RMURRAY 1 #1 February 14, 2007 I saw a classified looking for a small turbine plane and emailed Quest Aircraft about the Kodiak. Here is what I got back. Looks like it will be rivalling the PAC750...... Hi Rob, Thank you for your interest in the KODIAK! There will be a 'parachute' version of the KODIAK as we have depsitors that plan to use it for that very purpose. The details of the modifications have not been finalized. I have attached a preliminary parachute specification list for your interest. Please let me know if I can provide anymore information or be of further assistance. Sincerely, Sarah Gates Sales Assistant [email protected] 208-263-1111 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #2 February 14, 2007 looks pretty interesting, especially the high wings. i wonder what price range they'd be though."Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart." MB4252 TDS699 killing threads since 2001 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #3 February 14, 2007 Nice numbers and it's not as ugly as that fucking PAC! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #4 February 14, 2007 congratulations on the 10,000th thread in this forum! thread hijack over, back to your regular programming. "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
skydog 2 #5 February 14, 2007 RAPA at Bad Lippspringe have bought one for delivery this year. Will be interesting to see how it works out........ BrynJourney not destination..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 99 #6 February 14, 2007 Do you know how jumpers it will hold? By load rating it should be able to hold about 15, but with only 8 normal passenger seats possible, perhaps they won't fit (using the example of a twin otter that can have 20 seats and holds 23 jumpers). The tail is definitely higher/better than on the PAC.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot1 0 #7 February 14, 2007 QuoteNice numbers and it's not as ugly as that fucking PAC! And it doesn't have the "incredible shrinking door" as you are trying to exit. The door on the Kodiak is 50"X50". Be safe Edwww.WestCoastWingsuits.com www.PrecisionSkydiving.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 4 #8 February 14, 2007 where is a link to pics of the actual plane? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
angrypeppers 1 #9 February 14, 2007 http://www.questaircraft.com Click on Kodiak, then Gallery. Looks nice!Burn the land and boil the sea, You can't take the sky from me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kingbunky 3 #10 February 14, 2007 how does the price compare to a PAC? any idea on how other costs will compare? turnaround times?"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart." MB4252 TDS699 killing threads since 2001 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pilotdave 0 #11 February 14, 2007 I don't know if they show a price somewhere else on their site that's more current, but in March of 2006 an article in the press section of their site says "The plane’s current base price is $1.3 million includes a three screen Garmin G1000 avionics suite." That would be about the same price as a PAC750, but I would be very surprised if the price hadn't gone up over the last year. Also that's not the price for a plane outfitted for skydiving, which I would hope would run a little cheaper. Dave Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #12 February 14, 2007 Any idea how this plane compares to a PC-12, Turbo Beaver or a Caravan? Thinking about price, payload, fuel etc... Also, how well they operate as jumpships? From my knowledge, the above listed planes are all in the same league. Hopefully someone has some info. Thanks"When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 615 #13 February 14, 2007 Kodiak is what Cessna's Caravan would look like if it were designed for jumping: bigger engine, bigger wing and smaller cabin. It looks like Kodiaks will carry about 10 jumpers at a time, ideal for a two-Cessna DZ trying to move up. Tandem instructors will love it because it will carry so many - small - loads per day that they will be able to earn serious money. Sure, the numbers may say that a Kodiak can carry more weight, but it would be like trying to stuff 17 into a PAC 750. (Last week at the PIA Symposium) Ray Ferrel assured us that PACs could carry 17, but 12 ... maybe 14 ... looks far more comfortable and practical. Kodiak looks like the perfect size for small DZs that are growing: 10 seats, fixed gear, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #14 February 14, 2007 Anyone know fuel burn for a -34? Specific G for jet A? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #15 February 14, 2007 Too bad it has a PT6 engine... :(The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #16 February 14, 2007 A 750XL can take 16 if you put one in the copilot's seat, ten on the floor and five on the step behind the pilot. This isn't bad if there are no tandems or wingsuits on the load. 17 requires good friendship between all concerned. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #17 February 14, 2007 Why? The PT6 is the most common turbine in the Skydiving industry.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #18 February 14, 2007 QuoteToo bad it has a PT6 engine... :( What's wrong with the PT6? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #19 February 15, 2007 QuoteKodiak is what Cessna's Caravan would look like if it were designed for jumping: bigger engine, bigger wing and smaller cabin. It looks like Kodiaks will carry about 10 jumpers at a time, ideal for a two-Cessna DZ trying to move up. Tandem instructors will love it because it will carry so many - small - loads per day that they will be able to earn serious money. Sure, the numbers may say that a Kodiak can carry more weight, but it would be like trying to stuff 17 into a PAC 750. (Last week at the PIA Symposium) Ray Ferrel assured us that PACs could carry 17, but 12 ... maybe 14 ... looks far more comfortable and practical. Kodiak looks like the perfect size for small DZs that are growing: 10 seats, fixed gear, etc. so it would most likely be flying "light" and the climb rates would be better. nice. What about the rear stabilizer - is that high enough and far enough away for comfort? rm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 99 #20 February 15, 2007 QuoteWhat about the rear stabilizer - is that high enough and far enough away for comfort? Looks pretty high to me, much better than a PAC or King Air, not as high as a Twin Otter.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2fat2fly 0 #21 February 15, 2007 The PT6 is probably up in the most reliable engines out there. It certainly beats those Garretts that are just noise makers that produce thrust as a by-productI am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #22 February 15, 2007 You're not answering . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USPA 0 #23 February 15, 2007 Quote The PT6 is probably up in the most reliable engines out there. But ours quit mid flight, without warning last summer. Just a few hundred hours after the overhaul. Don't know the bells and whistles, just that beginning of january the DZO was still waiting for the report of P&W. Happily the engine quit at 8k, so everyone made it out alive, and the great cessna grand caravan is a great glider, the pilot told me... :DThe trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 137 #24 February 15, 2007 QuoteAny idea how this plane compares to a PC-12, Also, how well they operate as jumpships? From my knowledge, the above listed planes are all in the same league. do you know a PC12 jumpship ?? WHERE WHERE WHERE scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #25 February 15, 2007 QuoteQuoteAny idea how this plane compares to a PC-12, Also, how well they operate as jumpships? From my knowledge, the above listed planes are all in the same league. do you know a PC12 jumpship ?? WHERE WHERE WHERE I'm no expert but the PC12 has retractable landing gear. The Kodiak is designed from the ground up to be a tough bush plane - i.e. a modern replacement for the DHC-2 Beaver and the DHC-3 (single) Otter. Once they are in production, I will ask if they could install the new Trace Engines V8 turbo (600HP), then maybe we could afford one up here in the great white north... rm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
