I know this has been discussed in other threads, but most of what I find is some months old....and not much about Tandems and what experience ppl have with the Pac.
I'm wondering whats the + and - with jumping tandem out of the two planes...and wich one u would choose;)
During our Easter Boogie at Skydive Oppdal (Norway, please come if u like:D) we usually have a Twin Otter, but this year it might be a Pac. Well, we can get either one of those...we just have to choose I guess....
I don't have many tandems on my back, and when I read something about the pac beeing just as "bad" as the c-182 I'm not sure that I wan't a Pac... So far I only have about 50 tandems - 20 from C-182, 20 from AN-28(Bak door) and 10 from Let 410(Side door - almost sam size as Otter I guess)
Most of the jumps in the boogie are non Tandems thoug...but I don't wan't to do 30 tandems from a plane that sucks doing tandems from;)
The plane has seats in the middle...or whatever u call it.
They're not that bad...as a reference I am 6'4" and have no trouble doing tandems out of the pac. Sure I would prefer the otter but the pac is nothing like a 182. Hope this helps...
In my limited experience I have jumped out of a 182, Otter, Caravan, and mostly PAC (and a B-25). The Otter has the biggest door and the PAC and the Caravan seemed to have about the same size door, although I liked the steps and rails on the PAC much more. The PAC also seemed much quieter with less vibration than any of the others so I would assume you would be less fatigued at the end of the day. I also like our PAC better because it's brand new and has a bumping speaker system
There are quite a few large TI's at my DZ and have heard nothing but praise for the PAC from them, they use to jump out of a 208 and they said it was MUCH better.
*added pic.
(This post was edited by uponone on Jan 21, 2006, 12:51 PM)
Guess it's a matter of personal preference, however a bit concerned about the AD that was issued regarding the PAC indicating some critical quality control problems. Note that the AD in the link is emergency in nature. These kind of things concern me as a pilot.
Yeah, they reduced the gross take-off weight 375 pounds to 7125.
Weight of Jet A: 7lbs/gallon Useful Fuel capacity: 221 gallons Crew capacity: 17 skydivers, 1 pilot Max Useful Load:4400 lbs Endurance: 5 hours includes fuel for start, taxi, takeoff, climb, descent and 45 minutes reserve remaining after landing
Utility Aircraft is figuring and average passenger weight of 245lbs. If the DZ is running a full load of passengers they cannot fill the tanks more than %70 capacity. If the pilot/ DZO wants to fly with full fuel, take 14 jumpers as a max load.
nb: The max landing weight remains unchanged at 7125. For most Dzs not an issue, especially the ones I jump at - you often have to land after a couple of hundred feet, re clearance or lack off.
We do 8way out of PAC's with no issues, the door is very similar to a caravan, just not as high. It's probably worse for the camera guys than the TM/passengers as particularly at the back the roof isn't as high as caravan.
It does however suck with a full load of 17, your like a sardine and climb performance is heavily affected. With 14 or less your laughing. Happy boogie!
Thnx for the answers. Guess I can look forward to doing tandems out of either the Otter or the Pac then...althoung I must say I think I would like the Otter rather than the Pac.....and I guess the Pack rather than the c-182
Btw...our C-182 has LN-ASS on its tale I'm never going to be to grown up to think thas funny
(This post was edited by Luza on Jan 21, 2006, 5:03 PM)
If you decide on an otter, get the 200 series or 300 series, ( Super OTTER) as they have the bigger engines and will fly more loads/ hour or more loads/day.... which is especially important if you host a boogie with lots of attendees, and you only have the ONE aircraft. jmy
I prefer the Otter over the PAC due to my own large size (6'4", 220 lbs). The PAC is a great plane and I don't mind at all if I can climb out for a floater slot, but I have to drop to at least one knee if I'm inside the door, where I can still crouch inside an Otter. Plus, with all the people onboard, losing one engine on an Otter means we've still got the other engine for a bailout, with a PAC it's getting out of a glider. And if it becomes a glider below a grand, well that just sucks....
Have you seen what the climb rate of a -27 super otter is with 23 jumpers and 1 engine on a hot summer day? It really isn't that much better (where are those really smart pilot types to give the precise data?). This was the reason we often had to fly our otter with 4 jumpers as a "full load" at the air force academy...had to be able to actually maintain a climb rate if an engine went down. Not mention what happens when one engine is lost on a twin a/c...makes things really interesting. With a single engine a/c it may be a glider, but gliders are pretty easy to land.
Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins, Special Inspections, etc. are a part of the whole FAA Type Certificate and Technical Standard Order, quality control process.
Get used to them.
I defy you to name a parachute manufacturer who has not issued a Service Bulletin. Aircraft manufacturers who have not issued an AD, SB or SI are rare.
Not mention what happens when one engine is lost on a twin a/c...makes things really interesting. With a single engine a/c it may be a glider, but gliders are pretty easy to land.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A recent article (about go-arounds) in "Twin and Turbine" magazine mentioned that every time you 'complicate' an airplane, you increase the fatality rate by 3 times. For example, if you have to do a go-around in a simple, single-engined airplane, you have a 70 chance of survival. The same scenario in a complex single reduces your chances of survival to 20-some-odd percent. The same manuver in a complex light twin reduces your chances of survival to about 7 percent.
The complex light twins favored by skydiving operations are some of the most difficult to fly on one engine. And they have plenty of quirks.
For example: if you lose an engine on the new, Polish-built Skytruck, your have to REDUCE power on the good engine. If you don't, the good engine has so much thrust, that you will run out of rudder authority.
Fixed-gear, single-turbines (Caravan, Kodiak, PAC 750, Porter, Turbine 206, Turbo Beaver, etc.) are 3 times easier to fly than any twin.
Not to mention AFAK you need 2 pilot to fly a twin engine turbine plane. I look funny on take off when one pilot was handling the controls and the other was keeping throttle and feather in hand. :)
The bob-sled type benches - that are standard in the PAC 750 - are by far the best for hooking and tightening tandem students. Sitting or kneeling on the floor of our old Beech 18 was a pain until we installed bob-sled benches. When we bought a King Air, we installed bob-sled benches. When we bought a second King Air, we installed bob-sled benches.
Side benches in Twin Otters make it difficult to tighten both side straps evenly. "Ominous music" sounds like the first step in a side spin.
By far the best are airplanes large enough (Skyvan, DC-3 and C-130) to allow you to stand on your hind legs - like a gentleman - while attaching students.
Hint, I have done tandems from the following aircraft: Alouette 2 Beech 18 (2 of the 3 types of door), King Air and Queen Air Cessna 172, 182, 205, 206 (both types of door), 207, 208, 210 and 421 Douglas C-47 (cargo door version of DC-3) Dornier 228 Maule Pilatus Porter Skyvan Twin Otter
Have you seen what the climb rate of a -27 super otter is with 23 jumpers and 1 engine on a hot summer day? It really isn't that much better (where are those really smart pilot types to give the precise data?). This was the reason we often had to fly our otter with 4 jumpers as a "full load" at the air force academy...had to be able to actually maintain a climb rate if an engine went down. Not mention what happens when one engine is lost on a twin a/c...makes things really interesting. With a single engine a/c it may be a glider, but gliders are pretty easy to land.
4 jumpers as a full load? Say what?! Uhh... that's goverment waste for yah.
And so what if a Super Otter doesn't climb faster than a PAC 750 with one engine inoperative. How fast does the 750 climb with one engine inop? Yah... not so great is it?
Airworthiness Directives, Service Bulletins, Special Inspections, etc. are a part of the whole FAA Type Certificate and Technical Standard Order, quality control process.
Get used to them.
I defy you to name a parachute manufacturer who has not issued a Service Bulletin. Aircraft manufacturers who have not issued an AD, SB or SI are rare.
You are missing the point Rob -
1) This AD is emergency in nature. In piloting, that's something that should raise concern 2) The information is being offered through a foreign certification. That is another hop in the step to know the legitimacy of the testing 3) The issue here is wings not being able to support a load. Though one can reduce the payload, you cannot always predict wing loading because of getting into unforeseen situations like wind shear or going through a section of extreme turbulence by underestimating a frontal system's approach velocity. 4) The AD makes it clear that there are defective parts holding the wing on. Rivets that are not able to hold the load they were designed for. 5) In other instances concerning airliners where vertical stabilizers may be suspected of shearing because of bad rivets, all the planes were grounded for inspection. This is common practice, and has not been done in this case according to the data I'm looking at.
If this doesn't raise concern, someone's not paying attention. Been flying for 27 years - and know a thing or two about this.
plane.jpg
I'm never going to be to grown up to think thas funny
1
