Joyner

Or perhaps a better place as a result of his time here…. I like that!

I sat next to John in the plane all through the 2-point 121 attempts and record dive last year in Z-hills. During the brief time that we met, John had a constant big smile on his face, and he seemed to have an endless supply of funny jokes to tell. After we set the record, John was off to the showers faster than a speeding bullet, came out dressed in golf clothes, came over to us to say goodbye and when I asked him if he was late for a round of golf, his answer was that his parents were expecting him and they thought he was out playing golf. The world is a lesser place without him!!!! Blue skies John.

This is my personal favorite

***BUURP***

I put about 100 jumps on a 107 at 1.77 and about 200 jumps on a 97 at 1.85 to 1.95 depending on lead. I really liked the 97 much better. However it still carried quite a bit of forward speed at the end of the swoop when it put me down on my feet. Usually no problem in sliding it out. I felt that the 97 at 1.95 gave me plenty of speed and still gave me reasonable landing speed, but I also feel that at 1.95 I was at my "limit". I did a few jumps with more lead than usual, loading it up to about 2.0, but then the speed in no wind conditions was a bit high for my taste.

Were would this be? A 17,5 minute cycle time would probably translate into a 13-14 minute ride from wheels up to drop. It sound a little too good to me. Not that I would mind, it's just that it's quite a bit better than times stated by other DZ's.

I'm guessing from a manifest point of view this includes loading time on the ground?

Thanks for all the info guys! I've been in contact with several dz's by now, and they all say more or less the same thing. Expect a 20 minute turnaround (give or take a minute) with a full load. Thanks again.

It was built in 1960. Parts are hard to find and expensive. Ours is / was the only one in europe. Only one company certified to service it. And they knew it if you know what I'm getting at. This together with that the fact that we've had a hard time having enough jumpers to fill back to back loads, we are looking for something smaller and faster.

In the US I've been in contact with Archway and Skydive Long Island. So far only Archway has responded. They claim 2.5 loads per tach hour with 15 jumpers on a 675hp Grand Caravan. Any other places to contact would be great. Thanks.

What do you base this statement on? I've been in contact with some DZ's operating Grand Caravans with 675hp, and two of them have told me that they cycle 15 jumpers in 24 minutes (tach time). The lower weight of the smaller Caravan and 3 jumpers less, total of about 1000 lbs less, should make up for at least close to 4 minutes. The 675hp conversion costs about 6% of the total purchase price. Add to that some increase in insurance and maintenance, maybe the FINANCIAL gain of the larger engine is marginal or maybe even a small loss. BUT.... There is one very important factor in getting the bigger engine anyway. Shorter cycle times attracts jumpers, and keeps them happy! We are hoping for a total volume increase even if we are replacing the Otter with a smaller but faster AC. This is speculation at best. There certainly aren't any guarantees for getting more volume with a faster AC. This is the area were we must take a chance with a new AC. But we are not willing to take a chance on speculating on cycle times. So I am truly very interested in learning more of what you base your statement on.

In an ideal world from a drop zone perspective we would do exactly that. Buy an airplane with good specs and adjust the price accordingly. However..... A full price ticket today at my drop zone is 150 SEK which is about $22. One other drop zone close by is charging about $19,50. The other DZ is close enough and has good enough planes and facilities to attract jumpers from our drop zone as it is. Keep in mind that the used market for turbine airplanes is VERY small in Sweden. Both the buyer of our Otter and the probable seller of the Caravan are located in the US. Both import and export of these planes are very expensive (We are talking close to $100 000 in overhead cost for importing a plane to Sweden, and getting 3-4 pilotes certified). So we can't buy a Caravan with the intention "We'll try it out for a while and see what happens". We have to "know" beforehand that we will be able to maintain a ticket price around $20 with our new plane. If we can't maintain a competitive price we'll be out of business within a year. Yes 5 minutes per load would indeed be a HUGE deal. We estimate a cycle time of about 20 minutes per load with 12 jumpers in the plane. If we add 5 minutes to that we decrease the number of jumps per tach hour on the plane by 20%, hence we would have to increase the price by 20% and there simply isn't room for that! I'm sure the situation is pretty much the same over there! I do agree that the ambition must be to run the plane back to back all day without having to shut it down. It is realistic to think that we will be able to do this at least during the high season of May-August.

[reply I believe that is where competition swim suits are at these days - effectively "shark" skins. But the effect doesn't last long - ideally you'd want a new one for the big meet. Kind of a shame - swimming was one of the cheapest sports out there for equipment concerns. I'd like to see it restricted to speedos and a swimcap. Probably not ideal for skydiving to use a fine sandpaper like finish, unless you can find away to keep the top and bottom skins from rubbing during packing and opening. So the swim suits of today aren't actually super smooth, they do have a "sandpaper like" surface, to increase laminar turbulence, hence giving more "lift" to kicking legs. Back to subject on design changes. I agree with statements made by others. I think there would be a lot to gain in a more shaped and firm leading edge. Again 10 year old knowledge, but I was told that 90% of the lift is generated over the first 10% of the wing (leading to trailing edge). If the engineering solution to this is in lines with the Rage or stiff / inflatable materials I don't know. But it sure would be cool seeing a parachute with a fully shaped leading edge. One thing I thought about were more user friendly removable deployment systems and sliders. I'm pretty sure this will happen! Although I realize that a removable deployment system isn't something that the average weekend warrior would benefit much from. Still if it could be made in such a way that it wasn't harder to use and reset than the collapsible slider, many more would use it and performance would improve somewhat even for us amateurs. Look at the collapsible slider. Very easy to use and, almost everyone has them even if the benefit is limited.

Hi all, Our drop zone recently sold our Dehaviland Otter (SINGLE Otter) to replace it with a Cessna Caravan. There has been quite some discussion regarding the cycle time for a C-208 Caravan with the 675hp conversion. Sadly little FACT has been presented. I'd like to get a second opinion on the little fact that has been presented from someone with regular experience. (Note, It's NOT the C-208B Grand Caravan), it's the small one with the big engine, we are looking to buy. If anyone can give me some info on cycle times either throttle up to Stop after landing with one jump run at 13500 ft. Or just throttle up to jump run. Please be as specific as possible regarding the specs on the airplane, altitude, elevation, number of jumpers and jump runs. Info is interesting for any type of Caravan really. Thanks!!

Interesting point. I'm not sure how much the laminar airflow contributes to drag. I'm sure things like lines, skydiver, slider, pilot chute and bag generate a whole lot more parasitic drag than the direction of the fibers of the fabric. But being short of a revolutionary change in design every small thing you can improve does make a small difference. On the other hand when I learned aerodynamics (10 years ago), I learned that you are actually dependent on a very thin turbulent laminar airflow to generate lift. Sort of along the lines that a perfectly smooth surface would not generate as much lift as a surface just a little bit rough (we are talking on a microscopic level). I know that a lot has happened in the field of aerodynamic research since. Anyone have any input on this.