riggerrob 643 #1 February 3, 2005 www.questaircraft.com/specifications.htm I stumbled across this website about a new bush plane. Only the prototype has flown so far. At first glance, Quest Aircraft Company's Kodiak looks like a smaller version of a Cessna Caravan. It's 10 seats should be ideal for small DZs stepping up from three Cessna 182s. While the Kodiak is originally designed to haul missionaries out of short, rough jungle airstrips, those same STOL characteristics should make it climb better than a Caravan. Kodiak Caravan 675 hp. 750/700 675 hp lbs/hp 9 13 wing area 240 279 wing load 28.11 31.3 lbs/sq ft. span 45 51.66 span load 150 170 gross weight 6750 8785 lbs rate of climb ? 925 fpm With lighter wing-loading, span-loading and power-loading, we can expect better climb performance. But the most amazing thing is that Quest figures that they can sell Kodiaks (US$750,000) for half the cost of Caravans (well over a million). Makes you wonder how much of the cost of a Caravan is production and how much is "what the market will bear." The other question is whether Kodiaks can compete with the 1960s-vintage King Airs or 1980s-vintage Caravans currently filling that market niche? Once you get beyond the purchase price, will a Kodiak be that much less expensive to operate? Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how Soloy is coming with their 850 hp. conversion of a Caravan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #2 February 3, 2005 Regarding pricing: It's nice to hear about a sub-$1m-new turbine jump plane. A less cynical economist's take on "as much as the market will bear" is that Cessna has at most a partial monopoly on aircraft in that size / capability class, although there is a significant barrier to entry to making and selling a new plane in that class to other manufacturers who don't already have offerings in that class, and even moreso to companies that aren't making planes at all yet. That barrier to entry enhances Cessna's ability to charge more for the Caravan by fearing competition less. On the other hand, Cessna paid to get through that barrier of entry, and clearly it wasn't cheap enough for all the other manufacturers to have seen it profitable to do so as well. Finally, price of goods in a free (or in this case, mostly-free) market is a signal between customers and producers. Cessna's output capacity is constrained by all sorts of things so if people want more Caravans per time unit, they're going to have to pay a higher price. If they don't want as many Caravans per time unit, they don't buy and Cessna lowers the price until everyone is happy making and selling the new quantity per time unit. (Or until a deal cannot be reached, and the plane is no longer made.) I understand Caravans are popular with a whole lot of users who have nothing to do with skydiving. We all know that's good because Cessna will keep making them, and that's bad because we have to pay good money to get the planes. I wish I knew more about "economic history of airplane manufacturing" so I could tell whether Caravans are as pricey as people complain because they're made using older, more expensive technology. I can only guess this may be the cause based on anecdotes like that twin turbojet business commuter someone just came out with for less than a million dollars, and they cite friction-stir welding as the technology that let them make an airframe with the requisite weight and strength and an incredible defect rate out of aluminum instead of carbon composite. (The defect rate was where most of the savings came in - rivet inspection and replacement went away.) -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
