steve wrote:Skydive 206, that sounds like a perfectly worthy fantasy with the house boat, and you are within range of the Lake of the Ozarks, a great place to operate out of.

When in Florida several years ago, the people we were staying with showed us a video they made of parachuting from their Aerocet float equipped C180. The camera man was in one float compartment taking video and the guy parachuting was in the other float compartment. No doubt a perfectly legal operation, don't think that one probably made it to utube.

Steve

One year at the Greenville Fly In in Maine, one of the float Beavers flew around with guys in the float lockers. I understand the pilot was "counseled" by the appropriate government agency . I don't think there's been a repeat, at least there, anyway.

MTV

I did the Greenville Seaplane fly in one year. Camped in the 206 4 nights, had dinner, campfire and watched home movies with Max Folsum.

Skydive I am pretty sure I met you at Greenville only a few years ago. I have the video of the guys in the float lockers.There were some wild times there in years past.It's still a great time but a little tamer.With good weather a lot of people show up.We go every year and it's always fun.MTV you should come sometime.

Bill

Stalls and falls

Great mod ! Wouldnt a -21 burn less fuel and be a better engine?
Your going to need flint tanks with this.

skymarc wrote:Great mod ! Wouldnt a -21 burn less fuel and be a better engine?
Your going to need flint tanks with this.

Put the airglass 800 nose gear for more clearance.

The -21 could be a great option but in my case I have 3 -20s. Some discussion has been the single piece inlet guide vanes assy are getting really expensive. Right now with my limited flight exp with the plane I am trying to get the plane as high as I can without getting sleepy to get the GG speed up to improve fuel efficiency. First X-country 45kt headwinds. Would the -21 turn slower GG with the same PT stator class?
MT, I talked to Wipaire and the 3800lb gross increase is for the 550 (performance) and 3450 floats. No wing-x or other mods. They said they flight tested for the float STC and gross upgrade. The company doing the conversion / STC on my 206 is working on our flight test program approval now and the Gross increase based on performance has been discussed. All my aircraft have Sportsman STOL / Wing X so my performance is improved. Right now Gross stalls flaps 40 (Sportsman, Wing X, Superdroops) are at 40mph ias and only mushes. Pitot Test boom is installed but airframe and test boom need leak test certification. I can remove the wing x and do the flight test with standard tips but my sportsman will remain.
Got my aircraft home finally and a big relief.

With limited fuel and high flows, are you going to be comfortable hot fueling? If not, cycles may hose you. Single point fueling an option?

MTV

The goal will be 3 skydiving flights between fueling. I am ok with hot fueling and I believe trained personnel, ladder with rail, pilot use of beta or feather during fueling will make that a usable solution. Some airports do not allow hot fueling so yes the cycle count would be an issue. I believe the Soloys Hot section cycle count is more restrictive than the PT6 in the skydiving application. The company doing my conversion sells a single point system for Ag airplanes. To get a real benefit you would have to put the refueling point aft of the wing strut down low below the floor line. Right now I am trying to reduce weight.

I think you should do the STC with Flint tips to get the extra fuel and 3800 higher gross.
As much as I like the ART tips, this conversion will need more fuel capacity.

It might be hard to had after. Can you had the -21 engine on the STC ?
Are you looking at selling and commercialing this STC once its approved?

Ok I see Flint as the tips approved on the C206 with jet fuel.
Would this STC work with your engine STC?

http://flintaero.com/kits/turbine-cessn ... 206-f-h-2/
P

In the US it is up to the IA to ensure that multiple STCs work together.

The Flint tips would work to extend fuel range and give you more span......BUT, Flints require a lot of monkey motion to use....run fuel from left main tank down, switch to right tank. Pump fuel from left tip to left main. Switch tanks to left main, pump from right tip to right main, etc.

That'll be a lot of thrashing around while hauling jumpers, but cross country would help.

MTV

http://youtu.be/7vh3yrmOHek
I just quickly put it up on the platform so it is shaky. I thought I would put something up.

When I did my stint last month training some skydive pilots in the Caravan, we did hot re-fueling, overwing and hot loading of the jumpers. We did put the prop in feather and had a human stand between the cargo doors and the prop. The fueling on the Caravan is further out than the 206, so it was a non-issue.

I had both a Soloy 206 and a 207. Both with the extra tanks installed, not flints. They where in the outer portion of the wing, gravity feed to the mains. The 207 came with a gross weight increase, but the 206 not so. The Allison is a cycle limited engine, much like the PT-6. The difference is the Allison has its own built in cycle counter, where the PT6 uses the honor system. Pratt figures engine costs on about 1.2-1.5 cycles to the hour. The Allison about 1-1.2. The economics work out with the Allison being a bit cheaper, since Pratt has become a bit proud of their overhaul parts as of late. Not like Allison (Rolls Royce) is exactly giving them away, but they are a bit more reasonable. I have not personally, had really good luck with PMA parts on the PT-6, so that effort tin cost reduction is more of a fools errand.

So if you can get three loads per hour up to 17,500' and try to get 1.2 cycles to the hour, your doing well. The best I did in the Caravan was 18 minutes round trip if I had no hop and pop on board (which added about 3 minutes to the rotation).

Some observations from flying the PT6 U206. Right now Im almost always at gross so landings are not my normal empty after dropping skydivers. My strip is 1400ft but you must hit the touchdown point within +100/-20ft. With the piston the throttle response makes this easier. Even putting the PT6 at 65-70% GG the response time is slower than I am used to. This engine I am using came out of a King Air 90 so it is classed for higher altitudes and by re classing it to lower alt performance I may have a faster response time. Only 20 landings or so so maybe I have time to improve and adapt.

Speaking of slow throttle response I encountered this C206 turbine again at a fishing camp in northern Ontario. The owner had a prop strike when after pushing off from the dock the wind turned the plane back toward the dock before he could spool up the engine and get the prop blades out of flat configuration. It was a minor prop strike, but that's all it takes. He replaced the original three blade prop with a five blade one because the blades are shorter and gives him more ground/water clearance.



Five blade prop.

Hartzell makes a flat pitch lock prop for that application. I do not know if MT does but my next prop for the PT6-206 may be the MT for the weight. That prop in the photos was expensive if I remember, +50K? I have been flying an Amphib 182 on my days off, been a long time since I have been boating and I have litte float plane time but doing ok in good conditions. My fantasy was to have put this plane on floats but I may already be board flying from bar to bar and only drinking water.

Today during flight test. Aircraft at 3600# gross for takeoff, Climb to 23,000 ft. 500fpm through 22,000 ft msl @ 660C ITT, 265hp at that altitude. Got stopped a couple of times on my IFR climb so time to climb and fuel used data skewed. Wanted to go to FL240 but couldnt get approval. At FL230 165kts TAS at 22gph with large tires.

Feds finally signed the STC. Waiting for it in the mail.