monkycndo 0 #51 July 18, 2007 I had the same idea. Coolio.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #52 July 18, 2007 QuoteIt is nice to see another viable single engine turbine that is better for us than the PAC. Haven't seen anything yet to prove that. What's the maintinence schedule? What's the fuel burn? What climb rate with full load above 10,000 MSL? Max payload on the Kodiak is 1000lbs less than the PAC750XL. Power and wingloading on the PAC are better. Slower stall speeds on the PAC.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SeaKev 0 #53 July 19, 2007 Quote I had the same idea. Coolio. We could stop in Sandpoint on the way if they can't make it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
monkycndo 0 #54 July 19, 2007 Quote Quote I had the same idea. Coolio. We could stop in Sandpoint on the way if they can't make it. I wonder they would give an interested buyer a free spin in the plane? Especially if we were wearing our rigs and asked for a CUT.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluesidedown 0 #55 July 19, 2007 Anyone think that the Kodiak might go the way of the Airvan when it comes to DZ operation? $1.3 mil is a hefty price to pay for a plane that can 'double' as a jumpship, but really wasn't designed for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #56 July 19, 2007 Quote$1.3 mil is a hefty price to pay for a plane that can 'double' as a jumpship, but really wasn't designed for it. Name a plane that was designed to be a jumpship, and you might have a point there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #57 July 19, 2007 The PAC750XL.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 14 #58 July 19, 2007 The PAC was just a modifed Cresco. It still has the low tail that the King Air has. Yes, its better then most but its still not a ground up design with only skydiving in mind.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #59 July 19, 2007 Pretty much what he said. Just because the PAC comes with a roll up door and some handles doesn't mean it was 'designed' for skydiving. If a plane was designed for skydiving, you'd see a higher tail, more head room, and a CG that's a few feet further back than most (to help prevent aft CG stalls on jumprun). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #60 July 19, 2007 Quote The PAC750XL. Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #61 July 19, 2007 I disagree. From the onset of the project, the concept of the PAC750XL was to create a skydiving aircraft. No other aircraft in the industry can have the same said about them. From an operaters standpoint it is superior in performance than any other turbine jumpship. Are there things that could have been done different? Yep. Oh and Phree.... find a modern jump plane that wasn't derived from another design.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #62 July 19, 2007 Quote I disagree. From the onset of the project, the concept of the PAC750XL was to create a skydiving aircraft. The Pacific Aircraft Corporation's marketing division disagrees with you. " The PAC 750XL is a 750 HP, PT6-34 powered low wing, all metal, fixed tricycle geared aircraft, designed to meet the high demands of utility aircraft operators. It will cruise between 155 - 165 knots and has a short landing and take-off roll. It has an interior fuselage size approximating that of a Beech 18. with 5.0 hours of fuel it has a pay load of 2888 lbs. The initial production run is targeting the Skydiving industry. The PAC 750XL will climb from sea level to 13,000 feet, make the jump run, and land in approximately 16 minutes with a load of 17 parachutists.... Although the initial production run is targeting the Skydiving industry, the capabilities of this aircraft are such that it will fit many utility roles. With its high power to weight ratio, and exceptionally heavy lift capability from short unimproved airfields, the aircraft will be configured for freight, passengers and, if the market requires, floats, ski's and other specialty needs."Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #63 July 20, 2007 I worked for an owner of the company (UAC) durring the development phase. I assure you the original focus was a skydiving A/C.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #64 July 20, 2007 QuoteFrom the onset of the project, the concept of the PAC750XL was to create a skydiving aircraft. Maybe so, but how much of what they started with was a Cresco? What changes did they make to the airframe or systems of a Cresco to come up with the PAC? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #65 July 20, 2007 Quote The PAC was just a modifed Cresco. It still has the low tail that the King Air has. Yes, its better then most but its still not a ground up design with only skydiving in mind. Quite right! Some DZs actually fly NEW airplanes! Who would have thought that would be possible? The PAC and Kodiak look like natural competitors for that DZ that makes the big investment for a NEW plane. It is hard to say how much a Kodiak would cost if it came with a more basic set of instruments/displays as the PAC is equipped. It is really terrific that it can be a viable operating-cost driven choice compared to planes built in the '60s. New airplanes with one engine are competitive with a used twin engine! . 15 jumper single engine turbine tricycle gear designed for rough unpaved runways, high wing and tail, it sounds good to me. I don't expect airplanes to be designed from the ground up for skydiving. I expect them to be adaptations of designs that fit a larger market. The Kodiak and PAC have close to the same number of jumpers. Probably 15-17 for Kodiak, PAC has 17 seat belts. Looks like the cabin size is at least as tall and wide as the PAC, and the door might be bigger. Everything else being equal, the high wing and tail is better. A lot of traditional jump planes have a low tail, such as DC3, Beech 18, king air and even the C182, but given a choice, higher is better. Anyway, I think it looks great for a jump operation. From earlier posts in this thread, a couple DZs are already planning on getting a Kodiak, so we'll see how that goes.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #66 July 20, 2007 Quote find a modern jump plane that wasn't derived from another design. the An-2 scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #67 July 20, 2007 Quote Quote find a modern jump plane that wasn't derived from another design. the An-2 I think you win.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigSky 2 #68 July 20, 2007 Quote I went and invited them to Prairie so we could take a look. Got a reply that they would try to make it work after Oshkosh. So when will we know if it is going to make an appearance at LP? I wonder what counts a a perspective buyer? When I win the lottery I will probably buy one. Dose that count“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #69 August 12, 2007 I had the pleasure of touring Quest Aircraft in Sandpoint on Friday. I was there with Mike and Linda Groarke, longtime jumpers and pilots from Lost Prairie and David Steinke, an A & P from the Prairie now wrenching on jets in Nebraska. Mr. Lynn Thomas, the Kodiak sales manager lead the tour. We kicked the tires, looked under the hood and hung out as a camera floater. We took lots of photos and asked a lot of questions. As of now there are only two Kodiaks flying. We looked at #'s 3, 4 and 5 under construction. We discussed many aspects of the Kodiak as a jump ship. Fuel burn, CG limits, jumper capacity, maintenance, etc. We also discussed test jumping it in different interior configurations and flight conditions. The Kodiak is one hell of an impressive airplane. "Beefy" would be a good word to describe it. A lot of thought has gone into this product from ease of flying to ease of maintenance. Here are some facts and figures... $1.3 million is for a skydive model, no seats. The price will go up soon. They are back ordered 3 years. The Garmin 1000 is standard equipment. The interior is nice and large, I think 12 comfy. The rear camera step they are discussing needs to be tested. It seems close to the tail. Skydiving wasn't even in their plans, this was a bush plane, missionary flight, Cessna 206 replacement idea. they have some work to do before a jump model is completed. Roll up door, handles, steps, door deflector, etc. need to be refined. I was very impressed with the plane and Mr. Thomas was a gracious host. And yes, my rig was in the car and NO was the answer! It never hurts to ask. I sure look forward to jumping one. If you are in Sandpoint ,ID I recommend a visit to the factory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #70 September 3, 2007 QuoteQuoteDoes any DZ use a Turbo Beaver? Both Chatteris and Headcorn in the UK have used the Danish registered turbine "Black" Beaver. Macca post about playing with it but the link seems to require a password these days. just wondering why we don't see converted Beavers (stripped down and on wheels) used for skydiving. See the specs from Viking Air. Also, when are the first skydiving Kodiaks delivered... rm Specifications (Proposed – Customize to fit your needs) Engine Model: Factory NEW PT6A-34 with full Pratt & Whitney Warranty Prop: Factory NEW Hartzell 3 Blade Reversing Paddle Prop with pitch latches Optional Equipment: Viking Air 6000 Lb. Hi-Gross Kit Viking Air PT6A-34 Engine Kit (680HP) NEW Extended Cabin Kit & Battery NEW Alaska Door NEW Life Time Wing Struts Wing Tip Tanks Tinted Overhead Windows Strobe System FACTORY NEW Wipline 6100 Amphib Floats 9 to 11 Place Seating All AD’s & Service Bulletins Complied With Three Point Shoulder Harness, Pilot & Co-Pilot NEW Viking Custom Instrument Panel NEW High Quality Paint NEW Wiring Harness, including Viking Cool Start Kit NEW Custom Interior Single or Dual Controls & Brakes Avionics: STEC System 50 Autopilot System STEC Electric Trim System GNS 530 Garmin GPS / NAV / COM GNS 430 Garmin GPS / NAV / COM GTX 327 Garmin Digital Transponder GMA 340 Garmin Audio KCS55A Compass System Shadin Mini-flow Fuel Mgt. System (LBS/Hour or USG/Hour) Volt/Ammeter Electronics International Digital Voltammeter Viking Air Digital Prop Position Indicating System Lake & Air Gear Advisory System Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 124 #71 September 4, 2007 Beavers are VERY popular and therefore cost almost as much as a twin otter. there are plenty of them out there, but try to find one at a reasonable price. Especially with a turbine on it. In 1991 I met a guy in Alaska who rebuilt and delivered 'zero time' Beavers. The turbine model bas price was $650K and that is 16 years ago. Today I bet they are more than a million. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #72 September 4, 2007 The Kodiak is many months from being at a DZ. And a Beaver with a turbine will be more than the Kodiak new, all costs considered. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Broke 0 #73 September 4, 2007 Quote Quote Ray Ferrel explained to us that - initially - Pilatus wanted to build a jump plane version of its PC-12. That explains the large cargo door immediately aft of the wing. Unfortunately, costs rose during the development phase and somewhere along the way the "open in flight" option got dropped. In the short run, PC-12s compete directly with new King Airs (i.e. way more expensive for any DZ). In the long run, PC-12s will compete with old Kings and their expensive undercarriage overhauls. Remember that King Airs are far from the best jump planes, the only reason we jump from King airs is that (1960s vintage) they are by far the least expensive turbines available ... used. Skydivers are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying airplanes. We can only afford airplanes that are too old (i.e. have too many hours or cycles) to fly scheduled routes (Lodestar, DC-3, etc.). We also can only afford executive airplanes (Beech 18s, Queen Airs, King Airs, Learstars, etc.) only after the cabins are too old to hold pressure. Then we have to wait until de-icing boots rot and crack in night-freight operations. DZs are often the last job for airplanes before they get pushed back in the weeds and robbed for spare parts. By the time a King Air enters skydiving service, the airframe has devalued almost to zero. When DZOs buy King Airs, they are paying for little more than the instrument panels and the time remaining on the engines. In other words, when a DZO buys a King Air, he buys the engines and the seller tosses in the airframe for free. In conclusion, it will many more years before PC-12s will drop in price enough for skydivers to afford. By then they will compete - maintenance wise - with tired King Airs that will be marginally more expensive to maintain. Lovely context...we're all jumping deathtraps. Well isn't that why we practice jumping out of those planes Divot your source for all things Hillbilly. Anvil Brother 84 SCR 14192 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #74 September 4, 2007 IOW, Beavers are far too valuable - as float planes - for DZs to afford them. Hint: a piston Beaver - fresh out of overhaul - has an asking price of $350,000!!!! Piston Beavers are not significantly more productive than Cessna 206s and beater 206s start at $100,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadbug 0 #75 September 5, 2007 We have been useing a Piston powered Beaver at Skydive Twincities sence 1983. We fly with 8 jumpers. There are many mods out there for Beavers. Whipair in St.Paul MN does quite a few of them. For the first 15 years our Beav flew in stock form with 8 jumpers and was cramped. We got the cabin mod from Whipair about 10 years ago extending the cabin interior back about 24 inches. We still fly with 8 jumpers and it's almost roomy now. Burns about 12 gal per load of avgas. Time to 10,000 varies with the seasons 14-18 min. On a hot summer day the climb speed is dictated by the oil temp, so time to 10,000 can go to 20-22 min if you have to lower the nose to keep that big radial from bakeing itself. Anyway, I have about 600 hours in it and I love that old plane. Doug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
