MikeeB 0 #1 February 10, 2003 As a pilot (just fun, not work) I'm curious to know - from an operators / DZ owners view: which aircraft are considered to be the best jump planes? And why? All replies welcomeMikee B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #2 February 10, 2003 Safe bet that for operating costs vs. income(# jumpers per load and loads per hour), the Grand Caravan is hard to beat. Downside is initial cost. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig 0 #3 February 10, 2003 Here is a little info on costs... http://www.utilityaircraft.com/unfinancedcostcomparisons.html Edit: This is from a company trying to market a jump plane keep in mind. I am not sure how realistic the numbers are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #4 February 10, 2003 QuoteAs a pilot (just fun, not work) I'm curious to know - from an operators / DZ owners view: which aircraft are considered to be the best jump planes? And why? All replies welcome It depends on the size of operation. The best jump plane for that operation will be the one they can afford to buy, maintain regularly and irregularly, hire a competant pilot with good training, and still make money. That plane will vary between all types of operations. But! If you were to ask me what plane is the best jump plane for flying skydivers it is hands down the DeHavilland Super Twin Otter. Carries 23 jumpers with plenty of fuel so no dead sticking. Lots of power in an engine out situation. Only requires 1 pilot. Fixed landing gear so no gear up landings. Flys stable and slow enough on jumprun. Doesn't require a lot of runway to be LEGAL to use short and unimproved runways (*cough CASA cough*). High horizontal tail so that premature deployments in the door should not go over the tail or only rake the tail a bit. I could go on and on. Oh yah, and it has PT-6-27 engines which are some of the most reliable engines out there.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 4 #5 February 10, 2003 This company has an ad in the March Parachutist. I showed it to a guy who owns several Otters and a Caravan and he said he woudn"t buy a jump plane with a tail so low, as Chris notes, as to risk deployment/tail strike problems. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyMissy 0 #6 February 10, 2003 What company?________________________________________________ Mike Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #7 February 10, 2003 That plane *may* turn out to be a great plane; however, its not even legal as a jump plane yet, still some FAA stuff to go through. Not only that, but I know I wouldn't want to be the first DZO with that plane, new plane, new problems, new headaches, new things for mechanics to learn, no used/rebuilt parts, etc. Maybe in 10 years...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeeB 0 #8 February 10, 2003 Thanks for all the replies - BUT no mention of the Turbo Porter?! I had always thought it was much loved by DZO's (in fact my ever first jump was from a Porter)?Mikee B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #9 February 10, 2003 QuoteThanks for all the replies - BUT no mention of the Turbo Porter?! Insurance generally requies 500 hours tail-wheel time for the pilot. So you have to find the right pilot, and probably pay more because they have the required time. It is harder to fly than a nose-wheel airplane. Even the Army managed to ground loop it's Porter. It is a great airplane though. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,120 #10 February 10, 2003 I looked at the picture. That looks way too low to be that close; just the thought of launching something out the door catching some air would scare me. Pity; the specs looked pretty good otherwise. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #11 February 10, 2003 Does a King Air or Caravan tail scare you? Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ERICCONNELLY 0 #12 February 11, 2003 Oh yeah! If it wasn't scary it wouldn't be fun... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #13 February 11, 2003 QuoteBut! If you were to ask me what plane is the best jump plane for flying skydivers it is hands down the DeHavilland Super Twin Otter. Chris is correct regarding the Twin Otter. There are spare parts programs worldwide for this airplane, and it was also designed to be worked on in the field with minimal support. It has one of the lowest costs for TO/Landing cycles too. With the main fuel tanks under the floor rather than in the wings means it can endure unimproved airfields with ease. No comparison to the Shorts SC-7 Skyvan, which now has a specific end of life, in the modern world anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eddytheeagle 0 #14 February 11, 2003 QuoteBUT no mention of the Turbo Porter?! I also love porters, great big sliding door, climbs fast. Expensive in maintenance though. In France, you see them on nearly ever DZ, and of course Switserland, where they're build. If you want to now more about this plane, you have to check out this great site: http://www.pc-6.comDon't underestimate your ability to screw up! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #15 February 11, 2003 Quote Oh yah, and it has PT-6-27 engines which are some of the most reliable engines out there wuss!! put -34's in the thing! (see: franenotter, Crosskeys otter .... FAST) Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gus 1 #16 February 11, 2003 QuoteSafe bet that for operating costs vs. income, the Grand Caravan is hard to beat. Why is that? We bought a Grand Caravan a few years back, I believe for $1,000,000 which seems alot. Are they really reliable/cheap to run/maintain? GusOutpatientsOnline.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
outofit 0 #17 February 11, 2003 from a jumpers point of view side exit aircraft scare the hell out of me. the tailgators r handsdown the best! just my .02 cents! It is better to be dead and cool than alive and uncool! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #18 February 11, 2003 This year the 500 hour requirement is not as important as it used to be. (for the first time) The company we have has relaxed that and is asking for a tail wheel endorsement (of course) and 25 hours in kind. Quite a change!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #19 February 11, 2003 Quotewuss!! put -34's in the thing! (see: franenotter, Crosskeys otter .... FAST) Big engines just compensate for poor pilot technique in turn around time. LOL...... Ummm.....during the record my -27 engines were keeping up nicely with the Arizona -34 otters. Other planes had to ask for power reductions because their -27s weren't as strong or "tweaked" (read tuned) for best operation. Roger recently replaced the compressor sections of most of his engines and it has made a world of difference. Should help reduce the hot section wear too. They run cooler and pull max torque to a very high altitude. The -34 engines can NOT pull more torque than a -27 engine. They are both limited to 50 lbs/Tq because of the gear box. The -34 engines can run hotter than the -27s and so that allows them to run max Tq to a higher altitude. But if that -34 engine aint tweaked for max performance then the extra heat doesn't mean anything. Sorry.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JankyBob 0 #20 February 11, 2003 Although the plane would be new in the US, the design is based on a plane that has been used for skydiving in Australia and New Zealand for years. The new plane is basically a Cresco that has been redesigned for skydiving purposes. The Cresco is one of the most widely used cargo planes in Australia and New Zealand, and it has proven to e quite a reliable workhorse. The PAX-750 is the first plane that I've heard of that has been designed and tested for skydiving. I know that, among many other tests, they did a lot crash-testing to find the safest seatbelt configuration for skydivers. On thier webpage you can see some pictures of these tests and all of the test dummies are wearing freefly suits. What's up with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #21 February 11, 2003 Like everything else in the aviation business, the best jump plane is a compromise. The best jump plane is the one you can fill on a regular basis. And this is determined by the size of your DZ. If you only have one tandem master and he is only available on weekends, then a Cessna 182 is the best jump plane. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of static-liners per day, then you need a C-130 or C-141. He! He! The larger the airplane, the lower the cost per seat. But that has to be balanced with how often you can fill it. For example, a 36 seat DC-3 may p[rovide the lowest cost (per seat) airlift, but if you can only fill it three times a day ($90 per day per T/M), then tandem masters will quit in frustration. On the other hand, if you can fill a Cessna a dozen times a day, that means that your T/M can make dozen jumps per day ($360 per T/M per day) and that means a larger paycheck. Purchase price is also a huge factor. Traditionally skydivers have been near the bottom of the food chain. Back in the good-old-days, we were even lower than the midnight mail. When Beech18s were no longer IFR-certifiable (midnight mail), then they reverted to skydiving. Nowadays, skydivers compete with FEDEX for airplanes. Many of the Caravans flying skydivers have retired from hauling packages for FEDEX or UPS subsidiaries. For example, for many mid-sized DZs, a single turbine may make the most sense, but early King Airs are so much cheaper that Porters or Caravans, etc. While the new PAC Aero plane may look like a great jump plane, few DZOs can raise the money to purchase them new. Maintenance is also a huge headache. While you can pick up beater Beech 18s for $30,000, it may require another $100,000 to make it airworthy! Maintenance is one of those "pay me now or pay me later" issues. Turbines may have the lowest short term operating costs, but when it comes time for an engine overhaul, the bill is huge! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivinmartin 0 #22 February 11, 2003 Out of curiosity, anyone know what it costs to overhaul the common jump plane turbine engines? (PT-6-20/27/34, etc) I once heard that a hot-section inspection alone can run $250,000? Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #23 February 11, 2003 QuoteSafe bet that for operating costs vs. income, the Grand Caravan is hard to beat. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is that? We bought a Grand Caravan a few years back, I believe for $1,000,000 which seems alot. Are they really reliable/cheap to run/maintain? Right, initial cost is very high, but single turbine engine, carries a lot of jumpers, fast turn-around times, low maintanence costs, fixed gear, nose wheel, easy to fly. Hook Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 4 #24 February 11, 2003 "What company?" http://WWW.AEROSPACE.CO.NZ/ HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buzzfink 5 #25 February 12, 2003 I paid $65,000 for a PT6-20 hot section....TWICE. Once on each engine. Buzz Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
