P 750 or Kodiak
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Nepal
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P 750 or Kodiak
Hi Guys!
We need a STOL aircraft primarily for cargo operations in the mountainous Nepal. Any ideas, suggestions, tips will be greatly appreciated. We were looking at Pilatus Porter, P750XSTOL, Kodiak and would like to hear from you guys, the real experts, about which route to go!
Many thanks,
SM
We need a STOL aircraft primarily for cargo operations in the mountainous Nepal. Any ideas, suggestions, tips will be greatly appreciated. We were looking at Pilatus Porter, P750XSTOL, Kodiak and would like to hear from you guys, the real experts, about which route to go!
Many thanks,
SM
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Can only speak from experience with the P750 but I think you will find it will leave the Kodiak for dead with load carrying capability. Speak to the guys at Pacific Aerospace. The machine is well proven in high altitude/rough strip environments. Infact didn't Pacific Aerospace take a 750 over to Nepal in recent times for a demo tour?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear from the specs available on the web, that the P750 has 1,000lbs over the Kodiak in useful load. However the Kodiak flys 40kts faster & has 450nm more range. I guess it depends on what you need the most.
The main concern I would have with the P750 is the low wing configuration. If the strips are narrow & rough it could be a problem. In the video on the PAC site the flaps seem to get real close to the ground on a number of occasions & on one take-off you can see a lot of stuff on the underside of the wings & flaps. Perhaps Captain Nomad could give some more information.
Good luck.
The main concern I would have with the P750 is the low wing configuration. If the strips are narrow & rough it could be a problem. In the video on the PAC site the flaps seem to get real close to the ground on a number of occasions & on one take-off you can see a lot of stuff on the underside of the wings & flaps. Perhaps Captain Nomad could give some more information.
Good luck.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Never had a problem. There is an approved mud/stonegard mod that can be installed on the main wheels if you are worried about stuff being flicked up by the wheels. Probably not a good idea to taxi over a cone marker with full flap deployed but that comes back to airmanship doesn't it?
I would be careful about taking the Kodiak speeds from straight off the paper. If you are going to install a cargo pod and extras like that, it may not have quite the same speed advantage as what it might appear.
Low wing, single point refuelling on the P750 is great for drum refuelling/quick turnaround.
I believe Pacific Aerospace are looking into a larger fuel tank option if you are really worried about range.
I would be careful about taking the Kodiak speeds from straight off the paper. If you are going to install a cargo pod and extras like that, it may not have quite the same speed advantage as what it might appear.
Low wing, single point refuelling on the P750 is great for drum refuelling/quick turnaround.
I believe Pacific Aerospace are looking into a larger fuel tank option if you are really worried about range.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah? And have you checked out the price of the new 400 series? Unless you are into serious mining charter you won't have the pennies to make it work. If you find an old one on the second hand market, chances are the amount it will cost you to keep it in the air will easily burn off the small edge it might have on payload capability. A good Twotter these days is hard to find...
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the Kodiak has great STOl performance, it has a rear CoG issue that needs to be addressed by the fitting of a pod. unless your organization is of a religious/missionary nature, you may find that you will have a long wait. Kodiak was developed with those role in mind, and are marketed to those types of organizations. I'm not sure you can just grab one from the manufacturer at the moment, and the waiting list is a long one.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: bottom half
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear gods airforce have the first couple of years production of the kodiac.. the word is that various orgs. put up money for development.
Had a little bit to do with the PAC in PNG being a low wing the pod is a pain in the arse to load/unload aside from that thought it was great. havnt had a go in a kodiac so carnt compare....
Had a little bit to do with the PAC in PNG being a low wing the pod is a pain in the arse to load/unload aside from that thought it was great. havnt had a go in a kodiac so carnt compare....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not quite right Kiwi. I think Quest has allocated one in every ten Kodiaks to supporting mission aviation bodies. The other nine in every 10 are standard commercial sales although some mission aviation organisations may have placed orders in this category also. Kodiak is not to be written off completely but the P750 definitely has the track miles under its belt already. I also think it has its own unique advantages. Horses for courses as always.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: .
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite right Nomad. Quest had allocated every tenth Kodiak to a mission group at cost plus options, but has "temporarily" suspended this program last I heard.
As far as choosing a plane, I think it really comes down to where it's going. If the P750 will get in and out of the places you want to fly comfortably, I think you'd be pretty foolish to buy a Porter or Kodiak since they both have a smaller load (not to mention Pilatus spares are hideously expensive and P750 spares are cheap). In the last year I think the local P750 has had one "serious" dent in flaps due to a rock. As for the pod and low wing...perhaps a little annoying compared to a Caravan (or Kodiak) but not something to govern whether you buy it or not IMO.
If the P750 does not give enough margin on the strips you'll be operating into, I think leg length will be the determining factor. I've heard the Kodiak's useful load is a bit less than a Porter, but if the legs are long enough the speed of the Kodiak may even things out.
Another option depending on what you consider "short field" would be a Caravan. They are a very economical plane and will haul a fair bit more than a P750. As long as landing distance is sufficient for a Caravan, there are always the three(?) bigger engine upgrades available for better take off, climb, and cruise performance. I don't think it'd be too hard to find a nice, used Caravan with an engine near overhaul and convert it to one of the bigger engines for less than a factory new Caravan (or P750/PC6).
As far as choosing a plane, I think it really comes down to where it's going. If the P750 will get in and out of the places you want to fly comfortably, I think you'd be pretty foolish to buy a Porter or Kodiak since they both have a smaller load (not to mention Pilatus spares are hideously expensive and P750 spares are cheap). In the last year I think the local P750 has had one "serious" dent in flaps due to a rock. As for the pod and low wing...perhaps a little annoying compared to a Caravan (or Kodiak) but not something to govern whether you buy it or not IMO.
If the P750 does not give enough margin on the strips you'll be operating into, I think leg length will be the determining factor. I've heard the Kodiak's useful load is a bit less than a Porter, but if the legs are long enough the speed of the Kodiak may even things out.
Another option depending on what you consider "short field" would be a Caravan. They are a very economical plane and will haul a fair bit more than a P750. As long as landing distance is sufficient for a Caravan, there are always the three(?) bigger engine upgrades available for better take off, climb, and cruise performance. I don't think it'd be too hard to find a nice, used Caravan with an engine near overhaul and convert it to one of the bigger engines for less than a factory new Caravan (or P750/PC6).
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Papua New Guinea
Age: 46
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Larger Wheels?
Just another thought with the P750 is the larger wheel upgrade that is available, it gives better clearance and better stol capability.
The man to talk to about this kind of flying is the chief pilot of SIL in Papua New Guinea, both our companies purchased Pacs at the same time and his input was very much appreciated according to my CP.
I've never flown a Caravan so can't comment on the differences but our Pac is an awesome machine that operates into some very high level bumpy strips and we've never really had any of these problems fore mentioned in previous posts of wing damage.
The CP of SIL who's name escapes me right now is a great bloke who everything there is to know about the P750 and would be only to happy to answer any questions you might have.
Good luck with your choice.
The man to talk to about this kind of flying is the chief pilot of SIL in Papua New Guinea, both our companies purchased Pacs at the same time and his input was very much appreciated according to my CP.
I've never flown a Caravan so can't comment on the differences but our Pac is an awesome machine that operates into some very high level bumpy strips and we've never really had any of these problems fore mentioned in previous posts of wing damage.
The CP of SIL who's name escapes me right now is a great bloke who everything there is to know about the P750 and would be only to happy to answer any questions you might have.
Good luck with your choice.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Think you might have your wires crossed there Islanderpilot. To my knowledge, SIL don't have P750's but they have the Kodiak. Adventist Aviation Services has the P750's and were the first to get them into PNG.
Haven't flown one with the big wheel mod but have heard favourable feedback that it is a mod well worth doing for bush ops.
Haven't flown one with the big wheel mod but have heard favourable feedback that it is a mod well worth doing for bush ops.
One of the best advantages of the Pac750 over the C208 and Kodiak is the under-carrage configuration. The Pac gear just rolls over the ground and the oleo allows the gear to move up and down. The 750 can run all day on an airstrip and it just rolls it flat.
The spring steel type of gear C208, C185 etc flex outward and will cause the gear to move athwartships and dig out the ground on the runways surface and render it u/s in a morning if the strip conditions are right.
The spring steel type of gear C208, C185 etc flex outward and will cause the gear to move athwartships and dig out the ground on the runways surface and render it u/s in a morning if the strip conditions are right.
