madeyebiohazard 0 #26 August 30, 2004 I don't know what is going on every where else but I did two jumps out of this plane in rantoul and I was not impressed. first of all in the planes defense the people in charge of that plane were loading to many people on the plane. I jump a mirage g-3 and my rig flaps have never came open in the plane until I jumped that plane. the 3 bench seats near the pilot are to much the center one needs to be removed. tthe second jump I did was a night juump and the plane had about 3 less people on it and and made a significant differance. But if you are going to claim you built a plane specificaly for skydivers and you engineer it with a tail likke a king air well kiinda makes me wonder I personally think they just through some hand holds and foot rails on it and are advertising in every medium they can to seel planes. I and most of my friends preffered mullins king air to the pac.You must be fast cause you were flying when I past you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #27 August 30, 2004 the PAC in Bero now has 2 straddle benches which is much better IMO than the ground seating and the 3 seat bench behind the pilot (seating disposition the plane had originally). Sure the King air is faster etc... but just take into account the owner point of view... 1 vs 2 turbines etc...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigway 4 #28 August 30, 2004 in the designers defence, i remember when it first hit the news that this company was to design a plane especially for skydiving. i do belive it iwas designed for tandems. new zealand is one big tandem factory and i can see why they would design it for tandem purposes putting sport jumpers to the side for this plane. but this is just what i hear on the new zealand national news and my dz owner. .Karnage Krew Gear Store . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #29 August 30, 2004 QuoteI and most of my friends preffered mullins king air to the pac. Right. And a King air is SO suited to skydiving. Let me know when you experience your first stall at the hands of an inexperienced pilot. The "people in charge" were the owners, distributors, and instrumental in the design. The were not by any means overlading the aircraft. You're failure to protect your rig or seat yourelf in a new A/C can not be blamed on the A/C.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #30 August 30, 2004 >I and most of my friends preffered mullins king air to the pac. I like Mullin's plane because it's fast, but not for many other reasons. The small door makes it harder to do AFF and launch RW. The high speed makes it harder to launch wingsuits, and the awkward cabin makes big-ways difficult. The PAC is considerably better for AFF and RW due to the door, but about the same for other things as a King Air. I guess it depends on what you will be using it for. For tandems, 2-ways and small freefly groups, a King Air is nice (if you can afford the maintenance on the two engines, landing gear and belly/props.) OTOH, if you do have a serious problem in flight, the King Air is very fragile; most canopy-over-the-tail problems result in destruction of the tail, whereas a plane like an Otter has few problems. I don't know whether the PAC is stronger than the KA in that area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #31 August 31, 2004 We also need to compare it to the Caravan really (single engine vs. single engine). The tail was ripped off a Caravan in Australia with a premature. That would be the plane I'd take a close look at construction comparison on for the PAC 750. All in all, I think this plane will do ok in the US. If DZOs can get financing for it they will buy it. One engine is more "efficient" than a twin engine. Fixed gear, big door... it can still do good in the US. I have heart burn over the position of the tail but hey, we jump Caravans, King Airs, C-206s still so what's the dif? It will all come down to the "cool" factor in my mind. Will they be able to jazz a 750 up with a bigger engine or something and then it will be "cool" and thus popular. As for now, I think many DZOs should take a serious look at the 750.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #32 August 31, 2004 One really nice thing about the PAC is the engine power (vs a Caravan). Sure, you might only load 14 jumpers on a regular basis, but is nice to know there is safe lift capacity for 18 if you want to cram in a few more for a sunset load. Would have been really cool a few weeks ago when we built that 3-level, 15-way hybrid to have outside video... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #33 August 31, 2004 >Would have been really cool a few weeks ago when we built that >3-level, 15-way hybrid to have outside video... Agree that it's cool, but cool sunset-load lift capacity never sold a DZO on an airplane. What will sell it is they can cram 6 tandems with video into it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ematteo 0 #34 August 31, 2004 QuoteAgree that it's cool, but cool sunset-load lift capacity never sold a DZO on an airplane. What will sell it is they can cram 6 tandems with video into it. No doubt - it is the DZO who decides what planes to buy. The cost-comparison data is pretty compelling. http://utilityaircraft.com/costcomparisons.html Doesn't hurt that it is cool, though! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #35 September 7, 2004 QuoteIt will all come down to the "cool" factor in my mind. Will they be able to jazz a 750 up with a bigger engine or something and then it will be "cool" and thus popular. As for now, I think many DZOs should take a serious look at the 750. it has a Dash 34 in it now...how much cooler can ya want it... Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #36 September 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt will all come down to the "cool" factor in my mind. Will they be able to jazz a 750 up with a bigger engine or something and then it will be "cool" and thus popular. As for now, I think many DZOs should take a serious look at the 750. it has a Dash 34 in it now...how much cooler can ya want it... I want a dash 35 and a half. That would be waaaaaaaaay cool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tspillers 0 #37 September 7, 2004 We can give you a Briggs to sit next to the pilot seat if that will make it better for you... I am not totally useless, I can be used as a bad example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
calphoto 0 #38 September 9, 2004 You can buy two used Twin Otters for the price of a new PAC, or one Twin Otter and a LOT of fuel and maintenance. And the Otter is bigger with twin-engine redundancy. The low tail concerns me for an airplane supposedly designed for skydiving. Pictures I see appear to have the elevator lower than a King Air's. A mid-tail(cruciform) elevator would have been much more suitable for skydiving AND short-field. I am waiting for the first PAC taken out by a tail impact. I think the 750 was an adapted design, and the manufacturers billed it as a primarily skydiving plane for marketing purposes. I would love to fly it, but I will make sure to have an in-date rig on my back for all jump operations.Hartwood Paracenter - The closest DZ to DC! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #39 September 9, 2004 You also will have the Otter running mostly empty loads at the market the PAC was designed for. Besides, that second engine on the Otter only gets you to the crash site faster Any tail can be hit, Otters, King Airs, Caravans... all have been hit in the past. Only ones that I think have'nt are Tailgates. Most unusual thing I saw on the PAC was the joystick flight controls over the standerd yoke design on other planes.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #40 September 9, 2004 >Any tail can be hit, Otters, King Airs, Caravans . . . . Well, yeah, but King Air tails tend to get torn off whereas Otter tails don't much care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #41 September 9, 2004 QuoteAnd the Otter is bigger with twin-engine redundancy. Cause that works so well with low time jump pilots.....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #42 September 9, 2004 In case people have missed it, one of them crazy bird people already hit the tail of a PAC750... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1233494#1233494. Video here. I totally agree that the plane wasn't designed from the ground up for skydiving. I'm not exactly sure how similar the airframe is to the Cresco, but I am gonna go on a limb and say it is heavily based on it, which was not designed specifically for skydiving. Sure, the PAC750 was designed with skydiving in mind, but the airframe was not designed specifically to make a good skydiving aircraft. But comparing it to a twin otter is comparing apples and oranges. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 24 #43 September 9, 2004 I just have a question for you guys who know a lot more about planes, plane design and plane construction then I do (which isnt much! lol). Is a high tail design much more complicated to fly/design/build? Is the basic plane construction much different then a low tail: could they have modified the basic cresco with this in mind ? Hindsight is always 20/20, but really, making that plane a high tail would have not created these potentail issues.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #44 September 9, 2004 QuoteVideo here. Looks to me like he jumped up on exit from the rear of that big door and opened his suit up too soon. I've never jumped the 750, but I will at the end of the month when we get Skydance's for our boogie. It sounds to me like the problems with the 750 are caused by having a KingAir-type configuration, low tail, low wing, with a humongous door. That door lets folks get much closer to both control surfaces. The little door on the KingAir keeps people pretty much equidistant from both the wing and tail, reducing the chance of hitting them. The 750 lets you stand both feet ON the wing, and the door lets you get closer to the tail. So, if you have body memory from a KingAir (this will be something I have to concentrate on, cause most of my jumps are KingAir jumps) stuff you could get away with will end up getting you injured/damaging the 750. The only way to eliminate this risk is with tailgates, like Phree said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #45 September 9, 2004 Quote Any tail can be hit, Otters, King Airs, Caravans... all have been hit in the past. Only ones that I think have'nt are Tailgates. QuoteWho has hit the tail on a Twin Otter, and how in the world did they do it? You can make that argument, but seriously, you have to admit that hittling the cruciform tail on an otter is pretty hard to do. Not so for the low tail aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #46 September 9, 2004 QuoteI just have a question for you guys who know a lot more about planes, plane design and plane construction then I do (which isnt much! lol). Is a high tail design much more complicated to fly/design/build? Is the basic plane construction much different then a low tail: could they have modified the basic cresco with this in mind ? Hindsight is always 20/20, but really, making that plane a high tail would have not created these potentail issues. It is a pretty big design issue. You're taking flight loads of the elevator and making the rudder structure carry those loads. A big redesign there. The flight characteristics, especially stall and spin recovery, will have to all be retested. Still, Piper did a lot of T-tail redesign years ago for a lot of their light a/c line. It can be done and would be very good for a jump plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pilotdave 0 #47 September 9, 2004 T-tails have advantages and disadvantages in aircraft design. The biggest problem is structural. The vertical tail has to be a lot stronger to support the horizontal stabilizer loads. That's a weight penalty. Also control cables for the elevators and trim need be routed up through the tail, which is more complex and heavier. Another problem is that the stabilizer/elevators may be less effective at high angles of attack since they might be sitting right in the turbulent wake. This can be a problem for stall/spin recovery. Typically you'll see T-tails on airliners and planes that won't likely be stalled. But like johnmitchell said, piper used T-tails on a bunch of models, including the tomahawk, which is commonly used for stalls and spin training. T-tails are harder to inspect and harder to do maintenance. Some advantages are that the horizontal stabilizers can often be made smaller, since under normal circumstances, they're flying along in cleaner air. That can be a weight savings. Being up so high also means they're less likely to get hit by debris blown back by the prop, such as pebbles and skydivers. There are valid reasons not to use a T-tail. But for a plane supposedly designed specifically for skydiving, a T-tail woulda been nice. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhreeZone 15 #48 September 9, 2004 Otter tail strike was talked about here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=532207#532207Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites darkwing 4 #49 September 10, 2004 It looks to me like he did a very poor job exiting, and likely would have hit the tail of virtually any aircraft he exited from--certainly a King Air and and Otter. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnMitchell 14 #50 September 10, 2004 QuoteOtter tail strike was talked about here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=532207#532207 Well. I'll be damned. Yes, if you're doing aerobatics on exit, you can hit the tail on just about anything. On zero G exits out of a C-182, I instruct people to launch out hard to the wingtip, just to miss the tail. But under normal conditions, hitting the tail on a Twin Otter is going to be unlikely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
JohnMitchell 14 #46 September 9, 2004 QuoteI just have a question for you guys who know a lot more about planes, plane design and plane construction then I do (which isnt much! lol). Is a high tail design much more complicated to fly/design/build? Is the basic plane construction much different then a low tail: could they have modified the basic cresco with this in mind ? Hindsight is always 20/20, but really, making that plane a high tail would have not created these potentail issues. It is a pretty big design issue. You're taking flight loads of the elevator and making the rudder structure carry those loads. A big redesign there. The flight characteristics, especially stall and spin recovery, will have to all be retested. Still, Piper did a lot of T-tail redesign years ago for a lot of their light a/c line. It can be done and would be very good for a jump plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #47 September 9, 2004 T-tails have advantages and disadvantages in aircraft design. The biggest problem is structural. The vertical tail has to be a lot stronger to support the horizontal stabilizer loads. That's a weight penalty. Also control cables for the elevators and trim need be routed up through the tail, which is more complex and heavier. Another problem is that the stabilizer/elevators may be less effective at high angles of attack since they might be sitting right in the turbulent wake. This can be a problem for stall/spin recovery. Typically you'll see T-tails on airliners and planes that won't likely be stalled. But like johnmitchell said, piper used T-tails on a bunch of models, including the tomahawk, which is commonly used for stalls and spin training. T-tails are harder to inspect and harder to do maintenance. Some advantages are that the horizontal stabilizers can often be made smaller, since under normal circumstances, they're flying along in cleaner air. That can be a weight savings. Being up so high also means they're less likely to get hit by debris blown back by the prop, such as pebbles and skydivers. There are valid reasons not to use a T-tail. But for a plane supposedly designed specifically for skydiving, a T-tail woulda been nice. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #48 September 9, 2004 Otter tail strike was talked about here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=532207#532207Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwing 4 #49 September 10, 2004 It looks to me like he did a very poor job exiting, and likely would have hit the tail of virtually any aircraft he exited from--certainly a King Air and and Otter. -- Jeff My Skydiving History Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 14 #50 September 10, 2004 QuoteOtter tail strike was talked about here http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=532207#532207 Well. I'll be damned. Yes, if you're doing aerobatics on exit, you can hit the tail on just about anything. On zero G exits out of a C-182, I instruct people to launch out hard to the wingtip, just to miss the tail. But under normal conditions, hitting the tail on a Twin Otter is going to be unlikely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
