PeregrineFalcon 0 #1 October 18, 2008 Holy shit, we got to altitude fast!! The door was so wide! I wasn't sure exactly how to exit! I inched up to it and looked for a strut and wheel to climb onto! Man, I got to go back to that DZ! Byron's great when the winds are right for us Pre-A noobs. I've been mostly going up in a Cessna 206. One flight in a 182 which took forever (no door either so it was cold as hell). I was in a King Air for level 1 AFF but that ride up was a blur since I was concentrating on the flow and not peeing my pants. There was also a big plane in Perris 14 years ago when I did 4 jumps, but that was 14 years ago. I'm interested in hearing your takes on the different planes (or other air crafts) and the pros and cons of each. It's going to be quite some time before I experience other planes and no, I don't feel like doing a search and reading a bunch of posts that don't apply before finally finding what I want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ASTKU 1 #2 October 18, 2008 The Pac 750 is the only plane designed for skydiving. I haven't gotten a chance to fall out of one yet but looking forward to that opportunity.... I'd say my favorite is the Cessna Caravan. Its the biggest single engine aircraft Ive jumped. But, anything big and fast is great. I think I heard somewhere that single engine planes are safer. Don't know if there is any truth to it but I bought into it..... Attached is a pic of Skydive Hawaii's Caravan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 October 19, 2008 main negative to the Pac is it's a bit small inside, and very short. Some of that performance comes at the cost of comfort. It was a bit harder to get the exit orientation right, esp in RW, with the short ceiling. The KA, otoh, lets me stand fully upright in the door if I want. The Pac replaced a Caravan at Byron, which I remember as one of the noisier airplanes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #4 October 19, 2008 Actually the PAC replaced a KA at Byron. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #5 October 19, 2008 QuoteThe Pac 750 is the only plane designed for skydiving. I haven't gotten a chance to fall out of one yet but looking forward to that opportunity.... I'd say my favorite is the Cessna Caravan. Its the biggest single engine aircraft Ive jumped. But, anything big and fast is great. I think I heard somewhere that single engine planes are safer. Don't know if there is any truth to it but I bought into it..... Attached is a pic of Skydive Hawaii's Caravan. It is NOT designed for skydiving! Anyone who puts a horizontal stabilizer in direct line with the door is not designing a skydiving plane. It's a frame that was ADAPTED to skydiving. Anyone who says the PAC was designed for skydiving is lieing.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Travman 6 #6 October 19, 2008 The PAC 750 wasn't designed for skydiving, but you can buy a factory delivered model with the skydiving mods.. such as the jump lights and door. The advantage of the PAC 750 is its single engine design, making it cheaper to run than twin engine jump planes like the twin otter. But it certainly has its limitations. I was chatting to someone who said the Kodiak is gaining popularity and is better suited to skydiving than the PAC 750, but I have never seen or jumped one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 October 19, 2008 It is low inside. When running out a line of people, it gets spread out. Plus side, cheaper on gas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ASTKU 1 #8 October 19, 2008 QuoteIt is NOT designed for skydiving! Anyone who puts a horizontal stabilizer in direct line with the door is not designing a skydiving plane. It's a frame that was ADAPTED to skydiving. Anyone who says the PAC was designed for skydiving is lieing. I don't want to get into an argument about semantics but here is a direct quote from Parachutist Magazine.... QuoteOver the past century, hundreds of airplane types have been put to use for altitude. While some of those airplanes seemed tailor-made for skydiving, they weren't; they were all built for other purposes, such as pleasure-flying, cargo hauling or as commercial passenger planes, and had been appropriated and modified for jumping. It wasn't until Pacific Aerospace Corporation unveiled the PAC 750XL in 2004 that an airplane was purpose-built just for skydiving This is from August 2007 edition of Parachutist magazine. Article written by Ed Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ASTKU 1 #9 October 19, 2008 QuoteThe PAC 750 wasn't designed for skydiving, but you can buy a factory delivered model with the skydiving mods.. such as the jump lights and door. I don't want to get into an argument about semantics but here is a direct quote from Parachutist Magazine.... QuoteOver the past century, hundreds of airplane types have been put to use for altitude. While some of those airplanes seemed tailor-made for skydiving, they weren't; they were all built for other purposes, such as pleasure-flying, cargo hauling or as commercial passenger planes, and had been appropriated and modified for jumping. It wasn't until Pacific Aerospace Corporation unveiled the PAC 750XL in 2004 that an airplane was purpose-built just for skydiving This is from August 2007 edition of Parachutist magazine. Article written by Ed Scott. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #10 October 19, 2008 It's still a sucky plane for RW. Give ma an otter any day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ASTKU 1 #11 October 20, 2008 QuoteIt's still a sucky plane for RW. Give ma an otter any day. Might as well go for the CASA or SKYVAN!! Anybody know how much these planes cost? I know thats not an easy question to answer. But what would be the difference in cost between a PAC and an OTTER? How 'bout CARAVAN and KING AIR? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chubba 0 #12 October 20, 2008 Quote One flight in a 182 which took forever Welcome to my world It's especially fun when you got a student with a 280 rig leaning back on ya, makes for some comfortable rides to altitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilot-one 0 #13 October 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteIt's still a sucky plane for RW. Give ma an otter any day. Might as well go for the CASA or SKYVAN!! Anybody know how much these planes cost? I know thats not an easy question to answer. But what would be the difference in cost between a PAC and an OTTER? How 'bout CARAVAN and KING AIR? I know of a PAC 750 that recently sold for about $1 million, or so I was told by the seller. An Otter with dash 27's or the like in decent shape is probably worth about the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Isfrael 0 #14 October 20, 2008 My DZ has a PAC 750, I've only jumped it once, but it was amazing compared to the Cessna Yankee that they run on the weekdays!!! me being a very new diver, it really helped me cool my nerves. In the PAC it was in and out in less than ten minutes , but with the Cessna Yankee it takes forever, and that's forever to be thinking about everything I shouldn't be thinking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot1 0 #15 October 20, 2008 Quote I don't want to get into an argument about semantics but here is a direct quote from Parachutist Magazine.... And you believe everything that is written in that mag?........www.WestCoastWingsuits.com www.PrecisionSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ASTKU 1 #16 October 20, 2008 QuoteAnd you believe everything that is written in that mag? Well, Yes. I guess I do..... Why shouldn't I?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #17 October 20, 2008 Research the Cresco. You will find the origins of the pac. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #18 October 20, 2008 QuoteAnyone know the difference... According to the Utility Aircraft Corp website: PAC 750 (New) 1,290,000 Caravan (New) 1,700,000 Caravan (Used) 750,000 King Air 90 (Used) 300,000 Super Otter (Used) 850,000 Caution should be used when comparing these numbers. The webpage does not show the year of the quotes and a used Caravan is currently selling for around $1,000,000 and an Super Otter is selling for around $1,600,000. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeregrineFalcon 0 #19 October 20, 2008 QuoteIt's still a sucky plane for RW. Give ma an otter any day. So, tell me why. Tell me the difference. That's what the thread is for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
corvettedude 0 #20 October 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe Pac 750 is the only plane designed for skydiving. I haven't gotten a chance to fall out of one yet but looking forward to that opportunity.... I'd say my favorite is the Cessna Caravan. Its the biggest single engine aircraft Ive jumped. But, anything big and fast is great. I think I heard somewhere that single engine planes are safer. Don't know if there is any truth to it but I bought into it..... Attached is a pic of Skydive Hawaii's Caravan. It is NOT designed for skydiving! Anyone who puts a horizontal stabilizer in direct line with the door is not designing a skydiving plane. It's a frame that was ADAPTED to skydiving. Anyone who says the PAC was designed for skydiving is lieing. Jumped it years ago when it made it's first appearance at the WFFC-it's cramped, the doors built for small people, the only plus is it's quickIt is possible to get all A's in school and still flunk life~Percy Walker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The_Don 0 #21 October 20, 2008 Not a fan of the Pac. Felt like flying tin can. Super King Air, Otter, Grand Caravan, Casa, Skyvan. Hell, The old Beach 99 beats the Pac in my book.I am NOT being loud. I'm being enthusiastic! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
towerrat 0 #22 October 20, 2008 They're fucking junk They were not designed for skydiving, they were marketed to DZO's trying to make a buck. There's no head room, the door is too short and that stupid spar cover thingie behind the pilot seat is just plain bullshit. It's one thing to make a few fun jumps from it. It's quite another to try and work out of. JUNK JUNK JUNK! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot1 0 #23 October 20, 2008 QuoteSo, tell me why. Tell me the difference. That's what the thread is for. Because it has the incredible shrinking door. Most tandems need to sit before they exit. (hard on the knees) and running anything out of it for RW or wingsuit is a pain in the ass. If it is so cheap to fly, why do the jump tickets still cost the same, if not more, then a DZ running an Otter?www.WestCoastWingsuits.com www.PrecisionSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #24 October 20, 2008 PAC 14-15 jumpers OTTER 22-23 jumpers PAC Low HZ Stabilizer OTTER High HZ Stabilizer PAC odd shaped door OTTER RW Standard door PAC: Worse prop-blast on the floaters OTTER almost no prop-blast PAC: Bucks when the floaters leave (I've tripped more than once) OTTER: stable through floater exit PAC: less comfortable OTTER: more comfortable Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #25 October 20, 2008 Quote If it is so cheap to fly, why do the jump tickets still cost the same, if not more, then a DZ running an Otter? Good question! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
