Cessna Caravan

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

One things I think we need to consider (and usually don't) is the efficiency of Manifest. Loads Meet the plane at the end of the runway - there is a pit-crew to assist in a speedy fuel stop, and the entire vibe of the Dropzone is one to stop yakkin' and get in the air. I think a Caravan, if run Really efficiently and manifested well, would support a dropzone which would normally think they are ready for something bigger...

Agree? Disagree?

Depends on facilities and local jumpers. Landing next to the runway with motivated up-jumpers, a lot of us can make every other load on a turbine (space permitting). Throw in a trailer ride with a single trailer for students + up jumpers and it can be every third load at best (assuming you pack outside in the sun + dirt).

Other places people jump at a slower rate.

[bob.dino 0]

Quote

What limitations does the Cessna Caravan have when compared to an Otter, the standard jumpship?

• Lower capacity. 21 for a -100 or -200 series Twin Otter vs 15 for a std Caravan.


• CofG. You can take a linked 16-way out of an Otter with at least 8+camera outside. You can't do that out of a Caravan as far as I know.


• Toughness. A canopy over the tail will destroy a Caravan. Otters seem to be able to survive. That said, fortunately there's not a huge amount of data on this.

The Caravan has advantages too, of course. Currently in Australia I can think of 4 (or maybe 5?) Caravans flying jumpers. Three 750XLs, one Skyvan, one Turbine Beaver, and one Cresco (smaller version of the 750XL). The only Otter got sold - it made little financial sense to operate it instead of the XL that the operator also has.

[bob.dino 0]

I'd look at the 750XL and compare that to the std Caravan. From where I'm sitting they seem to be direct competitors. Similar capacities, engines, etc.

You can get a new XL for the price of a 2nd hand Caravan. The Caravan has a nicer door for 4/8-way, a higher tail, and a high wing. It's easier to stall an XL. Tandem masters seem to love the XL for exits.

[ypelchat 0]

Quote

The numbers I keep running tell me that in a few years, the Cessna Caravan will be one of the most economical jumpships out there on the market. Relativly new, (Production started in mid-80's) right now Cessna is producing one roughly every 18 working hours minus parts shortages (I know because I am posting this directly above the main production line)

What limitations does the Cessna Caravan have when compared to an Otter, the standard jumpship?

How many caravans are in the Skydiving fleet today?

What do DZO's have to say about their operational costs?

It's a dependable aircraft, and the skydivers like the Caravan.

Here's our Caravan: (sorry for the pic quality)

Yves.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

You can get a new XL for the price of a 2nd hand Caravan.

Ummm, maybe a new XL for the price of two 2nd hand caravans? At least in the US...

Dave

[ypelchat 0]

Quote

Quote

You can get a new XL for the price of a 2nd hand Caravan.

Ummm, maybe a new XL for the price of two 2nd hand caravans? At least in the US...

Dave

And don't forget that the Caravan, has more cabin space than the PAC 750XL.

Here's a better quality picture of our Caravan.

Yves.

[Unstable 8]

I'm seeing a used Caravan for no less than $600,000 USD, but my point was, that there are still a really new aircraft, and Cessna is pumping those things out fast enough that current operators will be able to continually upgrade. I think in a few years we'll see them as a much more economical aircraft for larger DZ's.

=========Shaun ==========

[davelepka 4]

Desptie what some jumpers are saying, the Caravan is a significant player in the turbine jumpship market, and it will become increasingly more popular as time goes on.

There aren't alot of 'light' utility aircraft being produced these days, and even fewer with a large enough production run to keep parts available and 'affordable' for the next 20 or 30 years.

Leaving out the new Otters, the King Air is one of the only other popular jumpships still in production, and those are of little interest to DZ with grass or dirt runways.

Even with Otter production ramping up, and parts becomgin more available, the older the fleet gets, the more or those parts they will be needing, and I can't see the new parts costing less than the used parts currently available.

Single engine, lots if them around, great safety and reliability record, parts readily available, and friendly on a grass strip? It really is an ideal jump aircraft from an operators standpoint.

[mnealtx 0]

Dave -

Why is the KA unsuitable for grass/dirt runways? Just curious.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Unstable 8]

Quote

Leaving out the new Otters, the King Air is one of the only other popular jumpships still in production, and those are of little interest to DZ with grass or dirt runways.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a King Air prett pricy to operate given the two hungy hungry engines and retractible gear?

=========Shaun ==========

[lekstrom10k 0]

I only did a few tandems out of 750XL and didnt care for the low door with a tall person. I dont kneel. I sat behind the pilot with my legs luckily over the spar. The TM next to me legs were on the front side of the spar and fought to get them up and over for exit. I was not impressed but I jump a GC-208 with bench seats and got spoiled.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Leaving out the new Otters, the King Air is one of the only other popular jumpships still in production, and those are of little interest to DZ with grass or dirt runways.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a King Air prett pricy to operate given the two hungy hungry engines and retractible gear?

Yes but at roughly half the purchase price you can afford quite a bit of variable cost on the capital cost savings. This becomes particularly true for operations in the 200-400 hr/yr range. For larger operations that use an Otter, I think your analysis may be right for those that just barely use an Otter, but if the otter is busy I don't see how less aircraft will help unless otter costs do accelerate. Hopefully the new otter production will put downward pressure on old Otter pricing.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a King Air prett pricy to operate given the two hungy hungry engines and retractible gear?

Yep. I didn't say it was cheap to operate, just that it was still in production and widely used for jumping.

If you want to see what we will be using in the future, you have to look at what being made today.

As far as the purchase price goes, you can get a cheap King Air, but it will be old, and high time. If you compare the cost of the same year King Air and Caravan, with similar times, the Cararvan will be less.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Why is the KA unsuitable for grass/dirt runways? Just curious

With a low wing, and the air intake under the wing it's open to rocks or gravel getting sucked into the engine.

Also, a King Air needs a touch more runway than an Otter or Caravan (or PAC I would guess). It's not a STOL aircraft, and many grass strips are just not long enough.

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

I've been in a caravan that has had the spinny thing in the front stop spinning. It get's really quiet in there, but it does glide well. AS far as single engine climb out capability on the otter that depends on the weight of the aircraft, fuel, and load onboard.

I can tell you there are 15 people that will agree with you. Dead Stick from 4k from about 10 miles out back to the airport. I was just glad I wasn't on that load. Our Pilot's a STUD. Hope the new engine is put in soon I miss that plane but the TO from eloy has been rather nice

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[davelepka 4]

Just another quick point, all those who have chimed in with what THEY like, or what TMs like need to understand that those factors mean close to nothing in choosing a jump ship.

Maybe in markets like CA or FL, where there are a bunch of year-round DZ's, what the jumpers want might mean something. If you don't like the plane at one DZ, you can easily go to another and jump what they have.

In other markets, the jumpers jump what they are given. A little smaller door, or little longer climb won't keep jumpers from their home DZ when the nearest alternate turbine DZ is hours away.

Purchase price, operating costs, and parts availability are the driving factors in jumpship selection. We all know that the majority of DZ income is from tandems and students, and they don't know one plane from another.

We jump a Super Otter at my home DZ. Nice paint, nice interior, no duct tape anywhere. More or less the nicest jump plane you could ask for, and you always hear the tandem studetns, "We're going in this little thing? I hope it gets off the runway, make sure they wind up the rubberband all the way".

[Unstable 8]

Quote

If you want to see what we will be using in the future, you have to look at what being made today.

So our jumpships for the future will most likely be..

- Cessna Caravan
- Pac 750 XL
- King Airs
-T'Wotters
-Kodiak

=========Shaun ==========

[Unstable 8]

Quote

We jump a Super Otter at my home DZ. Nice paint, nice interior, no duct tape anywhere. More or less the nicest jump plane you could ask for, and you always hear the tandem studetns, "We're going in this little thing? I hope it gets off the runway, make sure they wind up the rubberband all the way".

That blows my mind..... What else could they ask for? A rocketship?Are they being serious of just saying those things to joke with their nervous Passengers?!?

Quote

Purchase price, operating costs, and parts availability are the driving factors in jumpship selection. We all know that the majority of DZ income is from tandems and students, and they don't know one plane from another.

This is why I keep looking at the Caravan....

=========Shaun ==========

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Why is the KA unsuitable for grass/dirt runways? Just curious

With a low wing, and the air intake under the wing it's open to rocks or gravel getting sucked into the engine.

Also, a King Air needs a touch more runway than an Otter or Caravan (or PAC I would guess). It's not a STOL aircraft, and many grass strips are just not long enough.

Michael Mullins flew his King Air in and out of his grass runway for years without a problem. Even then, he got it paved. Not many pilots can fly a King Air like he can.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[VectorBoy 0]

Hopefully the new otter production will put downward pressure on old Otter pricing.

[Unstable 8]

Quote

This didn't happen with the four place piston single cessnas that came back into production. The effect was actually the reverse on the used market.

I agree - It may help with parts, to some extent, but I'm not convinced that restarting the production will help make the T'wotter any more available to DZ operators than it is now.

=========Shaun ==========

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why is the KA unsuitable for grass/dirt runways? Just curious

With a low wing, and the air intake under the wing it's open to rocks or gravel getting sucked into the engine.

Also, a King Air needs a touch more runway than an Otter or Caravan (or PAC I would guess). It's not a STOL aircraft, and many grass strips are just not long enough.

Ah... gotcha. I appreciate the information!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

We jump a Super Otter at my home DZ. Nice paint, nice interior, no duct tape anywhere. More or less the nicest jump plane you could ask for, and you always hear the tandem studetns, "We're going in this little thing? I hope it gets off the runway, make sure they wind up the rubberband all the way".

That blows my mind..... What else could they ask for? A rocketship?Are they being serious of just saying those things to joke with their nervous Passengers?!?

Lots of people have never been in a plane smaller than a regional jet.

[riggerrob 558]

Quote

Quote

Quote

We jump a Super Otter at my home DZ. Nice paint, nice interior, no duct tape anywhere. More or less the nicest jump plane you could ask for, and you always hear the tandem students, "We're going in this little thing? I hope it gets off the runway, make sure they wind up the rubberband all the way".

That blows my mind..... What else could they ask for? A rocketship?Are they being serious of just saying those things to joke with their nervous Passengers?!?

Lots of people have never been in a plane smaller than a regional jet.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

When tandem students whine about the size of our King Air, I remind them that it is the biggest jump plane west of Toronto.
Hah!

[riggerrob 558]

Furthermore, King Air propellers are very close to the ground and they don't have FOD separators.
Ergo operating a King Air from a gravel runway is by far the most expensive mode - vis a vis spare parts.

If you have a gravel runway, you are far wiser to buy an airplane that is designed for gravel runways: Caravan or Twin Otter.