US dropzones with PAC 750's?

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

your not too smart are you?

Seems unnecessarily rude. But anyway, you're using 182s. Donthca know you'd make more money with a PAC-750XL? Who's stupid now?!

J/k... i think Dave explained what he meant farther down... though I still don't believe it.

Dave

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

though I still don't believe it.

Either do I. I can only assume that there's something specific to the operation at Aggieland, (like unusually high runway fees, hanger rental, or insurance requirements) that drives up the cost of operating their 182.

The 182 would not be the primary workhorse of the skydiving industry if it wasn't possible to break even with 4 jumpers.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[pilotdave 0]

Now wait, he never said a 182 cant break even (that i could find). He said:

Quote

The point was, money returned per load, it is possible to fly a 750 and have a slightly higher profit with 4 jumpers on board, then a 182 going to 11k with 4 jumpers. It has to do with cost break down for 100hr maintance and fuel consumption.

Now I'm not sure I believe that, but I haven't worked out the numbers. I'm assuming he's talking the same jump ticket price for both planes or it wouldn't make much sense. What confuses me is the 100hr maintenance part. A 750 is a newer aircraft and in theory should have less maintenance to be done at the 100 hour. But will the total price of a 100 hour inspection be lower? how about 5 or 10 years down the road? How does the cost of tires/brakes compare between the two aircraft? (I have no clue). What's a new prop cost when you have a prop hit a portable helipad (as our 182 did last weekend)? What's an overhaul gonna cost?

And Dave mentioned he of course left off the cost of financing. That's a huge part of the operating cost of the aircraft. Right along with tie down fees, etc.

Dave

[kelpdiver 2]

Guys, remember the vastly superior climb rate of the Pac with only 4 people on board (or even fully loaded). You can get a lot more loads up in 100hrs of operation. That could add up to higher profit per load. Doesn't feel right, but could be.

I'll echo the main complaint - it's very short. So far I've only done one run at Davis, and I was the first in the plane, sitting near the pilot. Thankfully it was only a half load.

[Fast 0]

A good place to start with looking at cost comparisions is with:

http://www.utilityaircraft.com/costcomparisons.html

It might be full of marketing fluff but its a start.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Dumpster 0]

Quote

I'll echo the main complaint - it's very short. So far I've only done one run at Davis, and I was the first in the plane, sitting near the pilot. Thankfully it was only a half load.

How much shorter than say, a Caravan?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I can only assume that there's something specific to the operation at Aggieland,

Yup, BUT my point still stands that it can be that way. The purpose was not to count out the AC and to run numbers (for those in the situation to) for your own operation.

That is the entire point.


Andy, I know it wasn't you, it was someone else, but stating I'm not that bright simply because you don't understand whats going on is pretty asinine.


Moral of the story, that in the short term it can turn a higher profit even running light, but yes in the long run there are other things to consider. However, the short term gives room for growth. We at Aggieland have seen how jumpers and students react to having a turbine AC to jump when compared to a 182, its amazing actually how many more jumps people want to do when its a turbine.

So once again, you won't know for your operation until you run the numbers for your operation, and don't run best case scenerio numbers, run the numbers that you've kept for tac time, fuel consumption, etc for your current AC then compare the numbers to the known numbers for the plane you're looking at, in this case a Pac 750 XL.

Also understand the tac time used per load in reference to your maintance cost and fuel burn for running a plane like the PAC light. Per load it can even out (according to the published numbers) due to the fuel burn and tac time used for the entire load. Some of the figures show less then .2 time for a load of 4-6 jumpers. Now, make 3 of those a tandem pair with video and you can see how running a plane like that light can still churn a decent profit.

I'm fairly amazed how many people in this thread refuse to look past the surface and see this.

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

[bob.dino 1]

He has to me, but since I don't fly a wingsuit, and so might get important details wrong, I'll leave him to explain himself .

The XL 750 he hit at Nagambie in Australia is well spoken of by everyone I know that's jumped out of it. Including some very experienced folk doing 8-way RW. Not having jumped it myself, I can't comment too much.

[bigway 4]

The PAC was designed in new zealand for the tandem operations. They were not designed for sport jumpers.
Is it not bizzare how one of the largest tandem operations in the world being taupo tandems, new zealand is getting rid of theirs as the prefer their islander for the tandem industry.

Now people will probably say taupo tandems is not the one of the largest operations in the world but this place does do over 100 tandems a day 7 days a week for 6 months of the year, and this place generally has excellent weather. I remember the USPA recogninsing it as the largest tandem factory in the world a few years ago.

they are getting rid of theirs to a dz in the uk as they are not happy with it.
You may also be aware that it was designed for tandems going on how easy it is to stall and does not like being stacked with formations.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[Fast 0]

I just want to add the sentiment that i have added in every other thread about this plane.

I don't like it, too small inside. I was super cramped when I jumped it at rantoul and I don't like the idea of my DZ buying one. If they do I will give it a go, but if it sucks I guess im driving an extra hour or more to the DZ every weekend.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[bob.dino 1]

Quote

does not like being stacked with formations.

Where do you get this information? I specifically asked a bunch of guys I know that just did an 8-way training camp (c. 70 jumps) out of an XL 750, and they said they'd alsolutely no problems. In fact, they were a little bemused by the question, which makes me wonder why the issue keeps coming up here...

[bigway 4]

This comes up from my dz owner who was looking at purchasing one and because of this reason went for a new engine in our porter, quite glad actually this porter , when it arrives is meant to get us to 12k in 9 minutes.

I am told that if you try to stack or have to many at the door it will stall very easy.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[bigway 4]

Quote

were a little bemused by the question

How did the pilot like it? maybe he should be asked.

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I'll echo the main complaint - it's very short. So far I've only done one run at Davis, and I was the first in the plane, sitting near the pilot. Thankfully it was only a half load.

How much shorter than say, a Caravan?

I can't give a very good answer here. Davis relied on the Caravan prior to getting the first of their PACs and I've done slightly under 10 jumps in it, but I was nearly always on the floor next to the door as I was exiting first to land at the barn. So I think it is taller than the PAC, but not very confident to say so.

the bulk of my front of the plane experience is with an otter, which is definitely taller.

[Dumpster 0]

Can't be worse than a 182, can it?

Easy Does It

[bob.dino 1]

I'd try to get a primary source for that info if I were you.

The one major design flaw I've been informed of* is that the wotsit-thingy** that measures airspeed is aft of the door, so if you stack a bunch of people on the door, they block the intake, which means the pilot no longer knows how fast (s)he's flying . Not being a pilot, I dunno just how critical or otherwise this is.


* I don't have the knowledge to verify this.
** technical term.

[Dumpster 0]

That's an unusual location for the whotsit-thingy - I thought they usually go up by the front of the airplane, but nowadayze ya never know -

We have three folks going out to check one out - (Maybe they are going to Davis?) All three are jumpers with up to 10,000 jumps experience, and two of them are jump pilots, so I'm confident in thier ablilty to evaluate the plane. We'll just see!

Easy Does It

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Quote

were a little bemused by the question

How did the pilot like it? maybe he should be asked.

not a good idea to have an 8way plus video at the door, and the rest of the passengers getting to the door. If they wait till exit at their place, more towards the front of the plane, it will be much better for everyone.

For Bobdino, are you talking about the pitot tube, or the static air pressure ??

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[bigway 4]

Bob.dino, not going to let this argument get personal......cool?
not that you have you yet.
Anyway, my primary source for it being built for tandems, is that i am from new zealand and you can imagine all the buzz and hype about this plane over the news and the nzpf close to 4 years ago when it was being designed for manufacture. You know a country with only 300 and something skydivers, you hear alot.

Now, my big source, for the stall factor may not mean much to this argument but it is my source. My dz owner who was looking at one is a Senioe Air new zealand captain for 767, and also flys our porter, not that he is any good at spotting or anything, and also flys many other aircrafts as we are a flying school. I generally take his opinion on planes as he knows or would not be saying it. I think maybe after looking at purchasing one he knows what he is talking about, i also think that considering his good mate who died landing in the ocean on the maiden flight when delivering the PAC 750 to the states might be a factor of his opinion.
I know he had alot of information on this plane as his buddy obviousley had something to do with the company if he was presenting the first one to the world for sale in america.

i amnot bad mouthing the plane here, i just know that it was built for designed for Commercial dropzones catering to tandems.

Your mates that did all these 8-ways from the plane, i am NOT doubting what you are saying is true at all, i also completley belive they had no problems if you say so. I am just putting the thought up there that maybe the pilot should be asked how he enjoyed making sure it never stalled, i understand if this plane was to stall that you would be in a bit of trouble. I think that pilot would have much better clue to this than the formation that is being stacked.

After saying all this, i have also read many good reviews from a dz in cairns, they say the parts are the same price for a 182. And to source the part are very easy.

I have read good things about this ship but also have heard not so good things

just my opinion, i am not a pilot, nor have i flown in many different turbines.


'

.Karnage Krew Gear Store
.

[dropzonefool 0]

Ok, let me explain this a little bit to you.

As per the numbers I've seen (not from the factory), a 750 will make more money per load with 4 jumpers in it due to the use of fuel and tac time then a 182 with 4 jumpers in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



your not too smart are you? <<<<<<<<

I guess I an idiot also, cause I totaly understand what he is saying, and I believe it is not so unbelievable. I know that a DZO has to give a percentage off of each load to maintance. If a plane is paid for and it dosen't fly, it dosen't incure any expense. If the turbine starts then $5 pluse tack time has to go in to maintance fund, for repairs and inspections. The rest of the $ has to go to fuel, pilot, and hopefully a little to the DZ. If a plane ( no matter how big) can take 4 jumpers to alt. faster than a smaller one then the tack time is less and the amount of $ going for maintance is less.

IF a DZO decides he has to put $15 an hour aside for maintance. HE flys two loads an hour then $7 dollars per load in to maintance. IF the plane can turn three in an hour then the maintance per hour is even less. BUT the fuel goes up with 3 turn an hour over two.

The DZO has to do the math and take this all into account.

With that being said, To start a turbine for only 4 jumpers will not make money. But stastistly speaking it can fly this in 10 minuets. So the plane can turn 6 loads in an hour, so only $15 dollars goes to maintance, out of 6 loads. You have to look at it on an hourly basis to say 4 jumpers makes money.

[Dumpster 0]

About the whotsit -

I recall static ports being toward the rear of aircraft I worked on when I was employed at an aircraft refinishing company years ago - Pitot tubes are probably on the leading edge of the wings some where- I'm not sure what the relationship is between the two and the airspeed indicator-

Edited for crappy spelling-

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

If a plane is paid for and it dosen't fly, it dosen't incure any expense.

Hehe not quite. Planes eat money ALL the time. There are two sides to operating costs. Fixed costs and variable costs. Variable costs depend on how much the plane flies...fuel, most maintenance, etc. Fixed cost can be any number of things. Insurance payments, tie down fees, annual inspections, etc. Those things don't care whether or not the plane has ever left the ground.

Dave

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Can't be worse than a 182, can it?

but the 182 doesn't have seats. Skydance's Pac has benches.

[dropzonefool 0]

yep, forgot about all that also, this has to all be considered before a desision is made, as to a perticular plane would be good for an individual or a corporation. thanks dave

• Quote

[bob.dino 1]

Not sure... I'll try to remember to ask at the weekend.