PAC 750XL -- News Clips

[diverdriver 7]

Twin Otter is not a T-tail and it's a hell of a lot better position than a King Air or Caravan or seemingly this PAC 750.

T-tails don't have less effectiveness unless they are left in the same design. Yes, it's trade offs. The F-90 King Air would be a much better option for a small king air. And they are very expensive too.

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

[diverdriver 7]

I didn't post this in incidents but after reading that article all I have to say is....fuck. That sucks. I know those PJs probably. I used to fly them when I flew at Monterey Bay. I know they did their best in difficult conditions.

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

[quade 4]

Quote

T-tails don't have less effectiveness unless they are left in the same design.

Lemme clarify.

Aircraft with horizontal stabilizers and elevators higher than the prop wash and or especially if they sit about 10 to 15 degrees higher than the main wing, tend to have less effectiveness at slow airspeeds than those directly in line with the prop wash. Especially if the main wing is at such a distance and angle during slow flight as to aerodynamically blank out the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. This can be especially awkward during slow flight and landings.

If I were to design a general purpose utility aircraft for unimproved airstrips, especially if it where a single prop aircraft where I could take advantage of certain inherent handling characteristics, I'd put a conventional tail on it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[diverdriver 7]

Quote

Quote

T-tails don't have less effectiveness unless they are left in the same design.

Lemme clarify.

Aircraft with horizontal stabilizers and elevators higher than the prop wash and or especially if they sit about 10 to 15 degrees higher than the main wing, tend to have less effectiveness at slow airspeeds than those directly in line with the prop wash. Especially if the main wing is at such a distance and angle during slow flight as to aerodynamically blank out the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. This can be especially awkward during slow flight and landings.

If I were to design a general purpose utility aircraft for unimproved airstrips, especially if it where a single prop aircraft where I could take advantage of certain inherent handling characteristics, I'd put a conventional tail on it.

I think I'd go and design a Twin Otter. Dropping jumpers WAS one of the original design aspects of that plane. They even designed a slick flolding door that was electrically actuated. It could be closed again inflight. Pretty slick.

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

[riggerrob 643]

I think I'd go and design a Twin Otter. Dropping jumpers WAS one of the original design aspects of that plane. They even designed a slick flolding door that was electrically actuated. It could be closed again inflight. Pretty slick.

[riggerrob 643]

I wouldn't criticize the PAC 750XL,s horizontal tail location too loudly.
We have seen tail strikes on DC-3s, King Airs and most of the Cessnas.
Most of those problems were caused by human error (sloppy rigging, slamming rig against door frame or exiting before airplane was levelled off).
On the other hand, we can fly the same airplane thousands of hours trouble-free, provided everyone does their job properly.
So let's make a New Year's resolution to do our jobs properly.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

I wouldn't criticize the PAC 750XL,s horizontal tail location too loudly.

Why not? None of the other planes you mention were designed for skydiving. If you're going to market a new design specifically for skydiving, take lessons learned from other skydiving aircraft. We know tail strikes have occured on other aircraft with low tails. People make mistakes. Design out the possibility of human error where you can.

Dave

[DanglesOZQld 0]

Ok.....you want to redesign a Twin Otter. Look at the end result and running costs. That is the bottom line and also one of the reasons why there are countries like Australia that need an affordable and smaller aircraft for Parachute Ops and why aircraft like Twin Otters are not as prevalent as they are in countries like the USA. If money were of no concern I am sure there are many aircraft far superior to the XL like the Otter that you could redesign. Don't quote me but I think the dz south of us that is getting the new XL plans to still be able to use it with only 5 jumpers on board as well for those quieter days. At Caloundra we use the LET 410 and have done so for many years and it is still one of my most favourite aircraft available in Australia for the jumping population we have here. BSBD -Mark.

"A Scar is just a Tattoo with a story!!!"

[diablopilot 2]

Some clarification on the incident:

The PAC does NOT hold enough fuel for the 17 hour crossing, instead a special "ferry fuel" system was installed in the cabin of the A/C and connected to the main system. The pilot radioed that he was having trouble with the ferry fuel system and was down to 2 hours usable fuel prior to ditching. Had not had trouble with the system on the previous fligts of this A/C nor the flight of the original A/C brought to this country in Oct to complete FAA testing, nor on that A/C's return flight to NZ.

I talked to Mr. Ferrell on a visit to NorCal on the 26th, he was quite upset about the loss of the pilot who was a friend of his.

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

[quade 4]

Understood.

Most small aircraft do not have the range to cross from Hawaii to California without the addition of additional ferry fuel tanks.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Here's a question (probably a stupid one)...

Why don't they take the wings off and put it in a shipping container to deliver it to the coast, put it back together and fly from there?

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

[pilotdave 0]

Cost and speed.

Dave

[AggieDave 6]

What has been the overall rate of accidents/incidents in the ferrying of non-airliner type aircrafts across the Pacific?

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

[wilmshurst 0]

Re aircraft:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=7862&cid=8&cname=News

Re accident:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=7880&cid=8&cname=News

The only thing worse than a cold toilet seat is a warm toilet seat.

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

Quote

T-tails don't have less effectiveness unless they are left in the same design.

Lemme clarify.

Aircraft with horizontal stabilizers and elevators higher than the prop wash and or especially if they sit about 10 to 15 degrees higher than the main wing, tend to have less effectiveness at slow airspeeds than those directly in line with the prop wash. Especially if the main wing is at such a distance and angle during slow flight as to aerodynamically blank out the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. This can be especially awkward during slow flight and landings.

Quote

And in some cases T-tails must never be spun for lack of spin recoverability before structural failure. Not the greatest design for a plane that may have TOO many floaters well aft of the CG all on one side reducing rudder steering . Glen
***
If I were to design a general purpose utility aircraft for unimproved airstrips, especially if it where a single prop aircraft where I could take advantage of certain inherent handling characteristics, I'd put a conventional tail on it.

Or a completely unconventional tail on it like Rutans boomerang, little or no horizontal on the door side of the vertical stab and enough on the otherside to do the job. It would be ugly, perfect for jumpers. Glen

• Quote

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

Or a completely unconventional tail on it like Rutans boomerang, little or no horizontal on the door side of the vertical stab and enough on the otherside to do the job. It would be ugly, perfect for jumpers.

I wouldn't get into any asymetric plane unless it was designed by Rutan himself!
Dave

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Quote

Will post pics and first impressions as soon as it arrives...

Please do. It'll be interesting to see how 4-way teams like the platform to launch from...especially long formations. (and don't forget about the camera step impression....talk to your cameraflyers and get their input as well...)

Thanks!
ltdiver

Interesting reply in the Safety and Training Forum on this very subject. Listen up, people.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon