Cessna 182 at High Field Elevation DZ

[RMURRAY 1]

popular up here in Ontario is the 260 h.p. carb`d IO-470 from Norland Aircraft Services. But we are only at 750 asl. you need more power than that at a high altitude dz? I would think so.

[skydiveoc 0]

Quote

popular up here in Ontario is the 260 h.p. carb`d IO-470 from Norland Aircraft Services. But we are only at 750 asl. you need more power than that at a high altitude dz? I would think so.

Yeah and Ive talked to a guy who owns a Norland and a Pponk and prefers the pponk.

[skydiveoc 0]

Quote

Quote

If you pay for good gear, good staff, good maintenance, good advertising, than you will not be able to afford single tandems. You need to be averaging close to 2 tandems per load. Guys who are making it work doing singles aren't paying shop rate for maintenance, paying $5 a load to pilots, and not buying new gear.

I don't know the numbers but I would guess that is true with people putting 2 or 3 tandems on a Caravan or Otter too, and justifying to themselves. It sounds crazy but I have seen it done more than once. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

They are at best keeping the staff working. Caravan to own is about $350 an hour, two tandems to 13.5 is still going to tach at .3 burning maybe 15 gallons at $5 a gallon.

Double that rate if you're leasing.

Can't always make a profit. Better to have customers leaving with smiles than rescheduling because its a loss to send em up. If you own a restaurant, can always make a profit Monday through Friday but you still have to stay open to keep staff and maintain a presence.

[Skydive2 1]

Quote

If you pay for good gear, good staff, good maintenance, good advertising, than you will not be able to afford single tandems. You need to be averaging close to 2 tandems per load. Guys who are making it work doing singles aren't paying shop rate for maintenance, paying $5 a load to pilots, and not buying new gear.

I don't know the numbers but I would guess that is true with people putting 2 or 3 tandems on a Caravan or Otter too, and justifying to themselves. It sounds crazy but I have seen it done more than once. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

It's called volume. If your trying to do 800-1200tdms a summer, flying single loads might suck. Do 3,000 tandems in a summer out of those 182's do another 500 nov-feb and turn those loads in under .3, it makes it lots easier to justify light loads, no matter what "shop rate" your paying

[Skydive2 1]

But back on topic, watch the used market! The ecconomy is bad and gas guzzling airplanes like the 182 sell cheap. I recently saw a jump 182 with the norland io-470d, Horton stol, and wing x sell for $22,000usd. I know where a 700hr pponk 0-470 with prop and all accessories is for $12,000. Don't pay retail in this market. Airplanes are cheap and the salvage yards are desperate. And I bet it wouldn't be too bad flying a single tdm in that 22k 182, vs the 70k airplane....

[skydiveoc 0]

Airplane acquisition is a capital expense or asset and should not be figured as an operating expense. A million dollar 182 with the same engine has the same operating expense as the 22K 182. Operating expense is how much it costs you to deliver one product. Factory A with a million dollar machine that can make two products vs factory B that has a $10 machine making one has a lower operating expense than factory B provided both machines require the same maintenance, and no interest is figured.

In fact, Factory A will be able to deduct greater depreciation than factory B. This is why capital expenses are always cut after operating expenses.

[adamUK 3]

You still have to pay the interest payments which come out of operating expenses so the million dollar cessna will still work out more expensive to run than the $20k cessna for a given interest rate.

As will all businesses though cash flow is king.

[Skydive2 1]

Quote

Airplane acquisition is a capital expense or asset and should not be figured as an operating expense. A million dollar 182 with the same engine has the same operating expense as the 22K 182. Operating expense is how much it costs you to deliver one product. Factory A with a million dollar machine that can make two products vs factory B that has a $10 machine making one has a lower operating expense than factory B provided both machines require the same maintenance, and no interest is figured.

In fact, Factory A will be able to deduct greater depreciation than factory B. This is why capital expenses are always cut after operating expenses.

This is all true, but we are talking about a machine (in this case a 182). If factory A has a 70k 182 that takes 4 people to 10k in let's say 10 min, and factory b has a 22k 182 that does the exact same thing but takes 2-3 min longer. Is factory A really going to be more profitable than factory b? 2 machines that produce the same product with the same operator (pilot), and the same hourly operating costs, but factory b's machine costs a third less...doesnt that equal more capital? more capital equals better gear, more advertising, the ability to fly a single load here and there and the option to pay an over priced shop $85 an hour to unscrew some inspection plates and buck a few rivets ;)

[skydiveoc 0]

Quote

Quote

Airplane acquisition is a capital expense or asset and should not be figured as an operating expense. A million dollar 182 with the same engine has the same operating expense as the 22K 182. Operating expense is how much it costs you to deliver one product. Factory A with a million dollar machine that can make two products vs factory B that has a $10 machine making one has a lower operating expense than factory B provided both machines require the same maintenance, and no interest is figured.

In fact, Factory A will be able to deduct greater depreciation than factory B. This is why capital expenses are always cut after operating expenses.

This is all true, but we are talking about a machine (in this case a 182). If factory A has a 70k 182 that takes 4 people to 10k in let's say 10 min, and factory b has a 22k 182 that does the exact same thing but takes 2-3 min longer. Is factory A really going to be more profitable than factory b? 2 machines that produce the same product with the same operator (pilot), and the same hourly operating costs, but factory b's machine costs a third less...doesnt that equal more capital? more capital equals better gear, more advertising, the ability to fly a single load here and there and the option to pay an over priced shop $85 and hour to unscrew some inspection plates and buck a few rivets ;)

But...its not the same machine...the 70K machine can fly six loads in two hours without fueling, burn 2 gallons less per load, get to $1000 feet before 1/4 mile past the threshold, and gives the owner/pilot a hard on everytake off!

Ive yet to meet an operator who regretted upgrading to higher horsepower. ..except maybe a new king air owner. Investments in greater effeciency are costly but pay for themselves over time. I mean, why do you think Caravan owners are converting to the Texas Tubine's $500,000 800 hp engine upgrade? Because its not the same machine as before.

[Skydive2 1]

Quote

But...its not the same machine...the 70K machine can fly six loads in two hours without fueling, burn 2 gallons less per load, get to $1000 feet before 1/4 mile past the threshold, and gives the owner/pilot a hard on everytake off!

Ive yet to meet an operator who regretted upgrading to higher horsepower. ..except maybe a new king air owner. Investments in greater effeciency are costly but pay for themselves over time. I mean, why do you think Caravan owners are converting to the Texas Tubine's $500,000 800 hp engine upgrade? Because its not the same machine as before.

Are you kidding me??? Its the same machine!! We are referring to mid 1950's cessna 182, a four place airplane with a 470 cubic inch engine that takes 2 tdms to 7-10k in 10-15 minutes correct? 2 gallons of gas and a hard on during take off is the least of my worries on a 80tdm Saturday ....especially if it costs and extra 40,000$$$

[skydiveoc 0]

I thought we were arguing about justifying horsepower upgrades? 28K 470 vs $70K 550? If powerplants are the same than yes...better to have the cheaper airframe obviously.

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

First off, thanks for all the replies, all of you have brought up some really good points. The whole hypoxia issue is something that I have considered. I know that I will need to provide O2, especially since most of my students are probably going to be tourist who aren't even acclimatized to the high field elevation to being with. So I understand the potential dangers and I'm taking that into consideration along with everything else.

Leasing a turbine is something that I have considered, I just don't know if I'll have the traffic to fly it during the week, and I honestly have no idea what a turbine leases for. Something like a PAC750 would probably work ok, but it doesn't seem like many of those are offered for full season leases.

The 2 stock 182 route is something that I haven't considered. With a upgraded 182 taking 2 tandems to 9000' I've estimated a fuel burn of somewhere between 10 to 13 gallons. If you think a stock 182 with 1 tandem could do this with a full burn of somewhere in the 7 gallon range it might be worth it.

Let me get this straight?....You want to put 4 adults into an 182 at a high elevation??? And do this on a regular basis? You really want me to even consider replying with a straight face???

Just let it go...
C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[Dan0321 0]

Quote

Let me get this straight?....You want to put 4 adults into an 182 at a high elevation??? And do this on a regular basis? You really want me to even consider replying with a straight face???

Just let it go...
C

Thanks for the thoughtful insight. I'll be sure to go to you first for all my future questions.

[jumpwally 0]

5 with the pilot ,,no ?

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me get this straight?....You want to put 4 adults into an 182 at a high elevation??? And do this on a regular basis? You really want me to even consider replying with a straight face???

Just let it go...
C

Thanks for the thoughtful insight. I'll be sure to go to you first for all my future questions.

First link, so that you can educate yourself before you actually kill some innocent people: http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/cessna_skylane.pdf

Second link, where you can plainly see that over 90 percent of skydiving fatalities are the result of pilot error, leading factor was "overwheight" exactly what yo are proposing. : http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SIR0801.pdf

And I 've yet to get even warmed up about your idea of adding o2 tanks at or near this aircraft's service ceiling.

Every now and then DZ owners/ operators run into someone with experience that they have earned at the cost of a few innocent lives...But It's been my experience that there are more than a few idiot pilots out there that will willingly look the other way to fly at or near the edge of the W/B envelope...and you fucking idiots have the audacity to call this safe???

If the general skydiving population knew the inherent danger in what you are proposing,...Well the bottom line is what is happening today V. the 80s' and 90s' The FAA dosen't just pull tickets any more,...the seek criminal complaints.

And it is very unfourtunate that the vast majority of skydivers today place their trust in a fully loaded 182. It's like the comedian Ron White says: "You can't fix Stupid."


AOPA advice, that most all DZO's ignore...
"The Skylane is known for its large capacity and ability to carry heavy
loads, but the 1956 through 1961 models only had maximum gross
weights of 2,550 lb or 2,650 lb. That was increased to 2,950 lb beginning
in 1970 and again to 3,100 lb in 1981. Don’t become overconfident
with the newer, heavier models. If you carry passengers and baggage
for a cross-country flight with full fuel tanks, you may be very near
the airplane’s capacity limit. You may even need to limit the amount
you carry."

Untill you have been to more than a few 182 fatalities, you don't even have the right to open your mouth...

And BTW,...your medical has expired,...

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[billvon 3,079]

>If you pay for good gear, good staff, good maintenance, good advertising, than you
>will not be able to afford single tandems.

. . . unless you up the price to compensate for the loss of lift capacity. Sea level DZ operations may not be good baselines for higher altitude operations.

[Dan0321 0]

Quote

And BTW,...your medical has expired,...

Thanks, I haven't done a tandem for over 2 years so that's not an issue, but seeing as you are so well connected maybe you could get the AOPA to stop sending me a truck load of junk mail every month.

[vpjr 18]

I think the idea of making a 182 do high alt skydiving operations reasonable. Is it cost effective? That has been the discussion. Myself and others have talked about the upgrades necessary to make the aircraft preform that task and Wing X was on our list. To put the 2 tandems in a stock older 182 as you noted is overweight if you put on fuel. The Wing-X extensions give the gross weight increase, safety, performance upgrade and legal. Yes Low alt Skydiving operations that carry 2 tandems in older 182s should also have the wingx to be safe and legal. Chris, I could not quite understand your position except that 182s should not have 2 Tandems on board. As far as the high alt engine failure, Stall speed, landing / crashing speeds would be the same as a turbine caravan or Pac at gross. Flying at the edge (not exceeding) the W/B envelope is where max performance is. Thats how an aircraft is designed to be operated. The best rate of climb, best glide distance, slowest stall speed, = safest, and is at the aft CG limit. The airline you fly on isnt at %70 of gross weight. It is operated at gross, I know because Ive kicked peoples suitcases off to make weight. They were not happy. Im afraid I did know people that have died in Skydiving aircraft, from Twin Otters to Cessnas and the topic of W/B is a legitimate one to bring up. So what is your solutions to make our aircraft that we use in Skydiving Safer, perform better, and more cost effective?

[neandertal 0]

Let me get this straight?....You want to put 4 adults into an 182 at a high elevation??? And do this on a regular basis? You really want me to even consider replying with a straight face???

Just let it go...
C

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

Let me get this straight?....You want to put 4 adults into an 182 at a high elevation??? And do this on a regular basis? You really want me to even consider replying with a straight face???

Just let it go...
C

The Air Forest One can do it all day long. The only restriction is the Class A airspace.

[vpjr 18]

I believe Jump Pilots should be current at Stalls and have be Spin currency in appropriate aircraft. The wing behaves the same in a Stall at Gross as if the plane was partially loaded during training. It just happens at a different speed. Spin recovery time is longest at the aft CG limit but recoverable. Technique and turns are the same in a 172 as in the 182 per certification. Ill have to pull my books but I don't think my 182 was approved for spins. My Twin Otter wasnt either. Each aircraft could kill me and my passengers if I let it. When or if I get my Special airworthiness certificate Ill post a vid of my 206 spinning at Gross aft CG limit. All aircraft have limits and some are more stable and forgiving than others. The Cessna 100 series has proven to be safe and capable longer than I have been alive. I would bet Single engine Cessnas have carried more skydivers safely to alt per fatality than turbines. I do agree that part of our risk in Skydiving is the aircraft and Aircraft owners, DZOs, Jump pilots, and Skydivers all need to do our best to educate ourselves, do the right thing, and weigh the risk. Dont be fooled into thinking you cant die in a Skydiving Twin Otter, King Air, Pac, Caravan, 206, 182. It only takes one bad decision, operator, pilot, part or skydiver. Correction Chain of 3.

[ChrisD 0]

Hi Van,
I too wish all pilots were current w/ stall spin recovery. The question was "How many are current with Stall/ Spin at or even near Gross." It is a different aircraft under these conditions. And I know little or no one who has this practice under their belts.

Unfortunatly it has become, almost a standard practice to hop into a grossly overloaded aircraft,...because the last load made it or it appears ok.

The statistics don't support this insane behavior however...

More careing individuals have been killed in these conditions, than equipment malfunctions, or low pulls.

Now if someone wants to have a sensible debate about operating well under gross and then discuss the suitability of a more safer practice, but alas there are way too many of those out there that their sole motivation is maximising profit by stuffing that extra person in there...

Please also don't attempt to displace my main point about the insanity of operations close to max gross by making this a skill of the pilot issue. Just because soo many operations "survive" dosen't make this practice safe.

Again the evidence is more than sufficient too support the insanly high fatality rate of these aircraft under these conditions. And your dead wrong when you say the "wing behaves the same..." it dosen't.
C

All you have done by making that statment is confirm my point regarding the large number of pilots out there, many of them now dead who hold or held, this naive belief.


About the only thing we agree upon is that the vast majority of Cessna and most all GA aircraft "Not approved for intentional spins." This however in no way absolves those involved for the consequencies of the multitudes who persist in operation near max.

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Hi Van,
I too wish all pilots were current w/ stall spin recovery. The question was "How many are current with Stall/ Spin at or even near Gross." It is a different aircraft under these conditions. And I know little or no one who has this practice under their belts...

I may be wrong, but I thought intentional spins had to be done in "Utility Category" configuration. Which has a significantly reduced max weight.

I'm not arguing with any of your points, just pointing out that spin training at or near max gross may not be practical.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ChrisD 0]

Quote

Quote

Hi Van,
I too wish all pilots were current w/ stall spin recovery. The question was "How many are current with Stall/ Spin at or even near Gross." It is a different aircraft under these conditions. And I know little or no one who has this practice under their belts...

Good point!

My point is that, that nice Cessna that so many take for granted turns into a killing machine the closer you approach the edges of the envelope. AND that this is a largly ignored issue.
C



I may be wrong, but I thought intentional spins had to be done in "Utility Category" configuration. Which has a significantly reduced max weight.

I'm not arguing with any of your points, just pointing out that spin training at or near max gross may not be practical.

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[DBCOOPER 5]

Thats why they teach stall recognition.

Replying to: Re: Stall On Jump Run Emergency Procedure? by billvon

If the plane is unrecoverable then exiting is a very very good idea.