0
RMURRAY

Kodiak - single turbine

Recommended Posts

Quote

We have been useing a Piston powered Beaver at Skydive Twincities sence 1983. We fly with 8 jumpers. There are many mods out there for Beavers. Whipair in St.Paul MN does quite a few of them. For the first 15 years our Beav flew in stock form with 8 jumpers and was cramped. We got the cabin mod from Whipair about 10 years ago extending the cabin interior back about 24 inches. We still fly with 8 jumpers and it's almost roomy now. Burns about 12 gal per load of avgas. Time to 10,000 varies with the seasons 14-18 min. On a hot summer day the climb speed is dictated by the oil temp, so time to 10,000 can go to 20-22 min if you have to lower the nose to keep that big radial from bakeing itself. Anyway, I have about 600 hours in it and I love that old plane.

Doug



It is a great old plane. I've made about 40 of my 600 from that beast, including my first.. With it's flaming roaring pipes, it is also the coolest plane from which to get a buzz job.

I know some people do not like to jump it, but I enjoy it occasionally, if nothing for nostalgia.

It would be nice if it had a proper door though.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should be taking delivery in May this year of the first kodiak dedicated to a skydive operation. My DZ is Lippspringe DZ in Germany.

We are currently working very closely with the Quest team (as are other interested DZO's) on the design and fitting of the 'skydiver fit options' such as:
Roller door
Floater rails (front and rear)
Floater steps (front and rear)
Jump lights
Static line strongpoint
Underwing camera & recording system
J/M intercom / jumplights for Jm / pilot communication

The Kodiak has been designed to be rugged, easy to maintain and future proof. The Garmin G1000 glass cockpit has TAWS and Mode S integral and is largely maintenance free unlike standard instruments. It will be a fantastic aircraft for whatever use you care to put it to. Skydiving is only one of many uses for the aircraft and I expect it to beat similar aircraft hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I was optimistic when I saw the Pac and Kodiak, but I'm not 100% sure how I feel now. A single Turbine Designed to get skydivers up, between 1.2 and 1.3 Million Dollars seems like a great Idea, but how much does it really do for the sport in getting us all up there?

Maybe when a few of the bigger DZ's trickle them down in a few years, it'll be a hoot, but til then I'm afraid we'll be flying our trusty 182. :)

=========Shaun ==========


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I should be taking delivery in May this year of the first kodiak dedicated to a skydive operation. My DZ is Lippspringe DZ in Germany.

We are currently working very closely with the Quest team (as are other interested DZO's) on the design and fitting of the 'skydiver fit options' such as:
Roller door
Floater rails (front and rear)
Floater steps (front and rear)
Jump lights
Static line strongpoint
Underwing camera & recording system
J/M intercom / jumplights for Jm / pilot communication

The Kodiak has been designed to be rugged, easy to maintain and future proof. The Garmin G1000 glass cockpit has TAWS and Mode S integral and is largely maintenance free unlike standard instruments. It will be a fantastic aircraft for whatever use you care to put it to. Skydiving is only one of many uses for the aircraft and I expect it to beat similar aircraft hands down.



on track to get the Kodiak next month???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in Sandpoint and have been watching this airplane being tested for some time, wishing i could jump it. Found out Friday night there were some jumps being made at the airport, got there Saturday to find it had left for Lost Prairie!!!!!! Damn the luck. Soooooo Fred, Mikie, lets see some video.
Went to Quest hanger tonight and met some great people, got a few pics, gotta buy a beer for Paul. Awesome jump plane, nice bars and step, and for the pilots out there, a cable operated door closing mechanism to improve the descent rate and cut down on the whining in cold weather(kidding, I'm kidding!!!).

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A full account from one of the guys collecting the Kodiak can be read here

"Today we took N495KQ to Seattle for a meeting with the FAA which went very well. They have approved the findings and results of the test jumps we did the other day and will issue the certificate of conformity tomorrow. Get this: The Kodiak is the very first USA aircraft ever to be certificated for jumping right off the production line. This is great news and a real feather in the cap of Quest.

We're now planning to leave here on Wednesday morning. ETA Lippspringe Saturday or Sunday"

http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=8742&sid=bc4bfbe280ae80b910bf5691dec5c840&start=48

and here http://www.ukskydiver.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=11945&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Kodiak will be a welcome addition to any jump plane line up, even though there are still many unknowns, like W & B, C of G range, etc. Since production is sold out for 3 years, and the PAC 750's production is also sold out through 2010, unfortunately neither airplane will make any real inroads into skydiving quickly enough.
Here are a few facts to keep in mind when talking about these planes:
The PAC 750 has about 1,000 lbs more useful load and proven wide C of G range.
The Kodiak has the door size we wish the PAC 750 had. Every design has its own bag of compromises and trade offs.
The PAC 750XL was designed with Skydiving in mind. We also know that as a byproduct it would be a great utility aircraft. The only thing it has in common with the Cresco, is the basic wing and main landing gear. Everything else is new. The tail of the PAC is really a non issue. Yes it looks low setting on the ground, but that is because the plane sets tail low. In flight, on jump run with flaps set at 20% the tail is really high. Anyone that has jumped or operated a PAC knows this. The PAC tail is 8" lower than a Caravan tail, but 18" further aft. I do not know the dimensions of the Kodiak, but the tail appears to be considerably closer to the door.
The Kodiak will be a big improvement over the Caravan, which is just underpowered. With Jet-A over $5.00/gal, efficiency is the name of the game.
And the reality is if you can afford to maintain and operate a King Air, then you can easily afford the payments on a new, efficient single engine jump plane, be it the PAC or the Kodiak. Just ask the current PAC operators. We will all be much better off and safer, when these new, efficient planes are operating at our DZ’s. For comparative info on jump planes check this out:
http://www.utilityaircraft.com/acbuyercomparison2008-9prices.xls
AAP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

An update.

We will be taking delivery of the Kodiak on June 13th. We will then ferry the aircraft to germany where it will enter service on July 04th at the Joint Service Parachute centre at Bad Lippspringe. (RAPA)



How is the Kodiak working out for you?

RM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking they might be overstating the "and adhering to new changes in FAA 337 modification and jump plane certification rules—has made KODIAK #5 the first new aircraft with a jump package certified through the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Office. " for effect.


Several other types of aircraft are certified for jump operations through the FAA since new, and have been for decades.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Kodiak has been in operation at Lippspringe DZ , germany for the last two weeks and has performed brilliantly. The average time from take off to 13,000 to landing is about 23 minutes but we might be able to shave a minute or so off that with more practice. Thats with 4 x 4 way teams + camera men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi JP,

Quote

first new aircraft with a jump package certified through the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Office. " for effect.



There is a very substantial difference. If it went through the ACO then it was certificated that way as an original certification. An ACO is the office that issues TSO authorizations, for instance; then a local FSDO might issue a Field Alteration to a rig/canopy/etc.

I am thinking all other 'certifications' are some sort of mods to an existing certification.

I hope that you can understand what I am trying to convey to you.

JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
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.

0