C-208 Caravan

[the cool one]

Hello;

I am a newby on this forum. I hold a lapsed pilot licence. Once a pilot always a pilot!

I didn't see any search window to see if a similar tread was started elsewhere. If there is another similar tread going please feel free to delete this posting and tranfer my question there.

I am interested to get hands on information about this type of aircraft. I will travel on type soon and except for a picture I know very little about it. I am especially interested to have some info regarding some reading I did. Apparently this type has a long history of not being clouds/ice friendly. Are the rumors true?

Out of ten how would you rate this A/C type vis-a-vis others of similar size?

Is there any pilot who are flying it now or have in the past and what is/are your comment(s) with regard to my above question/concern.

Thank you

[Youngback]

Well the Caravan is a great aircraft but it depends on what you are comparing it against. It is a great aircraft in its niche. As far as flying it in the bush and hauling people and parts to remote and otherwise inaccessible areas, I believe it is second to none. In addition to going into small strips in remote areas, it gets you there comfortably, hauls a big load (freight or 9 people and a lot of luggage) and is extremely reliable.
On the other hand, for travelling long distances, the Caravan isn't so great. It isn't pressurized, which (unless you have oxygen) more often than not puts you in the worst weather or, in BC, in the rocks. It doesn't go very fast and isn't as efficient or quiet inside as other aircraft of similar size which were designed for fast, point to point travel. Caravans do have a bad rap in ice. I have flown Caravans in icing conditions. When its limits are respected, it is a safe aircraft. However, many times I have flown other aircraft in icing conditions that I would never take a Caravan into.

Bush airplane, I'd rate it an 8-9 (theres always room for improvement)
Pavement to Pavement charter airplane, around a 5 I guess. The customers I've flown around in this situation seem to like going high where its smooth and they get where they are going fast. Not Caravan strong points.

[phillyfan]

As a float plane. It ranks just ahead of a 206. Takeoff runs too long. Seats are a son of a bitch to put in and take out, fueling from fuel caches means you have to do a sketchy climb up onto the wing and the airplane is built out of plastic and tinfoil.

[SuperDave]

I'd have to agree with most things said here. It's good on almost all surfaces. I've landed on ice, grass, pavement, water, crushed rocks..it's all good. I can't think of it as a true bush plane though, as I don't think it would do well in a real off-strip scenerio on wheels...it's no deHavilland...plastic on the inside and stuff, but it does OK. And it does VERY well for what it was designed for.

They are common almost everywhere. Cheap and reliable to run, and as mentioned will haul a small army. With the upgross kit to 9062 lbs I remember the max load we could put inside the cabin due to the zero fuel weight was 3375 lbs! Hence a symptom called "Caravan Back".

Yes, refueling from a drum on amphibs can be a bitch, but it has long legs and if you don't need to climb over 14,000' high rocks and operate out of tight places on floats it's really not all that bad I find.

Most caravan pilots have healthy respect for its limits in icing and don't push it.

As youngback mentioned, it's comparable to a PC12 or small King Air for example in size, give or take...were not splitting hairs here...but the PC-12 and "Van" have two totally different niches for sure. One does 260 kts at FL250, the other 145 or so at 7000. If there is only one pilot and he's cool with people sitting up front I think you'll have a good time for sure.

Have a good one!

Dave

[DHC3Rwannafly]

With the upgross kit to 9062 lbs I remember the max load we could put inside the cabin due to the zero fuel weight was 3375 lbs!

Not to nitpick, but this is fro the 208B...the upgross for the 208 is only 8362.

[SuperDave]

You're right, I should have been more specific. Woopsidaisies, all these years I've been loadin' up the Baby Van to 9062...ha, oh well...

[shimmydampner]

Well the Caravan is a great aircraft but it depends on what you are comparing it against. It is a great aircraft in its niche. As far as flying it in the bush and hauling people and parts to remote and otherwise inaccessible areas, I believe it is second to none.

Except for anything made by De Havilland, particularly the turbine Otter which is the only thing in wide use that is similar in size/uses. The Otter is better at everything except speed. Like philly said, the 'van ranks just ahead of the 206. The 180/185 is a better "bush" plane by a wide margin.

[DHC3Rwannafly]

I have to agree with Shimmy 100% Can't beat a DHC. Will also be interesting to see how the Kodiak compares.

[SuperDave]

Yeah, the Kodiak looks pretty cool. The power/weight ratio of the Kodiak compared to the Caravan is the one big thing that will make it that much better of a short field performer than the Van I think. The wing is also different I believe. The only weakness I can see with the Kodiak is the fact that it is not a taildragger, making the nose-wheel a potenial weakpoint (a la Twin Otter). But if it's a smooth river bank or any other short strip that's not too bumpy...could be a lot of fun in the Kodiak. Any ideas what the price will be of a new one?

The Caravan is a great mashine for hauling pop 'n chips, drums, drill-steel...whatever. But a fully loaded in a C208 on a hot day with a crosswind, well...it's not STOL performance that's for sure. The Kodiak could offer more of that though.

I still think the Van on floats does pretty good as long as you can afford the room. It's great for 6 and gear over long distances. It won't touch the Otter for performance off the water, but they have similar load capabilities, within reason. I've done quite a few trips of about 320 miles one-way in the amphib Van with a canoe, 6 and gear complete with a river landing. I left in the morning and was back before noon; 140+ kts over the ground at 9500' on 320 lbs an hour...not too bad in my books for a float plane.

The Van makes a pretty good floatplane, the Otter is a great Bushplane. It will stand up to years of hard work without complaining. deHavillands are built for the bush, no doubt about that.

It just depends on what you need, I still think they're both good for what they were intended to do.

[Youngback]

Shimmy, yup, you're right about DH products. It's been a long time though since I've seen an Otter or Beaver without a pair of floats attached to it. I'm not saying the Caravan is the best bushplane ever, but there are a lot of Caravans out there and they are good at what they do. Believe me though, if I had the choice between flying a Caravan and anything with DH on it, I'd going with DH.

[SinkRate]

I heard its called "the underpowered ice magnet"
Never been on one myself....and to be honest, wont be disappointed if i never do.
Sexy bird on floats though!!!

[the cool one]

Thanks guys;

Your information is much appreciated.

Stay safe

[1prop2floats]

I can only guess that no one is talking about the lovely and cantankerous Piston otter. The turbine is a great improvement, but the fact remains that it is a modified airplane and it has a few problems. The engine is canted down 5 degrees, this was done to improve stall recovery however when combined with other otter design features, such as a huge vertical stabilizer, short floats and enthusiastic pilots, the aircraft is a real bear to turn downwind. I not sure if it was solely the addition of the turbine, but there is an AD on inspection of the horizontal stabilizer every 200hrs. When compared with the Caravan in a video on another thread nobody mentioned that the Caravan was ahead of the otter even while still on the water and stayed in front and only increased the lead.I believe that is the point of air travel, get there Quickly. DH only made about 350 otters(piston) Cessna has built over 2000 caravans so all the accidents must take the size of the fleet and the number of hours flown into consideration, a lot of otters are laid up for the winter and are not dispatched into the night when it absolutely, positively has to get there! As for engine problems the Otter(turbine) and the Caravan have the same basic engine. Icing, well I have'nt tried it but I can only speculate that an Otter and a Caravan would fall out of the sky at about the same time in an extreme icing encounter. And to top it all off, I have been to a lot of funerals for pilots and passengers of DH products and none from a Caravan!

[rigpiggy]

DH only made about 350 otters(piston) Cessna has built over 2000 caravans so all the accidents must take the size of the fleet and the number of hours flown into consideration!

466 built, flying since 1951 with many hours of military service. Apples/Oranges

[shimmydampner]

I can only guess that no one is talking about the lovely and cantankerous Piston otter. The turbine is a great improvement, but the fact remains that it is a modified airplane and it has a few problems. The engine is canted down 5 degrees, this was done to improve stall recovery however when combined with other otter design features, such as a huge vertical stabilizer, short floats and enthusiastic pilots, the aircraft is a real bear to turn downwind.

Depending on the wind speed, any floatplane can be a bear to turn on the water. I have had many days where the wind has prevented me from turning downwind in a 185 or a 206, even with their smaller tails. That's why god invented sailing. By the time a pilot gets into an Otter, one should hope they are proficient in the very basic art of sailing a floatplane. I'm unsure as to what effect the cant of the engine would have on turning ability

I not sure if it was solely the addition of the turbine, but there is an AD on inspection of the horizontal stabilizer every 200hrs.

If I'm not mistaken, Polish Otters have this as well. The increased horsepower/thrust means the slipstream beats the tail with more force.

When compared with the Caravan in a video on another thread nobody mentioned that the Caravan was ahead of the otter even while still on the water and stayed in front and only increased the lead.I believe that is the point of air travel, get there Quickly.

Actually, I thought that the point that most bushplanes were designed for was to get into the air in the shortest distance possible and travel over terrain impossible or extremely difficult to traverse by ground. Speed on the water is useless when all it does is take you into the trees at the opposite end of the lake fast. I'll gladly sacrifice 20mph over the ground if it means I can take off 1000' shorter and climb 500fpm faster to get away from obstacles and not much out there can compare to the de Havilland wing when it comes to those terms.

DH only made about 350 otters(piston) Cessna has built over 2000 caravans so all the accidents must take the size of the fleet and the number of hours flown into consideration, a lot of otters are laid up for the winter and are not dispatched into the night when it absolutely, positively has to get there!

Well first off, it's illegal to fly floats at night. Second, a big reason for the popularity of the Caravan, could be it's relative ease to fly. Essentially it's a 206 on steriods that you don't have to worry about shock-cooling. Also, it's not a taildragger. Not too many pilots any more have the experience or ability to fly a tailwheel, IMO.

As for engine problems the Otter(turbine) and the Caravan have the same basic engine.

Actually, there are, if I'm not mistaken, no less than four potential engine conversions for the Otter.

Icing, well I have'nt tried it but I can only speculate that an Otter and a Caravan would fall out of the sky at about the same time in an extreme icing encounter.

The Caravan's icing capabilities are well documented. I have witnessed standard Otter's returning from trips with icing amounts that scared me just to look at. I can only assume that the Caravan, with it's poor icing track record would not have fared so well.

And to top it all off, I have been to a lot of funerals for pilots and passengers of DH products and none from a Caravan!

Well, there are alot of potential DH products that have been around for alot longer than the Caravan. I personally think that DH makes (made) the absolute finest of bush planes, far superior to Cessna. Perhaps that's because DH products were purpose built for work in the bush, whereas with Cessna products, work in the bush was an afterthought. I certainly hope you're not suggesting that DH products are dangerous. Personally I don't know anyone who has perished in a DH or a Caravan, but I know a couple who have in Cessnas.

[1prop2floats]

Well I'm glad to see that I got a response. I can go on all day about the attribute and shortcomings of any floatplane(even a beech-18). I've been into mountain lakes that the only plane I would even think of taking in and out is a beaver, on the other hand I know pilots that I would'nt send in anything, pilots have opinions and abilities, all varied.
I have over 10,000 hours in deHavilland products, piston and turbine all on floats and I like flying a Caravan on floats. Some of the most vocal opponents to the Caravan have never flown one. I guess I could counter all of the previous posts, but some people just don't want to believe what they are reading.

[twotter]

Well I'm glad to see that I got a response. I can go on all day about the attribute and shortcomings of any floatplane(even a beech-18). I've been into mountain lakes that the only plane I would even think of taking in and out is a beaver, on the other hand I know pilots that I would'nt send in anything, pilots have opinions and abilities, all varied.
I have over 10,000 hours in deHavilland products, piston and turbine all on floats and I like flying a Caravan on floats. Some of the most vocal opponents to the Caravan have never flown one. I guess I could counter all of the previous posts, but some people just don't want to believe what they are reading.

Ok 1prop2floats, you are going to have to familiarize me with this ad on the tail of the Otter. I'm pretty familiar with the type and don't know of any 200 hr repetitive inspection.

While I'm glad you have over 10,000 hrs on real airplanes I would love to see you make a Caravan make money out here on the coast. There is one company on the whole coast who uses them and nobody can figure out how they survive. They don't do big water because of T/O performance and speeds and you can't slow them down in WX so how do you compare them with a -2/-3/-6?

Besides, the -3T is finally certified to 9000#'s, how can you compare the ability to haul a load?

[Highsea]

Let not forget the Otter can have 14 seats with single pilot too.

[1000 HP]

Don't even try to compare Otters and Caravans. Both are good. Otter is STOL, Caravan is more like a Norseman for takeoff performance. I can routinely land one in less than 500 feet on amphibs, on land, without a nasty crosswind. In a howling crosswind on land, they are a bear, but not so nasty as the Otter. I like the Caravan but the touristas love them. They are quiet, cool, and fast. They have lots of plastic, and that seems to impress people. The colorful displays scream "modern!!!". I've landed one in quarter mile and 40 feet using the avidyne moving map and it works well. The range is amazing. With full fuel on floats, you can travel over 800 nm. What they will really haul is way more than they are certified for, just like the Otter. The four float compartments are good for about 15 24's of cans each which helps bring forward your c of g. And think about it: How many lakes are you flying into that are less than one kilometer long? So if you don't need an Otter, go for speed, go for the Caravan:axe:

[Doc]

For what the Caravan was actually DESIGNED to do, it is the best airplane flying. It was designed to carry small packages, from pavement to pavement.
It is NOT an ice magnate. It's not great in ice, but if you have even half a brain, and a little common sense, ice shouldn't be a problem.
The Caravan was never designed to be a "bush" plane, so of course, the DH "rodents" are better on tubs. DUH!
Personally, I really loved flying the Caravan. Great heat on the ground. Easy to offload. Lots of space for all my crap. Really easy to fly. But I wouldn't depart with a hundred foot ceiling. It only has one engine, after all.

[2R]

One hundred foot ceiling is no problem so long as you maintain VFR

[bandit1]

''Well first off, it's illegal to fly floats at night.''

OOPS

[Doc]

Sure you can fly floats at night. You just can't land or take off? If you had lighting, say on a private lake, you'd be Okay. It wouldn't be a licensed aerodrome, but I've never seen "wheels" as a requirement for night flight?

[1000 HP]

For sure you can fly floats at night. I would wait at camp until just minutes before dark, and then fly back at night. No problem. Make sure the night thing is in your company Ops Manual, and that you do not take any passengers, unless the flight is IFR. I got about 20 hours last summer that way

[1000 HP]

P.S. I'm working on getting the Boss to put floating lights on the lake and make it a water aerodrome. I think he is interested