowlerk  (C 3196)

Dec 12, 2017, 2:29 PM
Post #41 of 41 (110 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hardhatpat] New jump plane in our future? [In reply to] Can't Post

hardhatpat wrote:
Quote:
These singles carry almost as many jumpers (18) as a Twin Otter (up to 24) but cost perhaps half as much to operate and can be turned with fewer jumpers.

I can't imagine the second spinny thing actually makes the cost of operation double.

According to an article the blackhawk caravan burns up to 65gph while a twin otter burns 90gph. Assuming you can do four full loads per hour in the blackhawk and three in the otter that makes 72 jumpers per hour for each craft.

Assuming you pay $20/load and fuel costs $3/gal the blackhawk will cost $275/hr while the otter will cost $330/hr.

So yeah, a B model blackhawk is more efficient than an otter but not by double, more like 20%.

But a big part of the cost to operate an aircraft is engine and propeller overhaul and maintenance. Two times the cost for a twin.


First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)