Would appreciate the opinions of the collective braintrust here on the ownership and operation of these two. Hearsay is OK if you trusted it and judged it worthwhile. The recent purchase of Quest by Daher may have changed the calculus in a lot of peoples' minds and is the thought behind my interest. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by 208A (short) New Buy.

If my memory is correct, the 208A was the original Fedex/Cargomaster version, short body, no windows, long out of production. Not sure of availability on the used market.

Nothing to personally contribute--but anxious to hear knowledgeable posts.

The existing, and available, non-EX version of the Caravan is indeed *short* in comparison to the EX. While no longer officially referred to as the *A* model that is what it is, the version that has the shorter fuselage and less powerful engine. The EX is officially referred to as the 208B. I used the *A* model as the basis for comparison to the Kodiak 100 (sorry about the misspelling in the subject line) because of the closer size and likely price. The reference to *new* means a new purchase consideration. Hope this helps.

What are you planning to do with the plane ?

I believe the Kodiak is optimized for short unpaved strips. The Caravan is optimized to fly boxes and envelopes around for fedex.

Use as family airplane even though I would not be able to be PIC. The question comes down to living with one or the other. Specs really aren't all that different except for takeoff and even then the loading flexibility of them can even the comparison somewhat. The new vs. new comparison is really only one part of a full analysis. Still to come would be mixing in a re-engined Caravan so, at some point, you have to ask how much you'd put into that versus a new buy. I'm sure Blackhawk has done that math coming and going and I'll talk to them at some point. I'm certainly not afraid of TPE331's so there are others to consider as well. After the medical issues I'm still just grinding away working to find a workable way to get airborne after leaving the King Air dream. Would really appreciate the views of any Caravan pilots here. I can factor the love/bias from there.

Our family has owned a 208B for 20 years. PT-6-114A engine 675 shp engine. I would be happy to visit with you about our experience good and bad (mostly good.)

I have a friend who operates a short body with no pod. Ours is long body with the pod.
Pm me if interested.

I have over 500 hours in the Kodiak and very limited Caravan time.

Kodiak is easily loaded beyond aft cg limit. Cargo pod helps.

We TKS installed after a couple of icing episodes. The TKS tank is between the front seats, hard to fill and messy.

Kodiak is not a great XC Airplane, it’s slow and it very short coupled, a little unstable at higher altitudes.

The early serial numbers had a STEC 55X with a g1000 panel. Later serials had the Garmin autopilot. The stec was not great with the g1000.

Its a great short/soft takeoff and landing airplane.

It has a Modified Outboard Leading Edge wing (like Cirrus and Colombia) which gives great aileron authority at lower airspeeds. In a accelerated stall, (60 degree bank) you can actually roll it upright with the ailerons while its stalled, since the Ailerons are at a much lower AOA than the inboard section of the wing.

overall, its a good airplane. The Caravan is likely a better “all around” airplane.

I have some Alaska friends and all say something disparaging when we see a Kodiak. I don’t think it’s loading and useful load is ideal. I’ve never heard anything bad about a Caravan. I still don’t quite understand how this will be easier to fly than a Pilatus or King Air.

If you dont need the extra cabin room of the Caravan, I would say the Kodiak is a better airplane. Better short field performance especially on floats. The Caravan is a dog on floats unless it as an engine upgrade.
And now that Daher as purchased Quest you will see better supports.

The Caravan (and I assume the Kodiak) are great for owner flown airplanes. The workload is easy and there is great operational flexibility in terms of IFR/VFR and altitude. I flew a 150 nm leg yesterday at 1000 agl just to look at the land scape. You can fit whatever you want into airplane. Big airplane systems with small airplane work load.

If I was not flying, I think I would look at other airplanes with more speed and pressurization. For new Caravan and Kodiak money, you can probably score a pretty nice used Pilatus or King Air 200. Pilatus burns less gas per mile, lands at the same speed, and goes a lot further/faster.

My dad flies and manages two Caravan (non ex) amphibs, both with the Blackhawk engine upgrade and I can say hands down, that airplane is more capable than both the Kodiak and new G1000 stock Caravan.

Performance/spec charts would confirm the same. My recommendation would buy an early 2000's Caravan, add the blackhawk engine, and customize the panel/interior to your liking. His people did and they are both now spectacular.

The airplane is an absolute beast on/off the water, and gets off the runway with 7 people and bags no sweat. Happy to connect you for some real world feedback.

I have about 300 hours in a 208B with the 900HP TPE331 (Texas Turbine Conversion https://www.texasturbines.com/supervan-900/ ). EASY plane to fly. Pretty difficult to get it out of CG. Parts are EASY to find since they are so popular.

Basically flies like a bigger 182.

depending on your mission the PC12 will be way faster, way more comfortable and less to operate on a per mile basis (including purchase cost). I can land comfortably in 1500ft strips and when needed go 1500 miles with 10 seats filled (granted not all are adults).

I did the numbers on all three airplanes. I put my money where my mouth is.

CJ2 won’t fly 1500 miles or land in 1500’. Its harder and more expensive to fly than a PC12. Not as comfortable either.....

I thought it’d be fun to chime in and NOT promote my airplane.