PhreeZone 15 #26 February 12, 2003 Whats the cost of props for a pt6-20/27? I know that a lot is plane specific but in the case of a king air style plane what are you looking at in a gear up landing for damage costs?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig 0 #27 February 12, 2003 QuoteWhats the cost of props for a pt6-20/27? I know that a lot is plane specific but in the case of a king air style plane what are you looking at in a gear up landing for damage costs? It would not be too far off to say about 40,000 to 50,000 dollars each. Don't forget about $10.00 an hour anytime those props are spinning for overhaul costs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TitaniumLegs 8 #28 February 14, 2003 Quote 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. Another fine Canadian product. When I win the lottery, I'm buying the Otter's big brother - DHC-5 Buffalo! http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/equip1h_e.htm Wanna play? (>o|-< If you don't believe me, ask me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JumpHog 0 #29 February 14, 2003 Quote When I win the lottery, I'm buying the Otter's big brother - DHC-5 Buffalo! When I win the lotto, I'll be buying NASA's idea of a 'Super' Buffalo. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #30 February 14, 2003 That sort of looks like a really pissed off CASA...cool, though.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #31 February 14, 2003 i came across this awhile back, but i haven't heard of any single otters around... anyone fly one? what would be the downside (other that the obvious engine out scenario)?"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart." MB4252 TDS699 killing threads since 2001 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jceman 1 #32 February 14, 2003 Quotei came across this awhile back, but i haven't heard of any single otters around... anyone fly one? what would be the downside (other that the obvious engine out scenario)? We had a single Otter at Flagler in the 1996-97 winter season. It flew in Alaska ferrying fishermen during the summer. It actually is a very nice jump ship; quieter than a TwOtter, not much slower, quite comfortable. The only downside I noticed is that it did not like any crosswind component; our pilot got around that just fine by getting permission from the airport manager to use any surface to takeoff and land! Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money. Why do they call it "Tourist Season" if we can't shoot them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #33 February 14, 2003 DHC-3 Single Otters are among the few single-engined airplanes with cabins large enough to extract the maximum profit from PT-6A engines. Too bad they were built decades before PT-6As were perfected! Single-engined Otters were originally built with radial engines that were way too small for their weight. The Otter's huge wing enabled it to take off from tiny lakes, but it could not always climb out of the valley! The other problem with the original radial engines was that they wore out. It was only when engine parts started getting expensive that bush pilots started re-engining single Otters with turboprops. Since the 1970s several companies have STCed turbine engine retrofits for single Otters, making them almost as good as Twin Otters. Turboprops vastly improve reliability while the extra horsepower helps with take off and climb. Vazar started by installing PT-6A turboprops on single Otters back in the 1970s. Viking - at Victoria International Airport - still does that upgrade. A company in Texas was installing Garret turboprops in single Otters. A Garret-engine single Otter flew skydivers in Texas for a while, until it was done in by a dust devil. The most recent single Otter upgrade is done by a company in the interior of British Columbia that installs Walter turboprop engines. The Walters are Eastern European (can't say "communist" anymore) copies of Pratt and Whitney's PT-6A series. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 0 #34 February 14, 2003 Is that nasa plane a one of a kind? All the Buffalo pics I've seen have two large turbines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JumpHog 0 #35 February 14, 2003 QuoteIs that nasa plane a one of a kind? All the Buffalo pics I've seen have two large turbines. Yes. It was designed to be able to takeoff and land on an aircraft carrier. NASA's solution to this was to redesign the wings to create a LOT of lift and then strap four huge jet engines on top of them. I can picture it now... the pilot's calling "two-minutes" before the plane is even airborne. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 5 #36 February 15, 2003 QuoteA company in Texas was installing Garret turboprops in single Otters. A Garret-engine single Otter flew skydivers in Texas for a while, until it was done in by a dust devil. Uh, yah right. The NTSB report says that the cause was because of "the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control during the takeoff/initial climb." Oh, and the plane was 1,000 pounds over max certificated weight and the CG was aft of the aft limit by 10 inches. Yah, "dust devil". One survivor statement said the pilot was moving his hand fast in the area of the elevator trim: QuoteOne passenger told an FAA inspector that on "takeoff roll, the engine seemed to produce enough power." Further, he stated that the tail would normally rise first, but this time the aircraft assumed a "very steep angle of attack." He saw the pilot "winding the wheel on the lower right side of the chair clockwise, frantically." The pilot pushed forward and left on the control yoke. The tail of the airplane hit the ground. Another passenger told an FAA inspector that about 4-5 seconds after takeoff, the airplane "made a hard right and the pilot was busy with a wheel between the seats." QuotePassenger Statements (NTSB Form 6120.9) were sent to seventeen passengers. Five passengers returned their Passenger Statements to the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC). One passenger reported "the aircraft tilted to the right roughly 45 degrees." Subsequently, the aircraft "righted itself and then tilted back to the left 45 degrees. At no time did the aircraft actually stop at level flight, rather it continued rolling back to the left after the initial right tilt. This time the aircraft tilted to what felt like 90 degrees to the right." Another passenger reported that "5 to 10 seconds after liftoff I felt the [air]plane banking" at 200-300 feet agl. This passenger stated the "engine sounded fine during the entire event." Another passenger recalled that "seconds after leaving the ground the [air]plane started rolling to the right." This passenger felt the airplane "lose lift." The airplane "started to roll left and it felt leveled out" and then the airplane impacted. Which is amazingly just like a Take-off departure stall from a mis-trimmed elevator. "Dust devil" Full report HERE Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brettpobastad 0 #37 March 1, 2003 It depends on where and what type of DZ but the most cost effective aircraft for jump operations is a Cessna 182. They are reasonably priced, easy to fly, easy and inexpensive to work on and students (who are what makes a DZ profitable) aren't yet turbine snobs. Doesn't every DZ have one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #38 March 1, 2003 Nope, this is our first year with a Cessna (206 at that) for the last 10+ years.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
smiles 0 #39 March 2, 2003 Quote ...They are reasonably priced, easy to fly, easy and inexpensive to work on and students (who are what makes a DZ profitable) aren't yet turbine snobs. Doesn't every DZ have one? I had customer in Dec. in a rush to get advertising/logo/website/ ready for PIA. He was starting up his business renting c-182's...to d.z.'s and his research concluded a big demand for them????????? Smiles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meatbomber 0 #40 March 6, 2003 Woooaaa no Skyvan bashing please... yes it is not the easiest plane to maintain and to operate, but if you are able to it is a great jumpship. Comparing a standard Skyvan to a super Otter is also an unfair comparison, rather look at a Super Otter and a Skyvan with TPE331-6 or Super -2 Engines and you will find out that the "Shed" doesn't compare so badly anymore. Oh yea and the Skyvan has 2 distinct advantages over the Otter: Real Stand up cabin and a rear door besides in the modern world the twin-otters are just as old as the Skyvans ! Cheers MB Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
