Quest Kodiak

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:20 pm

Anyone else been paying close attention to it?

Looks to be a solid performer and nearing certification.

They were claiming takeoff distances of 700ft and landing distances similar without reverse! Cruise speeds upto 190kts and much more.

I wonder how long before they put one on floats.

http://www.questaircraft.com/specifications.htm

for those who might want to check it out

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:51 pm

They didn't post a price. =(

I'd stick with the Caravan, it has a history of already falling out of the sky, and I don't want to be the first to do so with a quest...

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:01 pm

I don't think Quest wants the kodiak running around in ICE.

Just look at the performance of the beast! Knocks the caravan flat on its ass! Much more the bushplane than a 208..

I think there are even a couple of videos on the site.

I'll take 3

180 · Post by **180** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:25 pm

A million and change CYYZ.

And their in the midst of getting it certified on Wips too.

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:42 pm

Any word on boards? whether they'll go straight or wheelski?

Popsickle · Post by **Popsickle** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:50 pm

Got a buddy that went for a ride at the unvieling in Alaska. Pilot plus 3 it got off in 300ft, vsi 3000ft/min. don't know the fuel load, but apparently feels like an elevator. Also heard their busy rectifying cracks in the tail at the attach points and not just drill stopping.

MUSICMAAN · Post by **MUSICMAAN** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:35 pm

Looks like it will be a nice plane. It has a similar wing design as the AWT Beaver wing, and that's a nice wing..... But as nice as it is, or will be, Real bush planes have tail wheels!!

SuperDave · Post by **SuperDave** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:30 pm

Yeah...looks like a sweet mashine. Impressive on paper anyway, and having 750 shp for a plane of that size, I would expect nothing less.

Real bush planes have tail wheels!!

let me guess......like the Porter?

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:00 pm

with a power to weight ratio of 9lbs/hp, and wing loading of 28lbs/ft if you put the garrett 100o hp engine on the caravan, I'm sure it would perform pretty close to that too.

Level@3000 · Post by **Level@3000** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:19 am

But, unfortunately, it would still be a Cessna. The key is a Dehavilland wing.

Vortex_driver · Post by **Vortex_driver** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:35 am

right on level@3000

the key for a bush plane is the dehaviland wing.... really thick!!! I'm surprise it can fly 190kts with such a wing... maybe it's a little more aerodynamic than a beaver!!!!!

cheers

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:23 am

I'd prefer a turbo otter myself as well, but it's not ifr. look at the pictures, if that is a dehavilland wing I'll eat your hat. oh BTW - 200 lbs for pilot you have a 3200# load the turbo otter is over 4000, has more interior space, and is actually certified in canada

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:20 am

it isn't certifed in the US eiether. Should happen this spring followed by TC certification

Both Wipline and Aerocet have plans on the drawing board for straight and anphib floats.

Northern Skies · Post by **Northern Skies** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:52 pm

I agree with the T-Otter comments. I don't this thing could touch it. Fast wing, and having a nosewheel is like stubbing your toe on every little rock and rut.

From the website it looks like they made it for JAARS-type humanitarian missions. If so, I dont think it could get anywhere near where their Helio Couriers are going.

However, I'd like to see how it competes with the Caravan. Should be interesting.

ScudRunner · Post by **ScudRunner** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:36 pm

Not quite the same but similar. Anyone flown or operated one of these any thoughts??http://www.gippsaero.com/ZoneID=145.htm

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:11 pm

Ditto on the 3T comments as well - in particular the Garrett. It IS the biggest, baddest SE floater in existance.......they may try, but no one will ever touch it for all round performance and ability at 39 GPH - also very cost effective.

At 80% it's pulling the full power of the PT6 at 100% and even on the hottest blistering days temp is never a problem.

Totally Sweet!!

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:24 am

Two problems with the T-Otter... One.. THEY DON"T BUILD EM ANYMORE! Two... About as aerodynamic as a brick...

I love dehavilland products... but It's time for some new metal out there in the bush as well

I read reports of takeoff roll distances of under 300ft and less that 700 to clear a 50ft obstacle and landing at 250... Can a 208 touch that? How bout the mighty 3T?

Good to hear there are plans for floats, amphibs and skis.

Can someone PM me with takeoff and climb performance for a 3T ?

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:58 am

"About as aerodynamic as a brick... "

That's why it works

135 - 140 mph indicated ain't all that bad, max of course is 144 mph airframe. If you want speed you'll lose performance.

That said, it will be interesting when Baron gets his 208 stol kit cert'd, and tests it on one of Bishops 208 Garretts. The combination might make an airplane out of the 208 but it'll still be a Cessna.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:03 am

Pinocchio wrote:"
That said, it will be interesting when Baron gets his 208 stol kit cert'd, and tests it on one of Bishops 208 Garretts. The combination might make an airplane out of the 208 but it'll still be a Cessna.

SO would you rather fly the "hot wings 208" or try the kodiak?

Id go try the Kodaik.

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:41 am

Pinocchio · Post by **Pinocchio** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:21 pm

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:45 am

look at the specs on the -34 and -135 are 750 flat rated from 886-944 hp. all the numbers for the otter are at gross, if you put in a 700# load and 700# fuel you'll have a power weight ratio of 7.2lbs/hp it too will climb like a raped ape. give me a turbo swine especially with the new loading door, anything else is just an airplane

PT6A-34/34AG

Take-off rating
Thermo ESHP 886
Mechanical SHP 750
Shaft RPM 2200

Service Intervals
Basic HSI (HR) 1750
Basic TBO (HR) 3500
Fleetleader TBO (HR) 6000

-135
PT6A-135A
Take-off rating
Thermo ESHP 944
Mechanical SHP 750
Shaft RPM 1900

Service Intervals
Basic HSI (HR) 1800
Basic TBO (HR) 3600
Fleetleader TBO (HR) 6100

ODA · Post by **ODA** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 5:57 pm

Won't make much of a ski plane with that nose wheel and only one engine!

Rowdy · Post by **Rowdy** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:23 pm

ODA wrote:Won't make much of a ski plane with that nose wheel and only one engine!

Does Anyone still manufacture tail draggers for commercial ops? I thought not.

I got a good look at the gear attach points and damn does it look beefy up front.

As for the choice of engines.. perhaps the pratt was chosen for reasons other than power output and temps?

Wish I had the knowledge that some of you had on actual bush operations with the otters, 208's beavs etc