The new PAC 750XL will be assembled in Canada in 2005.

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

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).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I disagree.
The bob-sled style seats that are standard in new PACs are more comfortable (for hooking up tandems) than the bench seats usually seen in Twin Otters and vastly more comfortable than sitting on the floor.
We retrofitted bob-sled seats to our Beech 18 5 years ago and installed them in our King Air when it arrived 3 years ago. Bob-sled style seats vastly reduce work load for tandem instructors.

[PhreeZone 20]

It may reduce the work load for the Tandems, but it makes it uncomfortable for the jumpers that have a rig jammed into their groin from the person infront of them

The best combo from a TI's view I've seen was an Otter with Bobsled style for 8 people near the pilot and floor seating towards the door for experienced jumpers. From an experienced jumper view I like the bench seats

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[mr2mk1g 10]

I can't really speak for tandem masters. I was mainly talking about simple space in a kind of cubic centimetre per jumper kind of comparison. Whilst the PAC takes 18 it is by no means a big plane. You are absolutely shoe-horned in there for a full load - on a full otter load there's far more room.

Plus the PAC I've jumped didn't have any seats but for the people who had to sit in between the wing struts (yes the struts cross the plane behind the pilot). 2 poor schmuks end up sat in between and on the wing struts - those are definitely "bitch seats".

[AggieDave 6]

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.

There is a huge demand for a large left door exit, intermediately sized turbine in the skydiving industry. There are a lot of 182 DZs that are ready to go to a turbine, that need to go to a turbine but aren't able to go to an Otter yet (even though an Otter costs quite a bit less then the 750).

Porters used to be the option, due to price and abilities, BUT its a turbine AND a tail dragger. So finding a pilot that *can* fly it is rough (that wants to fly jumpers at a smaller DZ and not make much money). Even harder is finding a pilot that the insurance will *let* fly it.

A Caravan is the right size, but definately not the right price, and the 750 is trying to beat out the used Caravan market in skydiving.

This is the rough side, though...although the plane is a bit cheaper and supposedly faster then a Caravan, you're still looking at roughly $1,000,000 for an aircraft.

How many DZs that this plane is marketed for can afford to buy at that price? Not a whole lot, even with good financing.

What I really see happening is a couple of the larger names in skydiving buying a handful of them and leasing them out with short term and long term leases (or lease with an option to buy) to the DZs that could really use this aircraft.


If someone was smart and had the capital (or finacial backing) they would do just that, order 5 of them and work out short term (seasonal for the north) and longer term (for the south) leases to DZs that could use this aircraft. I can see this as being a serious money maker...*if* you have the finacial backing to buy these planes outright or at a seriously seriously good rate when financed...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[riddler 0]

I think it's the operating costs that are cheaper for the PAC than the Otter. One engine instead of two means cheaper startup and fuel costs.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[AndyMan 7]

Also, the Otter has the aerodynamics of a school bus.

The PAC 750 XL weighs in at 3100 lbs, while the Otter is 5,851 - almost twice as heavy. The PAC 750 has half the weight, but carries 80% of the load.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[diablopilot 2]

To add to what you said, financing companies are more likely to back a new A/C than one that's in the last stages of it's lifespan. If the loan goes belly up they have a more valuable comodity to resell. Add to that that sometimes it's acctualy easier to borrow a million dollars vs. a hundred.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[amir1967 0]

Or maybe a little competition will bring down the price of the Grand Caravan and the used Otter and most important the cost of overhaul for turbine motor
I´ll drink to that cheaper ticket more jump = more money=better airplane=more fun

AM67

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Or maybe a little competition will bring down the price of the Grand Caravan and the used Otter and most important the cost of overhaul for turbine motor
I´ll drink to that cheaper ticket more jump = more money=better airplane=more fun

I doubt you'll ever see a decrease in the cost of rebuilds on turbines. There just aren't that many parts suppliers or qualified mechanics. The airframe might get cheaper but the engines are what make it go, there's a reason why there are lots of decent airframes slowly rotting away around the country, it costs too damn much to make them fly.

illegible usually

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

Or maybe a little competition will bring down the price of the Grand Caravan and the used Otter and most important the cost of overhaul for turbine motor
I´ll drink to that cheaper ticket more jump = more money=better airplane=more fun

I doubt you'll ever see a decrease in the cost of rebuilds on turbines. There just aren't that many parts suppliers or qualified mechanics. The airframe might get cheaper but the engines are what make it go, there's a reason why there are lots of decent airframes slowly rotting away around the country, it costs too damn much to make them fly.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Sorry to disappoint you, but skydivers use such a tiny percentage of the - worldwide - turbine fleet, that we will never significantly affect prices.
Our only impact is to keep a few old airframes in the air for a few more years after they are too old to haul executives (King Air) or commuters (Twin Otter) or small packages (Caravans) or freight (Casas) or the midnight mail (Twin Beechs), etc.

[amir1967 0]

What make thoes turbine so expensive ? is it the parts ? man hours or just P&W or other know that the operator will make money with an airplane so they charge very high price 200k($) or more for revision of it while knowing that we can pay it (that´s about as much as they can get for it without customers getting belly up) .
I would like to know.

AM67

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

What make thoes turbine so expensive ? is it the parts ? man hours or just P&W or other know that the operator will make money with an airplane so they charge very high price 200k($) or more for revision of it while knowing that we can pay it (that´s about as much as they can get for it without customers getting belly up) .
I would like to know.

I'd venture a guess that after materials, labor, R&D, sales, and other overhead, the single most expensive thing that you're paing for is P&W's liability insurance, and legal team. Think about how often they must be named in lawsuits even if they never end up having to go to court. That's what makes the avaiation industry so damn expensive.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[thelem 0]

Quote

This is the rough side, though...although the plane is a bit cheaper and supposedly faster then a Caravan, you're still looking at roughly $1,000,000 for an aircraft.

How many DZs that this plane is marketed for can afford to buy at that price? Not a whole lot, even with good financing.

If you are looking to buy an aircraft like the 750XL, that presumably means you have at least one Cessna 206 or similar to sell. A couple of those would surely make a big dent in the purchase price?

Then there is the rental market too.

Looking through those figures (I'm looking at unfinanced), they really are impressive if they are to be believed.
Cost per jump (full load): $3.85
Average load (12 jumpers): $5.77
Break even load: 3.8 jumpers (or 1 tandem)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

If you are looking to buy an aircraft like the 750XL, that presumably means you have at least one Cessna 206 or similar to sell

Sure, but a wise DZ would have a 182 or similar on hand while making the transition to a turbine. This gives weekday jumping and such a chance to jump and still atleast break even.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

If you are looking to buy an aircraft like the 750XL, that presumably means you have at least one Cessna 206 or similar to sell. A couple of those would surely make a big dent in the purchase price?

Then there is the rental market too.

Looking through those figures (I'm looking at unfinanced), they really are impressive if they are to be believed.
Cost per jump (full load): $3.85
Average load (12 jumpers): $5.77
Break even load: 3.8 jumpers (or 1 tandem)

Sorry, that's NOT the break even point. That is the direct operational cost and not the cost of operating a DZ. You have insurance, pilot pay, electrics, grounds keepers, manifest, future improvements, pee pits, tiki bars, etc to pay for out of that income from the people you fly.

Don't go getting all warm and fuzzy that you can run a turbine plane with 4 people and make it come out even because it won't. I suspect that you need to run that plane 80% full over the year to make any money.

Chris Schindler
www.diverdriver.com
ATP/D-19012
FB #4125

[riggerrob 643]

Quote

Quote

What make those turbines so expensive? Is it the parts? ... man hours or just P&W knows that the operator will make money with an airplane so they charge very high price 200k($) or more for revision of it while knowing that we can pay it (that´s about as much as they can get for it without customers getting belly up) .
I would like to know.

I'd venture a guess that after materials, labor, R&D, sales, and other overhead, the single most expensive thing that you're paing for is P&W's liability insurance, and legal team. Think about how often they must be named in lawsuits even if they never end up having to go to court. That's what makes the avaiation industry so damn expensive.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, they are charging as much as the market will bear.
That is standard business practice in a capitalist economy.

But I would venture a guess that it is the high-temperature, high-tensile strength, tight-tolerance turbine wheels that keep prices up. Turbine engine design has always been limited by the state of the art in metallurgy.
Those turbine wheels spin at 30,000 rpm and the slightest imbalance will quickly tear them off the engine mounts.
Seeing as how PT6A engines have been in production for 40 years, aftermarket suppliers would be making turbine wheels, etc. - if they knew how to build them cheaper than Pratt&Whitney. No aftermarket shop seems to have figured out how to build turbine wheels cheaper than P&W.
Over the last 40 years, few have put much effort into reducing production cost, because the driving factor has always been reliability, followed by hotter temperatures so you can extract more horsepower per pound of fuel burned.
Longer time between overhauls always reduces operating costs.

[pilotdave 0]

Yeah, having worked at Pratt's Turbine Module Center (not pratt canada... I worked on a military turbojet program), I got to see how expensive this stuff gets. The engine program I was working on was much higher tech (higher temperature) than a turboprop and had a much higher price tag, but I can how the dollars would add up. The raw castings for the turbine components of the engine I worked on would probably cost more than a PT-6. And the more work done on each piece, the more its value goes up. There were something like 300 to 400 different inspection steps that went on during the production of a single turbine vane (the non moving part of the turbine, at the hottest part of the engine). Paying for all those man-hours adds up.

Dave

[jumperconway 0]

Sorry, that's NOT the break even point. That is the direct operational cost and not the cost of operating a DZ. You have insurance, pilot pay, electrics, grounds keepers, manifest, future improvements, pee pits, tiki bars, etc to pay for out of that income from the people you fly.

Don't go getting all warm and fuzzy that you can run a turbine plane with 4 people and make it come out even because it won't. I suspect that you need to run that plane 80% full over the year to make any money.
------------------
At Spaceland we'll fly with 11-12 paying jumpers minimum on our Otters so I'm sure he's making some $ at 50% capacity. Our's hold 23. $220-$240 a load. I'm sure it would really suck if that's an every load thing since on the weekends the loads are usually close to max or max.

[AggieDave 6]

All of those numbers depend on a lot of things.

Fuel costs.
Airplane monthly note (or if the DZ owns it outright).
Pilot costs.
Maintance costs.

Those are just a few in the long list of variables.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jumperconway 0]

Quote

All of those numbers depend on a lot of things.

Fuel costs.
Airplane monthly note (or if the DZ owns it outright).
Pilot costs.
Maintance costs.

Those are just a few in the long list of variables.
-------------
Running a business, I realise that, and you know our overhead runs through the roof! Nothin cheap about Spacey except the runway.

• Quote

[AggieDave 6]

Every DZ has a high overhead. The numbers may be different for different sized DZs, but generally speaking the percentages are the same.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."