Pac 750

[Airgump 1]

you'll get over that after you get a few hundred more jumps and if the average skydiver doesn't take the .org back from the ............

[PeregrineFalcon 0]

From what you're saying about the Otter, I may have been in one before. 14 years ago, I did 4 jumps in Perris. Three of them were in a huge plane. The seats were lined up on the sides and we sat with our backs to the windows. The door was bigger than the Pac. I can't remember how long it took to get to altitude because I was too new to think about anything other than the skydive. Is there an old-timer from Perris who knows for sure what type of craft it was? I have an old VHS of it somewhere, and it wouldn't do me any good if I found it.

[bodypilot1 0]

Quote

Is there an old-timer from Perris who knows for sure what type of craft it was?

14yrs ago, 99% sure it was the Otter.

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[LloydDobbler 2]

Like so many said, it's an economical plane. Take a look at Gemini's post above, and consider that one of the reasons a King Air costs so little is that it costs so much to maintain. Otters have more capacity, but also higher maintenance costs. The cost-saving benefits of having a single engine turbine are tough to beat, which is why the PAC has been a hit with a lot of DZO's.

However, like many others, I didn't like the PAC. Well, okay - I liked the view out of the big picture windows on the way up. But overall, not so much. My main issue was the cramped interior (I HATE straddle-bench seating), and the door - even trying to launch 4-way out of it was NOT fun. (And we're a SMALL team, that floats like ping-pong balls).

There was one flying relief at Elsinore during Chicks Rock - we manifested for one load, then avoided it the rest of the time after that one experience.

Once you travel a bit, get a few more jumps, you might turn into a snob about aircraft (like, apparently, so many of us). The PAC's better than some...but worse than a lot.

Signatures are the new black.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually the PAC replaced a KA at Byron.

Aye - I was thinking about Skydance, where the Pac made it's first appearance.

[kingbunky 3]

if i was used to an otter, and my dz traded down to a pac, i probably wouldn't like it. but that's not the target market. it's for smaller dz's trading up from 182s or 206s or whatever. i know deland got one, but it was probably to fill in when they couldn't fill an otter.

from the point of view of someone with about 300 of his 385 jumps out of a cessna, a pac rocks! the door may be smaller than an otter, but it's bigger than a 182, and nobody has to launch out of the crotch on a 4-way. it's way faster, and more comfortable. i'd rather bobsled seats than sitting on the floor in a cessna and doing the 9500 foot shuffle to get turned around prior to exit.

the only thing i don't like about it is the low wing. the horizontal stabilizer looks low on the ground, and you'd want to make sure the plan wasn't climbing on exit!

don't know how the kodiak compares to the pac, but on paper it looks like a much better jumpship.

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[SimonBones 1]

Quote

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?

Our DZ uses a PAC. We have the second cheapest jump prices in the entire country as a result (Damn Lodi... how do they do it?). If your DZ uses a PAC and does not have lower jump prices, it is because the DZO is taking a bigger profit on fun jumpers by having the same rates and lower costs.

One full altitude ride in a King Air = 38 Gallons

One full altitude ride in a PAC = 12 Gallons

We can easily start the plane for 7 fun jumpers and turn it hot with 5. That's a 6 minute ride to altitude. Find me an otter you can do that with. Hell, I've yet to ride an otter that can beat our PAC in time to altitude. Now Mike Mullins... he's got us beat.

I do tandems out of the PAC and it's never been hard on my knees. How would it be? I sit down on my ass at the edge of the door and hop out.

I have jumped quite a variety of planes for launching RW, AFF, wingsuits, freefly, tandems, and piling out dives (like track dives) and have had no problems. I've launched 8 way formations from PACs.

The only difference in the door between an otter and a PAC is that the PAC door is not as tall. If you want to launch an 8 way RW, the outside folks can stand up outside like normal, and the inside folks just crouch down a little bit lower. To any skilled skydiver, this should present no problem.

I have never hit the tail. I have never come close. On jump run the PAC puts down the flaps and slows down. I have jumped up and tried to touch the wing with my hand and missed.

The ONLY problem I've encountered with a PAC is that because it has high lift wings and low drag, it really makes it pretty impssible to do plane chase dives and freefall with it. For that, the Porter is still the best.

Come to my DZ and spend one weekend with our PAC. Do 10 jumps in a day with less than a 10 minute ride to altitude each time and pay less then $18 per full altitude jump, THEN come tell me that the otter is a better plane for skydiving. Come out and take that challenge and if you can find another plane that is able to do those figures for skydiving, I'll buy you a jump!

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

[bodypilot1 0]

Quote

Come to my DZ and spend one weekend with our PAC. Do 10 jumps in a day with less than a 10 minute ride to altitude each time and pay less then $18 per full altitude jump, THEN come tell me that the otter is a better plane for skydiving. Come out and take that challenge and if you can find another plane that is able to do those figures for skydiving, I'll buy you a jump!

You dont have to try and convince me the plane is better by spending a day jumping one, because I have. I'll take alittle longer ride to altitude with the comfort and ease of exits and run-outs. Jumpers adapt to what ever plane their dz fly's, but it doesn't mean they like it. It's great your jumps are still $18 as well. Good on your dzo for taking alittle smaller peice of the pie to keep the jumpers coming back.
Lodi flys more then the 2 Otters. There is also a Beech99 and a King Air 200 T tail with PT6A-41's that gets a full load to 13K in 6-7mins, and still all for $13 a jump.

www.WestCoastWingsuits.com
www.PrecisionSkydiving.com

[pirana 0]

Quote

(Damn Lodi... how do they do it?).

I've heard (only heard, no direct knowledge of it) that it has something to do with what they pay staff. Seems likely since the only other options to provide such cheap jumps would be to steal the gas or operate at a loss. Anybody know how they can keep the prices so low?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[ozzy13 0]

Quote

Quote

(Damn Lodi... how do they do it?).

I've heard (only heard, no direct knowledge of it) that it has something to do with what they pay staff. Seems likely since the only other options to provide such cheap jumps would be to steal the gas or operate at a loss. Anybody know how they can keep the prices so low?

I've heard (only heard, no direct knowledge of it) that they own all there planes and everything else at the DZ. Thus less bills. Means more profit thus lower jump tickets.What ever the reason its awesome that its at that price!!!!

Never give the gates up and always trust your rears!

[CMiller 1]

Quote

PAC: less comfortable
OTTER: more comfortable

I agree with everything but this. I've only been in one otter that had jumpers straddle the benches; all the rest have benches sideways that you sit on. I much prefer the straddle arrangement, as it's a lot easier to lean backward to counteract the tilt of the airplane while climbing than it is to lean sideways.

[stevesimms 0]

I jumped the PAC this last weekend...
I cant say that I enjoyed it that much hey... Its BLOODY noisy! and takes an uncomfortably extra few minutes to get to alti... That been said, yeah, its uncomfortable!
And then again, the propblast is extremely uncomfortable... feels like you're holding on for dear life!

However, where I usually jump, we've got a super king air B90 . Now that is one fantastic plane! Quick climbs, even when full, no prob blast, and a radio... Bliss

[RMK 3]

The PAC750 XL airframe/power plant is actually a Kiwi crop duster. It’s a utility plane, hence the idea to tweak a few things and sell it as a skydiver specific aircraft. No, it wasn’t designed from the drawing board with skydiving in mind, but it gets the job done in an economical fashion. It’s a rare occurance when someone makes a specialist product for our minority sport; I think it’s pretty good. Skydance use theirs for the twice-yearly HALOs from 30K.

Tight cabin? Not as room as a Twin Otter, but I don’t believe much difference from a King Air.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Quote

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.

I don't want to get into an argument about semantics but here is a direct quote from Parachutist Magazine....

Quote

Over 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.

It is a Cresco airframe ADAPTED with a turbine engine for skydiving operations. It was not purpose built. It may have been MARKETED to skydiving operations. This claim it was purpose built is a marketing slant. Sorry but the Twin Otter actually WAS designed with dispatching skydiver in it's original design. It had a bi-fold electric door available. That was decades ago. It wasn't the only purpose for the plane so I guess it's not "only" built for skydiving. I just get really iritated when I see this posted over and over. It makes people think it's the only safe (because it was "originally designed" for skydiving) jump plane. A horizontal tail in that position has serious hazards like a King Air, Caravan, C-182. All of these planes were adapted to skydiving.

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

[diverdriver 5]

Quote

Come to my DZ and spend one weekend with our PAC. Do 10 jumps in a day with less than a 10 minute ride to altitude each time and pay less then $18 per full altitude jump, THEN come tell me that the otter is a better plane for skydiving. Come out and take that challenge and if you can find another plane that is able to do those figures for skydiving, I'll buy you a jump!

You are mixing efficiency with safety and "purpose built" marketing. I'm not saying the PAC 750 is a bad plane. I do not like its marketing at all in that regard. That's my beef.

The numbers prove it is an efficient aircraft and able to turn light loads. I once lusted over a turbine Cessna 206 (secretly still do). But there have been tail strikes on the 750 like Caravans and King Airs. You may have tried to jump up and touch the tail but I do not advise you attempt that again. Your pilot may have the right setup for dispatching jumpers. Why go and try to reduce the margins? (Boothe's law number one I guess.) The PAC 750 will have its market share and will be suited to a certain size DZ. It will not replace all jump planes nor do I think they expect to. As stated before it's for the DZ moving up from 182s and 206s with competition for Caravans.

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

[ficus 0]

Quote

Actually the PAC replaced a KA at Byron.

The KA has not been replaced. We flew both the PAC and KA on Saturday.

[michaelmullins 77]

"One full altitude ride in a King Air = 38 Gallons

One full altitude ride in a PAC = 12 Gallons"

Maybe in a really crappy King Air it will take 38 gallons. 25 gallons for a reasonably good King Air is more realistic. Mike Mullins Super King Air will take 14 jumpers to 14,000' in 7 minutes and do it on 18 gallons all day long. As far as the PAC using 12 gallons, I doubt it. A PAC with the advertised 17 jumpers to 14,000' will use at least 18 gallons. If you take up 7 jumpers in the PAC you might make it on 12 gallons.

I am not knocking the PAC, I think it is a good aircraft, but I just wanted to give some real life figures.

Mike Mullins

[Travman 6]

The PAC 750 at my DZ was purpose built for skydiving, as I said they can be factory delivered for skydiving. When I was in New Zealand I met someone who worked for PAC on the 750 design so I had the opportunity to complain about some of the things I didn't like about it... like the fact they suggest up to 17 jumpers can fit (anyone that has been in a 750 with 17 jumpers will know what I mean), he found this pretty amusing. It was designed to be able to serve a number of roles and built as per the customers requirements.

[SimonBones 1]

Hah! I'd like to see you fit 17 in the PAC. When we do 15 it's a nice little squeeze.

Yes yes Mike we all know your king air has the biggest penis. Nobody argues that at all. But the nice thing about the PAC is that since it can turn so quickly, why do a full load of 15 ever? It is not uncommon at our DZ to have a full load of 15, then have 5 jumpers get off the load to make a hot load of 5 people and score that 6 minute ride to altitude. A load of 10 will take less then 10 minutes. Those 5 jumpers would much rather wait an extra 10 minutes and get the whole plane to themselves with a super quick ride. It makes more sense to split it up into a really fast light load. Our pilot says he averages about 12 gallons so I says okay

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

[michaelmullins 77]

Quote

Hah! I'd like to see you fit 17 in the PAC. When we do 15 it's a nice little squeeze.

Yes yes Mike we all know your king air has the biggest penis. Nobody argues that at all. But the nice thing about the PAC is that since it can turn so quickly, why do a full load of 15 ever? It is not uncommon at our DZ to have a full load of 15, then have 5 jumpers get off the load to make a hot load of 5 people and score that 6 minute ride to altitude. A load of 10 will take less then 10 minutes. Those 5 jumpers would much rather wait an extra 10 minutes and get the whole plane to themselves with a super quick ride. It makes more sense to split it up into a really fast light load. Our pilot says he averages about 12 gallons so I says okay

I will believe 12 gallons a load average when you take up, as you describe, 10 on a load and then a backup load with 5. I just did not want potential customers to believe that you can do 12 gallons with 17 jumpers, or even 15. Also, the advertising that PAC puts out that claims 17 jumper capability is just misleading. Maybe 17 midgets, maybe 17 Japanese, but not 17 fat ass Americans (unless you want to be extremely uncomfortable).

And yes, my King Air does have the largest penis, along with its owner.

Mike Mullins

[Travman 6]

At my DZ we often put 17 in. 1 in the co pilots seat, 3 on the step and the person right down the back seats across facing sideways instead of facing backwards.... yes it sucks!

[riggerpaul 1]

I fuel the airplanes at Bay Area Skydiving when I am at the dz.

We have a 1965 King Air 90 and a 2005 PAC 750XL.

The dz is at about 60 feet MSL. We typically take loads to 13K. Before we had the PAC we used to take the KA to 14K, but after the PAC arrived we pretty much go to 13K.

The dz is at the 12 end of rwy 12/30. The runway config is that the 30 end of 12/30 and the 5 end of 5/23 are nearly the same place. We usually land on 30 and take off from 12 with very little taxi time. 12/30 is 4500' long. 5/23 is 3000' long.

We get 4 loads in the KA on about 80 to 95 gallons, mostly depending on density altitude. The size of the load has some impact, but we try to run it close to full, so the fuel burn is pretty much dependent on the density altitude on any particular day. High density altitude means longer climb times and more fuel burned.

So, the King Air isn't anywhere near 38 gallons a load, much more like 20 to 24.

In the PAC we get about 5 loads on about 55 to 75 gallons with a lot of variability based on the load size. Since lighter loads really do take less fuel, we will run the airplane on a smaller load to keep turning the airplane hot.

So, the PAC is about 11 to 15 gallons a load.

The PAC appears to climb actually a bit slower than the KA, but the descent is so quick that you can often make up the time.

On the other hand, if the famous Byron winds are blowing a crosswind on rwy 12/30, the pilot prefers to land the PAC on rwy 5/23, and the taxi back kills all the time gains. Same pilot is happy to bring the KA in on 12/30 in the crosswind, so we don't lose a lot of taxi time with that aircraft. When we use 5/23, the taxi back is essentially the entire 4500' of runway 12/30.

The PAC is good at what it does, but it isn't quite the end all of jump aircraft either.

[rhys 0]

Quote

've heard (only heard, no direct knowledge of it) that it has something to do with what they pay staff. Seems likely since the only other options to provide such cheap jumps would be to steal the gas or operate at a loss. Anybody know how they can keep the prices so low?

staff were earning great money when i was there and aside from saturday they were always finished by 3 pm

Bill dause is bill dause and only he and maybe kathy will know how they do it, something to do with plane ownership, having your own engineer and owning the fuel at the aerodrome.

Who cares he has 13 dollar jumps and operates nearly every day of the year!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

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.

You are talking about the cresco, the cresco is an aircraft that was designed in the early 70's for agricultural aviation, More than 2500 of my jumps have been from a cresco.

The cresco was really popular as a jump ship because of its high turnaround capacity (15 minute sorties to and from 12k) more than 3 loads an hour.

around the turn of the century Pacific aerospace started producing crescos new with skydiving mods like pneumatic doors, spotting lights, external handles and steps and sound systems. they are tight and you can do 5 tandems from them but it is a squeeze.

The PAC750 in comparison is a limousine and an absolute pleasure to work out of.

It wasn't designed for skydivers, it was designed for skydiving operations. These are the people that purchase aircraft.

Pilots seem to dislike the XL because it is really simple (inexpensive) but jumpers seem to like it, except a spoiled few.

The PAC750 is an adaptation of an older design (cresco), and is saving operators hundreds of thousands of dollars. Tis in turn is keeping our sport in reach for more people in this ever increasingly, expensive world.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jimjumper 25]

It's also possible it was a DC-3. They were making a transition to Otters. My logbook for 93/94 at Perris shows jumps from both Otters and DC-3's.