thevasc21 0 #1 June 12, 2013 Hi everybody! I was sitting here at my work computer (bored and tired) thinking about my local DZ. Currently they fly a 5 seater Cessna 205, and a 6 seater 206. What kind of jump planes are normally flown and what is their full occupancy? I'm curious what the next step up from a 6 seater 206 is? the only other planes I know of are the king air seating about around 16, and the skyvan / twin otter, both seating around 20 people. Helicopters fit 5 people. What kind of planes do you think are the most fun to jump out of? :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obatzda 0 #2 June 12, 2013 pilatus porter pc-6 - 10 jumpers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twatterpilot 0 #3 June 12, 2013 IMHO Cessna 182--4 Jumpers Cessna 205--5 Cessna 206--6 Cessna 207--7-8 Some have turbines, not common Pilatus Porter--9-10 Turbine Kodiak--12 (I think, correct me if wrong please) Caravan--14-16 Grand Caravan--16-18 Grand or regular Caravan with Garrett conversion? PAC 750--15 ? King Air 90--12-15 King Air 200--22 Twin Otter--20 Twin Otter--22-23 (Big Engines aka "Super Otter") Skyvan--20-22 CASA 212--35 ish DC-3--45 Beech 18--12-15 with/without Turbines (Westwind)? Flown most, favorite is the King Air 200 because it is faster than hell and quiet. Small door though. Good tandem machines as are most King Airs. Twin Otter is the most common, loved due to twin engine redundancy, somewhat fast climb, short runway OK, and big door. Caravan/PAC/Kodiak liked due to somewhat big door, and lower perceived fuel burn. Costly to buy, more expensive than people think to maintain, but still a single engine airplane. Tailgates such as the Skyvan and CASA are cool because, well, they are tailgates. CASA getting cost prohibitive to operate with the fuel prices of today. Porter would be a logical step up from a piston Cessna, but due to the fact that it is a tail dragger (and a tricky one at that) and parts are quite costly, they are falling from favor. Talented pilots are getting hard to come by to fly the tail wheel airplanes. Caravan/PAC/Kodiak are also great step ups, but the purchase price is often over 1 million dollars, so cost is an issue. My vote goes to the old reliable. The Beech King Air 90. A decent example can often be purchased for around $300,000 and will haul up to 15 jumpers to 13,500 feet in under 12 minutes all day long on about 20-25 gallons of fuel. Runways with good approaches can be as short as 2500 feet with a decent pilot in the seat. The added complexity of retractable landing gear, and the associated maintenance that goes with it, are by no means worth spending an additional $500,000+ on a single Caravan or equivalent. You can do a lot of maintenance and buy a TON of fuel with that $500+ large. And you get twin engine redundancy. Hot section parts for a PT6A-20 are almost cheaper now than an overhaul for a Continental IO-520/550 engine on the Cessna 206. If I were the pilot, King Air 200. As a jumper, King Air 200, Twin Otter (big engines) or CASA. As an aircraft owner, King Air 90.Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8 Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land Private Glider Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
3mpire 0 #4 June 12, 2013 QuoteCaravan/PAC/Kodiak liked due to somewhat big door, and lower perceived fuel burn. Most of my jumps are out of a grand caravan. conventional wisdom I've heard is that there is less fuel burn and the annual maintenance costs are lower on a caravan versus a twin otter. is this true? if you could choose between running a grand caravan or a twin otter, which would you choose as a pilot, jumper, and owner? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrBester 0 #5 June 12, 2013 My favourite: Dornier DO28 G92 - seats 15 very comfortably, really fast, big door. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,053 #6 June 12, 2013 Caravan - There's reasons FedEx uses it as a cargo feeder. Compare costs of purchase (at the top right) with the specifications at the bottom of the page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_208_Caravan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-6_Twin_Otter Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackwallace 3 #7 June 13, 2013 Best plane to jump out of= FREEEEEU only make 2 jumps: the first one for some weird reason and the last one that you lived through. The rest are just filler. scr 316 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twatterpilot 0 #8 June 13, 2013 3mpireQuoteCaravan/PAC/Kodiak liked due to somewhat big door, and lower perceived fuel burn. Most of my jumps are out of a grand caravan. conventional wisdom I've heard is that there is less fuel burn and the annual maintenance costs are lower on a caravan versus a twin otter. is this true? if you could choose between running a grand caravan or a twin otter, which would you choose as a pilot, jumper, and owner? When posed with only those two options, I would choose the Twin Otter. I am personally not a fan of single engine airplanes. While the Grand Caravan will be cheaper to fuel, and fix, the Twin Otter will be "safer" due to the twin engine redundancy. I think you will find that the added numbers of jumpers the Twin Otter can carry, will probably offset the added direct costs of operation of the Twin Otter vs. the Caravan. If I had to choose between the different mod kits available to the Caravan, I would personally chose the Blackhawk 850 HP version, ONLY because I don't have enough Garrett experience to feel comfortable behind them, but I have JUST enough to feel uncomfortable behind them until I have the opportunity to gain more experience. I still stand behind my earlier post, I am a huge fan of the King Air series. They are built like brick $hithouses, VERY reliable, strong, fast climbers and low fuel burns.Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8 Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land Private Glider Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twatterpilot 0 #9 June 13, 2013 Awesome airplane indeed! Unfortunately not legal here in the states.Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8 Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land Private Glider Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #10 June 13, 2013 Pitt Special - 1 Pilot, 1 Jumper But the exit is SO MUCH FUN! Balloon - best 60 Bucks I ever spent.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kidicarus 0 #11 June 13, 2013 Porter...tricky...? I'm guessing you have no tailwheel experience at all. The only thing easier than a Porter is a Cub. I do know some of the most "interesting" flying you can do is in a piece of shit 90 KA on one fan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #12 June 13, 2013 I always had a soft spot for this big 12-passenger sweetheart....My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NinerThreeKilo 2 #13 June 13, 2013 twatterpilot***QuoteCaravan/PAC/Kodiak liked due to somewhat big door, and lower perceived fuel burn. Most of my jumps are out of a grand caravan. conventional wisdom I've heard is that there is less fuel burn and the annual maintenance costs are lower on a caravan versus a twin otter. is this true? if you could choose between running a grand caravan or a twin otter, which would you choose as a pilot, jumper, and owner? When posed with only those two options, I would choose the Twin Otter. I am personally not a fan of single engine airplanes. While the Grand Caravan will be cheaper to fuel, and fix, the Twin Otter will be "safer" due to the twin engine redundancy. I think you will find that the added numbers of jumpers the Twin Otter can carry, will probably offset the added direct costs of operation of the Twin Otter vs. the Caravan. If I had to choose between the different mod kits available to the Caravan, I would personally chose the Blackhawk 850 HP version, ONLY because I don't have enough Garrett experience to feel comfortable behind them, but I have JUST enough to feel uncomfortable behind them until I have the opportunity to gain more experience. I still stand behind my earlier post, I am a huge fan of the King Air series. They are built like brick $hithouses, VERY reliable, strong, fast climbers and low fuel burns. Yea, twins are always safer eh??? Old beat PT6 twin otter loosing a engine (critical engine?) on climbout with your average "career" quazi trained DZ pilot.... you know the likely ending to that story if you're a ATP I'd vote for the 208 and I'm a fan of the 331 too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unkulunkulu 0 #14 June 13, 2013 popsjumperI always had a soft spot for this big 12-passenger sweetheart.... Hehe, POPS knows the thing :) My first jump plane. Sweet, but my god, that siren! My fav at the moment is in the attachment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obatzda 0 #15 June 13, 2013 C-160 Military TRANSALL - i love that plane ! to bad i never jumped out of it, but did the first flight of my life on that baby. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DHemer 0 #16 June 13, 2013 I too am dreaming of these elusive turbine and twin engined jump ships :) Have only jumped from a 206 and 182 my first boogie is going to be a treat Attached is my DZ 206 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #17 June 13, 2013 I hate jumping the Pac, I'd take a Caravan to a king air or pac any day but love otters and sky vans. but on a slow day you can get a caravan up more on a slow day. Life in Florida is nice! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeJD 0 #18 June 13, 2013 MrBester My favourite: Dornier DO28 G92 - seats 15 very comfortably, really fast, big door. Another vote for the G92, for all the reasons you mention. For those who don't know it, seating is typically on two benches running the length of the cabin and jumpers straddle the benches so that they are facing fully aft. The only time it's not comfortable in there is if you're at the rear end of one of those benches, and the people who got in before you have left you virtually nothing to perch on - then it's hell. On the other hand, it gives your calves and thighs a pretty good workout! For me it's a shame that Caravans have become so prevalent in the UK, although I understand it all comes down to running and maintenance costs. In my experience, when they're full of jumpers and fuel, most are noticeably slower than other turbines. They're also cramped and the C of G rules prohibit bigger launches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twatterpilot 0 #19 June 13, 2013 kidicarusPorter...tricky...? I'm guessing you have no tailwheel experience at all. The only thing easier than a Porter is a Cub. I do know some of the most "interesting" flying you can do is in a piece of shit 90 KA on one fan. No, not a lot of tail wheel time. Only about 1700 hours or so teaching, aerobatics, towing gliders etc. So no. No time. At all. Total Rookie. And when I say that out of the 30 or so tail draggers I have time in, including the Pitts, that the Porter can be a tricky airplane, it can be. Forget to set the elevator trim once and tell me how that goes for you. As far as a POS King Air, that is why you do MAINTENANCE!!! That way, they are NOT a POS. And you also must have a pilot in the seat that is worth a $hit. Hire talent, and be willing to PAY for it. The King Air is far superior on one engine than a Twin Otter, a 1000 times better than a DieVan on 1, and only marginally worse than the transport category CASA 212-200. Wonder how well the Caravan flies when it has one of it's engines fail... Oh wait...Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8 Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land Private Glider Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twatterpilot 0 #20 June 13, 2013 NinerThreeKilo******QuoteCaravan/PAC/Kodiak liked due to somewhat big door, and lower perceived fuel burn. Most of my jumps are out of a grand caravan. conventional wisdom I've heard is that there is less fuel burn and the annual maintenance costs are lower on a caravan versus a twin otter. is this true? if you could choose between running a grand caravan or a twin otter, which would you choose as a pilot, jumper, and owner? When posed with only those two options, I would choose the Twin Otter. I am personally not a fan of single engine airplanes. While the Grand Caravan will be cheaper to fuel, and fix, the Twin Otter will be "safer" due to the twin engine redundancy. I think you will find that the added numbers of jumpers the Twin Otter can carry, will probably offset the added direct costs of operation of the Twin Otter vs. the Caravan. If I had to choose between the different mod kits available to the Caravan, I would personally chose the Blackhawk 850 HP version, ONLY because I don't have enough Garrett experience to feel comfortable behind them, but I have JUST enough to feel uncomfortable behind them until I have the opportunity to gain more experience. I still stand behind my earlier post, I am a huge fan of the King Air series. They are built like brick $hithouses, VERY reliable, strong, fast climbers and low fuel burns. Yea, twins are always safer eh??? Old beat PT6 twin otter loosing a engine (critical engine?) on climbout with your average "career" quazi trained DZ pilot.... you know the likely ending to that story if you're a ATP I'd vote for the 208 and I'm a fan of the 331 too. That is why proper maintenance MUST be done, so the engines aren't "old and beat", AND you have to hire talent and be willing to pay for it. I think the 331 is a good engine, I just personally don't have enough time behind them to feel comfortable, but knowing the physics behind the engines and the free turbine vs. direct drive, I am still going to stand behind my preference for the Pratt. The Cessna Caravan is a decent airplane. I just think the Twin Otter and King Air are much better. The construction of the Caravan does not impress me. It is built cheap, and costs the moon to maintain. The Kodiak looks to be a much more solid airplane. Don't get me wrong, the Caravan has served with honor for many years in many different missions. But there have been a lot of them lost to accidents. And a lot more are getting lost to corrosion.Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8 Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land Private Glider Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twatterpilot 0 #21 June 13, 2013 Here's a hot rod. Along with a visitor.Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8 Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land Private Glider Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unkulunkulu 0 #22 June 13, 2013 Oh, a nice airplane... wait WHAT? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 1 #23 June 13, 2013 Multi engine aircraft have a greater chance of engine failure than Single engine aircraft. I do not have that statistic just heard that over all my years at the airport and seams right. My opinion is the Twin Otter reaches blue line from Vr over time quicker than the KA, both have adequate rudder authority at blue line and climb rate, The KA is more complicated during V1 cut / climbout than a Twin Otter with the retract gear. After flying 25+ load days I am happier in a Twin Otter because of the reduced work load. The Twin Otter is cheaper on labor maint cost per seat than the King Air but more expensive in replacement parts cost. King air is definitely cheaper, I couldn't afford to keep my Twin Otter. If a Twin Otter just had that nice KA seat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zlew 0 #24 June 13, 2013 As a jumper, a KA is my least favorite jump plane (turbine). Climes fast...sure... but the door sucks, and most I have been in have the worst prop blast of a side exit plane. Combo that with said shitty door, and pulling off even small exits can be tricky. I'd take a 208 any day (really like the looks of the super 900 336 conversion!) over a KA, and would take a Twotter any day over a 208. Most may not agree with me, but I think there are some advantages to being in a plane that just becomes a simple glider (and slow flyer) when power is out. Part of me likes the idea of teh worst case being me landing slow with the plane off field. I live in a place with tons of open fields, so might think differently if I lived in a wooded area. That is one thing I used to love about the Porter. Loses power...and that thing can land anywhere and crazy slow speeds. The short takeoff and landing abilities of that plane are pretty cool. off field landing in a KA....those things don't like to slow down do they (saying out of some ignorance)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #25 June 13, 2013 twatterpilot The King Air is far superior on one engine than a Twin Otter, a 1000 times better than a DieVan on 1, and only marginally worse than the transport category CASA 212-200. Wonder how well the Caravan flies when it has one of it's engines fail... Sounds like you know a thing or two.My favorite pilot is the one that will maintain Vmc no matter what and crash-land straight ahead if necessary. No, I'm not kidding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
