Cessna 401/402 as jump plane

[Kmiecek 0]

Does anyone have any experience or information about using a Cessna 401 or 402 as a jump plane?

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I hate to be the dick that says do a search, but, do a search. Small door, low/close tail. Not a good choice unless your talking about a demo.

[diablopilot 2]

There is an operation in Idaho that is/was using one. I have a 12 or so jumps from one in NZ, and I agree with Spence. You better have a shit hot pilot for jump run and for when an engine quits on take off.....

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[LongWayToFall 0]

That is for sure. My dad's good friend died recently when he crashed a Piper Navajo out in Las Vegas, after loosing an engine after takeoff. The Navajo is similar to the 401, in that they both use dual piston engines. He was an outstanding pilot, so if he went in from loosing an engine after takeoff, I don't have much hope for a fully loaded jump plane. Anyways, bsbd.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

On most piston twins the remaining engine is taking you to the crash site. I think more people would survive if they both quit together so the average pilot didn't try to keep it flying.

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

On most piston twins the remaining engine is taking you to the crash site. I think more people would survive if they both quit together so the average pilot didn't try to keep it flying.

BINGO!!

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[LongWayToFall 0]

Yeah, but he was at low altitude, over a residential area, no areas to land. He clipped the top of a telephone pole and that is what made him go in. He also wasn't an average pilot, his job was ferrying planes long distance from china and the middle east etc. He had more hours in caravans and otters than most would dream of. But yeah, if he went in because of that engine that was lost, then there is no way a regular pilot would have been able to do any better, especially fully loaded. Luckily most dzs are going to have runways that are not in packed residential areas with no outs.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

My comment was not aimed at him. Just a general thought.

[riggerrob 558]

I did a few tandems out of a Cessna 200 series twin a few years back. Other than the narrow door it was no big deal.
I just wondered if a Cessna twin could carry enough tandems to turn a profit???

[LongWayToFall 0]

Yeah I figured, just letting people know how sketchy those piston twins are. God I love twin otters, I feel so safe in them.

[EvilEagle 0]

I've jumped the one in Idaho a few times. I've heard those planes have CG issues. In ID, they wouldn't let us stack outside and the pilot didn't slow down at all. Pretty serious wind blast.

They only fly theirs when they do tandems (if there's a spot open for upjumpers, we got on also). I'm guessing they turn a profit with 2 tandems/load.

[Kmiecek 0]

Thank you to all who have replied so far. Initially, I was just looking for anyone who may have experience/info on the 401/402. The actual situation is that I am considering a purchase of a C-401A primarily for cross-country personal/business purposes. However, we sort of have a dual mission since my wife, my son, and I are skydivers as well. The aircraft will NOT be used for "commerical" skydiving. Only well experienced jumpers (family and friends) will jump it. We may also use if for the occasional Demo.

The particular aircraft I have in mind has a cargo door aft of the airstep door which, when both are removed, would solve the small door issue. More specifically, I'm interested in any information from pilots and DZOs who have used a 401A for jumping to get an idea of the performance. I understand the single engine failure issue. Just curious about handling and such. The only "Fly with door removed "STC I could find out there is for the C-402C. Since the 401A and 402C are essentially the same airframe, I assume the performance is about the same. I figure the 401 doesn't have an STC because the 401 and 402 are not particularly efficient for regular DZO use.

If anyone out there had first hand jump piloting/performance experience with the 401A specifically, or 401s/402s generally, I'd appreciate if you could contact me. It will help greatly in my purchasing process.

Thanks again to all who have posted.

cheers,

[CSpenceFLY 1]

You might need to check to see if it can be flown with the cargo door removed.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

You might need to check to see if it can be flown with the cargo door removed.

I don't see the 401 on the list. And the 402 has an STC. I may be wrong, but doesn't the STC mean that extra stuff is added (like an exterior step) or certified equipment has to be removed (more than the door)?

And if the 401 isn't on the list, it can't be legally flown with the door removed. The same airframe doesn't mean the same plane. They have different certifications, they are different planes. Yes the FAA is that picky.

I know an arial photographer who got yelled at by the FAA for removing the little bar on the door window. He wanted to be able to swing it all the way open, but when the FAA dude saw him unscrewing it, he informed the pilot that it was an unapproved modification. Really.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[CSpenceFLY 1]

An STC(Supplemental Type Certificate) does not necessarily mean that anything has been added or removed although usually it does. It simply means that someone has done the flight testing and paperwork to prove to the FAA that a plane is safe to be flown in a other than original configuration.

[Kmiecek 0]

Thanks for looking. You are correct, the C-401A is not on the list in Advisory Circular 105-2. And I'm aware that the FAA can be very picky about make/model/year etc. The good news is that it's usually easier to get a similar model added via STC or 337 if a preceeding one exists. The STC for the C-402C didn't have the actual text on the FAA website so it was difficult to tell if it included any mods, or just approved flying with the door off. Some fine folks at the Idaho DZ operating a 402 have given me some excellent advice in the matter. I don't have the final word on everything, but things are looking better and better for my particular situation. Thanks for your input.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

An STC(Supplemental Type Certificate) does not necessarily mean that anything has been added or removed although usually it does. It simply means that someone has done the flight testing and paperwork to prove to the FAA that a plane is safe to be flown in a other than original configuration.

Okay, thanks. That makes sense - the autogas STC doesn't involve any modificaion, but I remember how much work went into getting the first ones.
I just saw on the list that some models were approved for flight with the door removed, and others listed a STC.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JohnMitchell 14]

Cedar Valley, Utah had one maybe 20 years ago. Engine out performance was sketchy with a load of jumpers. Same thing with a Twin Beech, though. You have to have a pilot that knows how to crash land successfully. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

[GaryP 0]

C-402B being used for AFF1 - Rylstone Australia 1986

[inline C402load.jpg]

[inline C402side.jpg]

"Altitude is birthright to any individual who seeks it"

.

[bfilarsky 0]

Seems to me you could get the same performance from a single for a LOT less money. Have you considered something like a Malibu or a T-210/P-210? You could probably operate a Caravan for around the same cost as something like that, granted the acquisition cost would be substantially higher.

[Kmiecek 0]

I did look a lot at different singles, except that my cross-country requirements will include over water and some mountains. My dad swears by twins for that and I always listen to my daddy.