Recommended Posts
Quote...That will put us with the following here at Raeford:
-1 CASA 212
-1 Super Otter
-1 PAC 750
-1 Cessna 182
OK...that does it...besides the great company, with the great lift power on top of it, I'm coming to Raeford this year...
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Dumpster 0
Quote-1 CASA 212
-1 Super Otter
-1 PAC 750
-1 Cessna 182
And that definitely seems a well-rounded fleet of jumpships!
We didn't fly our 182 much at all with the PAC around. Sending up a load of hop-n-pops was quick and economical. Better be ready to jump when you board, we would be at 5k on jump run 3 minutes after wheels-up.
Easy Does It
The intent with the new PAC is to get more people in the air who simply loathe flying in a Cessna. Personally, if it's a mid-week tandem (or AFF) I would just as soon take the Cessna ride and nap on the way up, but there are a LOT of tandem snobs these days. It is MUCH easier to scare up six jumpers than it is 12 (to crank the Otter). I can't wait till it arrives.
Dumpster 0
You're gonna love it!!
Easy Does It
Easy Does It
Elisha 1
QuoteThe intent with the new PAC is to get more people in the air who simply loathe flying in a Cessna.
Really? I thought it was a NEW turbine aircraft that was designed to be cost efficient and carry in teens of jumpers. Sure, it may be less comfortable than a Caravan and there may be a potential stall issue if people aren't balanced upon exit but may be solved by having those non-bigwayers stay at the front. But it still is a great jump plane - maybe the best all around for it's size.
We are going to crank and fly this plane with six jumpers (that's the break even point as we study it). If there is a paying tandem we might even fly it lighter than that. I am talking "during the week" here, not weekends. On the weekends it will be perfect for those times early in the day when people are being lazy and late in the afternoon when people have bagged off and started drinking beer, but there are others still wanting to jump.
Our problem has been that there are always people wanting to skydive every day of the week, but not enough to crank the Otter. If you wanted to jump, with few exceptions (particularly in the winter), you were relegated to a Cessna 182 flight. I anticipate that this is really going to get the ball rolling.
FWIW, I think that "volume jumping" goes in cycles. We owned a Porter some years ago and it went from popular to not as soon as people got used to flying in an Otter. The plane was sold and we bought another Otter. Since that time there has been another turbine dropzone open up on twenty miles from here. What happened then was that number of regular jumpers here locally was split. In my opinion all that did was make it harder to make a bunch of skydives in a day. Why? Neither dropzone ended up with a sufficient amount of jumpers to turn their planes all day (at least not after a while). Instead of turning 30 loads in a day, that number went down to like 12 (on a good day). The reason was not having enough (10 or 12) people to turn the plane, so it had to shut down (20 minutes minimum). A smaller turbine will turn with less people (6), so I am positive that this PAC is going to be perfect for those "slightly-busy" days where there is a smaller group of people, but who want to jump their asses off. We shall see.
Chuck
Our problem has been that there are always people wanting to skydive every day of the week, but not enough to crank the Otter. If you wanted to jump, with few exceptions (particularly in the winter), you were relegated to a Cessna 182 flight. I anticipate that this is really going to get the ball rolling.
FWIW, I think that "volume jumping" goes in cycles. We owned a Porter some years ago and it went from popular to not as soon as people got used to flying in an Otter. The plane was sold and we bought another Otter. Since that time there has been another turbine dropzone open up on twenty miles from here. What happened then was that number of regular jumpers here locally was split. In my opinion all that did was make it harder to make a bunch of skydives in a day. Why? Neither dropzone ended up with a sufficient amount of jumpers to turn their planes all day (at least not after a while). Instead of turning 30 loads in a day, that number went down to like 12 (on a good day). The reason was not having enough (10 or 12) people to turn the plane, so it had to shut down (20 minutes minimum). A smaller turbine will turn with less people (6), so I am positive that this PAC is going to be perfect for those "slightly-busy" days where there is a smaller group of people, but who want to jump their asses off. We shall see.
Chuck
IMHO I don't think it makes a good fun jumper plane. Maybe for tandem factories it would be ideal.
Let me preface my review by saying that I'm spoiled on Otters.
The door is substantially shorter than an Otter or Caravan. When I jumped it, the loads were full or nearly so (15-17). At that loading, there is not a lot of room. Shit, who am I kidding? I felt like a sardine! Also, the climb rate was not as good as everyone raved. It took about as long as any other Caravan I have jumped to get to full altitude. Seems like the climb rate really tapered off above 9k or so.
From the viewpoint of a vidiot trying to film RW, I can think of many other planes I would rather jump. There is *no* video step. It's merely a small extension of the main step. With arms stretched fully you can only get a few feet from the group. Does anyone know if there are Pacs out there flying with a seperate step? Is it a W&B issue or something?
If you're currently a 182 DZ and you can fly this plane (with tandems mostly) with less than 10 people on it, it would prolly be a good plane for you. Otherwise, I don't see what all the hype is about.
"Let the misinterpretation and attacks begin."
Let me preface my review by saying that I'm spoiled on Otters.
The door is substantially shorter than an Otter or Caravan. When I jumped it, the loads were full or nearly so (15-17). At that loading, there is not a lot of room. Shit, who am I kidding? I felt like a sardine! Also, the climb rate was not as good as everyone raved. It took about as long as any other Caravan I have jumped to get to full altitude. Seems like the climb rate really tapered off above 9k or so.
From the viewpoint of a vidiot trying to film RW, I can think of many other planes I would rather jump. There is *no* video step. It's merely a small extension of the main step. With arms stretched fully you can only get a few feet from the group. Does anyone know if there are Pacs out there flying with a seperate step? Is it a W&B issue or something?
If you're currently a 182 DZ and you can fly this plane (with tandems mostly) with less than 10 people on it, it would prolly be a good plane for you. Otherwise, I don't see what all the hype is about.
"Let the misinterpretation and attacks begin."
Quote
The door is substantially shorter than an Otter or Caravan. When I jumped it, the loads were full or nearly so (15-17). At that loading, there is not a lot of room. Shit, who am I kidding? I felt like a sardine! Also, the climb rate was not as good as everyone raved. It took about as long as any other Caravan I have jumped to get to full altitude. Seems like the climb rate really tapered off above 9k or so.
That sounds like a choice made by the pilot, for the climb rate that everyone raves about is real. So is the cheaper cost to buy and operate. You're right that it's very short - I wonder how much of the savings comes from that aspect alone.
The first Pac in the US replaced a Caravan. Now they have two of them there. (and yes, that is the DZ of the importer)
riddler 0
QuoteWhat's your opinion?
PAC, better than a Cessna, but not as good as a Caravan. PAC is probably a little better than a Porter, but not anywhere close to an Otter, King Air, Casa or Skyvan.
The door is nice and wide, but very short. It's a very unstable aircraft on the ride to altitude. But it's jumpable, and I'll take it over a Cessna any day
Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD
skybytch 273
QuoteIt's a very unstable aircraft on the ride to altitude.
What makes you say that?
bob.dino 1
QuoteA smaller turbine will turn with less people (6), so I am positive that this PAC is going to be perfect for those "slightly-busy" days where there is a smaller group of people, but who want to jump their asses off. We shall see.
Has the PAC lived up to expectations?
Dumpster 0
We just started our 2nd season with the PAC. So far it's been working out very well for us, the pilots love it, the jumpers love it, the accountants love it.
We spent the day Sunday doing 10-ways out of it, our group was the only ones on the plane most of the time, with an occasional tandem or what have you coming along.
Didn't have much time to nap on the way to altitude - -
I don't understand the "unstable" comment, either.
Easy Does It
We spent the day Sunday doing 10-ways out of it, our group was the only ones on the plane most of the time, with an occasional tandem or what have you coming along.
Didn't have much time to nap on the way to altitude - -
I don't understand the "unstable" comment, either.
Easy Does It
QuoteQuoteA smaller turbine will turn with less people (6), so I am positive that this PAC is going to be perfect for those "slightly-busy" days where there is a smaller group of people, but who want to jump their asses off. We shall see.
Has the PAC lived up to expectations?
Depends on what your personal expectations are. If fuel efficient, fast to altitude and lower maintenance are your concerns then yes it has. With 15 in the plane it can be a wee bit cramped, Door is not as big as an Otters and is also a little lower (after 3 or 4 jumps you get used to it), and there is a little bit more prop blast (not as much as a KA or other low wing jump planes).
Davis just took delievery of their second Pac.
Fire Safety Tip: Don't fry bacon while naked
Mark Mark actually bought Skydive Temple in Texas and has the PAC there now. Taft purchased a Super Otter from Monterey Bay about two and a half months ago and we have been flying that every weekend and some weekdays.
I didn't mind the PAC at all especially with the extra step and handhold bar outside of the plane. Our only rules for launching big groups was to tell the pilot if you planned on putting more than 4 outside of the door so he / she could increase airspeed.
I do love our Otter, but would gladly jump a PAC again
---------------------------------------------------
I didn't mind the PAC at all especially with the extra step and handhold bar outside of the plane. Our only rules for launching big groups was to tell the pilot if you planned on putting more than 4 outside of the door so he / she could increase airspeed.
I do love our Otter, but would gladly jump a PAC again
---------------------------------------------------
"People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But, the self is not something that one finds. It is something that one creates"- Thomas Szasz
Fast 0
Quote
QuoteWhat's your opinion?
PAC, better than a Cessna, but not as good as a Caravan. PAC is probably a little better than a Porter, but not anywhere close to an Otter, King Air, Casa or Skyvan.
The door is nice and wide, but very short. It's a very unstable aircraft on the ride to altitude. But it's jumpable, and I'll take it over a Cessna any day
You can put more jumpers in the air in any given day with a pac as compared to a caravan.
We fly our PAC loads with around 12 people in them because its more economical. At 15 (the most we ever put in ours) the plane will have less jumps per day than with 12.
Its not fair to compare a PAC to a Super Otter. The Otter is by far the best jumpship in the skydiving fleet. In terms of what a jumper wants. As for what a DZO wants that might not be the case.
I VERY much prefer a PAC over a king air. A king air is smaller inside, has a faster exit speed, smaller door, and costs WAY more to fly. most of them don't get you to altitude that much faster either.
In regards to the CASA, well... There are arguments for each side. I would not want to jump at a DZ that only had casa's and 182s unless the average number of jumpers there on a day was 60. Its a slow ride to altitude and in a given day, I personally could make more money jumping a faster plane. It sure is awesome for a boogie though. I love the plane, its huge inside and tailgaits rock. You can do awesome bigways out of them, high speed passes, easier raft jumps, etc.
As for the skyvan, they are ok, haven't made that many jumps out of one. I personally hate the fact that it is so damn loud.
Why exactly do you say the plane is unstable? I have never experienced that in over 400 jumps from a PAC.
~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
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
QuoteQuoteA smaller turbine will turn with less people (6), so I am positive that this PAC is going to be perfect for those "slightly-busy" days where there is a smaller group of people, but who want to jump their asses off. We shall see.
Has the PAC lived up to expectations?
Positively! It only very-rarely shuts down once loads start going up.
btucker 0
Have there been any issues with tailplane stalls during jumprun / climout?
I can think of only one minor one where the jumpers wheren't to blame.
I can think of only one minor one where the jumpers wheren't to blame.
Blue Dreams Benno
Dumpster 0
QuoteHave there been any issues with tailplane stalls during jumprun / climout?
We haven't had any - As long as the pilot knows he's got a big group exiting, he can usually compensate for it.
Doing 10 ways last Sunday wasn't a problem, we were usually the only ones on the plane. (11 total including video-)
Easy Does It
So what about the Pac now that a couple of years have gone by?
Is it worth the price?
Is it better than a Porter for a DZ owner?
Is it worth the price?
Is it better than a Porter for a DZ owner?
Dumpster 0
This will be our 3rd year with the PAC -
It's very well worth it.
Yes, better than a Porter, both fuel and comfort-wise. Four loads an hour are doable.
Easy Does It
It's very well worth it.
Yes, better than a Porter, both fuel and comfort-wise. Four loads an hour are doable.
Easy Does It
jsaxton 0
Davis CA has two, we turn for 6 and start for 8.
We routinely launch 8way chunks, and beieve me, we are not small guys.
We routinely launch 8way chunks, and beieve me, we are not small guys.
......or those that might have a KA (twin) but are tired of loosing their ass in the expense to opperate one......
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites