I like the Kodiak. I have inquired on this one before I bought he TBM.
Unless you go on floats or use it commercial it didnt make sense for me.


Mike talk to use about the Kodiak?

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 209989.htm?

It was designed with a particular customer profile in mind. If your flying doesn't fit that profile it is probably not the right plane. It looks like they are selling them at the rate they anticipated, one of the few green spots in the GA manufacturing desert.

Looks like a great fit. Smaller with better short field performance than a Caravan. Probably 1/3 the cost of a 90 King Air to buy and operate. If the build quality and handling are decent, I could imagine that those will be a hit in areas where people rely on airplanes like Alaska, and the Bahamas. Ya'll buy them up, I would like to have a used one in about 15 years when the major depreciation has taken it's toll. I would also love to see some real world numbers from someone with some actual seat time in one.

These are great looking planes but you'd better have them full every time you crank it up or you're loosing money.

I bet you could run them at the same price per hour as a 58.

I bet you could run them at the same price per hour as a 58.

Me too

Not really, you will burn 60 gph at low altitude for the same speed as a Baron.




I bet you could run them at the same price per hour as a 58.

But you could probably haul a Baron in one of these guys if you took it apart. Beautiful airplanes though.

I figured Yall would call BS on me. You will be running flat out to get a -34 to burn 60. I don't think they go but to about 70 on a full power takeoff. I didn't have fuel flow gauges in any of my small Pratts, but my -41 burns about 80GPH on a full power takeoff (850hp) and around 60gph at sea level high cruise power (about 635hp). You should be burning about 38 gph at 400hp and 43gph at 450hp with the -34.

I figure for the first 5000 hours that the 58 would need 6 overhauls (30,000 ea) and 6 top ends (10,000 ea). That's $186,000 in engines. My cost for 100LL is $5.00 X 25gph for the 58 which is $625,000 for a total of $811,000. The -34 is going to burn about 40 gph on an average cruise. My cost for Jet A is $3.25 so 5000 hours worth is $650000. My historic engine cost for the small Pratt is $20/hour, but lets bump that up to $25 an hour just to be fair. That would put my total at $775000 for fuel and engine reserve on the Kodiak.

I am fairly confident that I can operate the Kodiak airframe cheaper than the Baron since it doesn't have retractable landing gear, magnesium parts, or cantilevered wings. It's basically a big 182. I would also imagine that Quest isn't going to charge the premium prices for parts that Beech does. It's a new airplane, so I could be wrong about the company parts pricing policy and big ADs could come out, although strut braced aircraft seldom have huge ADs on them.

If you figure the Baron at 175 Knots then my cost for engine and fuel is $0.93 per NM. The Kodiak at 150 Knots would be $1 per NM. If you can actually get 4 in the Baron and 6 in the Kodiak, then the seat/mile cost of just fuel and engines in the 58 is $0.2325 and the Kodiak is $0.1667. At gross weight, the Baron is $0.055 per hundred pounds/NM and the Kodiak is $0.029 per hundred pounds/NM.

I think the stigma of King Air costs turn a lot of people away from turbines, but if you can maintain them "on condition" as a part 91 aircraft then your costs go WAY down. Throwing away parts just because they are six years old is expensive. I have a lot of experience running unpressurized single engine Pratt powered turbines and the costs aren't that bad. Much cheaper in fact than trying to run an old radial like the 600hp R-1340s that they replaced. I would be surprised to find any mandatory life limited parts on a Kodiak with the exception of the rotating components in the engine. Most of them are limited to around 20,000 cycles and that is way way down the road. For easy math you could just estimate them at 20,000 hour life limited components.

I'd take that bet.

There was something about a refrigerator.....

I figured Yall would call BS on me. You will be running flat out to get a -34 to burn 60. I don't think they go but to about 70 on a full power takeoff. I didn't have fuel flow gauges in any of my small Pratts, but my -41 burns about 80GPH on a full power takeoff (850hp) and around 60gph at sea level high cruise power (about 635hp). You should be burning about 38 gph at 400hp and 43gph at 450hp with the -34.

I figure for the first 5000 hours that the 58 would need 6 overhauls (30,000 ea) and 6 top ends (10,000 ea). That's $186,000 in engines. My cost for 100LL is $5.00 X 25gph for the 58 which is $625,000 for a total of $811,000. The -34 is going to burn about 40 gph on an average cruise. My cost for Jet A is $3.25 so 5000 hours worth is $650000. My historic engine cost for the small Pratt is $20/hour, but lets bump that up to $25 an hour just to be fair. That would put my total at $775000 for fuel and engine reserve on the Kodiak.

I am fairly confident that I can operate the Kodiak airframe cheaper than the Baron since it doesn't have retractable landing gear, magnesium parts, or cantilevered wings. It's basically a big 182. I would also imagine that Quest isn't going to charge the premium prices for parts that Beech does. It's a new airplane, so I could be wrong about the company parts pricing policy and big ADs could come out, although strut braced aircraft seldom have huge ADs on them.

If you figure the Baron at 175 Knots then my cost for engine and fuel is $0.93 per NM. The Kodiak at 150 Knots would be $1 per NM. If you can actually get 4 in the Baron and 6 in the Kodiak, then the seat/mile cost of just fuel and engines in the 58 is $0.2325 and the Kodiak is $0.1667. At gross weight, the Baron is $0.055 per hundred pounds/NM and the Kodiak is $0.029 per hundred pounds/NM.

I think the stigma of King Air costs turn a lot of people away from turbines, but if you can maintain them "on condition" as a part 91 aircraft then your costs go WAY down. Throwing away parts just because they are six years old is expensive. I have a lot of experience running unpressurized single engine Pratt powered turbines and the costs aren't that bad. Much cheaper in fact than trying to run an old radial like the 600hp R-1340s that they replaced. I would be surprised to find any mandatory life limited parts on a Kodiak with the exception of the rotating components in the engine. Most of them are limited to around 20,000 cycles and that is way way down the road. For easy math you could just estimate them at 20,000 hour life limited components.

The Kodiak will do 180-185 kts on wheels, the -34 makes 750 hp so will burn more than 35 gph at low altitude. Im hoping Mike M will chime in as an owner.

That airframe is pretty simple an rugged and I dont doubt cheaper to maintain than a Baron, it will go in places that you wont take the Baron, no doubt.

Doesn't the Baron have 2 engines ?

3 overhauls per engine in 5000hrs sounds about right with a 1700 TBO.