Hello Gents - we are looking at buying a C208B also known as a Grand Caravan (there are two flavors - this is the larger version). Does anyone have experience with these airplanes that you could share? The mission is:

- Short hauls (200 nm max)
- Take up to 10 PAX (possibly use the executive interior rather than commuter)
- Underbelly cargo pod
- High altitude ops (6000' to 8500' MSL strips)
- Some shorter strips at high altitude (3500-4000' at 7900')

Any help would be much appreciated.

I have been told by folks that know these that the Kodiak is a much better high altitude performer.

Alex,

We have operated a C208B for 20 years out of Fort Worth Meacham. Shoot me a pm, I am happy to visit with you or meet you at the airport. Most of my flying is to a ranch strip. I fly to Aspen 2-3 times per year, so I can add some color on mountain flying.

Ed

Thank You Ed. I actually fly in and out of Meacham and I’m here right now (American Aero). I will PM you.

Thanks Anthony. The Kodiak is a great airplane but doesn’t have the space we need. That’s why we are looking at the Grand Caravan.

Two words: Blackhawk conversion

Actually, the Grand Caravan EX has the same PT6A-140 - 867 hp engine from the factory as the Blackhawk conversion. On the older models it definitely would be applicable and make a difference - not on the newer models.

Or a Garrettvan. A buddy of mine flew one in Alaska and loved it.

Alex,

I flew the Caravan for about 1,000 hours in 135 passenger service. These were legacy birds with round dials and 675hp.

One thing I can say about the Caravan is it does what it was designed to do extremely well. The plane is built like the proverbial brick $&!@ house... The main issue I had with the plane is 675hp is not enough for one at max gross on a hot day. Ours had the 9062lb upgross kits and they were DOGS in the summer. This was at sea level. In cooler weather or not quite full takeoff and climb performance was good. If you are looking at an EX with 867hp I'm sure that will make a big difference. I always said the plane needed 900hp. 867 is close enough! I'm not sure what EX takeoff performance is like but for reference I'd say we'd see around 1600ft ground rolls at typical weights in the summer. Climb was around 700-800fpm when heavy, 1000-1300fpm when lighter.

Cruise performance was pretty good for dragging gear, struts, and a pod through the air. 165-180ktas depending on weight and conditions. We usually buzzed around at 4,000-6000ft and 170ktas was pretty standard. Not exactly apples o apples if you'll be operating out of higher altitude strips but some reference there.

Landing performance is the plane's strong suit, you can put it down into strip you could not get back out of very easily. Without trying too hard you could get it down and turn off the runway in 700ft when light, maybe 900ft when heavy. And that's without trying too hard.

That leads me to another very strong suit of the Caravan, it is so docile and easy to fly. It is very easy to extract the maximum performance from the plane because it goes where you point it and stays where you put it. Even in windy and bumpy conditions it is very stable so hitting your marks airspeed wise on approach is a cinch. At the risk of over using the saying, it's just like a big 182. As in blindfolded you couldn't tell the difference. Part of the upgross kit is are bigger tires all around, I am not sure if the EX have the larger setup or not (I cannot remember the size) but operating on dirt or rutted or muddy strips is no problem. It's not a Cub with tundra tires or anything but the gear is really stout and so basically if it's an area meant for landing aircraft you can land it there. We took ours into some rougher dirt and grass strips, farmer's fields, hunting/fishing lodges, etc. and it never skipped a beat.

The company I was flying for had mostly Grand Caravans and a short body. We had booted and TKS planes so I had experience in both. I believe all of the new birds are TKS from the factory? TKS is very effective with a few downsides:

A full tank weighs around 190lb if memory serves
You can run out (although a full tank lasts up to 3.5 hours or so on medium IIRC)
You have to prime the system so you have to anticipate icing conditions, if you pick up ice then turn it on it takes a while to shed the ice already sticking. It can lead to some tense moments while you wait.
The Caravan has a bad reputation in the icing department but like most airplanes with reputations it comes from people who don't fully understand it. The plane does fine in icing. I flew it all year round in the Pacific Northwest and over the Cascade mountains. The plane does not have any bad habits when loaded up with ice. The real issue is 675hp is just not enough to drag all that extra ice around. Another place where the extra power on the EX would help. TKS helps because basically zero ice sticks but the booted planes still have ice in the nooks and crannies. Your normal cruise speed versus the minimum icing speed is a pretty narrow spread. Part of the icing AD includes annual training that has good information even though the online course is excruciatingly long and boring.

On a lighter note, a Grand Caravan will hold 10 people and bags very comfortably. Our aircraft had 2 cockpit seats, 1 bench and then the rest were single seats on either side. The amount of room in the cabin in this configuration is ridiculous. If you do the 2+1 bench/single seat all through the cabin it's still comfortable but the aisle is pretty narrow. Our aircraft had a baggage area aft of the airstair, I have seen configurations with a galley setup there instead, obviously that would depend on your intended usage but I think it's more useful as baggage stowage in the cabin, you don't always want everything in the pod. And the pod is huge. Basically if it fits, it ships. The weight limits in total and for each cell are very high, I don't think we ever had an issue loading it up. The TKS tank takes up some space but even still you would be hard pressed to fill it up unless those 10 people took everything with them.

The CG envelope is crazy wide, there are certain loading scenarios in which you can go off the front end of the envelope but the pod is very useful in that respect, if you spread all the bags out you essentially cannot be out of CG regardless of how you load the cabin.

I never flew the Kodiak but I sat in one and got to poke around in it. The Caravan has wayyyy more space and seems to be built more solidly at the expense of performance of course. I enjoyed flying the plane a lot and though it's not in my price range I always thought it would make an excellent personal aircraft or a company shuttle. It definitely fills a niché. Hope that helps, PM me if you have any other questions.

Alex: That seems like a Querétaro to Mexico City express. It was tried many years ago with a Lear Jet by the Balvanera Polo Club; trying to attract players from England. The venture was short-lived.
I am sure the operation will be successful under your administration.

Best,


Tom

Christian - you have provided very good feedback and insight into operating this great aircraft.

Ed L., who owns a C208B, and lives in Fort Worth and was kind enough to chat with me over the phone, also provided very good feedback on the airplane. Thank you both for your time, and Ed, next time I come into town, I'd like to buy you lunch or dinner.

The Textron folks brought a factory-new C208B EX with the "Oasis" interior out to KFTW for us to test drive and I was very impressed - very. The airplane is a tank - robustly built and you can tell it was designed to handle rough terrain and rough missions. The airplane they brought down had the larger tires which are good for gravel and grass strips along with the cargo pod which is enormous. The Oasis interior is exceptional - the seats are just as comfortable as seats in a Falcon or Challenger, and they recline to near horizontal. The airplane also had a potty with a privacy curtain. Upfront the airplane was equipped with the G1000Nxi and had Jeppcharts, XM and ADS weather, radar, etc.

Our mission is to use it as a company shuttle for short hauls which will be operated SP by a professional pilot, and I believe it will perform the mission very well. The one drawback was the airplane we tested did not have TKS (it is being offered new at a significant discount because of this). If we were to buy this aircraft at the latitudes and altitudes where we would operate, this should not be an issue but it most definitely would be an issue if we ever want to sell it.

On the flying part, the day we tested the aircraft, the weather was solid IFR with drizzle, 2-mile visibility, and 400-800 foot ceilings which was good as I wanted to assess the SP workload in busy airspace under these types of conditions. Having a lot of time operating IFR behind the G1000 with all the bells and whistles, the transition was easy and the workload was manageable. With practice and training, I know using the "182" example is over-used, but it was very similar to flying around a faster 182 (we were truing about 183 @ 8000'). We made a short trip out to Gainesville (KGLE) with an LPV approach and did a practice short landing (got it stopped before the 1000' marker without much effort and not being overly aggressive with reverse thrust).

After getting our new clearance for our return flight to KFTW, we started out with a maximum performance takeoff. This is full power (hard to keep it from moving with all that power) and held the yolk full aft until the airplane decided to fly. Once off the ground, we leveled off and gained speed. We probably consumed about 800 feet of runway with 6 onboard and about half tanks.

We then got back into the busy Class B DFW airspace and got ourselves set up for the ILS34 approach. The ceilings at Meacham were better than at Gainseville, and I got the airplane planted on the numbers and was more aggressive with the reverse thrust. You have to work your feet a little to keep it on the centerline since the 867 hp do have a tendency to make the airplane yaw, but I can see how with practice you could get this thing stopped in 7-800 feet.

On the test flight, I brought friends and colleagues from the office along to see what they thought of the cabin comfort, ride, and noise. Everyone was very impressed and reported it was a very comfortable and quiet ride. All in all, I would give this airplane a solid 10 if it wasn't for the lack of TKS. On a final note - parked at Meacham there was a Kodiak right next to us, which is also a great airplane, but it looked like a 152. For what we want this airplane, size matters, and there definitely is a difference. Now its time to run the numbers.

Here are some pics from our test flight. Some photos came out rotated 90 degrees and don't seem to know how to straighten them out.

Thanks Tom - this will be driven by the numbers - so far, I like what we see.

The Caravan seems like an ideal multi pax short flight airplane. That oasis interior seems tonbe borrowed from a Citation. Never flown one ( or a 182) but they seem to be docile in handling.
Ive seen them park, and their wing is so high that they maneuver over other planes wings. Very cool.

Rgs

Patrick

That isn't an option?

That isn't an option?