DontfallOff 0 #1 August 18, 2011 What options do we have if we are looking for a plane that has to take off on a really short runway (less than 800m and maybe as short as 500m) with around 5-10 jumpers on board and with summer temperatures rising up around 40C? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #3 August 18, 2011 Harrier - well it is a jump jet (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meekerboy 0 #4 August 18, 2011 Turbo Finist SMG-92. 10 People to 15,000ft in 13 mins, STOL aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 37 #6 August 18, 2011 Arava http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Arava I have a few jumps out of one of these in CA in the 80s. It was a blast lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 August 18, 2011 Quote pilatus porter ? The porter isn't a vertical take off and landing aircraft, but it's about as close as they come. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #8 August 18, 2011 A PAC would also be a reasonable aircraft. It has very competent STOL characteristics.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Calvin19 0 #10 August 18, 2011 Quotepilatus porter ? -SPACE- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #11 August 18, 2011 The Vancouver Parachute Centre in Abbotsford BC uses a Porter on a 400 metre runway (sea level and temps rarely above 30). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #12 August 18, 2011 AN-2 "Take-off run: 170 m (557 ft) " "Stall speed: ~50 km/h (26 knots, 30 mph)" "The An-2 indeed has no stall speed quoted in the operating handbook. Pilots of the An-2 say one can fly the aircraft in full control at 30 mph (as a contrast, a modern Cessna four-seater light aircraft has a stall speed of around 55 mph). This slow stall speed makes it possible for the aircraft to fly backwards (if the aircraft is pointed into a headwind of, say, 35 mph (56 km/h), it will travel backwards at 5 mph (8.0 km/h) whilst under full control). (This is also possible with almost any other true Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) aircraft, but the Antonov has the distinction of being able to do the trick in the mildest headwind)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverek 54 #13 August 18, 2011 No one beats THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPSElw8qEsI&feature=related Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #14 August 19, 2011 Helio Stallion As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdfreefly 1 #15 August 19, 2011 Quote Quote pilatus porter ? The porter isn't a vertical take off and landing aircraft, but it did land in a suite at the holiday inn express last night. ftfy Methane Freefly - got stink? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain1976 0 #16 August 19, 2011 I second the PAC750. The Helio Stallion and Pilatus are nice planes, but having flown both I can attest to their forward visibility which sucks on the ground. You can't see much in front of you.You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #17 August 19, 2011 Quote pilatus porter ? +1 The Porter we had at Mt Vernon... grass strip of 1950' with 8 to 10 jumpers... VERY short takeoff roll. maybe a few hundred feet most days and in the afternoon winds Jim could damn near freaking hover over the end of the runway Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #18 August 19, 2011 Quote No one beats THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPSElw8qEsI&feature=related It is, however, a bit difficult to squeeze 5-10 jumpers into it as the original post question asked.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #19 August 19, 2011 QuoteI second the PAC750. The Helio Stallion and Pilatus are nice planes, but having flown both I can attest to their forward visibility which sucks on the ground. You can't see much in front of you. Frequently the case in tail-wheel aircraft. The original poster didn't mention what type of runway he had to deal with other than "short." If it's also unimproved, the tail-wheel, high-wing, may be a better option.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #20 August 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteI second the PAC750. The Helio Stallion and Pilatus are nice planes, but having flown both I can attest to their forward visibility which sucks on the ground. You can't see much in front of you. Frequently the case in tail-wheel aircraft. If it is a turbine converted Porter and at a smaller DZ, good luck finding a pilot that has enough hours in a turbine and a tail dragger that the plane insurance carrier will be happy! At least one that will consistently fly for the DZ at small DZ typical pilot pay rates.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #21 August 19, 2011 Too many factors the OP left out to know.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #22 August 19, 2011 QuoteBeaver. .................................................................... Turbo-Beaver. ... lots more horsepower and an extra row of seats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 182 #23 August 19, 2011 QuoteWhat options do we have if we are looking for a plane that has to take off on a really short runway (less than 800m and maybe as short as 500m) with around 5-10 jumpers on board and with summer temperatures rising up around 40C? The DHC-4 Caribou has a bit more capacity than you need, but from the standpoint of short-field operation it is nothing short of amazing. One Caribou pilot told me that they had a hard and fast rule in Vietnam - they would not operate at full gross weight unless they had 900 feet (277m) of runway. This sounds unlikely until you watch one in action with a skilled aircrew. The DHC-6 is also overkill from the standpoint of capacity, but it is nearly as good as the DHC-4 for short-field ops, and it's turbine-powered to boot. We used to fly in and out of Boston Logan 33R with runway to spare; 2,557 ft/779 m was much more than we needed. The Dash-8 is, however, a bit pricey for a jumpship. Though phenomenally reliable if well maintained, upkeep is breathtakingly expensive. For 10 people from a short, unimproved runway, the Porter is very hard to beat (there are effectively no more Helio Stallions in circulation). However, getting the thing insured is a bitch, and finding a pilot who can fly it well can be a challenge. Good luck. BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AHoyThere 0 #24 August 19, 2011 Helio Stallion - takeoff distance 320 ft. http://www.helioaircraft.com/ourplanes_stallion_stats.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DontfallOff 0 #25 August 19, 2011 Sounds like everyone loves the Porter :) There aren't many of those here in Australia - its a short dirt runway that we may lose more of because a mining company is trying to cut our operating space short so they can expand their rail operations. The existing runway is 1200m of hard packed gravel, this is likely to be shortened significantly. We need a plane that will let us work with a shortened runway or else we may have to close one of the best and oldest DZs in the country :( The Helio looks good as well, what are they like to jump from? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites