Wisenheimer.......I heard your plane was for sale anyways!!!!

Also jokes aside if you review all my commentary about the kodiak and the c208, I looked very, very seriously at both airplanes. I came to the logical conclusion that they only worked in very small environments.

The original poster did not state what exactly he was going to do, just to compare airplanes. My assumption is that if you're not saying, hey, I want to fly 33 boxes of fake furs from my house to the townhouse, which is 100 nm from my 1400 ft grass strip to my lakefront home water strip, then geez, some additional color is needed.

Now if i'm right about the airplane I fly, (which according to Simon Cowell, 'I'm am") then would this poster want to know that?

I make no money on PC12 sales I can guarantee you that.........

In our use the mission would be almost always Southeast USA and Caribbean. Except for a very few domestic and Caribbean destinations the need for STOL, if I'm honest, is minimal (STOL *is* sexy but the longer i look at it the more i wonder if you *need* it). If I was one of those owners out west where there are so many remote strips it would be different. I recognize the benefits of the used PC-12/KA options but the simplicity of operation and straightforward maintenance and parts considerations really drive the Cessna/Quest choice. Especially in family use. The intent is to usually have a family member (well qualified, no shortcuts) as PIC and yours truly or other as pilot observing.... With any luck the acft will be around for their use long after I'm gone and I can structure it legally to assure that. I think that, on listening to you all and others here at my end and focusing on the *real* reality, the Caravan is the better choice overall. Whether it's new or refurb/reengined is where I'll be looking now but, going in, it seems that the reengined older bird with a more powerful engine than a new 208A makes the most sense. Yes, the EX is the *more efficient* version but I remain convinced the short version is better for our needs. At least it's no more irrational than back when my KA dream was hot and the 250 was preferred over the 350....
My thanks to all of you for chiming in. It remains a pleasure to be part of this group.

Still some long legs there. KFXE to TNCM is not short. Kodiak will land and take off shorter than both the PC12 and C208



This piece makes no sense. A caravan or Kodiak is no cheaper to operate on parts.
Realize too that the Kodiak and Caravan are limited by altitude and ice. Now I understand that the Caribbean has no ice.

Go run the numbers, post them here, and we can debate further........Lockhardt is a master debater

FXE to SJU (Lauderdale to San Juan) is 914nm. That'd be over 5 hours of sitting in the back of an unpressurized, high-lift-wing, Single engine Caravan getting beat around at 5000'. At comfortable unpressurized altitudes, that airplane is out of gliding distance from land on a good deal of that trip.

I dislike riding on the airlines but I'd much prefer them to a Caravan on that trip.

You guys seem to have the impression that it's my job to convince you or justify what decision I may make in the end. Uh, no. I do appreciate your input and I'm still in listening mode but you're pushing awfully hard. Sometimes people just want what they want. The choice here, whatever it ends up being, is to serve my goals and what I foresee as the uses the family could make of it to grow aviation among them. I see this class of aircraft as an unintimidating latter day 182/206 and, like everything else, it's a compromise. And besides I have no goal of being a trash hauler between Ft. Lauderdale and San Juan so max speed and endurance specs bore me. The *flying* is the thing!

Huh, surely you jest, I'm just wasting time because I'm in KTEX and not on the water.




If I want Cessna or Kodiak speeds I just pull the PCL lever back...


When you run the numbers at 50,000 miles per year you may/may not come to the same conclusion. After flying all three airplanes, the kodiak is great STOL performer, the caravan is a truck, the PC12 a turbine suburban. I prefer the flight characteristics of the PC12 NG, the 45 was a little heavier on the controls. None are a pitts. Fly all three, run the numbers at 50,000 miles and let us know what you find out.

You did put it out there but yes you are right, you weren’t asking all the stuff we started sharing.

I would strongly recommend that you get in touch with the Mission Aviation Fellowship for some real-world feedback on these aircraft.

I'll admit my personal bias toward the Kodiak. That's just me. You see, the Kodiak was designed by the same guy who designed my current airplane. I like the way he thinks. In fact, I bet my backside on the way he thinks!

MAF operates their aircraft in places where serviceability is crucial to their mission success. Those places also tend to be very demanding of the aircraft's flying characteristics as well. Their worst runway has (IIRC) a 30% up slope with a small turn-around against a rock wall at the top. You can bet they know how these airplanes perform right at the edge of the envelope.

At Oshkosh this past summer I had a long talk with MAF's Chief Pilot, a very approachable gentleman. He let me leave my greasy paw prints all over their airplane. It remains on my short list of "if I win the lottery" dream planes. Like the OP, it would be on my list as an airplane I would hand-fly most of the time, going in and out of places that don't know what concrete and asphalt look like. I "get" that mission profile.

You did say Caribbean so I picked the closest Carribean island I could think of. I guess Cuba is closer.

I’ve been thinking about your wish for something as easy as a 206 and asking myself if one of these is close to being as easy to fly? (I don’t know, I’ve never flown one) It certainly looks like a big 206. What are the insurance requirements?

I did that flight a few times a few years ago repositioning FedEx caravans for Mountain Air Cargo. Five and a halve ours at 11000 ft, not much fun. Especially the last stretch over water past the Turks and Caicos. If I was doing that flight on a regular basis I’d get a PC12 or King Air. Love the Van and got about 6000 hours in them over the last twenty years. Great for trips up to about 250nm, after that it becomes a chore and tiresome.

My experience and sentiments exactly!!! Well noted.

Agreed that the two I teed up are not *traveling* airplanes and certainly not in the same class as the PC-12 or King Air. No argument there of course. We had a TBM 700C in the business in the early 2000's (most often flown by my brother and others unfortunately as I was usually in some foreign country) so I know what a traveling, go places aircraft is. The brief this time is different as I have said. Truth be told my bladder no longer reaches three hours anymore either, among other issues, so banzai long range travel in mixed company is problematic. I have two daughters, one of whom flies (as does her husband). Between them they have five teenagers, in this case all sons. It's more about them than me and what I hope will be adventure for them. I am very familiar with MAF, having had first contact with them as far back as the 70's in the Bahamas when we had some family who were missionaries there and he too was a pilot. The Kodiak does pull on the heartstrings, no doubt about it. And there are indeed so many used and unsold new ones around that you would think a good price should be possible. -34 engines are common and *cheap* (same as a Twin Otter). We'll see. Thank you guys.

I have flown both and would say they have little overlap in mission profile. The Kodiak we used for backcountry very short airfields, where we would not have been quite that comfortable with a 208. The 208 we flew for really getting serious cargo in and out not-so-short fields. If you have more runway, the 208 is nice and a little less careful to load, but if you have to stretch for humanitarian missions in the jungle, I'd go for the Kodiak.

I've flown both (been 4ish years though) and overall prefer the Caravan (granted, I worked for Cessna for a while ).

Pluses to the Kodiak: Better TOLD, more modern design (electric inertial separator is amazing), more advanced G1000 software (has probably changed with NXi in Caravan).

Minuses to the Kodiak: Goofy auto-trim system when flaps are used, fairly easy to load out of CG, ECS intake can suck in exhaust when A/C used.

Pluses to the Caravan: Bigger support network, much more comfortable interior (with the Oasis package), better payload/CG. Handles like a big ol' 182.

Minuses to the Caravan: Longer TOLD, older design (have fun with the manual inertial separator. Did I mention it's electric in the Kodiak?), less systems integration/G1000 features (at least as of 2016 when I last flew it)

I’d contact Steveo1Kinevo and see what he says. He’s got lots of 208 and tbm time and some Kodiak time. Tons of time flying in the Bahamas