Same reason I don't, limited quantity. I don't have the numbers, but 2hrs quantity if I remember right, and that's not even on high. Then you also have to carry the stuff around because you're going to who-knows where that doesn't have it. It's expensive to buy at $11.50/gal in a 55gal drum($16/gal if you buy it in small quantities). She's ferrying these planes across the pond, and I'm thinking TKS fluid is on the short list of items fuel stops carry on the way over.

Another thing not to like is they are counting on prop-spray to cover the "pod" and I don't know what they are doing for the windshield. Preferably, a FIKI plane in my eyes has a hot-plate or windshield, I've flown a few alki windshields, and sure they clear the ice, but it's really the lesser of the two evils because you still can't see through the alki if you don't time it right if the ceilings are low. They work great when you have about a 1000+ft ceiling, because it gives it time to clear, but anything less with icing down to the surface is bad!

 

WOW! An aviator with a good attitude!!!

 

Where do you work, sir? Hook a brother up.

 

I've got about a 1100 hours in the 208B and really enjoyed it. I got all iced up and the thing kept flying. It is slow and contrary to what somebody said I thought it had good STOL characteristics for the most part. It was a fun plane to fly. I don't know what your issues are.

 

"short takeoff and landing — (*) The ability of an aircraft to clear a 50-foot (15 meters)
obstacle within 1,500 feet (450 meters) of commencing takeoff or in landing, to stop
within 1,500 feet (450 meters) after passing over a 50-foot (15 meters) obstacle. Also
called STOL."

source: The only place I've ever seen STOL actually described in good old dollars and cents: The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms...the same exact definition appears on wikipedia, which also claims that the Caravan, is in fact a STOL ship. Despite what wikipedia can tell you, the Caravan ain't it.

Assuming "commence" in the above definition means brake-release, then I say the Caravan loses out on the STOL qualification. I love the Caravan, but I never saw the 600 horse version meet the above definition (for takeoff) at anywhere near max gross weight. Ever. As a matter of fact, the numbers in the book never even indicate the OEM Caravan 600 could do this at any weight or temperature. Ever. At 0*C, max gross, no wind, and with short field technique the Caravan 600 chews up a mere 2035...when you fly a 20 year old skydiving machine in the heat of summer the real numbers turned out to be downright heinous. I agree that it's a fun plane. But I've stared down enough rising tree lines using short field technique to disagree on the "STOL" characteristics of the airplane. I don't know what my issues are either...maybe I'm just a bad stick.

"It's not a STOL airplane, but it will deal with most all general aviation airports in the U.S., as well as many of the unimproved strips around the world."

source: The Aviation Consumer October 2007 article "Cessna Caravan"
A great read on the Caravan for pilots, engineers, and other industry folk.
Cessna Caravan: when it was introduced, skeptics wondered if the world needed a hulking single-engine turboprop. Nearly 1700 airframes later, the world said it did. (01-OCT-07) The Aviation Consumer

My opinion that it's not STOL is based on academics, commonly accepted theory, and lastly, empirical information...In that order. The Caravan does well off of shorter strips...bearing in mind that "shorter" is relative.

That's my report, gov'nah.

 

That tail number is a blast from the past...when I used to work line it came in all the time.

That is the one that's all white with the blue stripe right? If that is indeed the one then I remember the pilot telling me in 2005 how it had something like 11,000 hrs on the airframe haha...

 

Doni't be talking 'bout no actuallities of STOL ....I'm Rick James B***H.

I wasn't saying it was a STOL airplane, I just said it had some characteristics. I never flew the 600 hp version either and it always seemed like I never needed much runway at all. The ones I did fly were in tip top shape and I never had a problem with them.

Charlie Murphy......Charlie Murphy

 

I wouldn't doubt it :-)

That's the one. When I flew it it had a faded Martinair logo on the door if I remember correctly. Never had a problem with it personally, but it definitely has a storied past...

 

I remember some of the 'short busses' came from MartinAire... N9642F sticks in my head. It even still had the Cessna 300 radios and autopilot in it at the time. What a winner with 600 SHP, cargo pod and 3000 LBS of HAZMAT in the back. Good times!

 

I fly the caravan throughout all of alaska. If you do get lazy and dont know where you are you can get yourself into a lot of trouble. If you adhere to the weight restrictions and do go with all the manuals, everything is fine.

I have flown many aircraft and the van is still one of my favorites.

-alaskan bush pilot