asphaltpussy 0 #1 February 6, 2011 Hi guys, i'm looking for information concerning the usage of a King Air 90 as a skydiving airplane. I'm interested more in the financial and cost-efficency point of view. Also what turbines are the most efficient. We're operating a Porter and are looking to upgrade to a KA. And maybe does anybody has experience with the cargoliner cargo door conversion? Thank you guys in advance Cheers. GeorgeR&D Firebird USA Skyventure Arizona Instructor Eloy, AZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #2 February 6, 2011 Give this a try. It's a spreadsheet from the PAC750 guys comparing acquisition and ops costs of several birds including the KA. http://www.utilityaircraft.com/costcomparisons.html I'm a former DZO and have operated several turbines. The King Air is probably the worst possible choice these days. It's a gas hog and maintenance heavy. Compared to other planes, the KA is cheap to buy, but you'll spend the savings buying gas, doing maintenance, and repairing it (the cheap ones are also the old ones). If you want to make money and have jumpers brag about climb rate, get a PAC. If you want the same thing in a size people won't bitch about, you'll need an Otter.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davelepka 4 #3 February 6, 2011 QuoteWe're operating a Porter and are looking to upgrade to a KA What makes you think the KA is an upgrade from a Porter? How many slots per hour are you flying in the Porter, and how many do you think you can get from a KA? Have you considered upgrading the engine in the Porter? Even if that equaled the aquisition cost of the KA, you would retain the lower maintenence costs of the Porter. Are you running the Porter non-stop from sunrise to sunset? Start jumping earlier, and create an extra hour of daylight, you'll be able to run that many more loads for no cost increase at all. If you're not running non-stop all day, why not? Purchasing additional tandem and student gear would allow you to turn more students per hour for a fraction the cost of different airplane. What about purcahsing a second Porter? The KA will require maintenence on two engines, just like two Porters would. The KA would also require maintenence on the gear system, which wouldn't be required on two Porters, and I have to figure that the airframe maintenence on KA is going to be higher than a Porter, so two Porters wouldn't be that much more to keep up than one KA. On top of that, you can 'save' one Porter and keep the time down when you don't need the extra capacity, saving some of that extra maintenence cost until it can produce revenue. You have to run the KA every day if it's your only aircraft. Additionally, if the need for the extra capacity dwindles, you can always sell one Porter and go back to running a single Porter. You really should be running a plane all day, sun up to sundown with no shut downs for a season before upgrading. It's by far the biggest cost factor in running a DZ, and the best way to drown yourself in costs is with excess aircraft capacity. It might seem like a mad, crazy rush to run an aircraft at capacity, but that's how you make the most money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 1 #4 February 6, 2011 Low acquisition cost can short turn around times make the king air attractive. You could sell the Porter and buy 2 King Airs. When I flew King Air 90s for skydiving I averaged 30-33 slots per flight hour. Pick an aircraft already converted to hydraulic gear from the chain drive. I did gear swings and phased rebuilding sections of the landing gear and flaps every 75 hours. At the time the 91.407f aircraft inspections were 150 hours apart. If you own the airplane, fly the airplane, maintain the plane and don’t have to run the day to day ops of a 4-5 day a week DZ, it wouldn’t be a bad choice. The gear and flaps were not designed to handle the number of cycles we want to put on them and so increased maintenance is required there. Many DZs have had success with King Airs but they have a history of greater risk, landing gear failures, pilot failures, mechanic failures, tail strikes and all come at high cost. The Porter should be worth more in 10 years than an old King Air. I think the Porter engine upgrade requires that the operator have the engine in TBO in which the engine would cost what a used King Air 90 would. My PT6-20 206 should have the same purchase cost of the KA90 with a max of 24 head per flight hour. Not bigger and sexy but much lower risk because of the simple airframe and derated engine. I am hoping that it would be a good complement to an established Porter or Twin Otter DZ. The increase in Maintenance would be less than a King Air and the -20 spares would cross over to a -20 Porter, also a pilot training aircraft for upgrade to the Porter. Sorry to turn this into a sales pitch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #5 February 6, 2011 Be careful what you wish for. Sparky http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/KA6.jpg http://i397.photobucket.com/albums/pp55/mjosparky/Skydiving/KA1.jpgMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 1 #6 February 6, 2011 Looks like Joes plane, Took a while but that tail strike cost him his life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
asphaltpussy 0 #7 February 7, 2011 Thanks everyone, Actually the financial and operative info is exactly what i was interested in, so thanks for the inputs. We will keep our Porter. We just wanted to have another faster and bigger plane we can use on weekends and lease for boogies. The KA was attractive to us because of the low acquisition cost and the the higher load quote plus we wouldn't have to worry a lot if the KA is standing in the hangar a few days without flying. Ok, thanks and bring more input. bsR&D Firebird USA Skyventure Arizona Instructor Eloy, AZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmarshall234 13 #8 February 7, 2011 Holy Shit !! Is that from the Test Drop Incident? Buy that pilot another beer. For me. I'll pay you back when I see you next. As I heard the story...he brought you and Joe AND that aircraft back to the ground safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fencebuster 7 #9 February 7, 2011 Think fixed gear. Landing gear malfunction, repair, maintenance and just plain old, "I forgot to put them down" make retracts a poor choice for skydiving ops, in my view. Too many cyles and the more cycles, the more opportunity for failure/necessary repair. PAC or an Otter will save alot of headaches and a PAC has the advantage of doing it well, if not perfectly, on one engine with the savings in fuel costs a benefit.Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208 AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 1 #10 February 7, 2011 A King Air 90 sitting in the hanger will have a higher cost (risk / money) than one thats flying. Pilots have to stay proficient like the Porter, the aircrafts cash flow = money for maint, mechanics also have to stay in a flow on the aircraft. Farming it out to events sets up more problems with this type of aircraft. When jumpers are excited and unfamilar you have to have a pilot like Mullins who has seen it all to reduce the risk. Whats the cost per seat? Kind of a gamble. Do you feel lucky? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 1 #11 February 7, 2011 The cargo door looks great but the cut out is Aft of the normal door and puts more weight aft at climb out. King Airs dont need the CG farther aft. The pilot will have to keep a higher airspeed for climb out and jump run. King Airs dont need faster jump runs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neandertal 0 #12 February 7, 2011 I hope that helps you: http://www.what2fly.com/operating_cost/beechcraft/king_air_90_a90.php http://www.findaircraft.com/performance/performancedetails.php?Make=BEECH%20KING%20AIR&Model=A%2090%20King%20Air http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/op_cost_info.asp?id=26 Have fun! No Drogue, no JUMP!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 8 #13 February 8, 2011 Looks like N32229er is no more. Spotted what appears to be what's left of her in the back ground at the beginning of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7PPxJupbU4 ... video. Looks like what's left of her is still up at Skydive Utah; I'm guessing at KTVY? Tooele Valley Airport in Tooele, Utah? I think I'll start another thread and see if anyone up that way happens along and can say what's up with her. I'm guessing her fuselage is serving out the end of her life as a mock-up. I'd be curious to know why she came to this fate, but that's a topic for another thread. Anyway, to the OP, it does look like Skydive Utah is operating another King Air. Might be worth contacting them, but vpjr has already given y'all some good words to think on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #14 February 8, 2011 Quote Looks like Joes plane, Took a while but that tail strike cost him his life. Yes it is and there was more to it than just the plane.SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gary73 8 #15 February 8, 2011 Don't believe the cost info on the PAC-750. There's no way in hell you can put 18 jumpers in that plane, and even with 14 the climb rate is mediocre at best. Then there's the ridiculously low door and all the exposed metal structure inside the plane that guarantees massive head injuries for everyone if there's a rough landing. If you want a plane in that class, get a Caravan. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airgord 1 #16 February 8, 2011 QuoteDon't believe the cost info on the PAC-750. There's no way in hell you can put 18 jumpers in that plane, and even with 14 the climb rate is mediocre at best. Then there's the ridiculously low door and all the exposed metal structure inside the plane that guarantees massive head injuries for everyone if there's a rough landing. If you want a plane in that class, get a Caravan. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #17 February 8, 2011 QuoteDon't believe the cost info on the PAC-750. There's no way in hell you can put 18 jumpers in that plane, and even with 14 the climb rate is mediocre at best. Then there's the ridiculously low door and all the exposed metal structure inside the plane that guarantees massive head injuries for everyone if there's a rough landing. If you want a plane in that class, get a Caravan. I wasn't encouraging the OP to trust the cost info in and of itself. I was simply providing the only side-by-side jump plane comparison that I know of on the web. I have more than a few jumps out of a PAC and I think your opinion is a little overblown. In my experience, a PAC at 80% capacity climbs noticeably faster than a -27 Otter at the same 80% capacity, and the PAC climbs significantly faster than any of the dozen or so Caravans I have jumped. The performance data issued by aircraft manufacturers are mandated to be accurate AND verifiable, so if they are off, it ain't by much or the feds would have something to say about it. Imagine the possibilities if a manufacturer published bogus take-off/landing distance requirements, max gross weight, or best rate or best angle of climb data. Besides getting them sued for fraud, they would also face prosecution in the event their false numbers lead to a crash. The published numbers aren't just sales fluff. They are required to be correct. With that said, I'll trust the manufacturer's numbers over your opinion. As for your assessment of "guaranteed massive head injuries" during a crash, that's also a stretch that has no basis in historical events. Every plane has something that isn't completely ergonomic from a skydivers perspective, and jumpers should have helmets on if landing with the plane anyway. How about a 182 or 206? The two jumpers in the back would have a similar issue in a hard landing from the low roof line and various support elements that stick out from the ceiling and walls, yet they are still the most used plane in the sport today. The PAC isn't an Otter or Caravan, but nothing else is a PAC either. DZO's who operate the PAC agree that they are the lowest cost per jumper turbine aircraft in the biz. That's why they keep buying them. But what do I know?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
neandertal 0 #18 February 8, 2011 Quote The performance data issued by aircraft manufacturers are mandated to be accurate AND verifiable, so if they are off, it ain't by much or the feds would have something to say about it. I agree with you but those number often can be duplicate only by their test pilots, ISA and brand new aircraft, not by Joe-the-average-pilot flying in a real world. No Drogue, no JUMP!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #19 February 8, 2011 Quote Quote The performance data issued by aircraft manufacturers are mandated to be accurate AND verifiable, so if they are off, it ain't by much or the feds would have something to say about it. I agree with you but those number often can be duplicate only by their test pilots, ISA and brand new aircraft, not by Joe-the-average-pilot flying in a real world. That may be, but the same would hold true for the numbers on all planes, so it kind of negates the point.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
