madpilot wrote:There we go now we are back on topic. So with all these chocies what are the advantages of say a turbine maule over piston maule?

All your manly body parts instantly become gigantic as soon as you plunk down 350K or more and sit down in the left seat.

RobBurson wrote:

madpilot wrote:There we go now we are back on topic. So with all these chocies what are the advantages of say a turbine maule over piston maule?

All your manly body parts instantly become gigantic as soon as you plunk down 350K or more and sit down in the left seat.

Well that reason enough right there!!!!

I would love to try out the turbine Maule. The turbine Bird Dog looks sweet too.

A friend of mine is supposed to take delivery of his new Kodiak next month.........hope I get a ride in it.

Ive never been up to a Kodiac to see the construction but it looks good. They seem to be cranking them out. Does anyone know the number built so far? I hope to build PT6-206s for $300K. Used airframe, engine and this doesnt get you a glass cockpit or leather interior. What is the final out the door price of a Kodiac? I know if I have to ask I cant afford it.

Hafast wrote:A friend of mine is supposed to take delivery of his new Kodiak next month.........hope I get a ride in it.

Kodiak does look cool. But I kinda like the Sherpa more.

Skydive206 wrote:What is the final out the door price of a Kodiac? I know if I have to ask I cant afford it.

I would guess a Kodiak costs $2 million and a bit, just like the Caravan, Porter, and every other utility single turbine I've seen the price for.

I've been wondering how a big-engined short Caravan would compare to a Kodiak (with the same load, of course). More power for take off and climb, then either a faster cruise or pull it back to save fuel. I think the Kodiak would be a little ahead on landing though. A couple big positives for the Caravan would be the greater payload available when going to larger strips and being a more common type for parts/mechanics/pilots. I'd love to do a trial between the two and see which one comes out ahead, anyone want to bankroll my experiment?

Hafast wrote:A friend of mine is supposed to take delivery of his new Kodiak next month.........hope I get a ride in it.

I saw the Kodiak in a short film on backcountry operations,and I have to say I was almost in shock on how short that thing got off of the ground.

My dad used to own the yellow turbine Maule above on Wips. N420WP. I have about 200 hours in it on floats. I can tell you the useful load on that plane on Wipline 3000's is around 460 lbs. In my opinion, it is one of the worst back country planes a guy can have. Here is why. The fuel cap on it require a special rubber nozzle that most local FBO's do not carry. You would need to neck down the size of the filler nozzle in order to pump into the wings. Most FBO's jet A systems are designed for big planes. The second problem was range. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it would burn way to much fuel. Combine the lack of convenient fuel nozzles around, the oily greasy smell of JetA, and the high burn rate, and you have a really annoying situation. I wanted to bring it too Wipaire in Minneapolis and have Chuck design a single point attachment but that would have been a field approval that my dad did not want to mess with. Insurance was around $10,000/ year on floats. The other problem was the 90" prop in reduced power settings. If you have ever flown a turbine, you know how sensitive they are lose to the ground with the throttle near flight idol. I bounced my first few landings trying to figure out the sweet spot on landing. If you tried any of the tire dragging in the water stuff you would be wet real fast because of the lag in response and spool up. If you want a Maule, buy the 260C. If you want a turbine and have unlimited amounts of $$, buy the Turbo Beaver. BTW the yellow and white one above was sold for $370,000 in 2008 I believe. You could do 3,000 FPM decents all day long with it.

Did you have the small filler openings on the Turbine Maule? After replacing all the old Cessna large plastic caps in my 206s (4 caps x 3 planes = 12) with reduced filler necks Im going back to a large flush filler opening to fit the wide mouth Jet A nozzles. The Ag single point system that we could install on the Tiger 206 would still not fit the Standard fuel truck. That would just look painfull having a giant fuel truck and hose filling a small plane. Unless I owned an oil well.

Yes it had the small filler holes. I hated it.

Bravo Hotel wrote:My dad used to own the yellow turbine Maule above on Wips. N420WP. I have about 200 hours in it on floats. I can tell you the useful load on that plane on Wipline 3000's is around 460 lbs. In my opinion, it is one of the worst back country planes a guy can have. Here is why. The fuel cap on it require a special rubber nozzle that most local FBO's do not carry. You would need to neck down the size of the filler nozzle in order to pump into the wings. Most FBO's jet A systems are designed for big planes. The second problem was range. I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it would burn way to much fuel. Combine the lack of convenient fuel nozzles around, the oily greasy smell of JetA, and the high burn rate, and you have a really annoying situation. I wanted to bring it too Wipaire in Minneapolis and have Chuck design a single point attachment but that would have been a field approval that my dad did not want to mess with. Insurance was around $10,000/ year on floats. The other problem was the 90" prop in reduced power settings. If you have ever flown a turbine, you know how sensitive they are lose to the ground with the throttle near flight idol. I bounced my first few landings trying to figure out the sweet spot on landing. If you tried any of the tire dragging in the water stuff you would be wet real fast because of the lag in response and spool up. If you want a Maule, buy the 260C. If you want a turbine and have unlimited amounts of $$, buy the Turbo Beaver. BTW the yellow and white one above was sold for $370,000 in 2008 I believe. You could do 3,000 FPM decents all day long with it.

Morning BH. Don't want to waste your time so only answer if it convenient. Do you remember the FPM Climb on wheels? How did your dad end up buying the Maule with so many known issues. He must be like my dad was. He just wanted it so he bought it. ha ha

I still think 420 HP in a M7 would be nuts, in a good way. I would just buy my own rubber adapter and keep it in the plane.

Cheers..Rob

Rob,

If I recall it had well over 1600 FPM climb on floats. I never flew it with wheels. We sold it to a guy in Nashville that wanted a wheeled version. I actually delivered it to Maule in GA where they removed the floats.

We carried the rubber adapter with. And rubber gloves, and a zip lock bag. If you kept that adapter in the float compartment it wasnt so bad, but we always tracked Jet A into the cockpit which makes you nauseated after a while.

On shutdown the airplane would surge forward as the prop changed pitch. Kind of spooky when you were approaching your favorite marina for a hamburger.

Why did he buy it? I dunno, he thought it would be fun to fly for a while. I flew the green/white one on Baumanns for the FAA cert. ride and thought it handled more like a sports car on the water than Wips. Fun plane to fly, I just wouldnt want one again.

Rich Hensch said it best, the Maule on Wip 3000's looks like a 10 year boy with size 13 shoes.

Lockheed L-382. Carry all the camping equipment you could ever want, even an RV if you like. There was about 20,000 pounds of food onboard in this photo, for the Sudanese.

aqua wrote:

Lockheed L-382. Carry all the camping equipment you could ever want, even an RV if you like. There was about 20,000 pounds of food onboard in this photo, for the Sudanese.

Those look like t56 motors does anyone know?

Allison 501Ds? I used to fly the 501s on Convair 580s.

Marc wrote:

Skydive206 wrote:What is the final out the door price of a Kodiac? I know if I have to ask I cant afford it.

I would guess a Kodiak costs $2 million and a bit, just like the Caravan, Porter, and every other utility single turbine I've seen the price for.

I've been wondering how a big-engined short Caravan would compare to a Kodiak (with the same load, of course). More power for take off and climb, then either a faster cruise or pull it back to save fuel. I think the Kodiak would be a little ahead on landing though. A couple big positives for the Caravan would be the greater payload available when going to larger strips and being a more common type for parts/mechanics/pilots. I'd love to do a trial between the two and see which one comes out ahead, anyone want to bankroll my experiment?

Last price I heard on the Kodiak was just north of $1.6 million. It was intentionally priced substantially below the Caravan.

The Caravan I came with 550 hp, but the Grand Caravan engine is now available on the short Caravan, so 675 hp. Nevertheless, the Kodiak is a smaller, lighter airplane, with a higher lift wing, and 750 hp from the git go.

The performance of the Kodiak is much better than the Caravan. These airplanes were really designed for VERY different roles.

MTV

You are all correct on the engines. The commercial version of the T56 is the 501D.

Skydive, I flew the 580 as well. I liked it. It had a slightly less powerful version of the 501, 4500 HP?, with Aeroproducts props. I believe it was a full 5000 HP on the Herk, we had Hamilton Standards on those.

With water injection I think we were allowed 4750 in the 580. Along time ago. Only got to use water a couple of times working at high alt operations and stayed inside company temp limits of 741 most of the time. I enjoyed the 340s and 440s more. That was fun flying off small island strips. Not a good beach landing plane though, I got to rescue people with a DC-3 off a beach where a Convair 440 had its nose gear slightly buried in the sand. They said that they had made multible hops in and out of there with no problem and just got into a soft spot turning around. Would have been cool to see that big Convair going on and off the beach. Those big old planes were fun.

madpilot wrote:

aqua wrote:

Lockheed L-382. Carry all the camping equipment you could ever want, even an RV if you like. There was about 20,000 pounds of food onboard in this photo, for the Sudanese.

Those look like t56 motors does anyone know?

The whole plane is a civi version of the 130? Though the fuselage look longer almost like a 130 j stretch. Bit with the old engines. I sure do miss working the ae2100d3s.