Most common jump plane...

[mircan 0]

Quote

Queen Air's have the same issues as King airs

I know. That`s why I did a lot of searching here considering exits, especially for vidiots.

Quote

plus they are slow to altitude

Well, right now the only choice in this country, besides that Queen Air, is AN-2 (which has soooo much more cabin space). On a warm day AN-2 takes up to 40 (yes, forty) minutes to 10k feet. So in this situation, Queen Air is sprinter as it took only 22 minutes to 12k feet.

Quote

But they do provide entertainment by watching, listening, and waiting for those engines to rip themselves apart!Laugh

I usually take my helmet off after we reach 1500 feet. In QA I put it back on pretty fast.
Also, I was scared shitless on take off. I could not pinpoint what was the cause, but it had something to do with engine sound and plane hopping all over the place (grassy airstrip). Me being used to AN and 182, very strange engine sound, like something is terribly wrong...

mircan

dudeist skydiver #42

[ZeG 0]

Wow, by just reading through this thread, I guess I am spoiled by our nice C208

[riggerrob 558]

The last few Queen Air 88s and the first few King Air A90s share the same airframe.
The primary difference between Queen Air and King Air is the piston engines (Lycoming IGSO 480 or IGSO 550) were replaced by more reliable turbo-prop engines (Pratt & Whitney PT6A).
Since they needed fuel injection, gearing and supercharging to produce a mere 380 horsepower, the piston engines were maintenance-intensive.

When the first PT6A turbo-prop engines were installed in King Airs, they only provided slightly more power (400 to 450 horsepower) but proved vastly more reliable. These days, many PT6A engines - hauling skydivers - operate "on condition" long past scheduled overhauls.

[jimp 1]

Well, Mirko, I must say that I've really enjoyed making my small contribution to the AN2's huge number.
Jim

[mircan 0]

Quote

Since they needed fuel injection, gearing and supercharging to produce a mere 380 horsepower, the piston engines were maintenance-intensive.

I noticed that mechanic was working something on the engines after every flight (maybe it`s not related, though). Not to mention long prep before the first flight...

dudeist skydiver #42

[mircan 0]

Jim my friend, it was fun to jump with you.
And very educational.

cu l8r

dudeist skydiver #42

[jimp 1]

You mean you saw what a fool a guy can make of himself around beautiful women?

[ChickenSandwich 0]

If you guys ever have a chance to jump a Pac 750, by all means make sure you get to the DZ.

12 minutes to 14,000.

:thumbup:

[mircan 0]

dudeist skydiver #42

[Sletzer 3]

quote: But I also found some study that basically says that "as long as you do not jump UP from King Air, you`ll miss the tail"
______________________________________________

This is from one of my other posts:
"I climbed out the door and JUMPED a student style exit- found out later I almost hit the back stablizer "
_______________________________

SO I have to agree that it's possible to hit the tail, but you have to jump UP from the door to hit it, or if the pilot is still climbing when you exit, it could also happen.

I'm fortunate enough that the pilots at my home DZ are very experienced , and the aircraft is well maintained enough to have an incredible climb rate, which I've heard an undermaintaned king air cannot do consistently for a long period of time. (Also I trust the DZO and his maintenance). I suppose if I'm really worried about the aircraft stalling on jumprun- eight minutes isn't too long to keep all your gear on and be ready to file out the door in an orderly fashion

I do see your point about king airs DIABLOPILOT, so I have to ask, what is your favorite jump plane? And is there any jump plane that doesn't have any serious negatives? I'm still pretty new to all this, so I'm curious about what else is out there.

Maybe I just need to crash the nearest boogie......

I will be kissing hands and shaking babies all afternoon. Thanks for all your support! *bows*

SCS #8251

[riggerrob 558]

The perfect jump plane has yet to be built.

Single-engined Cessnas are reliable, but cramped.

Cessna Caravans have a big enough cabin, but could use a bit more horsepower.

If you want a "Caravan with enough horsepower" how about a Kodiak? Since the first Kodiak jump plane will being operating at Bad Lipspringer this spring, we should get some feedback about how good a jump platform it is.

Speaking about "big enough cabin but not enough horsepower" Gippsland's Airvan is probably the best piston-pounding jump plane. It takes as long to get to altitude as a Cessna 206, but it far more comfortable. When my boss test-flew an Airvan - with me falling out half-way through the flight - he commented that "it could use more rudder and more horsepower."
Maybe the diesel-powered Airvan will have enough horsepower.
The other disadvantage with Airvans is that they are only available new, ergo they cost many times more than a "beater" used Cessna 206 with the same capacity.

[mircan 0]

Quote

The other disadvantage with Airvans is that they are only available new, ergo they cost many times more than a "beater" used Cessna 206 with the same capacity.

I thought that Airvan carry more people than 206, so that is the reason why someone would get the Airvan. Correct me if I`m wrong.

Also, what would be negative sides of a PAC 750?

dudeist skydiver #42

[yamtx73 0]

Quote

I thought that Airvan carry more people than 206, so that is the reason why someone would get the Airvan. Correct me if I`m wrong.

Also, what would be negative sides of a PAC 750?

Only negative I can find in the PAC750 is that you don't have as much head room back by the door as you do in a Caravan or Twin Otter. That being said, the PAC is one of my favorites.

The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers...

[jorgande 0]

this is what I saw on the sunset load on my very first day jumping from the pac750. On this jump I was hanging out the door with one hand on the handle and facing backwards exiting with another friend who was facing the other way. I am as fresh to the sport as a newborn baby and the idea of hitting the aircraft on exit has been in my head from jump one
I have surpressed the thought but the view I suddenly had on this exit raised my attention. Looking towards the rear I though the tail stabilizers was pretty f..king close and very low. Our jump was uneventful in this respect. In the bar later I mentioned the view I had to an expererienced camera jumper and his reply was "hell yeah...when you exit from a pac in a wingsuit you have to exit in a ball position"
Dont get me wrong, I love the pac in all other respects and dig its speedy climb. Are any other jump planes quicker?

blu skies