Question from skydiver who knows very little about planes

Posted by Affectionate-Brick77@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 10 comments

Apologies if this is the wrong sub to ask. I recently heard from a buddy that he avoids drop zones with king airs as they are more dangerous in the case that an engine goes out, as compared to an Otter or pac-750. I assume this is because the king air engines produce more power and the asymmetry would be harder to recover from. Is there any truth to this? I’m sure it comes down to who is flying the plane, but say I have the option of flying in a pac-750 or king air - am I better off in the pac in the case of an engine going out on takeoff? Thanks

[-]

Gripe@reddit

i'm gonna guess he feels he has less options for his maneouvering in that state and that he might have to plow thru the drop zone? one would think to give a wide enough space around the zone to begin with is the answer

[-]

L0stAlbatr0ss@reddit

Given equally adequate training and experience in the pilot department, it shouldn’t matter what plane you’re in as far as suitability for passengers.

Otter has a high wing, which could reduce chances of wings catching things on landing and spinning the wreck. Also, fixed gear designed for unimproved surfaces rather than retractable gear on the KA.

The PAC is the newest aircraft in the skydiving realm, and was purpose built to do the thing. The PT-6 is a very reliable power plant.

If your concern is maintenance, it pays to remember that an operation that owns its aircraft, also owns the maintenance bills associated. Leased aircraft problems belong to the aircraft owner, who has a vested interest in avoiding down time and wrongful death lawsuits.

[-]

ContributionEasy6513@reddit

If you have an engine failure on takeoff in a single engine pac-750, you are going to crash!
On a King-Air, a good pilot and operator will limp around the pattern.

The only problems I've heard of with King Air's often relates to inexperienced pilots pushing limits and poor safety culture with the Jump Company. Yes there is debate if a single vs multi-engine aircraft is safer, however I've never heard of a multi-engine pilot with an engine failure wish he was in a single, or a single engine's pilot glad not to be in a multi-engine aircraft in a similar failure.

The PT6 turbine engine in the King Airs, Twin Otters (from memory) and probably the pac are incredibly reliable.
Far Far Far more reliable than a little piston powered Cessna 182 or 206.

[-]

samnfty@reddit

I don't know much about the PAC-750, but if it's anything like most single engine planes, it just turns into a very inefficient glider. If you're close enough to a safe landing area, you can easily land it, and not crash. I would recommend not making that association as a certainty.

[-]

ContributionEasy6513@reddit

Fully loaded with skydivers on take-off, the glide-distance is about that of a regular household brick.

You are 'crash' landing into whatever is 30' left or right of the nose, if we want to be politically correct we could say 'forced landing'. Sure it might be survivable, buts its going to be rough.

Once you have a few thousand feet, sure, options exist.

Both are safe aircraft.

[-]

samnfty@reddit

Ya know what, I missed where you said "on takeoff." So, in your scenario, yeah, that is actually valid. Though, I like "forced landing" over "crash" any day of the week.

[-]

GGCRX@reddit

Some jump companies play fast and loose with maintenance requirements. I'd be much more interested in examining how well the planes are maintained and then go with the one with the best condition planes.

My one worry is that a twin turboprop is going to be a lot more expensive to fly and maintain than a single engine piston. Jump schools often operate on shoestring budgets, so I'd probably pay extra attention to make sure it wasn't falling apart because they couldn't afford to maintain it.

[-]