Pac 750

[SimonBones 1]

Sounds like the general consensus is that the PAC is the way of the future... Just like I've been saying!

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

D'oh! You're right - it's 1.09 gal per jumper for the Otter, .93gal/jumper for the PAC. So we're looking at about a 64 cent difference per jumper on fuel costs (assuming $4/gallon Jet-A.)

6+ pre gallon around here

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

>Yes it does. It's called a C-130.

Yeah, but I bet you jumped one of those baby non-stretch C-130's!

Er, I believe that I was sat not ten feet away from you in the stretch C-130 in Thailand, O senile one. They changed it halfway through the week remember, because it couldn't accept corrections with the ramp down and we had to switch the base to a normal length one, which was a pity, as I was rather having a nice lay down in the long one on the way to altitude.

I got about 500 out of the normal teeny tiny ones though, I have to admit. Ahh, the pleasures of the Swedish Hercules Boogie. Hopefully it will come back one day.

Id like to point out too, that the demographics of the jumping population have changed the need for big planes too. Free flying's gain in popularity means that not a lot of DZ's need the capacity to put up 20 plus flat loads any more.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Free flying's gain in popularity means that not a lot of DZ's need the capacity to put up 20 plus flat loads any more.

A few years ago at Quincy, we tried to organize a 10-way competition out of a DC-3. Not enough takers. The demographic is changing.

Everyone keeps mentioning fuel capacity. Maintaining one engine, instead of two, should be mentioned.

I tried the PAC and didn't enjoy doing 8-12 ways and trying to move around under the low roof. Moving that way also strings out the exit. (I like to stand up and I'm spoiled.)

The plane is uncomfortable in most aspects.

That said, fuel economy and maintenance savings will be the decision drivers for most small-medium dzs. I expect to see more of them.

Oh... and Skyvans are noisy SOBs. I encourage everyone to buy a large bottle of earplugs and share them.

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

Id like to point out too, that the demographics of the jumping population have changed the need for big planes too. Free flying's gain in popularity means that not a lot of DZ's need the capacity to put up 20 plus flat loads any more.

This is actually a really good call. As a freeflyer, how many times a year do I ever do more than a 15 way? Two or three events? Freeflying has become the way of the future, aircraft is now adapting.

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[billvon 2,466]

>Sounds like the general consensus is that the PAC is the way of the future.

I'd guess the 'way of the future' for the next ten years or so will be Otters at large DZ's, Caravans at small DZ's. Then, as the PAC's become as used, cruddy and as cheap as Caravans, they will start to make inroads.

Keep in mind that skydivers don't generally buy new airplanes (military skydiving teams excepted.) They buy airplanes that other people no longer want. That's why we have a lot of Otters (from small airlines) and Caravans (from Fedex) nowadays.

[billvon 2,466]

>Er, I believe that I was sat not ten feet away from you in the stretch
>C-130 in Thailand, O senile one.

Just giving you a hard time, O long one.

[AllisonH 0]

Quote

>Er, I believe that I was sat not ten feet away from you in the stretch
>C-130 in Thailand, O senile one.

Just giving you a hard time, O long one.

Ahh.... Stretch C-130's, now those are nice! The view on take-off from the cockpit isn't too shabby. Don't have to worry much about exit separation with their speed on jumprun either. Of course I haven't been in one with more than 13 people on board - I suppose it's possible to make even that plane feel crowded if you cram enough people into it.

[jacketsdb23 45]

Thats funny Ficus. That plane kept grabbing my Cannon too. Scratched the hell out of it. Doesn't anymore!

Losers make excuses, Winners make it happen
God is Good
Beer is Great
Swoopers are crazy.

[mrbiceps 0]

c-130 your kidding arnt u ? what dz regularly runs one of those babies? they would be worth heaps. not to mention fuel for 4 motors.
i dont mind the noise of the skyvan. its size and climb rate kills the pac 750.

[bfilarsky 0]

Quote

c-130 your kidding arnt u ? what dz regularly runs one of those babies? they would be worth heaps. not to mention fuel for 4 motors.
i dont mind the noise of the skyvan. its size and climb rate kills the pac 750.

You must've been on a different skyvan than I've been on. The exit totally fucking rocked, but it was noisy as shit AND took forever to get to altitude. The PAC is a decent climber - far better than my experience with the skyvan. Perhaps yours had bigger engines?

[virgin-burner 1]

we used to put 17 or 18 jumpers into the PAC. still comfy. but we're no fat ass americans over here..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

>Right, but at smaller drop zones, where getting enough jumpers at any
>given time to put up an otter load can be a challenge, the PAC would be
>absolutely perfect, because you could actually fly a load with 6 instead of
>having to wait for 12.

Definifely. At smaller DZ's, it's easier to fill a PAC. (Or a Porter, or Caravan etc.)

after this summer, with Jason and the STL grand caravan at PST baldwin ontario, I would say that it (grand caravan, 675 HP) would be my FIRST pick for a plane to jump. as comfortable as a twin otter, as nice a door , steps, bars etc as the twin otter, no stupid benches, decent time to altitude AND will fly with less jumpers when needed. Now if it only had the same P&W engine the kodiak has.....

edit..however, cannot beleive anyone would complain about a PAC!

R

[shropshire 0]

Quote

edit..however, cannot beleive anyone would complain about a PAC!

Skydivers LOVE to complain. It's what they do best.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[AndyMan 7]

The PAC is definitely a great aircraft. It's small, fast, and good on fuel. This will make it a favorite of DZO's.

As a jumper, I like any plane that my DZO likes, since it means that I'll get to jump more. What I mean here is that there's nothing more painful than a beautiful fast Twin Otter that the DZO won't start up because there's only 8 people at the DZ.

Chicagoland Skydiving Center is exactly this scenario. They have whats essentially the only "new" Twin Otter in operation when they bought a nearly million dollar rebuilt one 5 years ago. They also have a new PAC 750.

The PAC is much faster than the Otter, but while the PAC comfortably holds 14 people, the Otter will hold 23. On a busy weekend the Otter is absolutely required because even with the speed advantage, the PAC can not even come close to the capacity of a fast Otter because of the difference in load size. At a busy dropzone that can support an Otter, the PAC can not compete.

As a result, CSC does not fly its PAC on the weekends, it leases the aircraft to a neighboring DZ that normally flies a 182.

Where the PAC really shines is at a big DZ during the week. The efficiency of the PAC means that the DZO is willing to start it up for a group as small as a 4way team.

The fuel economy of the PAC really shines during the week. It allows light loads, which allows the plane to turn more often, which in turn reduces engine starts, which even saves makes more money for the DZO.

For example, if the DZ only had 20 jumpers, with an Otter they would cram everyone into 1 load, then shut down. With the PAC, they'll put 7 jumpers on each load, keep the plane turning, and by the time everyone has jumped, the first group has packed and is ready to go for jump 2. With 20 jumpers, the PAC keeps turning all day long while the Otter would shut down every load.

The PAC already has an advantage in maintenance because there's only one engine. That means half as many engine starts even before load 1 has taken off. On top of that, add in the reduced number of starts because it's more likely to turn, and the savings add up quickly.

I don't see the PAC ever replacing Otters at busy DZ's that can support an Otter. I do see them replacing 182's at small DZ's, and replacing Caravans and King Airs in the medium sized DZ's. I also see them being used by large DZ's as secondary aircraft for use on super busy weekends, and less busy weekdays. The attraction to this aircraft from 3 distinct sizes of DZ (small, medium, and large) will make this a very popular aircraft. No wonder production is sold out for 3 years straight.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[SimonBones 1]

Now if a DZ had two PACs as opposed to one otter, it would be waaaay more efficient! You could then turn 28 jumpers (as opposed to 23) at an even faster rate than the otter... with the same number of engines... and burn even less fuel per jumper!

Jeebus!

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[vpjr 1]

Requires more pilots. Ask any DZO how much he likes Pilots.

[jumpoutnow 0]

Good point.......just bring a check for 2mil+ and take home a couple o PACs.

People are crazy. Cuz there's more of 'em.

[mnskydiver688 0]

I don't see the argument of the Pac being "much" faster. I jumped the CSC PAC this summer and was not impressed with the climb rate. It might have been the pilot being sluggish but, 900 ft/min isn't spectacular. Also the airframes of the PAC's will show age sooner than Otters. Why not a turbine C206? Or how about a C182 with an IO550 engine? Do you see PAC's being flown into the Alaskan wilderness? Does the PAC have the airframe to support floats? With how much abuse skydiving planes get, give me a plane designed for wilderness and adverse conditions, not a plane designed for skydiving. Also if the PAC was designed for skydiving why not a T tail?

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

[AndyMan 7]

I can't answer all your questions, but I can say that I'd take PAC over any kind of 182 or 206, no matter what kind of engine is installed.

As for climb rates, you're right - the climb rate is good but not spectacular. What makes the PAC so fast isn't the climb so much as the descent. Depending on runway configuration, the PAC cam be on the ground loading before the fun-jumpers land. Compare that to an Otter that lands as the tandems land. The PAC is sometimes off the ground climbing before the tandems land.

The climb rate of the PAC varies greatly with how full you load it. I know when Sky Knights flies the CSC PAC on weekends they regularly run full loads of 14 jumpers, which can give it a 16-18 minute climb. CSC never flies the PAC that heavy. Instead, they'll put at most 12, but more often 8-10 per load, in order to help the plane turn during the week. That's when you see the very fast climb rates. Add in the very fast descent, and you get the unusually high turn rates.

As for the low tail - you're right. That, and an aft CG are the two biggest challenges for this plane which make it less then ideal for funjumpers - especially bigger RW. This is the key reason I don't see the PAC ever replacing Otters at big DZ's. The key competition for this plane, the Caravans and King Airs, also have low tails and aft CG issues.

I am curious as to how a Kodiak will perform compared to a PAC. I understand the Kodiak has a higher tail and more neutral CG. Unfortunately I've heard not such good performance, which seems like a deal-breaker.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[normiss 639]

Did I hear correctly that the next gen PAC's will have a t-tail?
I don't personally care for the PAC - I still prefer the Twotter any day.

Slow, multi-engine planes are safer to me.

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

The climb rate of the PAC varies greatly with how full you load it. I know when Sky Knights flies the CSC PAC on weekends they regularly run full loads of 14 jumpers, which can give it a 16-18 minute climb. CSC never flies the PAC that heavy. Instead, they'll put at most 12, but more often 8-10 per load, in order to help the plane turn during the week. That's when you see the very fast climb rates. Add in the very fast descent, and you get the unusually high turn rates.

I've never seen out PAC take more than 15 minutes to get to altitude even loaded at 15 jumpers. With a fresh top off with gas and 15 I've seen it do 14-15 minutes.

But I also understand that there are some differences between PACs out there that cause some to have more performance than others. Here are some picture examples.

The first pic "out" shows a PAC with the exhaust facing directly away from the aircraft.

The second pic "BentBack" shows our PAC with the exhaust facing the tail of the aircraft.

According to our DZO, having an exhaust like this gives the PAC about 5-10% more performance. I don't remember where, either Raeford or somewhere else, there was a PAC that didn't have the exhaust facing the tail and I thought to myself it didn't climb as fast as our PAC.

Maybe this could be an explanation for why some people experience different climb rates on different PACs other than just a better pilot

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Requires more pilots. Ask any DZO how much he likes Pilots.

Don't worry about the pilot. Cheapest part of the airplane to replace.

[RMURRAY 1]

Quote

I am curious as to how a Kodiak will perform compared to a PAC. _Am

I have asked skygeezer to comment on this on the "kodiak - single turbine" thread. I am thinking they had a chance to dial in by now.

R

[pilot-one 0]

Quote

Otter carries 23

Really? Our dropzone never puts more than 20 on board and quite honestly I can't imagine 3 more geared up skydivers even fitting. That's got to be a pretty crammed ride to altitude. Let me guess.....I bet you only do 1 pass as well.