Just finished reading the aopa pilot article on the Caravan. I usually expect them to love everything they fly regardless of how big of a pos the airplane really is. Of couse this time is no different. I wish I had the link and if anyone does please feel free to post so everyone can read how much this missed the point. I've got about 100 hrs or so in this thing and honestly never enjoyed flying it. The bigger issue for me is how this disaster with wings is still legal to fly in known Icing. How many people out there have been in one of these things in ice and had to hit 120 then hope for the best. Or what about when that "reliable" pt6 spools down and its ovc 002 and 1/2sm. I know more than 1 pilot that this has happened to and thankfully the weather was good and they all lived to tell about it. I know some of you out there are die hard about this airplane but I just don't understand it, perhaps you can enlighten me. So what is everyone's opinion of the 208 good bad or indifferent?

 

I have had the complete opposite impression of the van. It is not a bad airplane in ice as long as your aware of your situation. (about 1000 hours in the van)

 

Kodiak, your screen name seems to suggest you know something about the Kodiak. Maybe you can share your impressions of that airplane as well. How many have they made now, and how does it compare to the Van? It would be nice if that could be injected to any Caravan discussion on these boards, because the Caravan and in particular icing has enjoyed a lot of travel here in recent memory. Last year there was a very hot thread entitled "Caravan Stability" for example.

 

I've never been in the plane, but the article mentioned "a floor mounted-yoke" and something like "like big airplane feel," but both of the pictures to the left of the paragraph showed the control column going in to the instrument panel.

...and the leopard spots need to stay on tacky clothing!

 

I haven't read the article, but just came across this yesterday. The new Vans with TKS won't help all those Vans out there already there, but hopefully the new generation will be safer when it comes to flying in ice.

Flying Magazine - Cessna Caravan Perfected?

 

Kodiak, judging by the aircraft types you've flown, I have a feeling the Van's I've flown are the same ones you're flying.

I have about 400 hours in the plane and think it's a damn fine airplane. Yes, it's quite underpowered for the weight it can carry. In ice, you simply don't have as much time to formulate a plan as in other aircraft. I've carried a ton of ice in the bird and have only had two experiences where I reached 120kts while still picking up ice and only climbing at 100fpm. The only flight I ever canceled was due to freezing rain and maxing out my duty time. I think it's a solid platform with all the tools necessary to get the job done.

Granted, I never had one flame out on me, although I know others have, and if I had I would probably feel different about the airplane. But, as it is, I look back on my time flying the Caravan fondly.

 

Kodiak -

I don't know too much about turbo props as I have only flown the T-34C but I thought overall the PT-6A had a wonderful reputation since it is used on probably the most reliable and popular aircraft production line in GA - The King Air: Beechcraft King Air - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did find this on Wikipedia:
I mean if you are going to compare the example of an engine spooling down one time to someone you know against how many times that particular engine has flown safely then I'm not sure what engine, aircraft, car, train, boat or spacecraft you are ever going to be able to trust. I count 81 T/M/S aircraft that the PT-6A engine is operating on and I feel that if it was an unreliable engine then if would be a little less popular (side note - other versions of the PT-6 are on another 18 T/M/S aircraft).

Is it the PT-6A-114/A engine in that you have something against or the whole line of PT-6As-xxx?

USMCFLYR

 

I'm with this guy.

Although I think the flying public needs to be aware of a few things:

1) The Caravan may be used in very rugged environments, but it is NOT a short field airplane; I confess I almost learned this the hard way, despite skepticism of the book's number.

2) The common air carrier Caravan is a 675 SHP aircraft...if you're flying a 600 SHP airframe like I have been for several hundred hours, you're not getting an accurate picture of the Caravan fleet as a whole. The plane moves boxes just fine with 600 horses, but it certainly doesn't have a surplus of power without the more powerful PT6-114A.

3) It's a flying box. It's going to pick up ice, and for its frozen-flight quirks, I understand you do have to get type specific ground training.

4) I have no complaints about the powerplant. The PT6, as a design, is just short of being bulletproof as far as reliability is concerned.

5) It's basically a big Skylane, in terms of handling and performance. When it comes to considering icing, your safest bet is to think like you're in a small Cessna...this gets tough if you're doing 135 freight.

That's what I'd put in put in an article for pro-pilots and operators!

 

I've flown the 208B with the 675 SHP and the 208A with the 600 SHP and while the 208B definitely performs 'better', I would certainly not say it has a surplus of power. The 208A has a lower max takeoff (8200lbs) as opposed to the 208B (9062lbs), and a significantly smaller cabin. Maxing out a 208B into icing conditions, it's still underpowered (even considering the weight restrictions for icing conditions). However I remember hearing that somebody is working on fitting a 1000 SHP PT-6 on it. That would change things.


Like I said, I never experienced any problems myself. I know my old company had three complete engine failures in Caravans during my time there. I also know of other high profile Caravan operators experiencing similar issues. I've heard a ton of people rave about the reliability of the PT-6, but there's something about that engine on the Caravan that's an ongoing problem.

It's a honest, easy to fly, airplane though. Gotta love the heat in the winter also

 

I wish I could have gotten the heat to work a little better when I needed it...my Caravan time is mostly from flying jumpers...early spring and late autumn in MI with a gaping back door and flight idle descents made for a pretty cold pilot at the end of the day .

Beyond being, as you've indicated, somewhat underpowered, I saw big problems with propeller erosion...we flew off of a field with a pretty dilapidated runway, and it truly ate our Hartzell alive. Not a complaint I could really level against the design, I suppose...Any similarly sized turboprop single will have the same issues.

I hadn't heard anything about a 1,000 SHP PT6...but I do know Texas Turbine Conversions is offering an STC to put 1,100 SHP Garretts on Caravans that are flatrated to 900 SHP. They call it the Supervan 900 and it's a $625k modification without the cost of the airframe. If you know of a PT6 STC that competes with this, please post it or PM me...I'd definitely be interested in seeing it.