skydiverek 63 #1 March 31, 2005 Check the photos of Beech Super King Air 200 below. Look at the location of tail wing - why arn't all jump aircraft built like this? We would have far fewer, if any, tail strikes and tail wraps if such design was used more widely. I understand aerodynamics and engeenering issues, but it always amazed me that PAC 750, which was build FOR skydiving, has one of the lowest tail wings I have ever seen. Is it super difficult to build planes with such high (and safe) tail wing? Photos: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/805728/M/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/804734/M/ http://www.airliners.net/open.file/803719/M/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #2 March 31, 2005 QuoteLook at the location of tail wing - why arn't all jump aircraft built like this? Because the jump plane market is WAY to small to specialize aircraft just for us. Quotebut it always amazed me that PAC 750, which was build FOR skydiving, has one of the lowest tail wings I have ever seen. What does that tell you? Maybe it wasn't built for jumpers but cargo...they just saw a nitch and tried to market it. If it was built just for jumping, they would have raised the tail! There was a King Air 200 flying in the mid 90's. If I remember correctly the pilot/owner was Dave Norcutt. AWESOME PLANE!!! Had a HUGE "deck" on the out side and you could float 14 and a decent size BBQ grill out there! Unfortunately it's a high dollar item, and skydiving has trouble paying for a plane like this. I believe when he tried to get it part 135 certified the FAA didn't like the patio on the side and wouldn't clear it till it was gone. I think he sold it soon after that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tsisson 0 #3 March 31, 2005 Was that the same King Air 200 that was operating out of Marana? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
divnswoop 0 #4 March 31, 2005 QuoteWas that the same King Air 200 that was operating out of Marana? I don't know...He worked the boogie circut for a while and did the brazil boogie. I know he was out that way......I haven't heard of another 200 flying jumpers anywhere else though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #5 April 1, 2005 I don't mean to insult PAC, because I love that they are catering to skydiving at the factory, but it is my personal, non-aerospace-engineering opinion that the PAC 750 XL is a variant on an agricultural plane (the Cresco) that has been tweaked and fitted with (important) add-ons to make it ready to use for skydiving when it rolls out of the factory - it is not a plane that was designed specifically for skydiving from the very start. On a separate note, does your understanding of aerodynamics suggest that a high horizontal stabilizer is better or worse for maintaining good control at low airspeed when the CG trends toward the door? And with engineering issues, is this kind of a tail more expensive, heavier, more difficult to inspect, or prone to more failures of any kind? (Personally I have no idea.) -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #6 April 1, 2005 My aerospace engineering opinion agrees with you completely. High tails have advantages and disadvantages. Structurally, it's usually a disadvantage because the vertical tail must be made stronger to support it. But since it sits outside the wake of the fuselage/wings in cruise, it can often be made smaller, saving weight. At the same time, since it's outside of the downwash from the wing (as opposed to the wing/stab arrangement cessna singles), it has to generate more down force on it's own to counter the negative (nose down) pitching moment of the wing. In a stall, a high horizontal stabilizer may be sitting right in the turbulent wake from the wing/fuselage, reducing it's effectiveness to get the plane out of the stall. Because of the structural issues and the stall issue, you don't often see high tails on aerobatic planes. You mostly see them on airliners, etc, which can take better advantage of the weight savings of a smaller stabilizer without needing a huge beefup of the tail since they won't be pulling a lot of Gs, and they're also very unlikely to ever be stalled. High tails also require more complex routing of control cables, and like you said are harder to inspect/maintain. A jump plane is more likely to be stalled, but it's all a tradeoff. If someone was designing a plane from scratch to be used for jumping, they surely would keep the tail high enough that it couldn't be hit. A twin otter uses a cruciform tail....halfway in between a t-tail and a low tail. It's a tradeoff. But the position of the tail is just one of many factors that come into an aircraft design. On a jump plane, a high tail is sort of a must. So you design the rest of the plane to compensate as necessary. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 April 1, 2005 A while back, I jumped a King Air 200 in Clewiston. It had an outside floater rail that went way up. I can't remember how many we floated. There was a pic of a cameraman standing on the tail. I think it cost him a bit when the wrong person saw the pic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #8 April 1, 2005 The door is still a King Air door... too small.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #9 April 1, 2005 QuoteA while back, I jumped a King Air 200 in Clewiston. It had an outside floater rail that went way up. I can't remember how many we floated. There was a pic of a cameraman standing on the tail. I think it cost him a bit when the wrong person saw the pic. I believe that was Orly King at Quincy during WFFC..."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #10 April 1, 2005 QuoteWhat does that tell you? Maybe it wasn't built for jumpers but cargo...they just saw a nitch and tried to market it. If it was built just for jumping, they would have raised the tail! It was. As an elarge extention of an established design. It's not an easy thing to simply change the design of one element of an A/C.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #11 April 1, 2005 QuoteWas that the same King Air 200 that was operating out of Marana? No, I don't think so, Marana has a King Air 100, I believe."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #12 April 1, 2005 QuoteThe door is still a King Air door... too small. I believe there are cargo versions with a nearly Otter sized door. I know Beech 99's are like that (which are based off of the KA airframe).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #13 April 1, 2005 QuoteI believe there are cargo versions with a nearly Otter sized door. I know Beech 99's are like that (which are based off of the KA airframe). As you say it's a Beach 99, but not a KA.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #14 April 1, 2005 QuoteAs you say it's a Beach 99, but not a KA. I could have sworn I've seen 200-series KAs being sold with cargo doors...--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #15 April 1, 2005 QuoteThe door is still a King Air door... too small. I haven't floated on a KA in a while, but we usually put out 4. On this plane, it seems like we had 10 out - some up on the wing. Wish I could find a pic. We did a successful 8-way the first time and then more people wanted to join. The organizer sighed and said, "Just because we now have 16, doesn't mean we won't be still doing 8-way." We did another 8-way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #16 April 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe door is still a King Air door... too small. I haven't floated on a KA in a while, but we usually put out 4. On this plane, it seems like we had 10 out - some up on the wing. Wish I could find a pic. We did a successful 8-way the first time and then more people wanted to join. The organizer sighed and said, "Just because we now have 16, doesn't mean we won't be still doing 8-way." We did another 8-way. I once chunked a 7 way out of Mullin's KA. Didn't even think it was possible, but we did it. Hung 5 out and 2 in the door, with me last out, reaching over the little lady in the door and gripping the chest strap of the guy doing the count. "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #17 April 1, 2005 Quotereaching over the little lady in the door and gripping the chest strap of the guy doing the count. I can't believe I've never seen that. On a DC-3, we always just put 3 in the door. The people on the outside had exciting grips on the harness or legstraps. I learn something new every day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DancingFlame 0 #18 April 1, 2005 QuoteIs it super difficult to build planes with such high (and safe) tail wing? No it's not. But there is better way. Look at Antonov An-28 with a tailgate. Now THAT is THE plane for skydiving Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #19 April 1, 2005 QuoteAs you say it's a Beach 99, but not a KA. Well, I just got back to the computer from a fun evening and thought you'd like to learn a little something. http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=328 This is from that site: QuoteThe improved B200 entered production in May 1980, this version features more efficient PT6A42 engines, increased zero fuel max weight and increased cabin pressurisation. Sub variants include the B200C with a 1.32m x 1.32m (4ft 4in x 4ft 4in) cargo door, the B200T with removable tip tanks, and the B200CT with tip tanks and cargo door. The Special Edition B200SE was certificated in October 1995 and features an EFIS avionics suite as standard. I knew I wasn't crazy and I knew they were out there. Now, are they practical for skydiving? Well, its still just a King Air and those versions are still just as expensive as an Otter which will hold more people and have much shorter take off distances as well as stall speeds...not to mention a fixed gear which helps keep maintance costs down (as well as insurance costs since basically the major insurance agency refuses to write new polices for jump planes based on the King Air airframe (Beech 99 included)).--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annna 0 #20 April 1, 2005 We just got back from an awesome Easter boogie at Empuriabrava (Spain) and did lots from this phenomenally stunning Beech KingAir (who knows!?) but looked like the prev picture and went like a rocket. You could also, as has been mentioned, get practically the entire load outside with huge step and float handles. Wild plane i want one. No ideal if its a permanent feature at Empuria or not i';m afraid .... but jump one if u can ;-0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
koz2000 1 #21 April 1, 2005 You're right about the cargo door.______________________________________________ - Does this small canopy make my balls look big? - J. Hayes - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
namgrunt 0 #22 April 1, 2005 warning my spyware progran says opening first pic has hidden virus or spyware warning59 YEARS,OVERWEIGHT,BALDIND,X-GRUNT LAST MIL. JUMP VIET-NAM(QUAN-TRI) www.dzmemories.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
adamsr 0 #23 April 1, 2005 all you need is a plane with a tailgate, no chance of hitting the tail then!! low tails can help if a canopy opens in the door, have seen a video of a guy floating on a proter, his reserve pops, and he gets dragged over the top of the tail missing it completely. that same situation on an otter and his canopy would probably have got caught on the tail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #24 April 1, 2005 But an otter can fly with a canopy hanging from the stabilizer... A porter's stabilizer would be ripped off. That guy (and the pilot, etc) got LUCKY. Both videos: http://www.skydivingmovies.com/ver2/pafiledb.php?action=search&search=do&string=wffc_2004_canopy_accident.mpg%20overthetop&searchtype=anywords&click=1 Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #25 April 1, 2005 Look at the C-130; it is all in the fuselage design, not the tail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
