rhys 0 #1 May 31, 2005 at our d.z. we have a cresco 750 it is very fast, 12000' in 12 mins and 15000' in 15mins with 9 or 10 people and it can land before the tandems can. it is reasonably comfotable with all the mod cons for tandems but is very tight for students. i am wondering what aircraft there are out there that could have similar times to altitude with more room but also be able get down quickly? i see pilatus porters are used quit a bit are they quick too?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bseriesboosted 0 #2 May 31, 2005 good aircraft..hmmm well c130.skyvan,casa,king air,otter.beech porter i love all of them anyways we have a porter its pretty fast but it can be cramped at times... well untill the hop&pops get outPruitt Skydive The Farm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #3 June 1, 2005 PAC 750 gets up and down fast. They're supposed to cheap to operate too, at least that's what I heard. King Air gets up and down fast too and is a little bigger than the PAC I believe. Blues, NathanBlues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 35 #4 June 1, 2005 QuotePAC 750 gets up and down fast. They're supposed to cheap to operate too, at least that's what I heard. King Air gets up and down fast too and is a little bigger than the PAC I believe. Blues, Nathan I thought the PAC 750 carries more jumpers than a King Air? Well I haven't seen a PAC 750 yet so what do I know..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #5 June 1, 2005 Well, I just jumped a PAC this weekend and 15 was awful tight. Seems like 18 is ok in a King Air, but I can't remember. Blues, NathanBlues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #6 June 1, 2005 pac 750 is actually a pac 'XL' 750'and there is also a pac cresco 750 that is what we have and the motor is the same as the xl the xl is a 16 place and the cresco is a 9 place. the xl can't be as quick? isn't the king air a twin turbine? you'd hope it's quicker than a single turbine."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #7 June 1, 2005 The deHavillan Twin Otter, DHC-6 remains the gold standard of skydiving aircraft. With PT6-27 or -34 engines, it's nearly as fast as a PAC 750XL. It has excellent short field take-off performance and is designed for unimproved runways (read: grass). The big wing and high tail give it stability in flight and unmatched stall-characteristics. Disadvantage of an Otter compared to a PAC: It's Slightly slower. With -27 or -34 engines, it can take off, drop jumpers, and return to pick up the next load in under 20 minutes. They can also be quite expensive. Advantages of an Otter compared to a PAC: 1) Stall characteristics. No matter how many floaters you put outside on the camera step, it's nearly impossible for the jumpers to stall the aircraft. Any stall is the pilots fault, not the jumpers. 2) Strong, High tail. A premature opening by a floater will most likely pass under the tail. If the canopy does entangle the tail, the tail is strong enough to support the load. I know of two incidents where jumpers have struck the tail of otters giving only superficial damage. I know of two others where prematures have resulted in a conscious and alive jumper hanging from the tail, being able to cuttaway and land his reserve. 3) Large capacity. Rated to 12,500 pounds gross weight. That means 23 jumpers + fuel, with room to spare. 4) Higher ceiling. Quarters aren't cramped. Lots of room for a vidiot with a tall helmet to kneel infront of the door. You asked about a Porter. Porters are smaller than a PAC, and also slower, more dificult to fly because of the tail wheel, and definately more cramped. Porters are common because they're innexpensive. Other people have suggested a King Air. King Airs are turbines, and with the right engines can be very fast. Mike Mullins King Air cycles in under 10 minutes, with a 7 minute ride to altitude. Disadvantages of the King Air are the low weak tail, retractable landing gear, small door, not-so-great stall characteristics and cramped quarters. King Airs can be cheap because they've been in production for ever. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pincheck 0 #8 June 1, 2005 for the snooze cruise to 12000 ft the 185 or better still 206 with no door which is another 30 mins to 10000 ft and baltic. me jealous of dz's with planes that climb in comfort Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nbblood 0 #9 June 1, 2005 Quotepac 750 is actually a pac 'XL' 750'and there is also a pac cresco 750 that is what we have and the motor is the same as the xl the xl is a 16 place and the cresco is a 9 place. the xl can't be as quick? isn't the king air a twin turbine? you'd hope it's quicker than a single turbine. I don't have any experience with the Cresco. I'm sure you're right. Yes the Kiing Air is a Twin Turbine. I'm not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out two aircraft that are fast to altitude and down, as I interpreted the question. I believe both the PAC and King Air are relatively inexpensive to operate compared to other aircraft. QuoteThe deHavillan Twin Otter, DHC-6 remains the gold standard of skydiving aircraft. Agreed. Can't beat a twin otter. But the question seemed to be an aircraft that can get to altitude and return quickly, and I inferred that this was for a DZ that is looking for an aircraft they can operate efficiently. My mind had a smallish turbine DZ in mind. A twin otter is a great plane, unless you can't fill a load and it sits on the ground. It takes more jumpers to support an otter. Therefore, I offered the PAC 750 XL and the King Air as possibilities. Blues, NathanBlues, Nathan If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #10 June 1, 2005 QuoteWell, I just jumped a PAC this weekend and 15 was awful tight. Seems like 18 is ok in a King Air, but I can't remember. Blues, Nathan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It depends which model of King Air ... Our King Air B90 is at max gross weight with 14 jumpers on board. Later 100 or 200 series King Airs can carry more jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akjmpplt 0 #11 June 1, 2005 Quote 3) Large capacity. Rated to 25,000 pounds gross weight. That means 23 jumpers + fuel, with room to spare. Um, gross weight on the Twin Otter is 12,500 pounds.SmugMug Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #12 June 1, 2005 Ooops. My bad. Edited.__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hemphog 0 #13 June 1, 2005 Isn't the PAC meant to step up from Cessna's and compete with King Airs, Porters? Otter's still beat it out but if you can't afford an Otter (ie, keep it running with loads of jumpers), would a PAC XL be the best route to go? Or would another plane be better? Anyone know anything about the strength of the PAC's tail? How would it stand up to a jumper impact or hanging premature? Or has this one yet to be tested?.... I know a birdboy hit a tail, but only tore the wing between his legs. Any other known impacts? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Ya we'll rape the local objects, and maybe do some jumps too!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #14 June 2, 2005 There's video of BGill's wingsuit tailstrike on skydivingmovies.com. He's a very lucky guy. I'm not aware of any other tailstrikes on XL 750s. For the record, a Cessna Caravan won't stand up to a reserve over the tail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #15 June 2, 2005 QuoteQuote 3) Large capacity. Rated to 25,000 pounds gross weight. That means 23 jumpers + fuel, with room to spare. Um, gross weight on the Twin Otter is 12,500 pounds. It is on the -300 series. If you are in a -100 or -200 Otter it is 11,579. And most of the otters flying jumpers in the USA are of the 100/200 series.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
btucker 0 #16 June 2, 2005 we jump a PAC XL750 at nagambie for 8way. Awsome plane takes up to twelve in comfort, 15 is tight and 17 is pure hell. I'm told with 17 it's not efficent for the DZ either. The PAC's door is very close to the same size as a caravan and similar to an otter (obviously not as tall). A PAC cresco is a mini XL750. Great for 4way and the tandoms, but it's tight. A porter has the door on the wrong side. Rel workers will *HATE* itt. Caravan's are also tight when you fill them right up – you have to sit three abrest. Blues Benno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
