Cessna 402 Jump Plane's

[Skydive2 1]

Does anyone have any experience with Cessna 402 Jump planes? I've seen them used from time to time just trying to get an idea of # of jumps, turn around times, fuel burn, ect.
Any info would be great!


Lance

[riggerrob 643]

I have nly done a handful of tandem jumps out of a Cessna 402.
We had to quit jumping early because of a warning light on the nose gear.
The warning light said that the nose gear was partially down, but not locked.
The pilot landed at another airport, just fine.
My point is that the cost of maintaining retractable undercarriage - on a Cessna 400 series twin - will seriously hurt your profit margin.

[lekstrom10k 0]

We used to jump a 411 iI believe out of West Virginia athe Richmond and Lima. Quite similar though. He flew the Checkerboard tail Twin Beech before that. He got a cargo door installed after we jumped it. He said it liked the runway too much and wasnt fond of the fuel consumption either .It might be worse now fuel is much more expensive. Just a thought to bring to mind

[diablopilot 2]

They are fuel and maintenance pigs, and the CG margins are pretty narrow in jump ops. If it's all ya got..... but for the acquisition cost, I think you could do better.

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

[Skydive2 1]

The cost of piston twins have dropped tremendously over the past few years with the poor economy and high fuel costs. I was looking a a few nice very nice 402's for under 40K (these were low time exec aircraft, not high time cargo doggs). I was thinking fuel burn per side should be around 40 gallons per hour. They use the same engine as most C-T206's (TSIO-520, 300hp). But using it as just a tandem machine, with 3-4 tandem pairs only going to 10K I think it could turn close to 3 loads per hour. The retract gear is a huge issue i'm worried about as well as CG issues. I would be looking to haul no more than 8 (well under gross).
Does anyone in the US operate one for jump ops? There is a DZ in Idaho that lists one, but I can't seem to find any others ?

[brucet7 0]

Skydown Skydiving in Caldwell Idaho has one.
(208) 455-2FLY
offline@newserver.net
http://www.skydownskydiving.com
they might have your answers.

POPS #10623; SOS #1672

[JohnMitchell 16]

There was one in Cedar Valley, Utah back in the 80's and 90's. I heard the engine out handling was a little sporty.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

with 3-4 tandem pairs only going to 10K I think it could turn close to 3 loads per hour

How's that? You realize the problem with any piston engine jump plane is the descent, right? With hot running turbo-charged engines, managing the engine temp and avoiding supercooling is going to be key to keeping the bird happy and the props turning.

Even if you could wrestle it down in 7 or 8 minutes, that only leaves you 12 or 13 to land, load, and climb back up to 10K for 20 minute turns (3 loads per hour).

Have you looked into the fuel situation? The last piston twin I jumped, which was a quick climbing super-charged Twin Bonanza only carried enough for one load, requiring a shut down and refuel every load. If you're thinkning 40 gal/hr per side, that's probably about 15 per side, per load, or about 250 lbs of fuel. Even to run two loads back to back, you'll be hauling over 500 lbs of gas on the first round, and that's not going to help your turn time.

Provided you have a good A&P on site, and a pilot who knows how to manage a turbo charged engine (and take it easy on the turbos), you could probably get 2 loads per hour, provided that everyone was geared up and ready to laod as soon as the fuel was in the tanks.

Truth is, you'd be better off with a pair of normally asperated 182's. You could run 8 tandems an hour, and have increased reliability due to simpler airframes. On top of that, if one goes down, you can still run 4 tandems per hour out of the other one. If one engine (or any part of the 402) goes down, you're stuck running zero tandems per hour.

I'm pretty sure that every jump plane that is practical, reliable, and afforable is already in widespread service in the US. If there aren't a dozen of one model in current jump operation, there's a reason (Casas and Skyvans being the exception).

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

with 3-4 tandem pairs only going to 10K I think it could turn close to 3 loads per hour

How's that? You realize the problem with any piston engine jump plane is the descent, right? With hot running turbo-charged engines, managing the engine temp and avoiding supercooling is going to be key to keeping the bird happy and the props turning.

Even if you could wrestle it down in 7 or 8 minutes, that only leaves you 12 or 13 to land, load, and climb back up to 10K for 20 minute turns (3 loads per hour).

Have you looked into the fuel situation? The last piston twin I jumped, which was a quick climbing super-charged Twin Bonanza only carried enough for one load, requiring a shut down and refuel every load. If you're thinkning 40 gal/hr per side, that's probably about 15 per side, per load, or about 250 lbs of fuel. Even to run two loads back to back, you'll be hauling over 500 lbs of gas on the first round, and that's not going to help your turn time.

Provided you have a good A&P on site, and a pilot who knows how to manage a turbo charged engine (and take it easy on the turbos), you could probably get 2 loads per hour, provided that everyone was geared up and ready to laod as soon as the fuel was in the tanks.

Truth is, you'd be better off with a pair of normally asperated 182's. You could run 8 tandems an hour, and have increased reliability due to simpler airframes. On top of that, if one goes down, you can still run 4 tandems per hour out of the other one. If one engine (or any part of the 402) goes down, you're stuck running zero tandems per hour.

I'm pretty sure that every jump plane that is practical, reliable, and afforable is already in widespread service in the US. If there aren't a dozen of one model in current jump operation, there's a reason (Casas and Skyvans being the exception).

Dayum...Homeboy knows his shit....I'm impressed...
can;t the 402 be updated to turbo's? or is the cost toooooo high??

Hope I am not asking a totally stupid question

[JohnMitchell 16]

Quote

can;t the 402 be updated to turbo's? /

Quote

Yes.

Quote

or is the cost toooooo high??

Yes.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Dayum...Homeboy knows his shit....I'm impressed...
can;t the 402 be updated to turbo's? or is the cost toooooo high??

Hope I am not asking a totally stupid question

402s are turbocharged. The problem is that turbo engines don't like to go down fast. They are great for high altitude cruise, but you can't just yank the throttle back and go down. You can't even do that on a non-turbo piston engine.

If you do you can do a lot of very expensive damage very quickly. Because the engine is air-cooled, the parts exposed to the airflow cool quickly, and the internal parts don't.

"Shock Cooling" a piston powered plane is when the cylinder cools much more rapidly than the piston that's inside of it. The cylinder actually contracts enough that the piston starts shaving metal off the cylinder walls. It's not real good for the piston, cylinder or any of the internal parts that the shavings end up going through.

Because turbocharged engines generate a lot more heat, they have to be managed even more carefully to prevent overcooling damage.

"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

[Skydive2 1]

I was thinking it could turn a load to 10K with 6 (maybe 8 on a cool day) (3-4 tdms pairs) in around 20-25 min so around 3 loads per hour. I mean 3 loads per TACH hour, not flying 3 loads in one hour....BIG difference. I know the deal with piston engines, having owned/operated 3 C-182's for 8 summers now. I basically have a full time IA on staff that is very familiar with piston engines and I don't hire rookie pilots. During the summer we average well over 100 tandems a week. I would keep at least one maybe two 182's and only run the 402 on the 60 tdm Saturdays and Sundays when I could keep it turning with 3 tdms on the first load of fuel, 4 on the second, shut-down fuel, repeat. This would give me 7-8 tandems per hour, vs 4 with the 182. Plus the bigger door and comfy interior is a plus with customers/instructors. Of course maintenance costs are going to go up, but the acquisition cost is not much more than a C-182, for an airplane that if operated and maintained properly should up my volume on a busy day. Plus when I'm running two 182's thats TWO engines to maintain, TWO airframes, TWO pilots, TWO 100hours...and the list goes on. Would be nice to do the volume of two 182's with the maintenance cost of one airframe. I don't think this would be a money making airplane if you were trying to fly it all day Sat-Sun with a mix of fun jumpers and tandems, but running it 8-10 hours a weekend hauling 3-4 paying tdms with hand cam and a good pilot and mechanic on staff I think it could turn a profit.... just something I'm kicking around.....still very happy with the 182's for now!
Does anyone else any any hands on experience jumping from or operating a 402/411?

Lance

[TampaPete 48]

Hey Dave –

I’d like to ask a question about I plane I thought might make a good jump plane.

A low-hours (+-6,000 to 8,000 TT) Queen Air with Excalibur modifications can be purchased for under $200K. The Excalibur mod replaces the geared 540’s with normally aspirated 720’s. The fuel lines are replaced with armored lines also (eliminates the fire history). The QA Excalibur is generally noted to have similar performance to a King Air 90.

Your thoughts?

[vpjr 18]

You will have to worry about burning out your IA. The airplanes can be replaced easier. Now with my Tiger 206 he may have to go part time.