bodypilot1 0 #51 October 21, 2008 Quote 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? They make $20 a jump, plus they normally get a tip, so I'd estimate $30-40 a tandem. They also make about 2-3 times as many working skydives as other dz's in the area. www.WestCoastWingsuits.com www.PrecisionSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ozzy13 0 #52 October 21, 2008 there was some good reading here!!! http://www.utilityaircraft.com/pac750parachutistaug2007.pdf Don't know how to make the clicky thing :)Never give the gates up and always trust your rears! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrbiceps 0 #53 October 21, 2008 this is the best plane i have every jumped from the mighty skyvan. from what i hear nothing gets to altitude like this puppy. awesome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #54 October 21, 2008 that's not an airplane, that's the box an airplane comes in! "Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart." MB4252 TDS699 killing threads since 2001 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #55 October 21, 2008 QuoteWe 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. Since we are in times where fuel prices and efficiency are a big deal, seems like the PAC really is the way of the future. I can only imagine what kind of fuel figures the otter guzzles through. It's slow, fuel inefficient, and keeps jump prices higher. Soon the otter will be just a novelty aircraft which isn't cost efficient to operate regularly like the CASA. Again, the PAC is the way of the future. Change is like a steam roller. Get on board or be flattened in the road behind.108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #56 October 21, 2008 QuoteSince we are in times where fuel prices and efficiency are a big deal, seems like the PAC really is the way of the future. I can only imagine what kind of fuel figures the otter guzzles through. It's slow, fuel inefficient, and keeps jump prices higher. Soon the otter will be just a novelty aircraft which isn't cost efficient to operate regularly like the CASA. Again, the PAC is the way of the future. Change is like a steam roller. Get on board or be flattened in the road behind. I would disagree. In the short term, your argument works. But after sitting my butt in many an aircraft and in the Pac for the last three years, I'm wondering about the long term costs. Think about how long Otters have been around. The airframes have proven to be robust and can take abuse. Pac's have not been around quite that long and I'm willing to bet that the airframes do not stand up to the abuse the otters are taking. (I say this because I always feel like I'm riding to altitude in an aluminum coke can). In the end (if true), that means much higher costs due to replacement of major parts. I could be wrong, but we'll have to wait until the Pac has been around as long as the Otter. ymmvScars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #57 October 21, 2008 Geez I sure hope this is true in the long run. Otter is a much safer aircraft too - I loves me some Otter! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerpaul 1 #58 October 21, 2008 QuoteQuoteWe 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. Since we are in times where fuel prices and efficiency are a big deal, seems like the PAC really is the way of the future. I can only imagine what kind of fuel figures the otter guzzles through. It's slow, fuel inefficient, and keeps jump prices higher. Soon the otter will be just a novelty aircraft which isn't cost efficient to operate regularly like the CASA. Again, the PAC is the way of the future. Change is like a steam roller. Get on board or be flattened in the road behind. Well, yes and no. Though fuel burn is an important consideration, it is not the only consideration. My point is that while the PAC is good at some, possibly most, things, it is not always best at all things, depending on your yardstick. If you had an aircraft that always burned 10 gallons to 14K, but took an hour to do it, it wouldn't be a everybody's best jump aircraft. It might be best for some, but not best for others. There are many ways to measure efficiency. Fuel burn is important, but not so much so that all other consideration can be ignored. Setting a new FF size record will be hard from PACs, no matter how little fuel they burn. Please don't misunderstand. I think the PAC is an excellent airplane. And even when conditions don't exactly favor it, it is still at least a very good aircraft for us. But other aircraft, the KA for example, still get some points in their columns too. Personally, I want to hear more about the Quest Kodiak. I know we've had some reports here on dz.com, but it is still very early in the life of that aircraft to make any decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #59 October 21, 2008 "In the short term, your argument works. But ... I'm wondering about the long term costs. Think about how long Otters have been around. The airframes have proven to be robust and can take abuse. PAC's have not been around quite that long and I'm willing to bet that the airframes do not stand up to the abuse the otters are taking. ... In the end ... that means much higher costs due to replacement of major parts. ... we'll have to wait until the Pac has been around as long as the Otter." .............................................................. Yes and no. Yes the Twin Otter is a proven airframe, however, Twin Otters are getting older every year. The first Twin Otter was built fortish years ago and the youngest is twenty years old, which means that metal fatigue is becoming an increasingly expensive part of maintenance Think back twenty years ago. Sure Twin Beechs suffered a lot of crashes, but the primary reason they retired was metal fatigue. When Beech 18s suffered cracked main spars - and the cost of spar straps was more than replacement cost - a lot of Beech 18 jump planes retired. Forty year old Twin Otters suffer from the same metal fatigue problem. The only difference is that - when they were introduced - DeHavilland engineers and Transport Canada set life limits on wing spars, struts, etc. Wing spar replacement is beyond the means of most DZOs. Also remember that skydiving often means more landings per hour than any other job short of crop dusting. Oh! Wait a minute! What job was the Fletcher, Cresco, PAC series originally designed for? Sure Viking may be restarting the Twin Otter production line, but most civilian skydivers will have to wait twenty years before they can jump a Viking-built Twin Otter 400. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #60 October 21, 2008 >Since we are in times where fuel prices and efficiency are a big deal, seems like the >PAC really is the way of the future. I can only imagine what kind of fuel figures the >otter guzzles through. ?? Otter carries 23 and takes about 25gal per load. PAC takes about 14 and uses 13gal per load. That's .92 gal/jumper for the Otter, .93 gal/jumper for the PAC. (Assuming full loads of course.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsalnukt 1 #61 October 21, 2008 HAve you seen the way the door is set up????? I have seen the inside parts of the door grab ripcord handles and plastic p/c handles. too many snag points to be "designed" for skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SimonBones 1 #62 October 21, 2008 QuoteHAve you seen the way the door is set up????? I have seen the inside parts of the door grab ripcord handles and plastic p/c handles. too many snag points to be "designed" for skydiving. Kind of like this video here of an otter? http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=1982 Yes, I have seen the way the door is set up. Same width as an otter, just a little shorter. Have yet to find any "inside parts of the door" that "grab" handles or could be considered a snag point. But when you find one, take a picture and post it.108 way head down world record!!! http://www.simonbones.com Hit me up on Facebook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ficus 0 #63 October 21, 2008 QuoteHAve you seen the way the door is set up????? I have seen the inside parts of the door grab ripcord handles and plastic p/c handles. too many snag points to be "designed" for skydiving. The inside of our new PAC grabbed my camera helmet quite a bit when I first started riding in it on a regular basis. I think they must have fixed the airplane, because after 30-40 jumps out of it, it doesn't grab me anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #64 October 21, 2008 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrbiceps 0 #65 October 21, 2008 Quote that's not an airplane, that's the box an airplane comes in! you must not have ever jumped one of these babies. you can stand up inside them and fit maybe 30 jumpers in it. run out the back. jumping doesnt get any better than this baby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #66 October 21, 2008 >you must not have ever jumped one of these babies. I have, and they are dark, noisy boxes. Fun to jump out of, but still dark, noisy boxes. >you can stand up inside them and fit maybe 30 jumpers in it. run out >the back. jumping doesnt get any better than this baby You may be thinking of the CASA, which will fit around 30 (Skyvan is 22 or so) and is _much_ nicer overall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #67 October 21, 2008 Quote Quote that's not an airplane, that's the box an airplane comes in! you must not have ever jumped one of these babies. you can stand up inside them and fit maybe 30 jumpers in it. run out the back. jumping doesnt get any better than this baby Yes it does. It's called a C-130. The Skyvan is a toy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #68 October 21, 2008 >Yes it does. It's called a C-130. Yeah, but I bet you jumped one of those baby non-stretch C-130's! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #69 October 21, 2008 Quote>you must not have ever jumped one of these babies. I have, and they are dark, noisy boxes. Fun to jump out of, but still dark, noisy boxes. Dark doesn't bother me, but the skyvan is so noisy that given a roughly equal time choice, I'll take the other plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #70 October 21, 2008 Quote?? Otter carries 23 and takes about 25gal per load. PAC takes about 14 and uses 13gal per load. That's .92 gal/jumper for the Otter, .93 gal/jumper for the PAC. (Assuming full loads of course.) Hmmm, I get that as 1.09 gal/jumper for the Otter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #71 October 21, 2008 Quote Quote ?? Otter carries 23 and takes about 25gal per load. PAC takes about 14 and uses 13gal per load. That's .92 gal/jumper for the Otter, .93 gal/jumper for the PAC. (Assuming full loads of course.) Hmmm, I get that as 1.09 gal/jumper for the Otter. Well then you actually know how to divide, as for others........Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #72 October 21, 2008 QuotePAC: Bucks when the floaters leave (I've tripped more than once) OTTER: stable through floater exit That sorta depends on who is flying the Otter, doesn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #73 October 21, 2008 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.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMiller 1 #74 October 21, 2008 Quote> ?? Otter carries 23 and takes about 25gal per load. PAC takes about 14 and uses 13gal per load. That's .92 gal/jumper for the Otter, .93 gal/jumper for the PAC. (Assuming full loads of course.) 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. This is the reason a dropzone I used to jump at had to get rid of their otter; it was frequently on the ground because they couldn't get 12 skydivers on board. The PAC would absolutely be perfect for such a dropzone. Even though it's not quite as efficient as the otter, it would let you make money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #75 October 21, 2008 >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.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
