Think we will ever see ATR's as jumpships ?

[jumpwally 0]

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[SkyMako 0]

First, explain what "ATR's" are.

[TampaPete 48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR_42

[obelixtim 150]

A group of us jumped out of a Fokker Friendship back in the 70's. It was still configured for commuter work, so had all the seats etc still in place. exit speed was really high, and the load was spread over several miles, because a single file exit meant a very slow exit. We didn't get close to making our 30 way.

On the good side, a nosey skydiver discovered a huge basket of sweets the hostess had stashed to hand out to passengers, and of course, being skydivers, we ate the lot.

Properly configured, with jump pilots it could work, but running 2 turbines wouldn't be cheap....

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[riggerrob 643]

I suspect that some military ATRs have already been jumped by Search and Rescue specialists. That aft cargo door certainly looks big enough to launch chunks.
What is the largest shipping/baggage container you can stuff into an ATR?
Is it certified to fly with the door removed?
The biggest limitation on ATRs - as civilian jump planes - is their size. With 42 or more seats, civilian DZs would have difficulty attracting enough skydivers to keep an ATR busy. Turbine-powered jump planes are only profitable when you keep them busy enough to hot-load and hot refuel (e.g. 25 loads per day).

Number of seats is the same reason few civilian DZs operate jump planes much bigger than 20-seater Twin Otters or Skyvans. Back during skydiving's boom years (1990s) a few of the busiest DZs flew 30-seater CASA 212s but the industry seems to have settled on 12 to 20 seat airplanes because they match demand.

[SkyMako 0]

Too big, too expensive - "No".

[gowlerk 2,190]

SkyMako

Too big, too expensive - "No".

Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era

Antonov An-140
Bombardier Dash 8
Dornier 328
Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia
Fokker 50
Ilyushin Il-114
Saab 340 and 2000
Sukhoi Su-80
Xian MA600

None of these are used as jumpships are they?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

As was noted above, they are kind of big to operate anywhere but the busiest of DZs.

And I think they are "2 Pilots Required" planes. So double the cost for pilots. That's also one of the reasons CASAs fell out of favor with civilian DZs (I think).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[dzswoop717 5]

Casa's fell out of favor because Paul Fayard sold them to a company that doesn't find it profitable enough to lease them to civilian skydiving businesses. Military contracts are much more profitable.

[totter 2]

You forgot the CASA 235, the big brother of the 212.

It is comparable in size to the ATR42, but has the rear cargo door/ramp.

Still a very large aircraft.

[Clonedbeef 0]

I believe the Dash 8 has been test jumped in TX by the staff at Skydive San Marcos

[RMURRAY 1]

a dash 8 100 series was jumped in ontario a bunch of years ago. no i did not get invited! would the largest dz's every be able to use one? i expect it may not be economical...

DHC-8-100 series
Original 37–39 passenger version that entered service in 1984. The original engine was the PW120A (CAA validated on December 13, 1985); later units used the PW121 (CAA validated on February 22, 1990). Rated engine power is 1,800 shp (1,340 kW).

[HPC 7]

Maybe at a boogie or convention, but not as a regular jumpship. Too expensive to operate. Besides, the trend today is going from twin turbines like the Twin Otter and Skyvan, to single turbines like the Caravan and PAC750. Better for the bottom line.

What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.

[dpreguy 14]

Big plane. Little side door. Pretty worthless.

[billvon 2,990]

>Big plane. Little side door. Pretty worthless.

Also lots of curvature near the door; no floater bars.

[RMURRAY 1]

rear cargo door is not narrow.

https://www.airinuit.com/en/fleet/bombardier-dash-8-combi-100-series

modern day dc3...except could it carry ~47?

[sundevil777 102]

RMURRAY

rear cargo door is not narrow.

https://www.airinuit.com/en/fleet/bombardier-dash-8-combi-100-series

modern day dc3...except could it carry ~47?

The turbo Otter would be a more practical choice. Maybe not a lot of single otters are still around? Or maybe there are some with the original piston engines gathering dust, awaiting conversion? The high horizontal stabilizer is nice, but of course the taildragger configuration is troublesome for insurance cost and pilot skill required.

https://www.airinuit.com/en/fleet/de-havilland-turbo-otter-dhc-3

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am