0
SunCoastSkydive

Skydiver input needed: New skydiving aircraft launching 2012

Recommended Posts

Dear skydivers, aircraft operators and DZ owners,

We are an Australian company working on a new aircraft with the primary mission for skydiving.

Our project is now well advanced and we would like more input from you, the skydiving community, please.

The aircraft we are designing and certifying will be a ten-seat, production aircraft, made in Australia.

The first model of the aircraft will be configured for skydiving and will be fitted with 2 crew seats.

Later models with 2 crew seats and 8 PAX seats will follow quickly.

Our aircraft will have an 800SHP turbine engine and carry up to 20 jumpers.

Calculated operating cost show break-even point to be 7 jumpers per load.

As a skydiver and aircraft operator myself, I believe our aircraft has already got many design features delivering significant benefits to skydivers - not least of which is improved skydiver safety. However, before the design draft is finalised, we would very much like your input.

Could you please let us know what you think a great skydiving aircraft should have? (Sorry, it will not have a tail ramp)

Engine (Type, model, power/size)

Aircraft size (seats/jumpers)

Performance

Pay load

Door size

Door position

Horizontal stabilisor position

Undercarriage (height off ground)

Wing Position

Maintenance (any issues which you are currently having to address eg corrosion, constant engine overhaul and would like a solution to)

Affordability (we estimate the aircraft sales price, including a turbine engine costing around $500+k - sorry, there are no cheap turbine engines - will be approx $1.3 million).

Please don’t limit your feedback or ideas to the questions above - ANY idea or information is very valuable to us.

Thank you for your input. If you would like any more information about our aircraft or its development progress please do not hesitate to contact us.

Blue skies,
Tibor Glesk /
Air Ute Pty Ltd/ Sunshine Coast Skydivers.com.au
m: 0408 915 415
e: [email protected]

The following is further information on the AUXX10 design at present:

The AUXX10 designed to meet the Needs of The Skydiving Industry

§ Single turboprop engine means reliability and operational economy

§ Standard inclusion of the largest skydiving door in the world (2mx1.8m) to provide safer exits for all skydivers (student, tandem, sport)

§ Standard inclusion of probably the most important safety feature in a skydiving aircraft - an internal horizontal stabiliser positioned high above the top of the door for the skydiver to brace themself on before exiting so neither the skydiver or their gear comes into contact with this stabiliser

§ The most spacious cabin in civilian skydiving aircraft for skydiver safety gives plenty of room for easy gearing-up prior to jump and to check and cross-check equipment.

§ Low undercarriage, 85cm off the ground means fast, easy boarding for skydivers without the need for detachable stairs/steps.

§ Powerful (800HP) modern turboprop engine delivers the fastest climb rate of 2364fpm, which in-turn means the quickest load time^ with 20 skydivers on board thus increasing operator profitability

§ Air Ute Pty Ltd have approached two of the world's leading turbine engine manufacturers with regard to being the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for the AUXX10. Both companies have responded keenly. We are currently in final negotiations and will make a decision with regards to the OEM.

§ Simple systems, composite construction, modern turboprop engine means fast, money-saving maintenance with less downtime delivering increased profits. All aircraft have a service schedule and all components must be regularly inspected, checked and replaced - the AUXX10’s uncomplicated design makes maintenance far easier, because the fuselage is more durable and therefore maintenance costs less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused I see you said the first production will be a skydiving oriented design, then you say 10 seat, 8 seat, and 20 passenger capacity all in 2 lines...

Large door on the left side, 1000-1500 fpm climb rate in 90 degree weather, high horizontal stab, door that seals well in cold weather.

Pt6 engine 4 blade prop

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

§ Standard inclusion of probably the most important safety feature in a skydiving aircraft - an internal horizontal stabiliser positioned high above the top of the door for the skydiver to brace themself on before exiting so neither the skydiver or their gear comes into contact with this stabiliser



How can you brace yourself on it but not come into contact with it? I'm not sure what you're talking about, please explain in more detail.

I'm not a pilot or DZO or anything like that, but I do have a mechanical design engineering background with Boeing and Honda, so I can't resist giving you some ideas.

I would think that an existing engine type would be preferred, with as little customization to any of the hardware as possible being preferred to keep costs down, isn't that correct, or is it not possible to find an existing engine with the specs you desire? Are you planning on applying a FADEC?

Most aircraft have notoriously poor fuel quantity indication systems (even the Boeing airliners prior to the 777 had quite inaccurate systems). I think making it less likely to be wrong about how much fuel is onboard (easy quick method of course) would be worthwhile. Perhaps there are some inexpensive ways of improving this, even if it is something that can only be done while on the ground, as I think skydiving operations are a bit more unique than most in the motivation to run with minimum fuel on board.

Features to help keep the pilot more comfortable were mentioned, and are worthy of consideration. How about making the wearing of a pilot bailout rig more realistic, as it seems that it is not so easy to do in some aircraft. Perhaps I'm wrong about this being not so easy now or that it is even desirable.

How about the comfort of skydivers? Please make it possible to have meaningful airflow to the cabin with the door closed. An outflow valve at the rear might be needed to give some ram-air coming in from the front. Of course you don't want to add the expense of a complicated mechanically driven outflow valve like on a pressurized airplane, but cars have very inexpensive passive one-way outflow valves in the trunk/boot area so that air flows from the dashboard vents through the cabin (to the back seats) into the trunk/boot and out.

What kind of seating arrangement are you planning (side facing/rear facing)? For both side and rear facing benches/straddle benches think it would be nice if the material had a higher friction surface than normal (slick vinyl) so that it is easier to stay in place during a climb.

How about really generous/rugged handles and steps for front and rear floaters. That doesn't mean encouraging extreme numbers outside, but make it easy for the proper number of floaters to hang on.

Assuming you will apply a roll up door, how about making it difficult to impossible to damage the door by accidentally closing it too hard? Something should be possible that is inherent in the design without adding much cost at all.

How about communication between those at the door and the pilots? Not that it is such a long distance, but it might be nice to have the ability to communicate in both directions, or even in one direction.

It is very cool that you are doing this development. The PAC and Kodiak have already shown that there is a market for new aircraft, and it would seem that it might be attractive compared to the expense of rebuilding twin engine aircraft that have not much value in the airframe.
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
>How can you brace yourself on it but not come into contact with it?

I am picturing a continuous horizontal stabilizer with the door _below_ it. (You can't hit it because you start out directly below it.) Naturally this poses some CG issues.

Unless you do a canard design and put the exit door beneath the main wing.

>I would think that an existing engine type would be preferred

Agreed. The PT6 series has decades of run time and repair experience.

>An outflow valve at the rear might be needed to give some ram-air coming in from the front.

Complicated! I am thinking a window that opens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>How can you brace yourself on it but not come into contact with it?

I am picturing a continuous horizontal stabilizer with the door _below_ it. (You can't hit it because you start out directly below it.) Naturally this poses some CG issues.



Perhaps that is what was meant, Perhaps the "bracing against it" was meant while in the plane (continuous horiz stab mentioned). It would seem that would imply an unusual location relative to the door (not far aft of it, and not far above it) that would still be vulnerable to head strikes and reserve PCs going above, and would there be room for rear floaters/camera aft of the door? Perhaps the stab is really high.

On the subject of horiz stabs...since it is a new design...if the stab is at all vulnerable to a canopy going over it, then maybe a small sharp edge would be effective at cutting it cleanly? :D Or, maybe a slight sweep to the stab, and no snag points would allow a canopy to easily slide off before taking breaking the structure.

Even a simple window, whether it opens or not, would be more expensive than the type of passive one-way outflow valve as used in cars.
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
K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple stupid.

Not calling you stupid, but from a relabilty/maintenance stand point there is another company ,(from that hemisphere), that incorporated a lot a bell and wistle type systems that can be rather problematic.
It has been a 4 years since I've worked on a PAC, so they may have modified things, but a motorized inertial seperator may sound cool, but there are to many pieces to fail (i.e. motor, microswitches).
Asymetrical flap cut-off that was problematic. Used springs, magnets and microswitches.

In response to sundevil777's comment about a bailout rig, maybe it could be a seat type container, like you see the in old WWII fighter pilot pictures, but designed as an actual part of the seat (i.e. cushion). I'm sure that Bill Booth, if he doesn't already have some type of design, could come up with something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


In response to sundevil777's comment about a bailout rig, maybe it could be a seat type container, like you see the in old WWII fighter pilot pictures, but designed as an actual part of the seat (i.e. cushion). I'm sure that Bill Booth, if he doesn't already have some type of design, could come up with something.



I'm sure he already has something in mind :D
For info regarding lift ticket prices all around the world check out
http://www.jumpticketprices.com/dropzones.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In response to sundevil777's comment about a bailout rig, maybe it could be a seat type container, like you see the in old WWII fighter pilot pictures, but designed as an actual part of the seat (i.e. cushion). I'm sure that Bill Booth, if he doesn't already have some type of design, could come up with something.

what is wrong with back type parachutes ? Seats are pretty uneasy to escape from a plane.
There are a couple of pretty sleek back PEP's out there.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in repl to"Door size

Door position "
...........................

If its not a tailgater you're wasting your time.

PLEASE give us a decent tailgate aircraft to jump out of .
Side doors suck in comparison.

can't wait to see it , all the best with your project.

edited to add

look at the Skyvan or Casa , imo that is getting very close to an ideal skydiving aircraft, very versatile. Where the Skyvan falls down a bit is being able tpo see out easily.
Being able to stand up in the jump plane is a major advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Thank you for your comments - sorry, this got typed up wrong - we meant the horizontal stablizer on our aircraft is far back and high above the door so there is no chance of a skydiver ever coming into contact with it however they choose to exit.



Have you considered having a larger than normal elevator to help prevent stalling? I guess it is the same as asking if the plane allows an extreme rear center of gravity compared to normal design norms, except that a plane would be expected to be able to take off at the aft CG limit, instead of just being able to withstand it while in level flight at 90 kts.
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
Quote

Have you considered having a larger than normal elevator to help prevent stalling? I guess it is the same as asking if the plane allows an extreme rear center of gravity compared to normal design norms,



Too much elevator would screw up the control balance while everyone was in their seats (or the plane was empty).

Moving the elelvator up will take care of some of that problem. In addition to making a tailstrike less likely, it keeps the elevator up in the clean air, out of the burble of the jumpers in the door, maintaining good airflow over the elevator with jumpers floating.

That aside, I'm confused about this thread in general. The questions being asked are basic, basic, configuration questions, and there's no way on earth to take a plane that hasn't made it that far in the design process, and have it certified by the FAA by 2012. A clean sheet design will take years to achieve certification, and the majority of the questions asked would have to be answered within the first six months of development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That aside, I'm confused about this thread in general. The questions being asked are basic, basic, configuration questions, and there's no way on earth to take a plane that hasn't made it that far in the design process, and have it certified by the FAA by 2012. A clean sheet design will take years to achieve certification, and the majority of the questions asked would have to be answered within the first six months of development.



Quite right! If it was a year away from approval, they should be marketing it about now.
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
Quote

Quote

That aside, I'm confused about this thread in general. The questions being asked are basic, basic, configuration questions, and there's no way on earth to take a plane that hasn't made it that far in the design process, and have it certified by the FAA by 2012. A clean sheet design will take years to achieve certification, and the majority of the questions asked would have to be answered within the first six months of development.



Quite right! If it was a year away from approval, they should be marketing it about now.

Probably a good job the plane in question is in Australia then. :|
You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Just copy Grand Caravan and modify stuff from there???



.......................................................................

Larger wing, more powerful engine and a cabin 2 metres tall.
To keep maintenance costs down, the engine should already be in wide use (e.g. one of the more powerful versions of Pratt & Whitney's PT6A).
How many standard shipping containers are 2 metres tall?
The original poster is never going to recoup his investment by selling to skydivers, so he would be wiser designing a cabin useful for oil exploration or the over-night parcel business.

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