hjz000 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

It looks with full fuel, Kodiak carries more with 1260lbs vs 1090 for the Caravan 675; flies further 1075 vs 946 nm; take off/land in much shorter distance; same cruise at around 190kts; and cheaper to buy and burns less fuel per hour. So it beats Caravan in every espect. Of course, these all based on the published specs. Hope it will hold true in real world. It will be an ultimate toy for people with some money.

eagle4528 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

hey guys, quest didn't set out to copy the caravan at all. after doing extensive research they found that design was best suited for the intentions of what the airplane was being designed to do. if you want to haul a bunch of weight and use up 1200ft of runway the caravan is a better choice. but if you're in a jungle in central or south america and only have at best just under 1000 ft the caravan is a life saver. right now they use c-206's for this and they can't haul as much as a kodiak.

BuBuTheButterfly (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Cessna Caravan move over.

pope007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

cessna caravan watch out!!!!!!

badzwa1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

this is the type of plane mission fields have been waiting for! Can't to get one for our mission!

gdesrosier (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thats pretty cheap for a turbo prop.

j331772 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I love Cessna, but get me one of these!

HorrorVG (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

with what money? kodiak costs over a million I think.

leahyav2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Congratulations to all the folks at Quest! So many people have been following the progress praying for you all. I am looking forward to many a long trip in the Kodiak. May Quest prosper the Kodiak serve well...

leahyav2007 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

You should do your research on the "why" before you go knocking the aircraft. Having flown all the Caravans as well as the Kodiak, I like the Caravan, but I can see why Quest has made the Kodiak...more than for just the "bottom line"