0
kallend

New jump plane in our future?

Recommended Posts

colossus

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
colossus

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.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrkeske

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.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RMURRAY

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.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hardhatpat

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.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

***

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.

Or throw in operable landing gear like a a King Air...
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Climb performance is a function of excess power. There is no advantage to having another engine in this regard.
For this reason, a high power single engine jump plane will always be cheaper to operate than a multi engine jump plane.

I'm guessing that the 408 will be more than 12,500 lbs based on its cargo load capacity. That means a type rating and two pilots. Not a big deal for FedEx, but pretty expensive for a DZ. This thing hasn't even been built yet anyhow.

Looks like you can fly a Dash 8 with the door removed. This one has an STC for an in air cargo door.
https://www.globalair.com/aircraft-for-sale/ListingDetail/Dash-8-DHC-8?AdId=80729

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
on controller there is a dash 8 100 series for sale. i asked for the asking price,,,, 1.95M there are 27 similar ones that will be for sale. some of the largest dzs (what maybe 6 worldwide) should run the numbers and maybe they could improve profit or better yet reduce jump prices for the masses?

Bombardier Dash 8 321 N815EX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, twins almost double maintenance costs. Every time you split a
PT6A's main casing, the bill starts at $100,000!
King Air maintenance is even more expensive with their retractable wheels. $45,000 every time you send a KA strut out for mandatory inspections every 5 years.
When my boss bought a 1960s-vintage KA, I asked him why he did not buy a smaller single. He replied "KA is the least expensive turbine." We eventually agreed that a 10-seater turbine single would be the perfect size for that DZ.
Consider that the oldest KA were built in the 1960s when they were the launch customer for P&WC's shiny new engine. That makes the oldest KA 90 series 50 years old!
Many third-rate cargo carriers buy old King Airs based on the instrument panel number of hours remaining on the engines. Some fly them until engine hours/cycles time-out.
Similarly, I saw a FLEET of tired, old Beech 99s based in Las Vegas and flying tourists over the Grand Canyon. This was many years after Beech 1900 replace 99s on the production line.
Or they strip the old airframe for spare parts. I remember an engineless orange twin (Bandiarante or Gulfstream 1) sitting around Perris Vallet, CA for years! They robbed the engines to keep one of their jump-planes (Twin Otters and a Skyvan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hardhatpat

Quote

I'm guessing that the 408 will be more than 12,500 lbs based on its cargo load capacity. That means a type rating and two pilots.



That was my first thought, 6000lbs cargo capacity is hard to do under 12,500. It sounds more like an ATR replacement.



The 400 series Otter has a MTOW of 12,500 and an empty weight of 6881, for a capacity of 5619. Even the 50 year old 100 series Otter has a 5,716 capacity. I bet that with advances in materials over the last five decades, they can get a 6000 lb capacity in a 12,500 lb plane. Seems worth it to save on an extra pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kcb203

***

Quote

I'm guessing that the 408 will be more than 12,500 lbs based on its cargo load capacity. That means a type rating and two pilots.



That was my first thought, 6000lbs cargo capacity is hard to do under 12,500. It sounds more like an ATR replacement.



The 400 series Otter has a MTOW of 12,500 and an empty weight of 6881, for a capacity of 5619. Even the 50 year old 100 series Otter has a 5,716 capacity. I bet that with advances in materials over the last five decades, they can get a 6000 lb capacity in a 12,500 lb plane. Seems worth it to save on an extra pilot.

https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-information/technical-description

A full fuel load weighs almost 2600 lb. The payload for a 100 nm range is 4061 lb.

We should be glad that planes to replace the caravan are in the works. With more available on the market, it should drive down costs for a DZ. Is there a thread about wishing that 20 years ago there were a bunch of single engine turboprop, high wing, tailgate aircraft that could take 12-16 people at a time.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the 12500 lb limit is such a step up in cost, I was wondering if there has ever been an effort, by anyone or an organization/business, to get some sort of exemption from that/stretching the limit? Perhaps it is correct to figure that the bureaucratic wheels just wouldn't allow it?
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0