freeflir29 0 #51 September 19, 2002 QuoteHow fast does a Twotter need to fly to land? How slow can ya go? 68.....74 KIAS.....Where's Diverdriver? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #52 September 19, 2002 I want to see the video of someone TRYING to jump out of that . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #53 September 19, 2002 No, I was not on board. That is why I got on board. Then I flew two loads with him and kicked him out. Someone who has 1,000 hours in Otters should not have to be told the things I had to say. Had I been on board for your load John it would not have stalled. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #54 September 19, 2002 You are correct. It does not have to be a twin to be a good jump plane. What I like to see is twin turbine. No, I don't want to land off the airport if I can help it. Look at the two Porter crashes this year in Europe. I know one was suspected of having the trim out of place for take off. I believe the other was engine failure on take off. (I have a pic that looks like the prop is in a feathered positionl.) Turbine engines, while relilable, can and do fail. That's why I'd like two of them. But being in a twin-bo engine failure or a 182 engine failure....yah......I'd take the 182 any day.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chief 0 #55 September 19, 2002 Hey Chris: Thanks for your input. I am not a pilot, but always find your definitions helpful and easy to understand. Thanks. . . . Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #56 September 19, 2002 Clay, if the Beta light came on did he try pulling the Beta Backup circuit breaker? If the Beta Backup system fails you can get this. It really isn't an engine failure. Once the Beta C/B is pulled the prop system should work just fine. You just don't have the Backup system working. Under high power and the Beta light comes on is usually an indication of that system failing.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #57 September 19, 2002 QuoteQuoteHow fast does a Twotter need to fly to land? How slow can ya go? 68.....74 KIAS.....Where's Diverdriver? Um......landing empty with full flaps it can get right down around 50 IAS. The book says 58 KCAS is the full flap stall speed. I've seen my ground speed as low as 15 knots though. MAJOR headwind. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #58 September 19, 2002 QuoteUnder high power and the Beta light comes on is usually an indication of that system failing. That sounds like the report I got. I'm not overly familiar with the system but from what I understand the warning light came on and then the Beta light came on. The system that is supposed to keep it from going into Beta range failed so he had no choice but to shut it down. Apparently, it had something to do with a Breaker being left off or pulled out by the maintenance guys. It had just come back from an annual I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #59 September 19, 2002 Easier on the jumpers does NOT mean easier on the pilot. What we are refering to here is from a pilot's perspective. And an aircraft that easily rolls on its' roof during a stall is not something I consider the top jump plane. To all: My jump history has me jumping out of Casas, Skyvans, King Airs, Queen Airs, Twin Otters and assorted singles. Would I board them again and jump? Sure will. But looking at the pilot perspective nothing beats a Twin Otter. With the correct training and recurrent training there is no reason a pilot should feather the wrong engine in an emergency. That problem exists on any twin engine aircraft. Arguing single engine aircraft are safer is also incorrect because look at how many single engine jump planes have stalled in flight after engine failure. Sure, all you have to do is put the nose down and glide right? So why didn't they? Read the reports. I have one of the most comprehensive jump plane Accident reference sections out there. It is pretty accurate from 1990 - present. And includes more than just the fatal accidents. Take a look. Decide what you want to jump out of. See where the others made mistakes. Decide for yourself.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #60 September 19, 2002 >Heheehehehee..How pissed off were the tandem guys.... I don't think John ever forgave Evie for that one. He was always convinced she did it on purpose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #61 September 19, 2002 Quotethere is no reason a pilot should feather the wrong engine in an emergency. It happens.....I remember reading about an F-15 crash where the guy had just punched off some bombs so he's already low, 2500Ft I think. Loses the left engine and promptly pulls the extinguisher on the right....WHOOPS......they both ejected safely but there went a nice chunk of taxpayer money.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kevin922 0 #62 September 19, 2002 Yeah back when I was working for WorldCOm, I worked at the HQ and would routinely go out to the airport to help the pilots with their computers.. checked out the gulfstream V they had, it had a baggage compartment door in the rear that was right under the engine as well.. i had my wheels turning :) QuoteQuote I've always wanted to jump from Qualcomm's Challenger - it has a baggage door big enough to exit from, right under the left engine, and it can be opened in flight. (Aerodynamically, that is, not legally.) What is the challenger? got a pictures of it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #63 September 19, 2002 Ehhhh........hmmmmmmmmmm......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #64 September 19, 2002 QuoteQuoteNot even a snow balls chance in hell. Was that definitive enough? LOL Humm.. and how come?[url] Could you imagine the video dude on the camera step? Then imagine FODding the engine... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig 0 #65 September 19, 2002 QuoteCould you imagine the video dude on the camera step? Then imagine FODding the engine... See attachment in regards to FOD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #66 September 19, 2002 QuoteQuoteCould you imagine the video dude on the camera step? Then imagine FODding the engine... See attachment in regards to FOD Now that's FOD! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #67 September 19, 2002 Cool pic Craig , now lets hear the story that goes with it . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Craig 0 #68 September 19, 2002 If I remember correctly the aircraft pictured was sitting with engines idling. A nearby 757 started to taxi away and blew the container across the ramp which was sucked into the engine. There is a site with a bunch of unusual aviation pictures like the above but I need to go through the bookmarks and find it. By the way, don't do this.......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spy38W 0 #69 September 19, 2002 Quote There is a site with a bunch of unusual aviation pictures like the above but I need to go through the bookmarks and find it. By the way, don't do this.......... Eeks on both.. make sure you find that link. -- Hook high, flare on time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #70 September 19, 2002 >Easier on the jumpers does NOT mean easier on the pilot. If "easier" means "less likely to get hurt" then I would argue that there is a relationship. More complex aircraft are more difficult to fly; it is difficult to feather the wrong prop on a single (for example) and even harder to mismanage prop pitch on a fixed-prop aircraft. With greater complexity you get more stringent requirements for pilot training and currency. In an ideal world they would always have this training and currency; all too often they do not. >With the correct training and recurrent training there is no reason a > pilot should feather the wrong engine in an emergency. I agree. There is also no reason any pilot should run out of fuel or try to climb without leaning the engine in a 206 or collide with another aircraft in formation; yet those things happen too. >Arguing single engine aircraft are safer is also incorrect because look > at how many single engine jump planes have stalled in flight after > engine failure.. Simpler yet, let's just look at fatalities in the past 10 years from your own website. I count 49 fatalities in twins; 24 in singles. Roughly half. This number, of course, is incomplete without the number of flights by twins vs singles, but as the C182/206 line is still the primary small-DZ aircraft out there, I suspect there are far more single engine jump operation flights made than with twins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #71 September 20, 2002 Bill, you are very correct. In GA there is a greater chance that if you are in an accident in a multi-engine aircraft it will be a fatal accident (not necessarily for everyone on board). Perris Twin Otter: 16(1992); Hinckley Beech C45: 12(1992). That's 28. Some could argue that if more people had worn seatbelts on the Perris Otter there would have been more survivors. Lack of using a safety device, not the aircraft itself can be blamed for a higher fatality rate. Hinckley's Beech had bad maintenance and the pilot could not achieve a full feather on the failed engine. When your aircraft doesn't fail the way it's supposed to you are really rolling the dice. Again....I take those numbers of fatalitites with a large grain of salt. But let us not forget that more people were killed in a single event while riding in a Caravan Cessna 208. That's a single engine aircraft. 17 dead 1985. Stall/spin. Just like many of the other single cessnas on that list. An engine failure, you say, in a single engine aircraft leaves little decision making and thus easier handling the situation. Just put the nose down right? Why didn't he? Here is the Link for those that would like to read that. I had a wise instructor at Embry-Riddle talk to our systems class after one of our students died in a crash north of Daytona. My instructor was a former military aviator. He said "You have to take this stuff seriously. These Pipers and Cessnas will kill you just as fast as any F-18. The only difference will be the size of the impact crator." Any 182. Any Casa. Any skyvan. And any Twin otter can kill you if you do not treat it with respect. The cover of my Flight Safety Twin Otter manual says "Safety begins with a well trained maintenance technician....the best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained pilot...." It didn't say "good enough mechanic" or "adequately trained pilot". Yet, I hear these phrases in our industry (skydiving jump ops) all the time. As a well trained pilot I would always choose to fly jumpers in a well maintained aircraft. And after that, I would always pick a twin turbine aircraft with a high horizontal stabilizer with docile stall characteristics. I think I've shown my point enough on this thread.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #72 September 20, 2002 QuoteIf the new PC-XII weren't single engine aircraft I'd love to see them in use for jump ops down the road. They are huge. High T-tail. Big cargo door on left side. Cabin space bigger than a King Air-200. The cargo door may even be larger than an Otter's. But I am a firm believer that a large jump plane (more than 10 jumpers) should be a twin engine aircraft. Why no single engine? nb - this question comes from a nonpilot still learning aero101witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #73 September 20, 2002 My feeling is that a jump plane with 10 or more jumpers should be a twin engine aircraft. Turbine engines can and do fail no matter how much you believe turbine engines are bullet proof. I want to have two engines when one fails. Been there. Had 19 on board a super otter when the right engine chunked. Some sort of FOD went through it at 6,000 feet. I secured the engine and continued to climb on the left engine. Gained another thousand feet getting back to the airport. Did a normal run over the top at 7K AGL. Had I been in a single engine turbine aircraft the people would have been getting out where ever we were at the time and I might have made it back to the airport. That's a big loss if I don't find a suitable landing area. Not many DZs can stand to write off $800,000 in assets. As the situation turned out I landed back at the DZ so that no further damage happened to the aircraft. I've had 3 engine failures in single engine aircraft with jumpers. All happened just after takeoff. All 3 ended with everyone still on board landing down wind on or next to the runway I departed. The highest one happened at 1,000 AGL. The lowest happened between 400 and 500 AGL. Stuff happened so fast we aren't sure exactly how high it was but it was scary. I landed in the field for that the jumpers normally land in. It was very muddy and I stopped really quick as I sank into the mud. Didn't bend any metal. Those 3 all happened at the same operation. I left 2 weeks after the last one. 11 months later 5 of my friends were killed in a 206 crash. That is the motivation for me to do my website and post where I can about jump plane issues. And why I really believe in twin engine aircraft as a jump plane. Not just any twin will do. But I think you get my point about why I prefer twins.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,072 #74 September 20, 2002 >Not many DZs can stand to write off $800,000 in assets. Well, keep in mind that if an engine goes on a twin (and really goes, like a compressor burst) you just wrote off $350,000. It's not entirely accurate to claim that you buy two engines and they throw in the plane, but it's close. Economically, I think Caravans make a lot more sense for midsize DZ's, even when they have problems. If you can keep them filled (i.e. at Perris, SDC, Eloy) Otters can make more sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 6 #75 September 21, 2002 Last I checked a new PT-6-27 is $250,000. With the Canadian dollar the way it is against the US dollar it may be more or less than that number. Yes.....I'd rather see a Caravan than a Porter any day at a midsized DZ. The Porter has to have a very "On" pilot flying to have the widest margin of safety. Mark Borghorst (sp?) of Mister Douglous fame I trust implicitly in a Porter. Others...I am not as confident in. Caravan....your pilot had better make his climb pattern close to the airport for the reasons I've stated before. If you lose that one engine it's not going to be pretty when you land off the field and tear something up. With a twin you've got a chance at bringing it back with a well trained and proficient pilot. Millenium Skydiving in Kankakee is an example of a good Caravan DZ. Bob runs a Part 135 charter op also and his Caravans and pilots are very well maintained and trained. I would not have a problem getting in his planes. But I don't see his operation as the norm but the exception. I get too many emails about other ops that are not so positive. And I'll just leave it at that.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
