ypelchat 0 #1 July 22, 2004 Pacific Aerospace and Mecachrome have announced a joint venture partnership to assemble the new PAC 750XL in Montreal Canada. The new plant is scheduled to start assembling the PAC 750XL in january 2005. http://www.aerospace.co.nz/news/main.htm http://www.utilityaircraft.com/pac750xl.html Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 July 22, 2004 I wonder if this will step up the production times, get that waiting list to shrink faster?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spanky39154 0 #3 July 22, 2004 did they ever find out what was the cause of the one that crashed in the pacific????~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large Groups!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #4 July 22, 2004 Quote did they ever find out what was the cause of the one that crashed in the pacific???? They pretty much knew from the beginning. The extra fuel bladders that were added specifically for that very long flight had a fuel transfer problem, so the pilot couldn't get fuel from the extra bladders (that were inside the cabin) to the engine. Basically the plane went in due to fuel starvation, not due to anything wrong with the actual plane.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #5 July 22, 2004 yeah - they knew the cause before it even crashed. It was simply the pump installed to transfer fuel from the temporary internal long-haul fuel tanks into the wing tanks. The crash had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the plane. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #6 July 22, 2004 hehe - seconds... only seconds... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ypelchat 0 #7 July 22, 2004 QuoteI wonder if this will step up the production times, get that waiting list to shrink faster? This is good news for potential buyers in North America. They expect to assemble 100+ aircraft/year at this new plant. Yves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 643 #8 July 22, 2004 My interpretation is that the single fatal ditching drove the cost of insurance - for ferrying - through the roof! It is amusing how insurance companies can dictate business practices to multi-national corporations. In a similar situation, Transport Canada may approve a new commercial pilot to fly a wide variety of airplanes, but insurance companies have the final say, requiring hundreds or thousands of hours of flying experience before they trust pilots with expensive machines. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thelem 0 #9 July 22, 2004 My interpretation is that PAC have more orders than they can satisfy and are losing business because of their waiting list. Because of this they have signed up a partner to help them produce the aircraft faster and also reduce additional costs to some of their customers (I'm assuming home delivery with $100,000 insurance isn't included in the price). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #10 July 22, 2004 QuotePacific Aerospace and Mecachrome have announced a joint venture partnership to assemble the new PAC 750XL in Montreal Canada. The new plant is scheduled to start assembling the PAC 750XL in january 2005. http://www.aerospace.co.nz/news/main.htm http://www.utilityaircraft.com/pac750xl.html Yves. great, frickin' great. we build otters then send them all to the americans. they build cessnas and send them to us. now we build the pac750... i wonder if they'll let us keep one or two? "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
Push 0 #11 July 22, 2004 Quotewe build otters then send them all to the americans Not all, my friend, not all We have managed to salvage one skydiving one from the Yanks -- Toggle Whippin' Yahoo Skydiving is easy. All you have to do is relax while plummetting at 120 mph from 10,000' with nothing but some nylon and webbing to save you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #12 July 22, 2004 Quotewe build otters then send them all to the americans Thanks! Could you send the next few of them full of beer and women? We'd sure appreciate it.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VectorBoy 0 #13 July 23, 2004 Do you guys think that there will be a lot of the PAC 750XLs in the field? Is there a great demand for the ship? Just curious myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #14 July 23, 2004 I think so. It is going to fill a nitch. You may not see one operating at the huge DZ,s but the dollars say it's a smart bet for those that can't quite justifiy an Otter.....---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #15 July 23, 2004 yeah, we borrowed one from css last weekend. too bad they sold it to someone in the middle east. they are so much fun when you're used to a 182! as far as sending them pre-loaded with beer and women, sorry, we try to send them back the way they arrived."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
pccoder 0 #16 July 23, 2004 is this plane truely providing what it promises? I mean the 16 minutes turn around from takeoff to touchdown? PcCoder.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 July 23, 2004 Yup. I'd say it's going to make a big impact on DZ's who would like to run something bigger than a cessna 206/182 etc but cant justify anything the size of an otter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pccoder 0 #18 July 23, 2004 We've got a King Air at our DZ which is about 7-8 minutes to jump run. I haven't really calculated the time it takes for the plane to get back down, but I am thinking it has got to be around the same. Is it that a King Air costs more? I mean is the benefit of this new plane that it costs less? PcCoder.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #19 July 23, 2004 I don't know the costs of either plane. All I know is that the PAC is "supposed" to cost about the same as two 206's (10 slots) to run but takes 18. Seems simple maths... if youre making money off 10 jumpers... you'll make about double off 18 jumpers if the running cost is the same. The advertising blurb says it's "still ecconomic on half loads"... so it would appear the dz will still make a profit even if it only does a 10 slot lift. Profit for the DZ is a good thing... it means facillities imporve and the operation gets bigger... or at least doesnt have to shut down. But as I said, I haven't actually seen any figures myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #20 July 23, 2004 QuoteWe've got a King Air at our DZ which is about 7-8 minutes to jump run. I haven't really calculated the time it takes for the plane to get back down, but I am thinking it has got to be around the same. Is it that a King Air costs more? I mean is the benefit of this new plane that it costs less? I'd say the biggest advantage over a king air is one less engine. Those big noisy things on the front are sort of expensive to maintain. (annuals, rebuilds, etc)illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #21 July 23, 2004 It saves money right off the top of a King Air since it only has 1 turbine to do maintence on. When a hot section needs rebuilt on a PT6 you are looking at about $50k per turbine to do it. Simple math says that you save on half the turbine maintence issues because you only have half the turbines to deal with. Lots of King Airs out there are coming up on expensive rebuilds or major overhauls in a few years. Same with some of the Otters out there. With this you basically get a plane thats starting at 0 on its life cycle. On Otters you have to replace the legs every so many landing/take off cycles. You have to replace some major parts in the wings when they reach so many flying hours also. Both these cost lots of $. King Airs have similar things built into their life cycle. Lots of jump planes are old, used planes that are way into that cycle. It also means you can find commercial pilots that are not multi rated and as long as they meet insurance requirements could fly the plane. Finding pilots should be easier.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #22 July 23, 2004 oh yeah... and these cost brand new from the factory the same as a "cheap" second hand Cessna Grand Caravan. I dread to think what an Otter in good knick would cost by comparison... and for the extra you'd only get another 4 seats (although from personal experiance they'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable seats). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pccoder 0 #23 July 23, 2004 Thanks everyone. All that you have said makes good sense. Hopefully we'll see more of these soon. I especially like the half load means the DZ still makes money. We don't ever get the plane off the ground unless we have a specific number of jumpers, so that is great news. PcCoder.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #24 July 23, 2004 well.... just cos they'll still make money doesnt nessaserily mean they'll want to... cos they'll be making less money than a full load. But if no loads go up they make no money... so it ought to make a difference. plus that's advertising blurb... I can't vouch for its accuracy... but I'd hope it would be pretty correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #25 July 23, 2004 Quote Do you guys think that there will be a lot of the PAC 750XLs in the field? Is there a great demand for the ship? Just curious myself. The PAC 750 is a $995,000 plane. Sure, with financing a DZ doesn't need to have $1 mil on hand to buy the thing, but it is not a cheap option. I think it'll be helped by very high used prices for caravans. The operating costs will be much lower than a twin otter or kingair, but I just hope the purchase price doesn't stop DZs from buying them. How many DZs have ever bought a brand new plane? Maybe the 750XL will be more popular years down the road when cargo operators are selling em used. Aircraft cost comparison - damn those are big numbers... Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
