Thanks Owen,

So as a cash machine the Caravan would win if you could fill it and do min 10 or 15 loads a day

What's there to break on a PAC750 ?

I was amazed with the Porter , the only problem we ever had that stopped a load that I can remember was a dud battery after the DC GPU was pooped out as someone forgot to turn the GPU charger on overnight.

Love the seats in the Austrian Airforce ( i mean AUSTRIAN ) Porter. Good old green canvass. Spent a few years throwing out dumbass skyjockeys that could not appreciate a perfect aeroplane still flying. I almost beat them dumdassess all the way to the ground several times. PILATUS RULES!!!!!

:ok:

The seats the Army put in 689 weren't that comfortable and for me I was at slightly the wrong position for the rudder pedals so at the end of the day I'd have sore calf muscles and ankles as at climb speed with a full load you were constantly making small corrections with the controls to eeek the max rate of climb out of the Porter. The rudder is quite heavy needing lots of right rudder on take off until the speed builds up.

The Porter is easy to fly but to fly it accurately and efficiently on climb you had to work it. I guess that's one of the things I liked about it , it was a bit of a challenge to get the quickest load time for the day.

Another good youtube link (I have to figure out how to embed these :bored: )

YouTube - How close was that plane?

Lyvers got a couple at Mercer near NZAA. ZK-JMP was one of them..it has a very tired Aussie army paint scheme..not sure what its VH reg was. (its got a bigger dash engine now)

NZSkydive Auckland, Bay Of Islands, Queenstown

Ok , that was VH-REL

PC-6 History s/n 693

I never saw that particular aircraft.

Yep, they upgraded the Porter and it's got a PT6A-34 now , with an additonal 200hp over the -20 that would be fun going both up and down.(-34 750shp vs -20 550 shp , -27 is 680 shp )

The -67 out of the PC-12 is a whopping 1,200 shp , wonder if it will ever get to that ?



----

Susi's porters (3) are all new from the factory - one more being presently completed in Switzerland. :ok:

Both Lyvers porters are x-ADF and I believe both are upgraded with the -34's, Porter airframes are only certified for 550hp so power limits are placed as to not over-stress em - the advantage comes with the bigger compressor running cooler and enabaling more power at altitude or a higher altitude before temping out.

As for the caravan/porter/pac debate one must look at their entire operation to make that decision -
ie available runway length (the van likes a little runway)
- sports/tandem, the van/pac get a little aft on the sports loads whereas the porter they exit from below the wing as apposed to down the back,
- pilot ability/availability vans/pacs are conventional whilst one would really want a few hours in a tail dragger before being cut loose in the mighty porter.
- resale value, the world knows/trusts the caravan and one can be sold relatively easily however the porter/pac have a little more specialized markets etc.

anyways enough typing - time for beer:}

p.s - flying round the mountains of Iran-Jaya in a spankin new PC-6 with all the fruit (dual 430's, wx radar etc) is the most fun Ive had in a long time

mmm...super porter:)

:} I would love to see that!

Phil Onus (sydney skydive) has a 850hp turbo Beaver -AAX. I don't know how it compares in size, payload, time to a Porter. It has less wing area and a smaller cab, but a higher empty weight (from generic figures).
I imagine it is still a bit of a beast with that kind of power. Has anyone here flown it?

The world knows/trusts the caravan?

I would venture to suggest the Porter has been around a little longer than the Caravan.

Are the Susi Porters -27 or -34 engines ?

You wouldn't need heaps of tail wheel time , maybe 10 or 20 hrs tailwheel time would be nice as the Porters a bit of a pussycat as far as tailwheels go and has a nice lockable tailwheel.

I did my initial tailwheel on a Pitts S2A about a year before the Porter came along (it was all that was available for training at the time locally) and had a few brown stains on the undies during the Pitts training. I had about 30 hrs of Pitts time (23 hrs solo) when it came to get endorsed on the Porter and the Porter was a lot easier to handle in comparison. It took me 3.5 hrs for the Porter endorsement which was mainly emergency procedures , short field take offs and landings, crosswind landings and lots of circuits until the CAA examiner (who was an ex Army Porter pilot) was happy I had the hang of it.

All of the other Porter pilots at our DZ did their initial tailwheel on the Porter but spent 8 to 12 hrs training as it had to cover their tailwheel training.

If you look at the Porter accidents in the past (excluding fuel and weather) it's usually forgetting to reset the trim before take off where it's a good chance that the Porter will kill you or inadvertently going into flight idle at 30 to 50ft on approach where the Porter would go into a slight beta setting fall out of the air (this happened to VH-CZC and put a big crease in the fuselage).





---

Oh, thats right, I once shifted some corrugated iron water tanks halves to the Kabwum valley from Lae.
To do so both doors were removed, and the tank halves protruded out the sides
I remember thinking at the time, this is dumb, I dont like this.
Was I right? :uhoh:

As for taildragger time before endorsement, I would think nil would be ok, it just doesn't do anything funny.

Tin,

Was there anyone in them?

Think their may have been a few fares :hmm:

The Porter has to be one of the most forgiving tail draggers ever made

The 750XL does have the uncomfortable 'Gippsland Aeronautics' crew seats but I found that a thin cushion behind the lower back works wonders.

Remember that it is still early days for this aircraft to be 'known' as a utility aircraft as opposed to just a skydive/top dressing machine but don't write it off. They are a seriously capable bush machine and the factory has been proactive about listening to their customers and working on shortcomings.

Their numbers are growing in the bush and for good reason. You can take them places you wouldn't dream of taking a Caravan let alone pull a decent load out of the same place!

Check out the videos of it on YouTube operating in PNG and Africa and the factory promo

Pacific Aerospace: P-750 XSTOL Video

Far from being breakable plastic, the thing is tough as nails and I would take a 750XL over a lot of other aircraft for rough bush work. In the hands of an appropriately skilled pilot they can really haul.

Watched the videos and there's one scene (video 1 4min 40 sec) where the PAC has the cockpit canopy clamshells open , looked like a NZ built propellor driven Pig (f-111) , perhaps we could rename the PAC the 'Bush Pig' :)

want a turbine, with good STOL capability, check out the Quest Kodiak. looks like the mutant offspring of a Caravan and an airvan

AussieNick, the Kokiak looks good but from all evidence so far the 750XL can STILL carry more load from short, high altitude strips. Low wing more practical for drum refueling, 750XL cargo pod more practical with a 'back' door for loading long/wide items into the pod etc. Kodiak a little quicker maybe. Horses for courses.