pfloyd 0
Recommended Posts
jakee 1,254
QuoteI love the Pac's @ Davis; they are very fast to altitude and are very comfortable. I just dont understand how any one could say anything negative about a Pac750xl.
They have a low tail, are cramped when full, and CofG considerations + the wingspar across the floor of the cabin can make them a bit difficult to exit a whole planeload from.
Having said that, I like 'em!
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
i recently jumped the deland pac. coming from a cessna dz, i thought it rocked. first load was jammed full, and we didn't have ourselves arranged properly for the exit so we had to climb over each other a bit, but it was certainly better than a cessna. next load had about a dozen on board, very comfy with that load. the last one was just our 4-way with video. spoiled us rotten. no problem with the door, and as far as cabin height goes, when you're used to a cessna, it's no issue. if you're used to an otter, you'll find it low.
"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001
bob.dino 0
Quotethe wingspar across the floor of the cabin
We don't have that on either of the two I've jumped. Got a pic? I'm curious.
If you use straddle benches in yours, like they do in Raeford, and are sitting up front close to the pilot, then your feet will generally be forward of that bump in the floor. Your tandem passenger's, though, will generally be aft of it. As a TM it's just sometimes a pain in the ass to slide past it after you are hooked up tight.
Chuck
Chuck
On a full load, it can be a pain in a wingsuit as well. Due to the spar, not as much room to wiggle around to zip up your legs.
50 donations so far. Give it a try.
You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity
You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity
Fast 0
QuoteQuotethe wingspar across the floor of the cabin
We don't have that on either of the two I've jumped. Got a pic? I'm curious.
Most certainly do. ALL PACs have that. I like the plane. I can't argue with it for the cost of flying it and climb rate. The door is big enough to do what you want, it has its problems but most planes do.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
piisfish 135
zip up your legs prior to boarding.QuoteOn a full load, it can be a pain in a wingsuit as well. Due to the spar, not as much room to wiggle around to zip up your legs.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM
When I have the chance, I do. When there is someone siting on the baby seat, there is no room to sit side saddle with legs zipped. You have to load sans zipped legs so you can sit normal on the bench. Once the person on the baby seat moves, all the birds are bumping heads as they hurry to get their legs zipped.
But the TIs love when birds are on the load. No need to fight the spar because we are sitting behind it instead of them.
But the TIs love when birds are on the load. No need to fight the spar because we are sitting behind it instead of them.
50 donations so far. Give it a try.
You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity
You know you want to spank it
Jump an Infinity
DSE 3
QuoteQuotethe wingspar across the floor of the cabin
We don't have that on either of the two I've jumped. Got a pic? I'm curious.
Dave, AFAIK, all PAC's have it, the PAC in Nagambie and Picton both do, FWIW. Nagambie's PAC has the area forward of the spar elevated, so you're sitting above the rest of the floor, but some a/c have the spar sitting across as a "curb." Maybe you don't sit in the forward area of the cabin since you're always one of the first out?
bob.dino 0
Getcha. I must be being particularly slow today 
.
.
Some observations from a PAC user both for sport and business: I've been jumping in Deland since a Porter was THE turbine on the drop zone, and they often had to wait until they had 16 people to justify starting it. (back to back, 80's style)
The last Porter they had there was much loved. It was fresh out of major overhaul, painted clean white inside & out, and had a big engine. I'm a fan of the Porter anyway, and this one was a great example.
When it crashed, the DZ took a PAC on loan to evaluate. As an aero engineer I'd seen the marketing claims for the PAC and was highly skeptical. Somehow it would take more people to altitude faster and burn less fuel, while using the same engine as the Porter. That would take major savings in weight and/or drag.
But sure enough, seems to be true. The DZ bought their own, brand new. Seems that the costs are low enough that the management is not so cheap as to try to unnaturally jam too many people in there. I believe they consider it full with 15. That's no tighter than a full Otter. These claims of 17 or 18 must be for little european dudes (I'm 6'3", 250). The times I've rode a caravan, It's been much less comfortable, as they try to jam more butts per square foot in there. Just my experience there.
The gripes I'm seeing about CG on this plane are no different than any other plane with a door behind the wing. Twin otters have been known to stall with a crowd in the door. Skyvan and Casa both have a limit line behind which the number of jumpers is restricted. So to act like this plane has a problem with CG is silly.
In fact. in a former life I acted as loadmaster for the test drops that were used for FAA approval of the PD Optima low-bulk reserve. That meant I took the test requirements, and analyzed the available aircraft for performance and safety. The allowable CG range on the PAC is much larger than for either the Skyvan or the Twin Otter, all per the Operating Handbooks for each plane. We still used forward balast when putting 1000 lbs at the door for a 60kt pass at 500 feet tho.
The plane did a 60 kt drop one one pass, and a 160 kt drop on the very next. That's versatile.
As for the spar, if your PAC does not have one, I suggest you not ride in it. Tell the DZ to send it back, since thats a pretty important part of the structure.
Plus, it's the first plane I've seen with a roll-up jump door engineered into it from the beginning, not grafted on. it doesn't seem to have the sticking/ jamming problems I've seen from time to time on every otter door.
The concern on this plane is the low tail. You don't want to have a canopy dump in the door on this one. Make sure your pins are tight.
The last Porter they had there was much loved. It was fresh out of major overhaul, painted clean white inside & out, and had a big engine. I'm a fan of the Porter anyway, and this one was a great example.
When it crashed, the DZ took a PAC on loan to evaluate. As an aero engineer I'd seen the marketing claims for the PAC and was highly skeptical. Somehow it would take more people to altitude faster and burn less fuel, while using the same engine as the Porter. That would take major savings in weight and/or drag.
But sure enough, seems to be true. The DZ bought their own, brand new. Seems that the costs are low enough that the management is not so cheap as to try to unnaturally jam too many people in there. I believe they consider it full with 15. That's no tighter than a full Otter. These claims of 17 or 18 must be for little european dudes (I'm 6'3", 250). The times I've rode a caravan, It's been much less comfortable, as they try to jam more butts per square foot in there. Just my experience there.
The gripes I'm seeing about CG on this plane are no different than any other plane with a door behind the wing. Twin otters have been known to stall with a crowd in the door. Skyvan and Casa both have a limit line behind which the number of jumpers is restricted. So to act like this plane has a problem with CG is silly.
In fact. in a former life I acted as loadmaster for the test drops that were used for FAA approval of the PD Optima low-bulk reserve. That meant I took the test requirements, and analyzed the available aircraft for performance and safety. The allowable CG range on the PAC is much larger than for either the Skyvan or the Twin Otter, all per the Operating Handbooks for each plane. We still used forward balast when putting 1000 lbs at the door for a 60kt pass at 500 feet tho.
The plane did a 60 kt drop one one pass, and a 160 kt drop on the very next. That's versatile. As for the spar, if your PAC does not have one, I suggest you not ride in it. Tell the DZ to send it back, since thats a pretty important part of the structure.
Plus, it's the first plane I've seen with a roll-up jump door engineered into it from the beginning, not grafted on. it doesn't seem to have the sticking/ jamming problems I've seen from time to time on every otter door.
The concern on this plane is the low tail. You don't want to have a canopy dump in the door on this one. Make sure your pins are tight.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites