Unstable 8 #1 January 15, 2008 The Gippsland GA-8 Airvan From the literature I'm reading, I am really impressed with this aircraft! I'll post a few exerpts from their website and we'll open this up for some good group discussion. QuoteThe high wing GA8 Airvan, which gained type certification in December 2000, was specifically designed to fill the gap between the Cessna 206 and the Cessna Caravan. Still being powered by a Piston Lycoming engine, I would imagine that this aircraft would fit the bill for MANY small to intermediate sized dropzones. From a purely economic standpoint, the harsh jump from piston to turbine is near impossible for many DZO's. Especially with the Caravan's unusually high buy price for it's type, and the common problems experienced with a 206, I would imagine that this aircraft could fit the bill quite easily. QuoteAn operator could purchase approximately five Airvans for the price of one Caravan which translates to transporting forty people instead of ten. this too is right from their website. Whereas the standard 208 price has been sneaking up and it now close to 2 Million, does this mean that the price for this aircraft is... What, less than $500,000 USD? If it can hold, say, 8 or 9 jumpers and not burn much more fuel than a beefy 206, then this may or may not be the key for an expanding Dropzone. Any AU or NZ jumpers familiar with this bird? Any special experiences or comments you may have about it? * Edited for Spelling only. *=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #2 January 15, 2008 There's a few lengthy threads about this aircraft, including posts from a couple owners. I don't envision much of an interest in the A/C in the States. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=airvan&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #3 January 15, 2008 When we test jumped it a few years ago the lack of an ability to close the door after the jumpers left made for a slower descent. We didn't fill it but I wonder what kind of climb rate it would have with an IO-550 and 7 jumpers. With a useful load of 1800lbs I'm not getting in one with nine jumpers in it; maybe eight but I can't see that as regular occcurrence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #4 January 15, 2008 The other rumour has it that they are testing an Airvan with a Thielert diesel engine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #5 January 15, 2008 Quote The other rumour has it that they are testing an Airvan with a Thielert diesel engine. hmmmmm, that could make for a good jumpship....=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #6 January 15, 2008 From what's been said, the Thielert diesel engine replacement for the IO550 adds about 200 lbs to the aircraft weight.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdetrano 0 #7 January 16, 2008 The Airvans I have hired in the past were not ideal jump planes, I'd sooner use the 206. Two advantages: comfort, you can't put many jumpers in it due to weight limitations; good in-flight sliding door. The owner said that landing with the door open would void his insurance, so one seat was used for a "door closer". Not sure how that works out for other operations. Slow climb...we had to keep to 7500 ft, sea-level drop zone, in order to stay under .5 for a load of 5. Rate was higher than for a 206, I assume because it is more costly to operate. This is only my experience using Airvans that were generally intended for tourism activities. More experienced jump pilots using one as a dedicated jump plane may get better performance out of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airtwardo 6 #8 January 16, 2008 Agree with you on all points, used one for demos for a while, good platform for that...comfortable while orbiting till exit, and only getting out at 5500 so no problem with a slow climb. As a dropzone platform...maybe with a turbo. ~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #9 January 17, 2008 I went ahead and called straight to Illinois to the North American Distributor, Gippsland Aero, and I spoke directly with the Manager, Harry, for almost a good hour. I got a LOT of good information about this aircraft, and he spoke very frankly about this aircraft and more specifically it''s abilities as a jumpship. Used quite frequently for this purpose in England, pointing out that in the UK, several DZ's are limited to roughly 10,000' AGL due to airspace restrictions. It's climbrate on the website is listed at 748' ft/minute, but loaded with 8 jumpers and fuel, Harry noted that it climbed closer to 400-450 ft/min. This is slower than a standard 182 on a hot summer day with 4 fat jumpers. Harry said that the Diesel version will most likely start sales in Sept/October this year, but more importantly, in a few months they should be announcing a Turbo-Charged verrsion, suitable for cruising 9 jumpers to 13,500 without breaking a sweat - but a newer model may runupwards to $750,000 with a beefy engine ready for jumpers....=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #10 January 17, 2008 Most DZ's will shy away from the complexity of operation and the cost of repair of a turbo charged power plant.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #11 January 23, 2008 I was on the phone again today with Harry, the US Distributor. We had another good discussion on the aircraft, and it's use as a jumpship. Basically, think of it as a Cessna. It climbs to 10K in about 20-25 minutes, like a Cessna. It costs about $125 per hour dry to maintain, like a Cessna. It's main complaint is that it's "slow,", but it's not any slower than.... You guessed it, A cessna 182. It goes to 10,000, but since nothing within 8 hours in any direction from here goes to 13,500, this might be a perfect aircraft for Kansas. Yes, it is permitted to land with the door open, but take-offs need to have the door closed. The main issue that some DZO's are running into is insurance. Between $12,000 and $20,000 per year, a few companies are hesitant to insure such a jumpship. As soon as a few more appear in the US market, Harry thinks the problem will resolve itself.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #12 January 23, 2008 I share your suspision about delicate turbo-charged gasoline engines. Hopefully, the turbo-charged diesel will have a sophisticated enough FADEC to will protect it from the worst throttle-slams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
relyon 0 #13 January 24, 2008 QuoteI share your suspision about delicate turbo-charged gasoline engines. Hopefully, the turbo-charged diesel will have a sophisticated enough FADEC to will protect it from the worst throttle-slams. Turbine helicopters have dealt with this problem from day one with completely mechanical fuel controllers. IIRC, it's called "scheduled decelerration" in the Bell 206 manuals. If they didn't, slamming the throttle from full to flight idle would result in an instant flameout, catastrophic loss of power, and possibly an after-fire. That rarely, if ever, occurs if the fuel controller is properly setup in my experience. Are turbodiesels that different? Bob PS - I just love being the pilot who gets to verify flight integrity of a recently installed fuel controller ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #14 January 24, 2008 I don't care for anything named "van" unless its a Chevvy and has a waterbed in the back . . . NickD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #15 January 25, 2008 Quote I don't care for anything named "van" unless its a Chevvy and has a waterbed in the back . . . What? You no likey skyvan? Sheesh, I can't imagine someone not liking any for of turbine jumpship...=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohanW 0 #16 January 25, 2008 That flying coffin? No thanks. Too noisy, and too much tendency to fall out of the sky.Johan. I am. I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #17 January 25, 2008 Quote That flying coffin? No thanks. Too noisy, and too much tendency to fall out of the sky. Hmmm, sounds like a 182. =========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #18 January 25, 2008 QuoteThat flying coffin? No thanks. Too noisy, and too much tendency to fall out of the sky. When was the last Skyvan jumpship crash? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #19 January 25, 2008 Quote When was the last Skyvan jumpship crash? That's what I was thinking... Pretty reliable and rugged STOL aircraft, much better built than some more common jumpships. I'm still dumbfounded how someone could complain about any Turbine Jumpship, nonetheless complain about the Skyvan. Hell, I'll take one any day....=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
