Armour666 0 #101 October 22, 2008 QuoteD'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.) thats becomes a bit of a saving over time 25 loads a weekend 20 per load = 500 jumper in northren climates seasonla of 20 jumpable weekends = 10,000 jumpers a PAC would have to do 33.3 loads per weekend to lifet the same number of jumpers but would save $6400 in fuel cost if going by your number. THen take in consideration on only one engin for mait and can run lighter loads I can see why small to mid size DZ would look hard at a PACSO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Armour666 0 #102 October 22, 2008 Quote 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? It's airframe dose do a lot of back country mountain fly and crop dusting in New Zeeland good point on the Tail but it will be interesting to see the competition heat up with the Kodiak they do fly theirs in Alaskan wildernessSO this one time at band camp..... "Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 18 #103 October 22, 2008 = 10,000 jumpers. Insurance and payment per year? The Fixed costs are $170,000 per year before you turned a prop, even one prop. DOC $336. $260,000 per year to carry 10,000 head. PAC numbers http://www.utilityaircraft.com/costcomparisons.html . I used 38 head per hour. If you ran it light like some have suggested (Simmon ) you would need 14,412 head per year (8 average) at $24 per head to break even on aircraft cost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vpjr 18 #104 October 22, 2008 That is if Ray gave me 20 year financing, 10 years (most aircraft loans I have found) you would have to do over 21,000 head a year at $24 per head. 21,000 head / 8 head per load X 4 loads per hour = 2625 loads 8 months X 4 weekends = 32 weekends 82 loads a weekend, 41 loads sat and 41 loads sun rain or shine. Now you need a supper otter again. When financing a million plus dollar asset most business don’t expect a return for 10-15 years. I don’t know many small DZs that can afford that cost / risk.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bfilarsky 0 #105 October 22, 2008 Keep in mind they're bring in more than $24 a head - aren't tandems the reason DZ's can stay in business? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrbiceps 0 #106 October 23, 2008 your right buddy. our skyvan has 2 brand new motors in it rated at 850-1000 hp each. i have been told its climb rate is 1500 feet per minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bfilarsky 0 #107 October 23, 2008 damn that's fucking sweet! I'm jealous! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skydiving007 0 #108 October 23, 2008 I love the 750 just because we can get up there quicker. I fly many kinds of planes and the 750 was fun I love falling out of it and love basic nature of it. It is tight but hey I'll take quick over fat anyday of the week....or weekend QuoteExplaining Skydiving is like trying to Explain sex to a virgin! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 377 21 #109 October 23, 2008 Quotedon't know how the kodiak compares to the pac, but on paper it looks like a much better jumpship. Kodiak has 1000 lbs less useful load and looks like the max load will be 12 jumpers. Reports are that it is averaging 22 to 24 mins per load. PAC 750 at WFFC was doing 17 minute loads. I liked the PAC 750, but if I were a tandem master I'd obviously prefer a Twotter. The PAC 750 economics are pretty compelling, but some DZs opt for a much lower initial cost and buy a high time early model King Air. The Pac 750 at WFFC was a fast climber. I liked the visibility from the cabin. 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites diablopilot 2 #110 October 23, 2008 Quote Sigh.... Yes, we'd all like to jump Skyvans and Super Otters for ever for $10 a load, but we should probably just all get real. DZO's will use the aircraft that maximizes profit for them best. 25 years ago, the gold standard was the DC3. There were lots of them around and you could get them fairly cheaply, and gas prices were practically nothing. The things were all over the place. There's a reason you don't see them now. As that fleet became older and harder to maintain, and gas prices started to rise, more efficient turbine aircraft were more profitable to run. Now that fuel is becoming a major factor in DZ economics again, you're seeing a return to single engine turbine aircraft. Anyone who seriously has a problem with a PAC door or prop blast is a suffering a condition known in the medical trade as being a huge pussy. I dread to think of what they would have made of a door jam on a DC3 with just the rain gutter to cling onto, and that refreshing drizzle of nice hot engine oil to keep the left side of your rig lubricated. I've run a DZ with two DC3, five otters and a porter. Guess which one was the most profitable in the long run ? We all need to get used to PAC's, Caravans and Kodiaks. Sure, there's still going to be the large regional drop zones that have the volume to support Otters in a few states, but the economics of operations are dictating what DZO's will be buying. Byron owns it's King Air but leases it's PAC. The King Air, like most of the twin turbine fleet currently used for jumping, is old and getting older. It's generating a lot of maintenance, and a lot of items that can't be planned for. The PAC is light on gas, turns the same numbers of jumpers an hour, and is a fixed cost that can be planned for. On a personal note, I've done about 1000 tandems out of a King Air, and a couple of hundred out of a PAC. I'll take the PAC any day. It's exit for any type of skydiving that I do is preferable to the King Air. YMMV etc etc. When I first jumped it, I hated it. Once I changed a few things in the the way I set exits up, I learned to love it. I suggest you all do too to avoid disappointment. How may I put this succinctly. 1. Get the fuck in. 2. Shut the fuck up. 3. Get the fuck out. 4. Enjoy your skydive. 5. Have a nice day. Or I swear to god in 10 years, you'll all be back in 182's again. Have I recently mentioned how much I love your way with words? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #111 October 23, 2008 Quote 1. Get the fuck in. 2. Shut the fuck up. 3. Get the fuck out. 4. Enjoy your skydive. 5. Have a nice day. AMEN (.)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 yarpos 4 #112 October 23, 2008 "Anyone who seriously has a problem with a PAC door or prop blast is a suffering a condition known in the medical trade as being a huge pussy".....gold!regards, Steve the older I get...the better I was Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RMURRAY 1 #113 October 23, 2008 Quotemax load will be 12 jumpers. Reports are that it is averaging 22 to 24 mins per load. regarding Kodiak. not true. latest posted on the other thread is 18 minutes (when not stopping at 5k and 10k to let jumpers out) using 85-90 pounds of fuel and they plan to have 14 jumpers. This was as of July. I'll bet it will be comparable to the PAC when they get dialed in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,772 #114 October 23, 2008 >quite honestly I can't imagine 3 more geared up skydivers even fitting. >That's got to be a pretty crammed ride to altitude. It's not too bad. 1 right seat, 2 on the back bench, 1 on the floor, 19 on the benches. >Let me guess.....I bet you only do 1 pass as well. Usually. We do a second pass about 1/3 of the time. It's no problem to get 2 8-way teams and a 4-way team out on one pass; it's the endless 2 and 3 ways that cause problems for doing everything on one pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 5 of 5 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. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
377 21 #109 October 23, 2008 Quotedon't know how the kodiak compares to the pac, but on paper it looks like a much better jumpship. Kodiak has 1000 lbs less useful load and looks like the max load will be 12 jumpers. Reports are that it is averaging 22 to 24 mins per load. PAC 750 at WFFC was doing 17 minute loads. I liked the PAC 750, but if I were a tandem master I'd obviously prefer a Twotter. The PAC 750 economics are pretty compelling, but some DZs opt for a much lower initial cost and buy a high time early model King Air. The Pac 750 at WFFC was a fast climber. I liked the visibility from the cabin. 3772018 marks half a century as a skydiver. Trained by the late Perry Stevens D-51 in 1968. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #110 October 23, 2008 Quote Sigh.... Yes, we'd all like to jump Skyvans and Super Otters for ever for $10 a load, but we should probably just all get real. DZO's will use the aircraft that maximizes profit for them best. 25 years ago, the gold standard was the DC3. There were lots of them around and you could get them fairly cheaply, and gas prices were practically nothing. The things were all over the place. There's a reason you don't see them now. As that fleet became older and harder to maintain, and gas prices started to rise, more efficient turbine aircraft were more profitable to run. Now that fuel is becoming a major factor in DZ economics again, you're seeing a return to single engine turbine aircraft. Anyone who seriously has a problem with a PAC door or prop blast is a suffering a condition known in the medical trade as being a huge pussy. I dread to think of what they would have made of a door jam on a DC3 with just the rain gutter to cling onto, and that refreshing drizzle of nice hot engine oil to keep the left side of your rig lubricated. I've run a DZ with two DC3, five otters and a porter. Guess which one was the most profitable in the long run ? We all need to get used to PAC's, Caravans and Kodiaks. Sure, there's still going to be the large regional drop zones that have the volume to support Otters in a few states, but the economics of operations are dictating what DZO's will be buying. Byron owns it's King Air but leases it's PAC. The King Air, like most of the twin turbine fleet currently used for jumping, is old and getting older. It's generating a lot of maintenance, and a lot of items that can't be planned for. The PAC is light on gas, turns the same numbers of jumpers an hour, and is a fixed cost that can be planned for. On a personal note, I've done about 1000 tandems out of a King Air, and a couple of hundred out of a PAC. I'll take the PAC any day. It's exit for any type of skydiving that I do is preferable to the King Air. YMMV etc etc. When I first jumped it, I hated it. Once I changed a few things in the the way I set exits up, I learned to love it. I suggest you all do too to avoid disappointment. How may I put this succinctly. 1. Get the fuck in. 2. Shut the fuck up. 3. Get the fuck out. 4. Enjoy your skydive. 5. Have a nice day. Or I swear to god in 10 years, you'll all be back in 182's again. Have I recently mentioned how much I love your way with words? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #111 October 23, 2008 Quote 1. Get the fuck in. 2. Shut the fuck up. 3. Get the fuck out. 4. Enjoy your skydive. 5. Have a nice day. AMEN (.)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
yarpos 4 #112 October 23, 2008 "Anyone who seriously has a problem with a PAC door or prop blast is a suffering a condition known in the medical trade as being a huge pussy".....gold!regards, Steve the older I get...the better I was Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #113 October 23, 2008 Quotemax load will be 12 jumpers. Reports are that it is averaging 22 to 24 mins per load. regarding Kodiak. not true. latest posted on the other thread is 18 minutes (when not stopping at 5k and 10k to let jumpers out) using 85-90 pounds of fuel and they plan to have 14 jumpers. This was as of July. I'll bet it will be comparable to the PAC when they get dialed in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #114 October 23, 2008 >quite honestly I can't imagine 3 more geared up skydivers even fitting. >That's got to be a pretty crammed ride to altitude. It's not too bad. 1 right seat, 2 on the back bench, 1 on the floor, 19 on the benches. >Let me guess.....I bet you only do 1 pass as well. Usually. We do a second pass about 1/3 of the time. It's no problem to get 2 8-way teams and a 4-way team out on one pass; it's the endless 2 and 3 ways that cause problems for doing everything on one pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites