Cessna 182 vs. Pilatus Porter

[Eagleeye 0]

After reading the "Cessna rate of climb" post, I am curious on your thoughts of how the Pilatus Porter compares with the C-182 as far as rate of climb, fuel consumption, etc. I realize there are a few variables as to the configuration of both aircraft, but generally speaking.

[micro 0]

I wonder why you aren't asking about price differences as well?

Paradise Skydives has a Porter for sale for 675k whereas you can get a good 182 for 100k or less.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[stratostar 5]

We had porter last season, if I remember what the dzo said it burned 12 to 14 gallons a load depending on what pilot was flying.
I don't know about a 182 on the fuel per load or hour.
But the porter carrys twice the meat and climbs like a raped ape with a -27 on it, 15 to 20 minutes to alti. 13.5 (load dependent)with 8 people.
Our older 182's take's 30 minutes (appox) to 10k with out phat ass's on board and hot temp's (air) will make it climb slower.
In other words the porter kick's ass, but if all you got is a 182 it's better then nothing.

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[jonstark 8]

Turbine taildragger

Hard to find pilots and parts are worse.

[L.O. 0]

there are at least 1.325 million variables involved here. These aircraft are so vastly different they hardly compare. The Porter is a high power bad ass lifter. The Cessna is a slow climber but ideal for a small not full time DZ. Climb rates don't compare. The porter burns karrosene, the cessna av gas. The porter is a tail dragger from the Swiss, the Cessna a trike for the US. If you get more specific I could get more detailed.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[FrogNog 1]

I was going to make a new post, but it would only get deleted so I'll just say it here: "C-5 Galaxy vs. Cessna 182?"

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[billvon 2,380]

>"C-5 Galaxy vs. Cessna 182?"

I don't know about the C-5, but I hear C-130's use more gas than C-182's.

[Elisha 1]

Sure you're not going out on a limb with that one?

[pilotdave 0]

But if you put a 182 inside a C-5, it becomes really fuel efficient and climbs fast too!

Dave

[peckerhead 0]

Someone once told me;

"Tail dragger time is invaluable because you can't buy it."

The same is true today.

[PhreeZone 14]

The Porter should use Jet_A, not Kerosene. Big difference there.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[shunkka 0]

think... a porter climb faster with more people=more loads to higher alti/day
if it`sa a medium DZ (not a big) i think a porter make the difference
a lot of ppl would come for a porter than for a 182
sorry for my silly english

-------------------------
"jump, have fun, pull"

[stratostar 5]

You are correct in a way, however people don't understand that jet-A is kerosene, and so is K-1, K-2 ,diesel ect are all kerosene.
The difference is the refinement and storage of the grade of fuel your talking about.

They look the same, smell the same and are the same in chemical make up.
Some grades like diesel will have dyes added so the D.O.T.
will know what your running in your tanks, red dye is off road and tax exempt, blueish dye taxable "over the road".

Jet-A is clear and some K-1 is clear, but it also has red dye in it normally and is a much lower grade, kind of like the shit they throw away, so it is sold for heating oil but it burns clean with or with out the dye's in it, you wouldn't want diesel in your salamander due to the smell.

jet-A has a much higher refinement and must be stored in special lined tanks with recirulation taking place on a regular schedule, and also would have special filters (more then one) in order to keep the bacteria from growing in the fuel and contaminating the tank and aircraft tanks & fuel system.
Once the bacteria is in your planes tanks any clean fuel you put in now becomes contaminated.

Jet-A also has a chain of custody that follows the fuel from the refinery to the storage tanks to the aircraft, this allows the fed's to trace the fuel in the advent of a crash.
TWA flight # (your number here) crashed, the fuel left the refinery in mike's fuel truck # 30 at 9am and emptied the load into DFW's storage tank #2 at 10:30 am, DFW fuel truck loaded from storage tank#2 a week later and loaded the fuel in the flight that crashed. ECT.
That is what makes Jet-A different from K-1.

This is why some DZO's and aircraft operators have been known to burn K-1 instead of Jet-A, why buy the high priced high grade stuff, when you can buy the low grade shit for half the price and fool your jumpers in to thinking that the high cost of Jet-A is why they had to raise the jump ticket cost.
K-1 is season dependent and much lower in the summer when no one is heating their homes with it.
While Jet-A stays the same year long.


~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[L.O. 0]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought that stuff was gen. knowledge. I have to remember I am talking to the general populous, not a bunch of pilots. Sorry about that.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[packing_jarrett 0]

can anyone show me the seating arrangment in a porter

Na' Cho' Cheese

[stratostar 5]

We were putting 3 on the back seat (tight fit)
four on the floor and one in the right seat next to pilot.
All but the three in the back seat face the tail.

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[sundevil777 93]

Porters with a bench on the left side are so much nicer. You can get 10 in slightly squeezed, 9 is easy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[stratostar 5]

I thought that stuff was gen. knowledge.(quote)

That is because most skydivers that don't also fly don't give a damm all they want is a cheap fix for their habit and are willing to turn a blind eye to substandard fuel and maintenance foolishly thinking that they will get out should the plane fall out of the sky.

People who are pilots and A&P's know better and would not risk shit fuel in their high dollar bird, at least most would not.

However history would show that part 91 operators (DZO"S)
don't give a damm and will put that shit in their tanks and look you (joe jumper) in the eye and tell you their K-1 is Jet-A or have a tank marked 100LL and have pink shit coming out the other end.

Most skydivers wouldn't know that you don't put green fuel 120 oct. in a 100LL or 80oct. aircraft or 80oct or 100LL in a plane that should have 120oct. But is ok to use 80oct. in a 100LL plane or the other way around, and you NEVER put Jet-A in any of the above unless you want to crash in a short amount of time.

They also don't seem to understand that there is a reason that it is illegal to burn K-1 instead of Jet-A and you MUST have a real STC and the mod done,(not a photo copy of a STC from another aircraft with the numbers changed in the logbook) in order to burn mogas.

They also don't seem to know or care to know that this is serious shit and you don't fuck around with fuel's just to save a buck!

If more jumpers took the time to really learn what should be done in order to be in compliance we wouldn't see all the shady crap being done in this sport.

You buy a lift ticket when you get on TWA and you have a right expect that they are using legal fuel and maintenance standards, just because we operate under part 91 and not 121 or 135 dosen't mean we should not hold the same standard of fuel's and maintenance be upheld.(read legal,not part 135)

I think most people would be pissed to find out that their jumpship crashed with them on it because of substandard contaminated fuel being used in order to save the operator a bunch of money, all while they have been blowing smoke up the ass of the people who keep them in business without having a clue and trusting that the fuel is what the tank say's it is.

Then again history would show that even when it has been shown that in deed some were doing so, they (jumpers) keep spending there money and keep that type of operator in business because it's all about getting their fix any way they can get it.
If what I'm saying is NOT true, then there would be a few folks who would be out of the dz business, but their not.

~

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[stratostar 5]

I'll take the floor I hate sitting sideways and 8 is bad enought to shoot video in with out packing in 10.
But hey JMO.

`

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[murps2000 86]

I'm aware of what will happen to a reciprocating engine running on turbine fuel shortly after the application of takeoff power, but what about avgas in a turbine? It can be used in an emergency, correct?

I agree completely that both engines run best with clean, proper fuel.

I agree that porter's kick ass, too, if money's no object.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

I'll take the floor I hate sitting sideways and 8 is bad enought to shoot video in with out packing in 10.
But hey JMO.

`

Kapowsin had a Porter with a bench for quite a while where 10 was kinda cramped but a std load.

I only did 1 jump in a Porter without a bench. I actually can't remember how many were in it, probably more than 8, but it was really awful. If 8 was always the max, then it would probably be good.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[JohnMitchell 14]

C-182 doesn't have a bomb bay door, the Porter does. Rack up another 2 points for the Porter.

Porter has a much bigger door. I'm 6'1", and sometimes have tandem passengers bigger than me. I can climb out of a C-182 all day long, but would prefer the bigger door and faster climb rate of the Porter, not to mention room for several tandems and video.

The Porter is a good step-up plane for a growing DZ, ready to transition from C-182's. It's extremely popular in Europe. I think, though, an early model used Caravan would be cheaper, easier to fly, and easier to maintain than a Porter. The tail dragger headaches can limit your pilot pool and raise your insurance rates a lot.

[sundevil777 93]

Quote

C-182 doesn't have a bomb bay door, the Porter does. Rack up another 2 points for the Porter.

Porter has a much bigger door. I'm 6'1", and sometimes have tandem passengers bigger than me. I can climb out of a C-182 all day long, but would prefer the bigger door and faster climb rate of the Porter, not to mention room for several tandems and video.

The Porter is a good step-up plane for a growing DZ, ready to transition from C-182's. It's extremely popular in Europe. I think, though, an early model used Caravan would be cheaper, easier to fly, and easier to maintain than a Porter. The tail dragger headaches can limit your pilot pool and raise your insurance rates a lot.

That Kapowsin Porter was so nice.

The wide door and low, huge step (I called it a porch - it was so big), made exits so easy. Dragging out an 8 way was quite easy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

but what about avgas in a turbine? It can be used in an emergency, correct?

I know that blackhawks can run on pretty much any type of fuel in an emergency. I really don't understand how it can work, but the list of emergency fuels is pretty much every fuel the military uses or might have access to. Doesn't make it safe for regular use, but they'll run.

Dave

[Boarding_boy 0]

re:Avgas in a turbine

Acording to the flight manuals of the Porter I fly: yes you can in an emergency situation only for 125 (From memory dont quote the number) hrs of the engines life. Turbines use fuel differently than a piston engined airplane and are a bit more flexable. But that doesnt mean you should put anything but what is supposed to be in there.

and yes porters do kick ass, but 182's are just as cool in their own way.