Andrewwhyte 1 #51 November 2, 2009 QuoteJason Fisher just left today...it worked flawlessly at parachute school of toronto this summer. Any idea what the average turn time was. PST is ~400msl is it not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gjhdiver 0 #52 November 2, 2009 Quote What the world really needs is a fast tailgate jump ship. There is one. It's called a C-130. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supervan900 0 #53 November 3, 2009 QuoteBobby, One thing you have to remember, the TPE331-12 is a realitively new engine to the world of skydiving. When people talk about Garretts going boom, they are referring to the -2, Super 2, -5 and -6s. All these engines can be hot started, over torqued, over temped and negative torqued if the systems is not working properly. Garretts also fail in a more spectactular way, (i.e. Un-contained). That's more rememberable than just a loud boom or a bang. And as I've stated before Garretts are less forgiving then a PT6. You can miss rig a PT6 and it will work just fine. The aircraft may fly poorly, but the engine will not be damaged. Now if you miss rig a Garrett you can do some real damage to the engine and aircraft. Time will tell. The SRL feature on the -12 will keep most pilots from doing something stupid and the fact that the engine is de-rated 300 hp will help. Since we are on a first name basis, who am I talking to??? (just curious) I agree that time will tell about reliability, so people don't need to instantly assume it will have the failure as another dash number engine. The fact is that both engines come apart in spectacular fashion (i.e. uncontained) when the t-wheels come apart, which has been happening quite a bit with the CT's on the -114A engines (See Pratt SIL No. PT6A-160). As a matter of fact, a DZ right next door had an uncontained -114A failure. Our customers alone have run almost 50 engines for hundreds of thousands of hours on the Otters and Caravans and we have not had one turbine failure in the 9 years we have been selling them. This debate can go on forever, but there is no factual evidence to support your argument about uncontained failures on 331's vs. PT6. Let keep to the facts instead of opinion. As for rigging, not true. You have quite a bit of flexibility on a single engine airplane with a 331, just not so much with a twin because of the fast engine response (i.e. Beta toward reverse). Just for clarity how many 331's have you truly rigged???? Not trying to be mean, just checking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #54 November 3, 2009 QuoteSince we are on a first name basis, who am I talking to??? Tom. Quoteuncontained failures on 331's vs. PT6 I've seen results of a -114A & a -27 shedding its PT blades. All contained within the Exhaust Duct. I've seen a -27 shed its CT Blades, puncture the burner can and Exhaust Duct, but stay within the cowling. I've seen a -6 chunk all its turbine blades, puncture through the case, exit through the cowling and dent the side of the fuselage. And then there's the case of the Super -2, at Perris I believe, chunking its turbine blades and actually penetrating the fuselage. QuoteJust for clarity how many 331's have you truly rigged???? -2s, -6s & -10s. The 2s & 6s were on a Skyvan and the -10s were on a B100. Maybe a should be more specific. A Garrett needs to be rigged "By The Book". There is no room for fudge facture. The angles between the FCU and the Prop Pitch Control need to be exact on the linkage. The Feathering Valve needs to be rigged correctly and the Beta Tube needs to be set correctly to give the correct Flight Idle Blade Angle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #55 November 4, 2009 Quote Quote Jason Fisher just left today...it worked flawlessly at parachute school of toronto this summer. Any idea what the average turn time was. PST is ~400msl is it not? OK, this is my last report on this plane because we are not getting it next year apparently. I asked the DZO (not the pilot or the owner) for the numbers for a 30C day and got this... Hmm. At 30 C, the data are pretty limited; we had very few warm days this year. I'd guess that warm, we'd be looking at 20 minute turnaround with 18 or 19 jumpers. Typically 17 gallons (US) per load. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supervan900 0 #56 November 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Jason Fisher just left today...it worked flawlessly at parachute school of toronto this summer. Any idea what the average turn time was. PST is ~400msl is it not? OK, this is my last report on this plane because we are not getting it next year apparently. I asked the DZO (not the pilot or the owner) for the numbers for a 30C day and got this... Hmm. At 30 C, the data are pretty limited; we had very few warm days this year. I'd guess that warm, we'd be looking at 20 minute turnaround with 18 or 19 jumpers. Typically 17 gallons (US) per load. Sorry to hear you guys aren't getting it next year. The actual climb time on a 30C day from 700 MSL to 14,000 MSL is 12 min 43 sec at 9000 lbs (or 19 jumpers) or conservatively 14 minutes. and the fuel burn is around 14 gals to altitude. I use a conservative 17 minute turn time with about a gallon a jumper at gross wieght. The fuel burn should be less and that is figuring the average pilot. There should be some more airplanes out there this next summer so maybe you'll get another one up there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supervan900 0 #57 November 4, 2009 That is again relative to a twin engine application and those don't necessarily cause a melt down just handling problems as you transition toward reverse. That has nothing to do with a single and there is a lot of flexibility in the rigging whether it be flight idle blade angle or flight idle fuel flow. I haven't seen either one cause a meltdown just differing control or handling issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #58 November 4, 2009 You are devoted to Garretts, I'm devoted to Pratts, so you're right that we can debate the pros and cons forever. We do both agree, though, that alot depends on proper maintenance and use (for both engines). No one, on this thread or the other thread, has knocked the -12 conversion on the whole. A bigger engine IS exactly what the Caravan needed to make it truely the aircraft it should have been from the start. Everyone is just skeptical with the use of the Garrett for skydiving. You're not going to change peoples minds overnight, only time will. And I hope that time does prove us wrong. I'll always be a Pratt lover, though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumprun14K 0 #59 November 4, 2009 http://www.blackhawk.aero/Products/XP42A.aspx 850 HP PT6 upgrade for Caravan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
totter 2 #60 November 4, 2009 Quote850 HP PT6 upgrade for Caravan Not certified yet. The Garrett conversion will have better high altitude/ hot & heavy performance than the -42A being that the Garrett is de-rated from 1200 HP. The PT6A-42A will be using all of its 850 HP. Blackhawk should have gone with the PT6A-45R @ 1200 HP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #61 November 5, 2009 How about a PT6T Twin-Pac? http://www.pwc.ca/en/engines/pt6t That'd solve the single engine problem. Well, some of it. Not exactly the most efficient way to go. Soloy was developing a Caravan with 2 PT6s, but apparently gave up a while back due to certification issues. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supervan900 0 #62 November 5, 2009 QuoteYou are devoted to Garretts, I'm devoted to Pratts, so you're right that we can debate the pros and cons forever. We do both agree, though, that alot depends on proper maintenance and use (for both engines). No one, on this thread or the other thread, has knocked the -12 conversion on the whole. A bigger engine IS exactly what the Caravan needed to make it truely the aircraft it should have been from the start. Everyone is just skeptical with the use of the Garrett for skydiving. You're not going to change peoples minds overnight, only time will. And I hope that time does prove us wrong. I'll always be a Pratt lover, though. TOTTER. You are making more sense, but you are devoted to a Pratt. I am devoted to the engine that makes the most sense for an operator. If Pratt had an engine that would make the power and could be operated at as low an operating cost, I would have put it on in a heart beat, because it is an easier sell. My point is that the TPE331-12 engine cannot be beat in any category on the Caravan versus an equivalent Pratt including reliability. That is why I had to go with the Garrett for the long haul. The Pratt would be an easy sell, but would really not be cost effective over time. I am looking out for the end user not Pratt or Honeywell. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supervan900 0 #63 November 5, 2009 I would go head to head with the Blackhawk -42A conversion any day they want to do it especially if we could video the results, but I doubt we would ever see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
