Islander Performance Questions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Islander Performance Questions
Quick question for those of you that have done some work with BN-2's. We are looking at the possibility of bringing one into a local skydiving operation, and I had a few questions about them.
In particular (as one would expect in a skydiving operation) I need some information about time and fuel to climb to 9,000 to 11,000 feet. Chances are we'd be operating near max gross (five tandem jumpers).
If anyone has some general information about operating the Islander, what it costs to run, or suggest something else--particularly with reference to skydiving--please let me know.
Thanks!
In particular (as one would expect in a skydiving operation) I need some information about time and fuel to climb to 9,000 to 11,000 feet. Chances are we'd be operating near max gross (five tandem jumpers).
If anyone has some general information about operating the Islander, what it costs to run, or suggest something else--particularly with reference to skydiving--please let me know.
Thanks!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have over 1000 hrs of BN2 flying but those number are long gone from my grey matter. However, there is a skydiving club in Canada that used to use an Islander. Try contacting them for your info.
Skydiving , Parachuting Grand Bend Ontario
cheers
tf
Skydiving , Parachuting Grand Bend Ontario
cheers
tf
I'm a huge Islander fan with over a 1000hrs on it too...... but I'd think about a Caravan or dare I say an AN2!! Watched an AN2 the other day in Sweden lifting huge loads. I suppose only thing is a climb to 9000ft is days not minutes!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Euroland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown the Islander in Sky dive ops and it took us in average 25 min to reach 13 000 ft with full load = 8-10 jumpers.... so anticipate something between 20-25 min. But on a warm day you would never reach 13k ft so we had a limit of 25 min flying and then drop the jumpers whatever altitude you had gained.
I cant remember exact how much fuel we burned but I do remember that 2 lifts to full altitude and then refueling was a standard. Of course if you dropped them at a lower level you could probably make 3-4 rounds. But the most limiting aspect was the MTOM as you could never take more than around 220 liters in total fuel with 10 people.
Its an awesome airplane to fly from a pilot point of view but as a Skydiving club today I would look for something else as I remember it to be a rather expensive machine with weak performance to operate. Look for a turbine A/C which can do more rotations in the same time span.
I cant remember exact how much fuel we burned but I do remember that 2 lifts to full altitude and then refueling was a standard. Of course if you dropped them at a lower level you could probably make 3-4 rounds. But the most limiting aspect was the MTOM as you could never take more than around 220 liters in total fuel with 10 people.
Its an awesome airplane to fly from a pilot point of view but as a Skydiving club today I would look for something else as I remember it to be a rather expensive machine with weak performance to operate. Look for a turbine A/C which can do more rotations in the same time span.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly the BN2A Islander for parachute ops in the UK. Full loads out of a 600m grass strip no problem (500' amsl <25 C). Took about 30 mins to 10,000 and back without shock cooling/overstressing it.
Great machine to fly - V stable and does most things at 60 kts (Vy, Vref). 4 to 5 loads between fuel stops burning about 1litre/min per side on average.
However, maintenance costs can be high- it has to have a major strip-down every 3 years which runs to many 1000's and spares, particularly gear parts and brakes can be hard to come by. My old club now uses a Caravan which is proving a much more cost-effective option.
Great machine to fly - V stable and does most things at 60 kts (Vy, Vref). 4 to 5 loads between fuel stops burning about 1litre/min per side on average.
However, maintenance costs can be high- it has to have a major strip-down every 3 years which runs to many 1000's and spares, particularly gear parts and brakes can be hard to come by. My old club now uses a Caravan which is proving a much more cost-effective option.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the great responses!
The reason the islander seems to fit the bill is that it has lower fixed cost than most turbine options. The operation would probably be looking at 1000 to 2000 jumps per year (mostly tandems), which does not provide a lot of flights to spread fixed costs over compared to really active operations. If I could figure out how to make the numbers work for a turbine like a C208 I would!
The AN-2 is something I toyed with, but I have no clue how maintenance issues would be addressed for a US operation, and I believe most of them operate under an experimental certificate in the US--thus no commercial ops. A few built in Western Europe are certified in the US, but it seems these have a price premium--and doesn't answer the maintenance question. Plus, its thirsty!
From whats been posted, it sounds like a 30 minute block to 10k would be doable in standard conditions, but hot days might add a couple more minutes to that. One thing I did not ask--how much of a difference between the 260hp and 300hp models?
The maintenance checks every three years sounds like it could be an issue, especially if my local mechanic can't perform all the work. The main selling point of the Islander seems to be its simplicity--closer to a 182 than its fellow big piston twins--so this surprises me. If you have any more information, please let me know. I'd imagine Britten-Norman might be able to shed some light on it as well, but I like to know as much as possible before going in so I can pick their brains effectively!
The reason the islander seems to fit the bill is that it has lower fixed cost than most turbine options. The operation would probably be looking at 1000 to 2000 jumps per year (mostly tandems), which does not provide a lot of flights to spread fixed costs over compared to really active operations. If I could figure out how to make the numbers work for a turbine like a C208 I would!
The AN-2 is something I toyed with, but I have no clue how maintenance issues would be addressed for a US operation, and I believe most of them operate under an experimental certificate in the US--thus no commercial ops. A few built in Western Europe are certified in the US, but it seems these have a price premium--and doesn't answer the maintenance question. Plus, its thirsty!
From whats been posted, it sounds like a 30 minute block to 10k would be doable in standard conditions, but hot days might add a couple more minutes to that. One thing I did not ask--how much of a difference between the 260hp and 300hp models?
The maintenance checks every three years sounds like it could be an issue, especially if my local mechanic can't perform all the work. The main selling point of the Islander seems to be its simplicity--closer to a 182 than its fellow big piston twins--so this surprises me. If you have any more information, please let me know. I'd imagine Britten-Norman might be able to shed some light on it as well, but I like to know as much as possible before going in so I can pick their brains effectively!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TUPilot
I have just dug out a maintenance quote that I received from Britten Norman back in 2005. The work would have been done by them according to their schedule, MS1:
50 hrs check £350.00
100 hrs check £2,275.00
500 hrs check £5,250.00
Props every 6 years @ £2,500.00 per side
The SB 190 is the major check that I mentioned before. It is a general airframe structural corrosion audit involving internal inspections, removal of control surfaces, access panels etc. It needs to be done every 2 years and I was advised to allow £5,590.00 per annum for it.
All prices were plus VAT at 17.5% in those days
By the way, ours was the 300hp model
For more info. direct from the factory, try: [email protected] (if he still works there).
I have just dug out a maintenance quote that I received from Britten Norman back in 2005. The work would have been done by them according to their schedule, MS1:
50 hrs check £350.00
100 hrs check £2,275.00
500 hrs check £5,250.00
Props every 6 years @ £2,500.00 per side
The SB 190 is the major check that I mentioned before. It is a general airframe structural corrosion audit involving internal inspections, removal of control surfaces, access panels etc. It needs to be done every 2 years and I was advised to allow £5,590.00 per annum for it.
All prices were plus VAT at 17.5% in those days
By the way, ours was the 300hp model
For more info. direct from the factory, try: [email protected] (if he still works there).
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS
We looked at the Antonov and I even had a go in one. It's a beast but with a 1000hp radial up front and the drag profile of an office block it was slow to climb to altitude and drank more oil than Avgas. Pretty labour intensive to operate but cheap to buy and a good lifter. However, it is a taildragger and I seem to remember that the demonstrated crosswind limit was in the order of 10 KTS!
Probably best use for the AN2 would be for low level static line drops.
We looked at the Antonov and I even had a go in one. It's a beast but with a 1000hp radial up front and the drag profile of an office block it was slow to climb to altitude and drank more oil than Avgas. Pretty labour intensive to operate but cheap to buy and a good lifter. However, it is a taildragger and I seem to remember that the demonstrated crosswind limit was in the order of 10 KTS!
Probably best use for the AN2 would be for low level static line drops.
I know it's not a piston and may have higher acquisition costs, but wouldn't a PAC 750XSTOL be a bit cheaper in the long run? I suspect it might be cheaper to buy than a C208, perhaps significantly cheaper if the exchange rate is favourable. Single engine turbine so no great worries about shock cooling. According to the sales comparison spreadsheet available from their website it's significantly cheaper than a C208 and the other turboprops commonly used for skydiving. The US agent also quotes about 15 mins round trip to 13,000'.
Pacific Aerospace: Description
Pacific Aerospace: Description
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 14th Sep 2009 at 17:54.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: US
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PAC750 is a great airframe, but the simple fact is that you need a very high ops tempo to make a turbine aircraft more economical than a piston one. This aircraft will spend most of its life on the ground--the operation is seasonal, and it will work mainly on weekends. If we did 5000 jumps a year the PAC would be awesome, but economically I just don't see how to make it work on 1,500 per year.
apruneuk, thanks for those numbers. Thats a great help! I'll contact BN, and see if any other US operators of the Islander can let me know what they do.
apruneuk, thanks for those numbers. Thats a great help! I'll contact BN, and see if any other US operators of the Islander can let me know what they do.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another option might be the Airvan. It looks like it fits your profile perfectly. As a single it is cheaper to operate but has equal performance to the Islander.
The figures for the Islander you are looking for follow. I have flown both the Piston 300hp and Turbine versions. If you want the Turbine numbers let me know.
Empty Weight 4,900
MTOW 6,600
Cruise at 8k = 128kts
Stall 50kts
Take off run 700ft
ROC 1100fpm
It has IO540 engines and they use about 55lph per side. Time to climb to 10k is about 16 minutes.
It is a nice aircraft to fly, slow and leisurely! Asymmetric work is tough on the leg and you have to get cleaned up quickly in the event of an engine failure. The turbine version is a much better performer not to different in operating costs but cheaper on fuel and around 7 minutes to 10k.
The figures for the Islander you are looking for follow. I have flown both the Piston 300hp and Turbine versions. If you want the Turbine numbers let me know.
Empty Weight 4,900
MTOW 6,600
Cruise at 8k = 128kts
Stall 50kts
Take off run 700ft
ROC 1100fpm
It has IO540 engines and they use about 55lph per side. Time to climb to 10k is about 16 minutes.
It is a nice aircraft to fly, slow and leisurely! Asymmetric work is tough on the leg and you have to get cleaned up quickly in the event of an engine failure. The turbine version is a much better performer not to different in operating costs but cheaper on fuel and around 7 minutes to 10k.
If it helps, PAC have a detailed comparison spreadsheet you can download that lets you play around with the numbers to find costs, breakevens and the like for a range of aircraft. You could easily add a BN2 to a column. Obviously they're trying to sell their aircraft but that doesn't stop you using the underlying matrix for yourself for other types.
I had a brief play with it and it looks useful - enough that I'm going to use it as a base for my own spreadsheet of operating costs. Not for parachute ops but generally.
Later...
Turns out the spreadsheet is on PAC's US distributor, Utility Aircraft. That's what I get for not paying much attention to the manufacturer's links.
Utility Aircraft Corporation
I had a brief play with it and it looks useful - enough that I'm going to use it as a base for my own spreadsheet of operating costs. Not for parachute ops but generally.
Later...
Turns out the spreadsheet is on PAC's US distributor, Utility Aircraft. That's what I get for not paying much attention to the manufacturer's links.
Utility Aircraft Corporation
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 15th Sep 2009 at 20:16.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Channel Islands
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the guy who suggested a Trislander - do you really suggest jumping out of a plane when there is still an engine behind you?
Saw an Airvan in Guernsey a week ago doing parachute drops - looked cheap and cheerful - may be worth a closer look.
Saw an Airvan in Guernsey a week ago doing parachute drops - looked cheap and cheerful - may be worth a closer look.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken me anywhere from 10min-30min to get BN2s up to 10,000, from sea-level and about 30 celcius.
Both Carby and Injected versions.
A lot depends on your weight- heavier you'd want to take a faster airspeed for that bit of extra cooling.
I've flown ones that stay beautifully in the middle of the green range for oil temp no matter what you do, to others wanting to poke the high caution end if i went any slower than about 95kts through the air- i didnt like those ones!!!
Plan to burn about 130L/hr for the climb- it probably averages less than that though.
Having been in about half a dozen different Bongos-
The hate list:
the extended wingtip/tank versions.
the landing weight limited versions.
the seating posture (im not even 6ft and often managed to be cramped by the roof because some seats were slightly higher than others!).
the bloody noise!
The things I love:
the short field performance!
the stability.
it is very simple and unforgiving.
strangely, the bouncing section of panel that holds the primary 6 instruments. its just so stupid i find it funny!
big doors- carried some decent fatties that would have struggled to physically get into other aircraft.
Definately look for the lightest possible BN2, ive seen their empty weights range over 200kg.
And just remember, 65kts is the magic speed!
Both Carby and Injected versions.
A lot depends on your weight- heavier you'd want to take a faster airspeed for that bit of extra cooling.
I've flown ones that stay beautifully in the middle of the green range for oil temp no matter what you do, to others wanting to poke the high caution end if i went any slower than about 95kts through the air- i didnt like those ones!!!
Plan to burn about 130L/hr for the climb- it probably averages less than that though.
Having been in about half a dozen different Bongos-
The hate list:
the extended wingtip/tank versions.
the landing weight limited versions.
the seating posture (im not even 6ft and often managed to be cramped by the roof because some seats were slightly higher than others!).
the bloody noise!
The things I love:
the short field performance!
the stability.
it is very simple and unforgiving.
strangely, the bouncing section of panel that holds the primary 6 instruments. its just so stupid i find it funny!
big doors- carried some decent fatties that would have struggled to physically get into other aircraft.
Definately look for the lightest possible BN2, ive seen their empty weights range over 200kg.
And just remember, 65kts is the magic speed!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Around the bend.
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BN2 Checklist.Info
Hey Guys, Have been looking all over the net with no luck, can anyone tell me where I can find some speed peformance data, powersettings and checlist for the BN2 Islander? Cheers. Will be joining the Bongo train soon 
