phoenixlpr 0 #26 February 15, 2007 Is the Kodiak wider than the Caravan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 4 #27 February 15, 2007 QuoteAny idea how this plane compares to a PC-12? The first time I saw (and rode in) a PC-12, I asked the pilot (a jumper) about the PC-12 as a jump plane. He told me the door is structural -- that is, you can't fly without it. Last summer, I asked the pilot of another PC-12 (not a jumper) the same question, and he said that as far as he knew, the answer is still the same. Too bad; might be a nice jump plane. HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris-Ottawa 0 #28 February 15, 2007 Cool, thanks for the info. I have not actually seen a PC-12 as a jumpship, but it would be nice. Probably not terribly economical to be honest. I was just listing off some planes that I thought were in the same class. You know, single engine turboprop, high tail, 10-15 passenger etc. I flew in a Turbo beaver and that thing would make a wonderful jumpship. I'm not sure of the climb, but for a smaller DZ that wants something bigger/quicker than a Cessna, that would be a great next step. I would imagine you could easily get 10 jumpers in there, if not more. We had 7 people seated and still had storage in the back. Does any DZ use a Turbo Beaver? Thanks"When once you have tasted flight..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #29 February 15, 2007 One engine out does not make for a bad design, possibly a bad overhaul......how many hours were on the P&W? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
howardwhite 4 #30 February 15, 2007 This one would be cool, especially if your DZ is near water. (Taken by a friend, old-time jump pilot, who flew bush planes in Alaska winter 2005-06) HW Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #31 February 15, 2007 QuoteA 750XL can take 16 if you put one in the copilot's seat, ten on the floor and five on the step behind the pilot. This isn't bad if there are no tandems or wingsuits on the load. 17 requires good friendship between all concerned. I've been in a wingsuit in a PAC with 17 jumpers. Bit of a squeeze but not stupidly uncomfortable.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,047 #32 February 15, 2007 Hi Chris, I've been in Ralph Hatley's standard radial-engined Beaver and it was very tight with 8 jumpers. I've also been in the stretched fuselage turbine Beaver that is based in Oz and it holds 10 much easier. Also had a great outside step. Those mods in the US/FAA-world (IMO) would not price out, Jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkymonkeyONE 3 #33 February 15, 2007 That's a good looking plane! Nice tall door! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
niu 0 #34 February 15, 2007 Quote I would imagine you could easily get 10 jumpers in there, if not more. We squeezed 11 jumpers into one,it was a tight fit but that did not matter much since everyone on board except me was female. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #35 February 15, 2007 Ray Ferrel explained to us that - initially - Pilatus wanted to build a jump plane version of its PC-12. That explains the large cargo door immediately aft of the wing. Unfortunately, costs rose during the development phase and somewhere along the way the "open in flight" option got dropped. In the short run, PC-12s compete directly with new King Airs (i.e. way more expensive for any DZ). In the long run, PC-12s will compete with old Kings and their expensive undercarriage overhauls. Remember that King Airs are far from the best jump planes, the only reason we jump from King airs is that (1960s vintage) they are by far the least expensive turbines available ... used. Skydivers are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying airplanes. We can only afford airplanes that are too old (i.e. have too many hours or cycles) to fly scheduled routes (Lodestar, DC-3, etc.). We also can only afford executive airplanes (Beech 18s, Queen Airs, King Airs, Learstars, etc.) only after the cabins are too old to hold pressure. Then we have to wait until de-icing boots rot and crack in night-freight operations. DZs are often the last job for airplanes before they get pushed back in the weeds and robbed for spare parts. By the time a King Air enters skydiving service, the airframe has devalued almost to zero. When DZOs buy King Airs, they are paying for little more than the instrument panels and the time remaining on the engines. In other words, when a DZO buys a King Air, he buys the engines and the seller tosses in the airframe for free. In conclusion, it will many more years before PC-12s will drop in price enough for skydivers to afford. By then they will compete - maintenance wise - with tired King Airs that will be marginally more expensive to maintain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bob.dino 0 #36 February 15, 2007 QuoteI've also been in the stretched fuselage turbine Beaver that is based in Oz and it holds 10 much easier. I'm not sure I'd call the Beaver with 10 "easy". Nine or less is lovely. Ten requires three on the back seat, which can be cramped. But then, I'm 6'3". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RMURRAY 1 #37 February 15, 2007 QuoteThat's a good looking plane! Nice tall door! here are some more comments from Quest...rm In regards to your engine question, there are no plans for any other engine options. The KODIAK was designed for the PT6. The PT6-34 was chosen for our aircraft due to its ruggedness and reliability. The dimensions of the KODIAK cabin are almost identical to a King Air 90. Cabin width is 54 in, cabin height is 57 in and cabin length is 186 in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Elisha 1 #38 February 16, 2007 QuoteRay Ferrel explained to us that - initially - Pilatus wanted to build a jump plane version of its PC-12. That explains the large cargo door immediately aft of the wing. Unfortunately, costs rose during the development phase and somewhere along the way the "open in flight" option got dropped. In the short run, PC-12s compete directly with new King Airs (i.e. way more expensive for any DZ). In the long run, PC-12s will compete with old Kings and their expensive undercarriage overhauls. Remember that King Airs are far from the best jump planes, the only reason we jump from King airs is that (1960s vintage) they are by far the least expensive turbines available ... used. Skydivers are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying airplanes. We can only afford airplanes that are too old (i.e. have too many hours or cycles) to fly scheduled routes (Lodestar, DC-3, etc.). We also can only afford executive airplanes (Beech 18s, Queen Airs, King Airs, Learstars, etc.) only after the cabins are too old to hold pressure. Then we have to wait until de-icing boots rot and crack in night-freight operations. DZs are often the last job for airplanes before they get pushed back in the weeds and robbed for spare parts. By the time a King Air enters skydiving service, the airframe has devalued almost to zero. When DZOs buy King Airs, they are paying for little more than the instrument panels and the time remaining on the engines. In other words, when a DZO buys a King Air, he buys the engines and the seller tosses in the airframe for free. In conclusion, it will many more years before PC-12s will drop in price enough for skydivers to afford. By then they will compete - maintenance wise - with tired King Airs that will be marginally more expensive to maintain. Lovely context...we're all jumping deathtraps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #39 February 16, 2007 We're all jumping CLASSICSPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zing 2 #40 February 16, 2007 A PT-6 is a pretty good motor, but like anything mechanical, they will fail on occasion. Let's see, I've had engine failure(s) while flying jump planes on Lycoming, Continental, Wright, Pratt & Whitneys (both radial and turbine), Garretts and Rotax engines. I can't think of but a couple other engine manufacturers out there commonly used in the USA, but the point is, AIN"T NONE OF THEM SAFE ALWAYS! I would like to see one of those Kodiak's up close and take it around the patch a few times.Zing Lurks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Eule 0 #41 February 16, 2007 QuoteI don't know if they show a price somewhere else on their site that's more current, but in March of 2006 an article in the press section of their site says "The plane’s current base price is $1.3 million includes a three screen Garmin G1000 avionics suite." So, something like $500,000 without the glass, huh? :) Maybe the "jump" trim level gives you steam gauges. Or maybe they figure the ones that are used for jumping will get sold to people who bring their plane around to many different DZs/boogies, where the fancy GPS would come in handy. Quest also seems to be a relatively new company. I can't quickly tell for sure, but it appears that the Kodiak isn't based on some other aircraft. This could be good (no compromises in design) or not so good ($ole $ource for airframe part$). EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cpoxon 0 #42 February 16, 2007 QuoteDoes any DZ use a Turbo Beaver? Both Chatteris and Headcorn in the UK have used the Danish registered turbine "Black" Beaver. Macca post about playing with it but the link seems to require a password these days.Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 2fat2fly 0 #43 February 16, 2007 QuoteBut ours quit mid flight, without warning last summer. Just a few hundred hours after the overhaul. What did the NTSB say? I'm really curiousI am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Beerlight 0 #44 February 16, 2007 IIRC an engine-only failure will not generate a requirement for an NTSB investigation/report..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riggerrob 558 #45 February 16, 2007 Quest also seems to be a relatively new company. I can't quickly tell for sure, but it appears that the Kodiak isn't based on some other aircraft. This could be good (no compromises in design) or not so good ($ole $ource for airframe part$). Eule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct in saying that Quest is a new company set up specifically to manufacture Kodiaks. However, President John Stoddard-Hamilton has been designing and building airplanes for 30-some odd years. John started building Glasair kits back in the 1970s. He designed several generations of Glasairs and shipped kits from his factory in Arlington, Washington, just down the street from Para-Phernalia's factory. I am not clear whether John Stoddard-Hamilton had a hand in designing the Glastar (kit) two or four-seater bush plane. For the last few years, Stoddard-Hamilton has been designing and manufacturing certified Aerocet floats at a factory - in Idaho - near the new Quest factory. Composite Aerocet floats have earned a solid reputation of being lighter, stronger and less expensive than their aluminum predecessors. Expect to see Kodiaks certified with Aerocet floats in another two or three years. While the Kodiak is an entirely new design, it is clearly designed to fill the bush plane niche that Cessna's Caravans cannot quite fill: i.e. short runways. Let's face it, Caravans were never Cessna's best short-field airplanes, not were they ever Cessna's best climbers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #35 February 15, 2007 Ray Ferrel explained to us that - initially - Pilatus wanted to build a jump plane version of its PC-12. That explains the large cargo door immediately aft of the wing. Unfortunately, costs rose during the development phase and somewhere along the way the "open in flight" option got dropped. In the short run, PC-12s compete directly with new King Airs (i.e. way more expensive for any DZ). In the long run, PC-12s will compete with old Kings and their expensive undercarriage overhauls. Remember that King Airs are far from the best jump planes, the only reason we jump from King airs is that (1960s vintage) they are by far the least expensive turbines available ... used. Skydivers are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying airplanes. We can only afford airplanes that are too old (i.e. have too many hours or cycles) to fly scheduled routes (Lodestar, DC-3, etc.). We also can only afford executive airplanes (Beech 18s, Queen Airs, King Airs, Learstars, etc.) only after the cabins are too old to hold pressure. Then we have to wait until de-icing boots rot and crack in night-freight operations. DZs are often the last job for airplanes before they get pushed back in the weeds and robbed for spare parts. By the time a King Air enters skydiving service, the airframe has devalued almost to zero. When DZOs buy King Airs, they are paying for little more than the instrument panels and the time remaining on the engines. In other words, when a DZO buys a King Air, he buys the engines and the seller tosses in the airframe for free. In conclusion, it will many more years before PC-12s will drop in price enough for skydivers to afford. By then they will compete - maintenance wise - with tired King Airs that will be marginally more expensive to maintain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 0 #36 February 15, 2007 QuoteI've also been in the stretched fuselage turbine Beaver that is based in Oz and it holds 10 much easier. I'm not sure I'd call the Beaver with 10 "easy". Nine or less is lovely. Ten requires three on the back seat, which can be cramped. But then, I'm 6'3". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #37 February 15, 2007 QuoteThat's a good looking plane! Nice tall door! here are some more comments from Quest...rm In regards to your engine question, there are no plans for any other engine options. The KODIAK was designed for the PT6. The PT6-34 was chosen for our aircraft due to its ruggedness and reliability. The dimensions of the KODIAK cabin are almost identical to a King Air 90. Cabin width is 54 in, cabin height is 57 in and cabin length is 186 in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #38 February 16, 2007 QuoteRay Ferrel explained to us that - initially - Pilatus wanted to build a jump plane version of its PC-12. That explains the large cargo door immediately aft of the wing. Unfortunately, costs rose during the development phase and somewhere along the way the "open in flight" option got dropped. In the short run, PC-12s compete directly with new King Airs (i.e. way more expensive for any DZ). In the long run, PC-12s will compete with old Kings and their expensive undercarriage overhauls. Remember that King Airs are far from the best jump planes, the only reason we jump from King airs is that (1960s vintage) they are by far the least expensive turbines available ... used. Skydivers are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying airplanes. We can only afford airplanes that are too old (i.e. have too many hours or cycles) to fly scheduled routes (Lodestar, DC-3, etc.). We also can only afford executive airplanes (Beech 18s, Queen Airs, King Airs, Learstars, etc.) only after the cabins are too old to hold pressure. Then we have to wait until de-icing boots rot and crack in night-freight operations. DZs are often the last job for airplanes before they get pushed back in the weeds and robbed for spare parts. By the time a King Air enters skydiving service, the airframe has devalued almost to zero. When DZOs buy King Airs, they are paying for little more than the instrument panels and the time remaining on the engines. In other words, when a DZO buys a King Air, he buys the engines and the seller tosses in the airframe for free. In conclusion, it will many more years before PC-12s will drop in price enough for skydivers to afford. By then they will compete - maintenance wise - with tired King Airs that will be marginally more expensive to maintain. Lovely context...we're all jumping deathtraps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #39 February 16, 2007 We're all jumping CLASSICSPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zing 2 #40 February 16, 2007 A PT-6 is a pretty good motor, but like anything mechanical, they will fail on occasion. Let's see, I've had engine failure(s) while flying jump planes on Lycoming, Continental, Wright, Pratt & Whitneys (both radial and turbine), Garretts and Rotax engines. I can't think of but a couple other engine manufacturers out there commonly used in the USA, but the point is, AIN"T NONE OF THEM SAFE ALWAYS! I would like to see one of those Kodiak's up close and take it around the patch a few times.Zing Lurks Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #41 February 16, 2007 QuoteI don't know if they show a price somewhere else on their site that's more current, but in March of 2006 an article in the press section of their site says "The plane’s current base price is $1.3 million includes a three screen Garmin G1000 avionics suite." So, something like $500,000 without the glass, huh? :) Maybe the "jump" trim level gives you steam gauges. Or maybe they figure the ones that are used for jumping will get sold to people who bring their plane around to many different DZs/boogies, where the fancy GPS would come in handy. Quest also seems to be a relatively new company. I can't quickly tell for sure, but it appears that the Kodiak isn't based on some other aircraft. This could be good (no compromises in design) or not so good ($ole $ource for airframe part$). EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #42 February 16, 2007 QuoteDoes any DZ use a Turbo Beaver? Both Chatteris and Headcorn in the UK have used the Danish registered turbine "Black" Beaver. Macca post about playing with it but the link seems to require a password these days.Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2fat2fly 0 #43 February 16, 2007 QuoteBut ours quit mid flight, without warning last summer. Just a few hundred hours after the overhaul. What did the NTSB say? I'm really curiousI am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beerlight 0 #44 February 16, 2007 IIRC an engine-only failure will not generate a requirement for an NTSB investigation/report..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #45 February 16, 2007 Quest also seems to be a relatively new company. I can't quickly tell for sure, but it appears that the Kodiak isn't based on some other aircraft. This could be good (no compromises in design) or not so good ($ole $ource for airframe part$). Eule >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are correct in saying that Quest is a new company set up specifically to manufacture Kodiaks. However, President John Stoddard-Hamilton has been designing and building airplanes for 30-some odd years. John started building Glasair kits back in the 1970s. He designed several generations of Glasairs and shipped kits from his factory in Arlington, Washington, just down the street from Para-Phernalia's factory. I am not clear whether John Stoddard-Hamilton had a hand in designing the Glastar (kit) two or four-seater bush plane. For the last few years, Stoddard-Hamilton has been designing and manufacturing certified Aerocet floats at a factory - in Idaho - near the new Quest factory. Composite Aerocet floats have earned a solid reputation of being lighter, stronger and less expensive than their aluminum predecessors. Expect to see Kodiaks certified with Aerocet floats in another two or three years. While the Kodiak is an entirely new design, it is clearly designed to fill the bush plane niche that Cessna's Caravans cannot quite fill: i.e. short runways. Let's face it, Caravans were never Cessna's best short-field airplanes, not were they ever Cessna's best climbers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigSky 2 #46 February 16, 2007 QuoteQuest also seems to be a relatively new company. I can't quickly tell for sure, but it appears that the Kodiak isn't based on some other aircraft. This could be good (no compromises in design) or not so good ($ole $ource for airframe part$). If you watch the videos on the site it pretty much sums up what the kodiak is all about.“Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, th Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SeaKev 0 #47 March 21, 2007 Another article found here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RMURRAY 1 #48 March 22, 2007 more information from Quest from yesterday.... March 20, 2007, Sandpoint, ID…. Quest Aircraft announced today the successful first flight of s/n 001, the first fully conforming production aircraft. N491KQ took to the skies on Friday, March 16 at 3:00 p.m. from Quest’s facility at the Sandpoint Municipal Airport. The aircraft flew for approximately 45 minutes and performed as planned, meeting all specifications. N491KQ joins the KODIAK prototype in the FAA certification testing program. “This is an extremely exciting day for us,” said Paul Schaller, Quest Aircraft’s President and CEO. “Thanks to the tireless work of the Quest team, as well as the FAA, we have taken the final step toward receiving Type Certification (TC) for the KODIAK. After production flight testing, N491KQ will immediately be placed in service for function and reliability (F & R) flight testing. This aircraft also incorporates several systems and extended options that will be installed on production aircraft. These changes from the prototype include an Environmental Control System (ECS), oxygen for all seats, and a new split cargo door with integrated steps. Several new interior options will also be introduced for production flight testing. “The KODIAK prototype successfully completed the flight testing phases that verified the aircraft’s aerodynamic conformity and performance, as well as testing several key systems,” said Schaller. “With our second aircraft now flying, we’re entering the final flight testing phase of the KODIAK and its systems under a variety of rigorous conditions.” As flight testing of the KODIAK continues to advance, production and assembly work have accelerated as well. Serial number 002, the first aircraft to be delivered to a customer, is currently on the production line and expected to roll off in late spring. Quest has seen strong market acceptance in key market segments, including personal use, Part 135 operations, government, and humanitarian organizations. Customer orders have exceeded expectations and the company has a 3-year backlog, which it plans to bring down once TC is received and production ramps up. The KODIAK’s rugged aluminum construction combines superior STOL performance and high useful load. It offers proven turbine reliability with the Pratt & Whitney PT6 turbine engine, is capable of operating off floats without structural upgrades, and has the ability to land on unimproved surfaces. The KODIAK can take off in under 700 feet at full gross takeoff weight of 6,750 lbs with a useful load of 3,450 lbs and climb at over 1,700 feet per minute. The Garmin G1000 integrated avionics suite is standard equipment on the KODIAK. This is the first installation in a turboprop aircraft of the popular G1000. (more) Page 2 Quest Aircraft, LLC is the manufacturer of the KODIAK, a 10-place single engine turboprop utility airplane, designed to be float capable. Headquartered in Sandpoint, Idaho, Quest was established in 2001 and currently employs more than 100 skilled personnel. First flight of the KODIAK took place on October 16, 2004. FAA certification is anticipated during 2Q 2007, with customer deliveries beginning shortly thereafter. For more information, please visit www.questaircraft.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #49 July 18, 2007 The Kodiak has now been certified. It is nice to see another viable single engine turbine that is better for us than the PAC. It has a higher tail and bigger door than the PAC. Shorter takeoff, better for rough fields and better climb than the Caravan. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfmPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SeaKev 0 #50 July 18, 2007 I went and invited them to Prairie so we could take a look. Got a reply that they would try to make it work after Oshkosh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 2 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SeaKev 0 #47 March 21, 2007 Another article found here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RMURRAY 1 #48 March 22, 2007 more information from Quest from yesterday.... March 20, 2007, Sandpoint, ID…. Quest Aircraft announced today the successful first flight of s/n 001, the first fully conforming production aircraft. N491KQ took to the skies on Friday, March 16 at 3:00 p.m. from Quest’s facility at the Sandpoint Municipal Airport. The aircraft flew for approximately 45 minutes and performed as planned, meeting all specifications. N491KQ joins the KODIAK prototype in the FAA certification testing program. “This is an extremely exciting day for us,” said Paul Schaller, Quest Aircraft’s President and CEO. “Thanks to the tireless work of the Quest team, as well as the FAA, we have taken the final step toward receiving Type Certification (TC) for the KODIAK. After production flight testing, N491KQ will immediately be placed in service for function and reliability (F & R) flight testing. This aircraft also incorporates several systems and extended options that will be installed on production aircraft. These changes from the prototype include an Environmental Control System (ECS), oxygen for all seats, and a new split cargo door with integrated steps. Several new interior options will also be introduced for production flight testing. “The KODIAK prototype successfully completed the flight testing phases that verified the aircraft’s aerodynamic conformity and performance, as well as testing several key systems,” said Schaller. “With our second aircraft now flying, we’re entering the final flight testing phase of the KODIAK and its systems under a variety of rigorous conditions.” As flight testing of the KODIAK continues to advance, production and assembly work have accelerated as well. Serial number 002, the first aircraft to be delivered to a customer, is currently on the production line and expected to roll off in late spring. Quest has seen strong market acceptance in key market segments, including personal use, Part 135 operations, government, and humanitarian organizations. Customer orders have exceeded expectations and the company has a 3-year backlog, which it plans to bring down once TC is received and production ramps up. The KODIAK’s rugged aluminum construction combines superior STOL performance and high useful load. It offers proven turbine reliability with the Pratt & Whitney PT6 turbine engine, is capable of operating off floats without structural upgrades, and has the ability to land on unimproved surfaces. The KODIAK can take off in under 700 feet at full gross takeoff weight of 6,750 lbs with a useful load of 3,450 lbs and climb at over 1,700 feet per minute. The Garmin G1000 integrated avionics suite is standard equipment on the KODIAK. This is the first installation in a turboprop aircraft of the popular G1000. (more) Page 2 Quest Aircraft, LLC is the manufacturer of the KODIAK, a 10-place single engine turboprop utility airplane, designed to be float capable. Headquartered in Sandpoint, Idaho, Quest was established in 2001 and currently employs more than 100 skilled personnel. First flight of the KODIAK took place on October 16, 2004. FAA certification is anticipated during 2Q 2007, with customer deliveries beginning shortly thereafter. For more information, please visit www.questaircraft.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #49 July 18, 2007 The Kodiak has now been certified. It is nice to see another viable single engine turbine that is better for us than the PAC. It has a higher tail and bigger door than the PAC. Shorter takeoff, better for rough fields and better climb than the Caravan. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfmPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SeaKev 0 #50 July 18, 2007 I went and invited them to Prairie so we could take a look. Got a reply that they would try to make it work after Oshkosh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
