Kodiak aircraft

[Tomo]

Nice looking machine! Kodiak

 

 

[RKW]

Hi Tomo,

 

Real nice machine, almost as cool as the Jabiru! It looks similar to the one that was delivered to MAF recently.

 

Regards,

 

Bob

 

 

[Tomo]

Yep, that's what MAF just got. And That's how I found out about them, through MAF.

 

If you check out some of their (Kodiak) video's, it's performance is unreal!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I spied these at Airventure last year. really nice. As a skydiver it really caught my attention. Similar to a Caravan but built much tougher with better STOL capabilities while keeping a decent cruise speed. built with ease of in field mantainence in mind as well. i'd love to have a fly of one. dear santa.....

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

check the wing on this. it has the dropped cuffs on the outer panel. i would not be surprised if it is the same wing from 'advanced wing design' that is retrofitted to the Beaver which is like two wings designed into one makes a huge improvment to the beavers performance and load capacity

 

 

 

[Tomo]

Yeah, apparently it gives really good response at low speeds like that... and won't allow a wing drop during a stall... Good Idea really!

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

When i was checking it out i put my thumb against the skin on the fuse., and gave it a good hard push there was not much deflection and it did not leave a 'dent' so to speak. so good material thickness and really tight riviting. could not see to well how the nose leg is attached to the firewall but it appears pretty robust. the 4 blade prop gives pretty good ground clearance. but on gravel and rocky strips might be result in a bit of fileing to the blades. the wheels could do with some deflectors to protect the tail from rocks being thrown up at it. not enough climb points for overwing refuelling could be a pain in the broken leg.other than those small points with the 'dependable engine' it will serve MAF for many years without the operating cost blowing out

 

 

[Barefootpilot]

I admit I'm biased towards the Caravan but the kodiaks numbers just don't add up against the good old cessna. Its smaller and won't carry the same load burns more fuel and cruises slower. The only thing it has going for it is the stol and if you look around at most place these days (even png) there are not many strips that are under 600 meters which means you can get the van in and out anyway. I'm sure it would be fun to fly but unfortunatly I can't see it doing as well as they would like.

 

 

[facthunter]

How good?

 

Doesn't look to have the interior room of a Porter. A workhorse aeroplane should be easy to fix and be easy for component changes. This usually means that they are bog ugly. They ALL use the ubiquitous PT-6.. Nev

 

 

[Tomo]

Yeah I see what you mean.... but you got to remember, it's like comparing a Savannah with a Jabiru...!

 

 

[Guest Decca]

Yes Tomo, but like the Porter, the Savanah is all-metal.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Caravan or Zodiak? personally i'd still go with the Kodiak. I think the airframe will be in much better condition at 10,000 hr mark over the 'Van. I'd also rather work on a Kodiak rather than a 'Van. cessna never did think about the engineers point of view. If the 'van is such a good 'bush plane' then MAF would have a heap of them. the van is more a city to city freighter rather than a bush basher.