Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 10/20/2010 9:46:31 AM EDT
So have any of you guys checked out the Quest Kodiak.

I work here building these things and haven't heard any one on this site talk about them yet.

What do you think

www.questaircraft.com/
Link Posted: 10/20/2010 11:54:30 AM EDT
There's one at Fairbanks airport, but beyond a little news in the av-press, I don't know a damn thing about'em.
Link Posted: 10/20/2010 12:34:23 PM EDT
Yeah isn't the one up there the black one i think.

750 hp turbo prop PT6. Short take off and landing. 2000 pound payload. big cargo door. Garmin 1000 with all the bells and whistles.

great bush / utility plane.

enough rooms of a mini gun in the back with the door off
Link Posted: 10/20/2010 2:29:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/20/2010 5:13:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/20/2010 6:39:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CBleezie:
So have any of you guys checked out the Quest Kodiak.

I work here building these things and haven't heard any one on this site talk about them yet.

What do you think

www.questaircraft.com/


I don't have any time in them, but see them very often. My hangar is at KSGS, where Wipaire was flying the snot out of them while they were working on their STC. Very cool looking aircraft - they routinely get off the ground just after the first taxiway, which is ~1000ft - certainly quicker than the Caravans that always seem to be in and out. I was talking with one of the aero engineers at Wip a couple of weeks back and he had nothing but good to say about the aircraft and hopes to see more of them around.

I love the rudder pedals in them, too - nice touch!
Link Posted: 10/20/2010 9:07:10 PM EDT
Seen one parked at KRNT.
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 4:43:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CBleezie:
So have any of you guys checked out the Quest Kodiak.

I work here building these things and haven't heard any one on this site talk about them yet.

What do you think

www.questaircraft.com/


You have over 50 posts here and have been lurking long enough to know what we need. Pics man pics.

Some of the reason that the Kodiak is not as well known can be attributed to the marketing plan that Quest has used. Compare Quest with others.

Other company: Ceo starts advertising for capital and keeps publishing press releases every 3 days about how the new airplane is going to solve the worlds problems in 2 weeks. Technicalities happen and there is a 2 week delay. After a few years of 2 week delays the new airplane is under the management of the investors, and new capital is being sought. They expect to get a mock-up prototype assembled in 2 weeks.

Quest: The founders went to the target customers and asked what the ideal plane would be. Design airplane to meet customer needs. Work with FAA and get certification. Show plane to target customers and get a good web site built. Wake up to orders that create a 3 year waiting list. Then finally one plan rag article is written.

Link Posted: 10/21/2010 9:32:31 AM EDT
I thought Quest had serious issues with its Kodiak, like a major grounding. Off to google i go.
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 9:54:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2010 10:26:19 AM EDT by Toiyabe66]
It's because traditionalists like me are appalled at the lack of a tailwheel.

How dare you.














Edit:
On a more practical note, it doesn't really offer much beyond a Turbo Beaver, besides easier loading and unloading.
From what I understand, similar performance, although the TB can be certified to haul 2450lbs.

Frankly, I've followed the Quest story for a long time, and I'm glad to see a bespoke bushplane in production. But the single biggest issue facing it is the aesthetics, or lack thereof.

Edit 2:
I have a poster from you guys on the wall here, next to one from your erstwhile northerly competitors, Viking Air.
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 10:24:06 AM EDT
yeah sorry about the no pictures thing. I do most of my posting while on break here at work. Our company has the internet blocked out so hard that it is impossible to find an upload site that isn't blocked ( like photobucket is blocked )

+ i don't own a digital camera i can take home.

But i will do what i can, I Lead in the Stage that hangs the engines, props, dose the whole gear system, avonices, windshields, cowling, you know, all the cool expensive shit.

i'll try and get pics.

Plus our stage has a gun porn wall. Represent
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 12:30:30 PM EDT
Next time I get over to Sandpoint I want a tour and maybe a t-shirt! We fly in there every once in a while for a medevac back to Seattle.
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 12:32:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Originally Posted By CBleezie:
So have any of you guys checked out the Quest Kodiak.

I work here building these things and haven't heard any one on this site talk about them yet.

What do you think

www.questaircraft.com/


You have over 50 posts here and have been lurking long enough to know what we need. Pics man pics.

Some of the reason that the Kodiak is not as well known can be attributed to the marketing plan that Quest has used. Compare Quest with others.

Other company: Ceo starts advertising for capital and keeps publishing press releases every 3 days about how the new airplane is going to solve the worlds problems in 2 weeks. Technicalities happen and there is a 2 week delay. After a few years of 2 week delays the new airplane is under the management of the investors, and new capital is being sought. They expect to get a mock-up prototype assembled in 2 weeks.

Quest: The founders went to the target customers and asked what the ideal plane would be. Design airplane to meet customer needs. Work with FAA and get certification. Show plane to target customers and get a good web site built. Wake up to orders that create a 3 year waiting list. Then finally one plan rag article is written.

Sounds almost exactly like what de Havilland with the Beaver!

Link Posted: 10/21/2010 5:13:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CBleezie:
yeah sorry about the no pictures thing. I do most of my posting while on break here at work. Our company has the internet blocked out so hard that it is impossible to find an upload site that isn't blocked ( like photobucket is blocked )

+ i don't own a digital camera i can take home.

But i will do what i can, I Lead in the Stage that hangs the engines, props, dose the whole gear system, avonices, windshields, cowling, you know, all the cool expensive shit.

i'll try and get pics.

Plus our stage has a gun porn wall. Represent


Can you e-mail the pics to a friend that could post them for you hint IM me for an e-mail address if you need to




Originally Posted By Toiyabe66:
It's because traditionalists like me are appalled at the lack of a tailwheel.

How dare you.














Edit:
On a more practical note, it doesn't really offer much beyond a Turbo Beaver, besides easier loading and unloading.
From what I understand, similar performance, although the TB can be certified to haul 2450lbs.

Frankly, I've followed the Quest story for a long time, and I'm glad to see a bespoke bushplane in production. But the single biggest issue facing it is the aesthetics, or lack thereof.

Edit 2:
I have a poster from you guys on the wall here, next to one from your erstwhile northerly competitors, Viking Air.




Originally Posted By Mazawakhan:

Sounds almost exactly like what de Havilland with the Beaver!



Yes guys the Kodiak is not doing anything really new. Kodiak = Helio Stallion = DeHavilland Beaver = Noorduyn Norseman

Kodiak-available new now 750 hp turbine
Stallion-there might be 4 left-made in the late 1960s-550hp turbine
Beaver-started production in the late 1940s-no longer produced-650hp recip engine that is also out of production now, or reengine with turbine-lots of hours on airframes.
Norseman-started production in the late 1930s-450 to 650hp recip engines-no longer in production-there may be a few still flying
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 6:16:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:

Originally Posted By CBleezie:
yeah sorry about the no pictures thing. I do most of my posting while on break here at work. Our company has the internet blocked out so hard that it is impossible to find an upload site that isn't blocked ( like photobucket is blocked )

+ i don't own a digital camera i can take home.

But i will do what i can, I Lead in the Stage that hangs the engines, props, dose the whole gear system, avonices, windshields, cowling, you know, all the cool expensive shit.

i'll try and get pics.

Plus our stage has a gun porn wall. Represent


Can you e-mail the pics to a friend that could post them for you hint IM me for an e-mail address if you need to




Originally Posted By Toiyabe66:
It's because traditionalists like me are appalled at the lack of a tailwheel.

How dare you.














Edit:
On a more practical note, it doesn't really offer much beyond a Turbo Beaver, besides easier loading and unloading.
From what I understand, similar performance, although the TB can be certified to haul 2450lbs.

Frankly, I've followed the Quest story for a long time, and I'm glad to see a bespoke bushplane in production. But the single biggest issue facing it is the aesthetics, or lack thereof.

Edit 2:
I have a poster from you guys on the wall here, next to one from your erstwhile northerly competitors, Viking Air.




Originally Posted By Mazawakhan:

Sounds almost exactly like what de Havilland with the Beaver!



Yes guys the Kodiak is not doing anything really new. Kodiak = Helio Stallion = DeHavilland Beaver = Noorduyn Norseman

Kodiak-available new now 750 hp turbine
Stallion-there might be 4 left-made in the late 1960s-550hp turbine
Beaver-started production in the late 1940s-no longer produced-650hp recip engine that is also out of production now, or reengine with turbine-lots of hours on airframes.
Norseman-started production in the late 1930s-450 to 650hp recip engines-no longer in production-there may be a few still flying


You do know, of course, that the Turbo-Beaver III was built by DHC, and they were made in the late '60s, yes?
And that Viking sells them, right now, with reset clocks?

Having said that, I really like the Kodiak. He asked why we weren't talking about them, and it's because they don't have a history, yet.
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 7:58:25 PM EDT
Toiyabe66,
no I didn't know when production ended on the Beaver, that is why I said production started late 1940s. I wish Viking well in their business. I was not intending to bash any of the aircraft in my comparison. More of just looking at market status.

Comparing a reset clock Beaver to a new Kodiak. Probably would end up the buyer evaluating: cabin comfort, avionics, ease of use, insurance rates, and romance.
Link Posted: 10/21/2010 10:34:15 PM EDT
Seen quite a few of them, in fact we have one in one of our hangars right now. They look like a shorter, stockier Caravan. Talking to the folks that had been bringing one in for flight testing the PT6 has more power than the Caravans version. The few folks that I have talked to seem to like them.




Sir James...
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 4:55:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Toiyabe66,
no I didn't know when production ended on the Beaver, that is why I said production started late 1940s. I wish Viking well in their business. I was not intending to bash any of the aircraft in my comparison. More of just looking at market status.

Comparing a reset clock Beaver to a new Kodiak. Probably would end up the buyer evaluating: cabin comfort, avionics, ease of use, insurance rates, and romance.


And that's the truth.
The Kodiak undoubtedly is superior in the first and third, the second is probably a wash or slight advantage for the Kodiak, the fourth depends on a variety of factors, but I'm imagining the Beaver, despite being a taildragger, has more of a known history, so a slight advantage, and the last is most definitely the Beaver.

Which is, of course, why they're isn't much chatter about the Kodiak.

I fully expect that bush-flying will transition more and more to newer airframes, and the Kodiak is probably the wave of the future. There certainly has been a wholesale change in the needs of the bushpilot over the last 20 years, and the increase in aircraft size to compensate.
That being said, of course, the PC-6 has absolutely failed to make real inroads in North America, so who knows?

The only thing that makes me nervous about the Kodiak, is the unfortunate visual resemblance to the Fairchild Husky.
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 5:12:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Toiyabe66:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Toiyabe66,
no I didn't know when production ended on the Beaver, that is why I said production started late 1940s. I wish Viking well in their business. I was not intending to bash any of the aircraft in my comparison. More of just looking at market status.

Comparing a reset clock Beaver to a new Kodiak. Probably would end up the buyer evaluating: cabin comfort, avionics, ease of use, insurance rates, and romance.


And that's the truth.
The Kodiak undoubtedly is superior in the first and third, the second is probably a wash or slight advantage for the Kodiak, the fourth depends on a variety of factors, but I'm imagining the Beaver, despite being a taildragger, has more of a known history, so a slight advantage, and the last is most definitely the Beaver.

Which is, of course, why they're isn't much chatter about the Kodiak.

I fully expect that bush-flying will transition more and more to newer airframes, and the Kodiak is probably the wave of the future. There certainly has been a wholesale change in the needs of the bushpilot over the last 20 years, and the increase in aircraft size to compensate.
That being said, of course, the PC-6 has absolutely failed to make real inroads in North America, so who knows?

The only thing that makes me nervous about the Kodiak, is the unfortunate visual resemblance to the Fairchild Husky.


Spectacularly bad timing. The PC-6 was coming ashore when you could literally buy two Beavers for the price of a Porter, and engines and parts for the Beaver were all over the place, and most people in Canada and Alaska were just unfamiliar with PT-6s.
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 5:30:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/22/2010 5:34:22 AM EDT by Toiyabe66]
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By Toiyabe66:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Toiyabe66,
no I didn't know when production ended on the Beaver, that is why I said production started late 1940s. I wish Viking well in their business. I was not intending to bash any of the aircraft in my comparison. More of just looking at market status.

Comparing a reset clock Beaver to a new Kodiak. Probably would end up the buyer evaluating: cabin comfort, avionics, ease of use, insurance rates, and romance.


And that's the truth.
The Kodiak undoubtedly is superior in the first and third, the second is probably a wash or slight advantage for the Kodiak, the fourth depends on a variety of factors, but I'm imagining the Beaver, despite being a taildragger, has more of a known history, so a slight advantage, and the last is most definitely the Beaver.

Which is, of course, why they're isn't much chatter about the Kodiak.

I fully expect that bush-flying will transition more and more to newer airframes, and the Kodiak is probably the wave of the future. There certainly has been a wholesale change in the needs of the bushpilot over the last 20 years, and the increase in aircraft size to compensate.
That being said, of course, the PC-6 has absolutely failed to make real inroads in North America, so who knows?

The only thing that makes me nervous about the Kodiak, is the unfortunate visual resemblance to the Fairchild Husky.


Spectacularly bad timing. The PC-6 was coming ashore when you could literally buy two Beavers for the price of a Porter, and engines and parts for the Beaver were all over the place, and most people in Canada and Alaska were just unfamiliar with PT-6s.


Very good point. I wonder if the Kodiak is not going to suffer from similar issues, through no fault of their own.
Their timing vis-a-vis the economy is horrid.

With very, very nice Turbo Otters and Beavers available for less than the Kodiak, some with 0 hours, or fresh turbine conversions, and Caravan for the same basic price, all of which are known quantities...

The economy has scrambled aircraft prices, with few exceptions.


Edit:
Don't think I'm a hater - I love ALL bushplanes. But as to the reality of the Kodiak's under-appreciated nature, well, I think we've covered that.
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 7:38:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/22/2010 7:42:42 AM EDT by PA22-400]
The economy was going good when the Kodiak was brought to market.


ETA Toiyabe66, I never thought you were a hater.
Toiyabe66 to Kodiak =
but
BeaverToiyabe66
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 8:05:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
The economy was going good when the Kodiak was brought to market.


ETA Toiyabe66, I never thought you were a hater.
Toiyabe66 to Kodiak =
but
BeaverToiyabe66


Really?
Quest Kodiak - a ten seat STOL utility aircraft equipped with a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6-34 turbine engine of 750 hp (559 kW). It received its Type Certificate on May 30, 2007 and its Production Certificate on September 15, 2009.
[edit]


And I am a bit partial, as my avatar shows.
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 8:30:34 AM EDT
Oops I was wrong––ya caught me. I was remembering the type certificate time as brought to market.

Link Posted: 10/22/2010 8:35:24 AM EDT
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 8:49:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Oops I was wrong––ya caught me. I was remembering the type certificate time as brought to market.



You and me both. I was shocked how recently it got its Production Certificate.

Of course, I remember when it was announced, and the first flight, somewhere around exactly (Oct. 27th?) 6 years ago.
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 8:54:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


Very common on more modern float installations. Apparently significantly reduces drag from the float/strut interface. Also provides extra lift, at no drag penalty.

Here's the current floats for a DHC-6-400:


Here's a DHC-6 on floats:
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 10:55:51 AM EDT
Thanks about the floats



let's bump this to 2 pages
Link Posted: 10/22/2010 10:24:46 PM EDT
Had another Kodiak visit today, Talked with the Pilot who works for Quest and he said that there are 44 of them flying now.



Sir James...
Link Posted: 10/23/2010 6:18:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


As it turns out, my neighbor at the airport helped design the Wipaire float package for the Kodiak. There was a surprising (for me) amount of tweaking and testing to get everything "just right" - lots of stability issues with the floats on that required aerodynamic fixes. The bell bottom pants add side area aft of the center of pressure to assist with yaw stability. There are also small vertical surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer to do the same thing.
Link Posted: 10/23/2010 6:47:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


As it turns out, my neighbor at the airport helped design the Wipaire float package for the Kodiak. There was a surprising (for me) amount of tweaking and testing to get everything "just right" - lots of stability issues with the floats on that required aerodynamic fixes. The bell bottom pants add side area aft of the center of pressure center of gravity to assist with yaw stability. There are also small vertical surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer to do the same thing.


Thanks
Link Posted: 10/23/2010 7:12:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


As it turns out, my neighbor at the airport helped design the Wipaire float package for the Kodiak. There was a surprising (for me) amount of tweaking and testing to get everything "just right" - lots of stability issues with the floats on that required aerodynamic fixes. The bell bottom pants add side area aft of the center of pressure center of gravity to assist with yaw stability. There are also small vertical surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer to do the same thing.


Thanks


No, I asked about that - the specific term was "center of pressure". Next time I see him, I'll ask for more details about it.


Link Posted: 10/24/2010 6:11:23 AM EDT
Thanks again. Those bell bottoms are aft of both anyway.
Link Posted: 10/24/2010 6:07:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


As it turns out, my neighbor at the airport helped design the Wipaire float package for the Kodiak. There was a surprising (for me) amount of tweaking and testing to get everything "just right" - lots of stability issues with the floats on that required aerodynamic fixes. The bell bottom pants add side area aft of the center of pressure center of gravity to assist with yaw stability. There are also small vertical surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer to do the same thing.


Thanks


No, I asked about that - the specific term was "center of pressure". Next time I see him, I'll ask for more details about it.




Thank your for the info!
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 4:29:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


As it turns out, my neighbor at the airport helped design the Wipaire float package for the Kodiak. There was a surprising (for me) amount of tweaking and testing to get everything "just right" - lots of stability issues with the floats on that required aerodynamic fixes. The bell bottom pants add side area aft of the center of pressure to assist with yaw stability. There are also small vertical surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer to do the same thing.


Does he work for Wip? Have a few friends that disappeared up there and haven't heard from them since!
Link Posted: 10/26/2010 4:52:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RDP:
Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:
Originally Posted By PA22-400:
I do not know enough about float operations to understand why the Kodiak on floats has those elvis-bell-bottom fairings installed––anyone got any understanding they can share?


As it turns out, my neighbor at the airport helped design the Wipaire float package for the Kodiak. There was a surprising (for me) amount of tweaking and testing to get everything "just right" - lots of stability issues with the floats on that required aerodynamic fixes. The bell bottom pants add side area aft of the center of pressure to assist with yaw stability. There are also small vertical surfaces on the horizontal stabilizer to do the same thing.


Does he work for Wip? Have a few friends that disappeared up there and haven't heard from them since!


Yep, an aero eng for Wip and keeps a Cherokee on the field for fun. Heck of a nice guy.
Top Top