Beech Super King Air 200 - why arn't all jump aircraft built like this?

[Praetorian 1]

I've red Bill's account of the second video, but is it known what caused the reserve to open on the porter vid?

Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad
judgment.

[Zep 0]

I was talking to the pilot yesterday an he hopes to be at Empuria for the summer (but it's up to Pete an co.)

Also he's planing to replace the 680hp turbines with 750hp turbines soon, So I guess Europe will soon have
the equivelent of Mullins rocket doing the boogie circuit



edit to add photo

Gone fishing

[sstovall 0]

I remember some of the Piper Tomahawks had problems with the t-tail design. If memory serves, stalls got very exciting and spins required a skilled hand to recover from, most of which was attributed to the tail design. Don't know if it's the same on the big boys or not.

=
=
-some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain,
that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

[pilotdave 0]

I've done spins in a tomahawk. Scariest thing I've ever done in a plane. The traumahawk has a lot of interesting behaviors in a stall or spin. When it stalls, it STALLS. Not like cessnas that kinda just get mushy. T-hawks have a very pronounced drop of the nose and almost always one wing drops too. The ailerons reverse in a stall, so trying to correct a right wing drop with left aileron will almost surely put you into a spin to the right.

At the time, my instructor had only spun a t-hawk once before, so she told me she'd demonstrate but didn't want me touching the controls. She'd pull the nose nearly straight up...had to be 75 or 80 degrees nose up. Then it started like a normal stall... but as the nose crossed the horizon, one wing would drop and the nose would just keep going down. Suddenly we'd be pointed straight down, rolling. And the entire time the rudder made a clapping noise as it smacked against the tail from all the turbulent flow from the stalled wings.

We only did 1/2 to 1 turn spins... she didn't want the spin to really stabilize. And every time we'd pull out, she'd have me look back at the tail and see if everything still looked like it was in place. Sounded like the rudder was gonna come flying off at any time.

Man I miss those traumahawks.

Dave

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

all you need is a plane with a tailgate, no chance of hitting the tail . . .

Tail gate, shmail gate. Bomb doors are the only way to go! We need a fleet of B-52's to fly jumpers each weekend.

Raise your hand if you've done a bomb bay exit.

[Kris 0]

Quote

all you need is a plane with a tailgate, no chance of hitting the tail then!!

Funny story....a buddy of mine and his father were jumping out of a casa. The buddy was by the exit, and his father was going to run out the end after a large RW group left.

The group exited so he starts running. The plane pitches from the exit of the large RW group as he gets to the end and he gets smited by the ramp, lays there a second, then rolls the rest of the way out. Apparently, it took him a couple of thousand feet to get his wits back.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

all you need is a plane with a tailgate, no chance of hitting the tail . . .

Tail gate, shmail gate. Bomb doors are the only way to go! We need a fleet of B-52's to fly jumpers each weekend.

Raise your hand if you've done a bomb bay exit.

Did the B-52 when it visited zhills. A piece of history. Ya gotta do it while it's still flying.

They also didn't have the cover on the radiomans area, so we put on our helmets and poked our heads out the top. There was a WWII-era fighter flying next to us. We could wave at the pilot.

[happythoughts 0]

I've seen the same thing. People moving towards the tail when the group exits. They lose their footing, smack the floor, and the people behind have enough momentum to carry them out.

Seen that more than once.

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

On a jump plane, a high tail is sort of a must. So you design the rest of the plane to compensate as necessary.

I think on a jump plane a tail people won't whack, jam, or tear off is highly desirable, but I'm not convinced the horizontal stabilizer has to be really high up to make that happen. There are other ways but unfortunately flight-testing them is expensive, no matter what the purpose of the plane.

I'd like to see a jump plane with an asymmetrical tail and with flight characteristics optimized for takeoff, landing, and jump run. (I understand asymmetric planes have historically had a tendency to act differently during different flight modes.)

Meanwhile I'll just keep jumping what we have and I'll keep my closing loop new and tight.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Did the B-52 when it visited zhills. A piece of history. Ya gotta do it while it's still flying.

Uh, you jumped a B-52?

Or did you mean one of these. B-17

Still incredibly cool though, I'd love to jump a WW2 heavy. Best would be a Lancaster, but there are only two left flying so they might be a wee bit sensitive about it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Did the B-52 when it visited zhills. A piece of history. Ya gotta do it while it's still flying.

Uh, you jumped a B-52?

Or did you mean one of these. B-17

Still incredibly cool though, I'd love to jump a WW2 heavy. Best would be a Lancaster, but there are only two left flying so they might be a wee bit sensitive about it.

The B-17, of course.

The Collings Foundation has a B-17 and a B-24. They have been to the convention before. They also tour around the country.

You can do a tour on the ground or pay for a ticket to fly in it. I know jumpers who are donors to the plane foundation. They have a lot of experience dropping jumpers out.

Maybe the Lancaster group needs to think about a new revenue possibility.
Collings Foundation schedule

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I think on a jump plane a tail people won't whack, jam, or tear off is highly desirable, but I'm not convinced the horizontal stabilizer has to be really high up to make that happen.

It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. I know people who have hit the h. s. on King Airs and Otters (only to the point of removing some paint with their head and aching a little).

People who jump CASAs know about "casa arm". There is a lip on the edge of the door. Step off and bring your arms out too soon, you may get a sore arm.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. I know people who have hit the h. s. on King Airs and Otters (only to the point of removing some paint with their head and aching a little).

It's certainly possible to do more than just removing some paint...

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=30456;

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Ron 7]

Quote

I knew I wasn't crazy and I knew they were out there.

Now, are they practical for skydiving? Well, its still just a King Air and those versions are still just as expensive as an Otter which will hold more people and have much shorter take off distances as well as stall speeds...not to mention a fixed gear which helps keep maintance costs down (as well as insurance costs since basically the major insurance agency refuses to write new polices for jump planes based on the King Air airframe (Beech 99 included)).

AH, but it it allowed to fly with that big door removed?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 7]

Cause the KA 200 was not all it was cracked up to be.

Big plane with a small door. Yes, it had what was called "The Front Porch", but it is still a small door.

It didn't stay around long...It was fast, but it needed a pretty large load to make money.

As for the PAC 750...It was NOT designed for jumping.
They took a cargo model and made a few factory changes to make it a new jump plane. Up until then most aircraft had to be modified AFTER they came out of the factory.

It is the first (To my knowledge) FACTORY built jump plane...But it was in no way designed as a jump plane.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

AH, but it it allowed to fly with that big door removed?

As far as I know they are since its still a King Air airframe; however, I could easily be proved wrong.


Another good plane for jumping, although its WAY too expensive right now is the PC-12 with the cargo door. Man, in 20 years when those are cheaper, those will kick ass.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Raise your hand if you've done a bomb bay exit.

ME!

Okay, okay, it wasn't exactly a B-52! It was the Pink Porter! Twice in one day!

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

• Quote

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

.As for the PAC 750...It was NOT designed for jumping.
They took a cargo model and made a few factory changes to make it a new jump plane. Up until then most aircraft had to be modified AFTER they came out of the factory.

It is the first (To my knowledge) FACTORY built jump plane...But it was in no way designed as a jump plane.

Same story, only earlier, with the Cessna Caravan, the C-208. From the start, it was advertised as a jump plane, among several other uses. There is a factory available, pilot controlled jump door option, even. I've heard it's very expensive, so most operators install a door of their own design and manufacture. The operating manual covers flight with the door off/open.

[JohnMitchell 14]

A B-17! Holy heck, that's like nearly my favorite airplane. I'm very jealous/impressed. My bomb bay jump was from a Pilatus Porter, not quite the same but still a thrill and a half.

• Quote

[happythoughts 0]

Here is buddy of mine with the B-17 in the background, shot by Tony Hathaway.

He and another friend went with me when I did my bomb bay jump.

[JohnMitchell 14]

I looked thru a lot of those. I loved that guy doing the tandem out of the B-17. How cool would that be? In Mexico, we were doing tandems off the tailgate of a Russian MI-8 helicopter. We tried to explain to the passengers that they were getting a double treat, a helicopter tailgate. I don't think they really got it, though.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I'd like to see a jump plane with an asymmetrical tail and with flight characteristics optimized for takeoff, landing, and jump run.

Well, planes get designed to be most efficient in whatever flight regime they are expected to spend most of their time... at least in most cases. Jump planes spend the vast majority of their time in a cllimb, so that's what a pure jump plane should be designed for. Jump run and takeoff are of course also critical times for a jump plane.

I don't think the tail design is terribly important as long as a skydiver can't hit it. High, asymmetric, whatever. Designing it for reliability and good flight characteristics goes without saying. T-tails are very well proven.... asymmetric tails are not. But any way you design it, it's gotta get certified the same way.

Dave

[UDSkyJunkie 0]

Quote

My aerospace engineering opinion agrees with you completely.

Ha! So does mine... I was going to make a post much like this one, but Dave covered pretty much everything. One thing I'd like to add about the PAX... I recall reading in one of the manufacturer's ads that the plane is designed such that it can be pitched slightly down on exit, raising the tail somewhat.

"Some people follow their dreams, others hunt them down and beat them mercilessly into submission."

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Quote

I think on a jump plane a tail people won't whack, jam, or tear off is highly desirable, but I'm not convinced the horizontal stabilizer has to be really high up to make that happen.

It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen. I know people who have hit the h. s. on King Airs and Otters (only to the point of removing some paint with their head and aching a little).

What I mean to say is that how high the horizontal stabilizer appears when the plane is on the ground is not the only factor. How high the stabilizer is compared to the door when the plane is on jump run can be affected by more than this.

So what I said was not that people don't whack low stabilizers. I said that I think it's possible to make a stabilizer people won't whack without necessarily elevating it a long way.

But I'll have a look at King Airs and Otters (with which I am relatively unfamiliar) to see what you're talking about. A good data point.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

My aerospace engineering opinion agrees with you completely.

Ha! So does mine... I was going to make a post much like this one, but Dave covered pretty much everything. One thing I'd like to add about the PAX... I recall reading in one of the manufacturer's ads that the plane is designed such that it can be pitched slightly down on exit, raising the tail somewhat.

That's exactly what we do with out 182s and Caravan. I actually thought that every side door plane would do this by default, just to elevate the HS.
So I take it that it's not common practice.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?