Helio vs 185

[bob turner]

I know absolutely nothing about the Helio Courier, but a lot about the 180/185. Have flown none of them on floats. Any knowledgeable folks here?

 

[Alex Clark]

I have time in C-180s and 185s on wheels and floats.
I do not yet have any time in Helios. But I have seen them leave the lake a LOT faster than I was able to do in a C-185.

There is a small lake that I use for advanced float students. My light PA-11 will get in and out. Brokenbones's PA-14-180 will too. As will Huskys, Helios and a lightly loaded DHC-2 Beaver. A C-180 or 185 would not.

There is a guy here called Talkeetnaairtaxi. He is an old Helio driver. He is the guy to answer your tech questions.

BTW.. I would love to own a Helio, but first I have to find somebody wealthy who wants to adopt a 48 year old son who only likes premium beer or single malt scotch.

 

[jgerard]

Depends on what your mission is - FUN or WORK, and how deep your pockets are.

A Helio must be flown properly to get the most out of it. A Helio can be safely flown very slow in attitudes that make most pilots uncomfortable. The only Helios worth owning are the ones with geared Lyc engines H391B, H395, H295. If the plane is going to be used off airport in ROUGH terrain there are some mods that should be done to the airframe to make things last longer and reduce the chance of structural failures.

As far as maintenance is concerned, there is no factory support at all. If you need a part it will have to come off a wreck, or be fabricated.

If you are serious about buying a Helio do your self a favor and start by looking at the best most expensive ones first and work your way backwards from there, otherwise your only asking for trouble. Have a Helio expert do a pre-buy including test flight.

Jason
N22KY

 

[bob turner]

Thanks. I think the mission is FUN - potential purchaser has a pair of Super Cubs and a 180.

Alex says yeah, and Jason says be careful - did I get that right?

 

[jgerard]

Count me in for "YEAH" also. Great plane and since it sounds like it will be a toy I would definitely take a Helio over 180/185. Like I said though start by looking at the best, cleanest, straightest, examples first and work your way down the price range deciding what you can live with or without. The last guy I knew that had his GO-480 majored spent 60K to do so.

Jason
N22KY

 

[Alex Clark]

I am saying that they (Helios) are a better float plane than a C-185. Based upon my observations of the couple I have seen working on lakes.
These were working planes and not pleasure operations.
I have not flown one.

I do understand supply and demand. There are not very many around and the price on parts would be pretty dang high.

Check with an insurance company. If they cost a bunch more to insure it is because either;
A. Somebody has crashed a bunch of them.
B. Parts cost an arm and a leg.
C. Both..

Since the main gear is way up front, I'll bet that ground loops would be pretty easy for the first 20 hours or so...

You really need to talk with Jerry, AKA talkeetnaairtaxi. about this.

BTW: if I woke up and was pooping money, I would buy a Beaver over either a C-185 or a Helio.

Alex

 

[pzinck]

I have been seriously considering one.Thought i found one.Talked to his mechanic and said quite alot of corrosion repairs.The ones i have seen have not impressed me thus far.The climbing turn is the only thing impressive.I attribute the demos i have seen to the pilots.The jaars short field demo was longer than my 185 with robertson stol,and i am not a great skywagon driver.The videos on the helio site are with major wind,so i take that with a grain.I have heard great things of them and hope to have one someday.They are quite unique and if the parts supply and gear driven engine supply was'nt an issue i think they would be more popular.If they are so impressive i wonder why they did'nt continue in operation.Of the better models,i think they only made about 450 including nose and tailwheels.Jgerard and talkeetna air taxi agree you gotta have the gear driven engines.

 

[AK49]

A Helio is ONE HECK OF AN AIRPLANE, if utilized to do what it was built for.... we flew one around Alaska for a few years - my thoughts:

1) A SAFE airplane to fly - built with a rollcage fuselage - supposedly 'built-to-crash' in order to carry military officers into unimproved jungle strips. Coupled with the ability to land REALLY SLOW - A great idea for family flying - or other things really important to you.

2) Can be flown into real tight places. For the guys who are real capable at flying these things, they can be put into eye-popping places and then pull a load out. The short final speeds are AMAZING for an a/c this size (even for cub drivers) as it has a specifically designed high-lift wing with looooong flaps & slatted leading edges, etc (a/c designed by MIT professors). The spring-loaded slats sure get your attention the first time they pop out - about 55kts if I recall correctly.

3) Not great speed/fuel return. For those used to 185/206 speeds, it sure seemed to burn a lot of fuel in order to not go all that fast (esp. on floats). Reminded of this when one fills big tanks at far-flung bush prices. Other general drawbacks consistent with high-lift wings.

4) Maintenance was a buggar - even for owners who like to get their hands dirty. Very few people knowledgeable (therefore comfortable & willing) to work on these birds - just not enough of them out there. A seemingly simple brake problem caused us a load of headache & time with AOG. Concur with above comments, parts & support are non-existent. I could not find engine ops/parts specs anywhere for particular model - even digging deep into military paperhouses, etc.

5) They seem to cause pilots a lot of problems on wheels - with short-coupled gear and long arm to TW - they are sometimes prone to ground-looping if a guy isn't on top of the landings. For this reason, many Helios around here stay on floats year round - so the owner's don't create an expensive problem for themselves when only flying wheels a few hrs in the bridge seasons. There are guys who do just fine on wheels all day, everyday however. A tricycle gear model was made as well.

All in all, an unmatchable airplane that at times will the be the only ones sitting next to Pipers on some strips or small lakes.

The Branhams, out of Lake Hood with a lodge in SE Alaska, do an amazing job with these airplanes - have been doing so for some time - they have been on cover of 'Backpacker' magazine flying into mountain strips. They would be a knowledgeable source for all things Helio.

There were a few recently for sale, w/ floats, around Anchorage - seemingly lower time, relatively clean.

 

[aalexander]

supposedly 'built-to-crash' in order to carry military officers into unimproved jungle strips.

Not really, military applications weren't part of the design philosophy. Sure they eventually were used there, but that's not why the plane was designed, nor for bush operations. The Helio was supposed to be every-man's airplane, a safety plane, one that would be sitting in every driveway. The designer's believed that the reason that airplanes weren't owned by everyone was because they were dangerous, noisy and required a large expensive airport which wouldn't necessarily be close to where you wanted to go.

So they designed an airplane that you couldn't stall and couldn't spin, to make it safer. They built it with a strong tube frame so that if you *did* crash it, it was more survivable. They gave it STOL capabilities so that you could operate out of your driveway, or a tennis court, or a parking lot at the office. They used a geared engine and a huge prop to keep the noise down, so the neighbors wouldn't complain about you operating out of your backyard. Those features which make them great for bush ops, were actually selected so you could sell them to anyone, so that they would start to replace cars for medium distance travel. The plan was to sell millions to people all over the US; the military/bush applications came later on, after they had designed an amazing airplane that "everyman" wasn't buying.

If they are so impressive i wonder why they did'nt continue in operation.

There's a variety of factors, including a pissing match with the CIA, but really I think it gets down to this; as impressive as they are, there really isn't all that much demand for those capabilities. I know that's heresy on a forum devoted to Supercubs, but it's true. There just really isn't much commercial demand for taking of and landing on a really short strip. That's why you're going to see the Kodiak fail. Check back in 10 years and see if I'm right. Sure, if they manage to get enough tithes to fund the certification to completion, they'll probably build a few. A couple will go to missionary organizations, paid with tithes and donations, and maybe they'll sell a few to a few rich eccentrics with lots of money and a passion for STOL ops, but as far as selling large numbers to commercial operator? I doubt it. If your mission profile, 99.9 percent of the time, is flying into a maintained 1500'-3000' gravel runway, which a caravan can do quite handily, why would you spend a lot of money for an airplane that flies slower, and carries less with the same engine, has questionable future parts and support availability, but can land on a 700' runway. The Kodiak's capabilities are pretty similar to the turbine porter, except it cruises a bit faster. Yet you don't see the operators clamoring for Pilatus to build more, you don't see the bush operators bidding up the prices on the used ones. Instead, a huge proportion of the existing porters are carrying skydivers, which has nothing to do with STOL ops.

Don't get me wrong, both the helio and kodiak are impressive technically, but the Helio has alredy failed commercially, while Cessna continues to make 206's. I think that similarly the Kodiak will become a mere footnote, while Cessna continues to make Caravans for years to come.

 

[pzinck]

Thanks for the info.I would really like to see a proficient helio pilot.I will not judge their performance on what i have seen.Just like a lot of supercub takeoffs,are'nt that impressive.I will wait to see one flown like a real cub pilot can make that cub perform.Same as 180/185's if you saw the average you would'nt think they were anything special.Some guys can really make a bush plane talk.I guess i don't understand why their is not much demand for this type of plane.Anything but bushplanes turn me off.Nothin like low and slow.150 mph is fast for me.I am always behind on my navigation skills,i would be really lost in one of those fast jobs.

 

[mvivion]

Wright Air Service in Fairbanks operates two Helios. If your friend winds up with one, tell him to get in touch with their chief of maintenance . He has STC'd a mod to fuel inject the GO engines which came with a pressure carburetor. Lots of problems supporting and setting up the PC's, and this fixes that issue.

Bob Bursiel owns Wright Air Service, and is probably as good a Helio pilot as there is nowadays. They are an amazing airplane in the hands of someone who knows how to use them. GIve Wright's a call 907 474 0502 for SPECIFIC info on the airplanes. They're busy folks(and very nice folks), so please don't bug them for fun.

I agree with aalexander regarding the mission. It simply doesn't exist, except in very limited situations. I totally disagree with him regarding the Kodiak airplane. The reason has nothing to do with the mission in that case, it has to do with the business plan and the Board of Directors of that organizations. They have a fantastic business plan, and a VERY smart board. I doubt if they actually HAVE to sell a single airplane, frankly, though they've already sold a number of them, or at least have deposits. Note that the Archangel airplane was built and certified purely for the missionary flying community, and a number were built. They are all pretty much worn out now. I don't think they sold Archangels to the public till they were done with them, but maybe. That worked okay.

The Kodiak will do just fine, in my opinion, BECAUSE they have a bullet proof business plan, unlike most of the aviation businesses around.

MTV

 

[GeorgeMandes]

There's a variety of factors, including a pissing match with the CIA, but really I think it gets down to this; as impressive as they are, there really isn't all that much demand for those capabilities. I know that's heresy on a forum devoted to Supercubs, but it's true. There just really isn't much commercial demand for taking of and landing on a really short strip. That's why you're going to see the Kodiak fail. Check back in 10 years and see if I'm right. Sure, if they manage to get enough tithes to fund the certification to completion, they'll probably build a few. A couple will go to missionary organizations, paid with tithes and donations, and maybe they'll sell a few to a few rich eccentrics with lots of money and a passion for STOL ops, but as far as selling large numbers to commercial operator? I doubt it. If your mission profile, 99.9 percent of the time, is flying into a maintained 1500'-3000' gravel runway, which a caravan can do quite handily, why would you spend a lot of money for an airplane that flies slower, and carries less with the same engine, has questionable future parts and support availability, but can land on a 700' runway. The Kodiak's capabilities are pretty similar to the turbine porter, except it cruises a bit faster. Yet you don't see the operators clamoring for Pilatus to build more, you don't see the bush operators bidding up the prices on the used ones. Instead, a huge proportion of the existing porters are carrying skydivers, which has nothing to do with STOL ops.

Don't get me wrong, both the helio and kodiak are impressive technically, but the Helio has already failed commercially, while Cessna continues to make 206's. I think that similarly the Kodiak will become a mere footnote, while Cessna continues to make Caravans for years to come.

With all due respect, I think you are totally wrong on the prospects of long term success for the Quest Kodiak for a number of reasons:

1) Quest is at serial number 100 +/- on orders. That is with initial deposits of $120,000 +/- and now $50,000 non-refundable.

2) The plane is much different than a Porter. A Porter is about a 125 knot aircraft with many peculiarities like a cockpit that is separated from the cabin, short range fuel, and only slightly better range with the external tanks. A friend operates one on amphibs and is very candid about the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft.

3) The Kodiak is a 190 knot plane, with TKS, G1000 and an auto pilot, and the internal cabin volume of a C90 King Air. As you point out it has STOL take off and landing characteristics, far better than a Caravan, with faster cruise speed than a Caravan, an external size between the Caravan and a 207, a PT6-34 with 750 horsepower in a 6,800 pound gross weight aircraft compared to 675 horsepower in the heavier Caravan. The Kodiak has over 1,000 nm range and carries over 300 gallons of fuel.

4) The initial price of the Kodiak is/was under 1.2 million where the Caravan is pushing $2 million.

5) There is a definite demand for turbine aircraft generally and STOL aircraft in particular. Viking is just restarting the production of the Twin Otter (series 400). Turbine Otters, and turbine Beavers are fetching record prices.

6) The Caravan is not a STOL aircraft. That isn't taking anything away from the Caravan, but it is a different plane than the Kodiak is. There will never be a comparison between a Caravan and a Kodiak on floats.

7) While the Kodiak will never be produced in the numbers predicted by Eclipse, they will likely make 25 or more a year for many years to come.

 

[BritishCubBloke]

4) Maintenance was a buggar - even for owners who like to get their hands dirty. Very few people knowledgeable (therefore comfortable & willing) to work on these birds - just not enough of them out there. A seemingly simple brake problem caused us a load of headache & time with AOG. Concur with above comments, parts & support are non-existent. I could not find engine ops/parts specs anywhere for particular model - even digging deep into military paperhouses, etc.

This is why they are cheap and not selling, presumably? Am I right?

There are a bunch of H391Bs with very low time engines which have been on the market for a long time in the $85-125,000 range.

I guess it's fine to operate a vintage, display aircraft on this basis, but not a utility aircraft. Shame, because they are very tempting indeed.

 

[freestone]

I wonder why the certification of the Kodiak is taking so long - they expected it well before year end.

My concern on the Kodiak is the future support and parts availability.

Also, no a/c will be available - or is it aftermarket later - and it is unclear what the interior configs will be for exec market. No passenger left door makes it harder on floats too.

Also the jet a smell was tough on the early flight I had. wonder if that got solved later?

and it is a lot smaller than the short caravan.

 

[aalexander]

I agree with aalexander regarding the mission. It simply doesn't exist, except in very limited situations. I totally disagree with him regarding the Kodiak airplane. The reason has nothing to do with the mission in that case, it has to do with the business plan and the Board of Directors of that organizations. They have a fantastic business plan, and a VERY smart board. I doubt if they actually HAVE to sell a single airplane, frankly, though they've already sold a number of them, or at least have deposits.

You may be right Michael, it is entirely possible the organization could survive, prosper even without selling a single airplane. In that case though, the enterprise is not a successful aircraft manufacturing company, but a successful fundraising organization. I guess that making money is making money, whether or not you are actually making airplanes. In that same sense you could say that Paul Moller is a success, because he’s provided himself a comfortable living for 40 years, even though the Moller Sky Car has never done anything but hover in ground effect, something that can be accomplished by a determined teenage with a set of plans from the back of Popular Mechanics.

Would you agree that a secular organization which wasn’t using peoples’ religious conviction as a means to gain funding wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of making a true commercial success of manufacturing and selling Kodiaks?

Note that the Archangel airplane was built and certified purely for the missionary flying community, and a number were built.

Evangel. Yeah they built a number of them. I think that number was 7. Might have been a (very) few more.

They are all pretty much worn out now. I don't think they sold Archangels to the public till they were done with them, but maybe.

I don’t think this is accurate . Yute Air crashed one in Merrill pass in 1978 which was about 4 years after it was built, which isn’t "run out" As nearly as I can determine that was serial # 7 Anyway, point being they were selling them to non-missionaries.

The Kodiak will do just fine, in my opinion, BECAUSE they have a bullet proof business plan, unlike most of the aviation businesses around.

Quest is at serial number 100 +/- on orders. That is with initial deposits of $120,000 +/- and now $50,000 non-refundable..

The annals of aircraft development are full of stories of people who have lost lots and lots of money with deposits on yet to be manufactured aircraft. Add to that the fact that there is a powerful incentive for a developer misrepresent the nature and number of orders in order to stimulate investment. Witness the huge "firm" order for hundreds of airframes that Eclipse claimed, from a company no-one had ever heard of, for an airplane that was still a drawing. The company went poof and disappeared in to thin air along with the orders, as quickly as it had appeared. The SEC was sniffing around for a possible tie between Eclipse and this mysterious company. I don’t think they found anything concrete enough to take legal action. Claims of orders and backlogs are smoke and mirrors, more often than not.

The Kodiak is a 190 knot plane, with TKS, G1000 and an auto pilot, and the internal cabin volume of a C90 King Air. As you point out it has STOL take off and landing characteristics, far better than a Caravan, with faster cruise speed than a Caravan, an external size between the Caravan and a 207, a PT6-34 with 750 horsepower in a 6,800 pound gross weight aircraft compared to 675 horsepower in the heavier Caravan. The Kodiak has over 1,000 nm range and carries over 300 gallons of fuel.

OK, I was speaking from memory in my first post, which is a dangerous thing. I should have confirmed my recollections. I see that Kodiak is claiming 190 knots, I thought that lest time I looked, the cruise was a little less than the Caravan, I don’t know if that’s because Kodiak has revised their claim upward or because I simply remembered incorrectly. At any rate, Kodiak claims 190knots, while a Caravan goes 186 and a Grand Caravan goes 184. That falls into the category of not enough to make a real difference. BTW if you read the fine print on the Quest website the 1000 NM range is based on a cruise speed of 185 knots placing it right between the caravan and the grand caravan, not faster. Thing is, not too many operators fly caravans 1000 NM. More likely, you’re going to be flying Bethel to Hooper Bay, a relatively long leg in this type of aviation, 150 nm. On that more realistic route, the Kodiak beats the Caravan by a minute and the Grand Caravan by about 2 minutes.....Not exactly, but we’re in the realm where we’re rounding off fractions of minutes, which obviously is in the "it really doesn’t matter" realm.

The other thing that I didn’t remember correctly was the engine, yeah the Kodiak has 750 vs. the 600/675 of the Caravans. The thing is, that’s not an advantage. People do pay you more per pound to haul their cargo with a higher hp/lb loading. The average village dweller isn’t going to pay a higher seat fare because he’s pushed back in the seat a little harder on takeoff. In fact, the higher horsepower is a disadvantage. The Caravans have enough power to operate out of any village strip you can name. So if you already have enough power, adding more just reduces profits. Adding more power and burning more fuel, and presumably, spending more on maintenance, to haul *less* revenue load is going to be a really unattractive option to a commercial operator.

If you want an indication of how the commercial operators value STOL capability, just look at the Caravans operating in Alaska. The Grand Caravan hauls more weight and more volume than the caravan, but needs a larger runway. Of the 60 Caravans registered in Alaska, all but 10 are Grand Caravans. That should tell you something.

As far as the price? Price is just a number. By itself, it’s pretty meaningless. What sort of revenue generating capability are you purchasing:? Here’s how that works: Joe 135 operator decides he wants a turbine single. He looks at the Kodiak at 1.2 M vs the Grand Caravan at 2.0 M (assuming your numbers are correct, and ignoring the fact that Joe isn’t going to buy a brand new 2M caravan, he’s really going to buy a used one with a ratted out interior, but good times on the engine for about a million. +/-) That’s $800,000 difference. At Joe’s 10% financing rate, that’s a difference of $80,000/ year The question now becomes, Will the Caravan produce more than $80,000 revenue per year. Lessee, the Grand Caravan will haul 1100 lb more useful load, at equal fuel consumption (the Kodiak’s 750 Hp is almost certainly thirstier, but we’ll ignore that for the moment) that’s 1100 lb more pay load. Per trip. Multiply that by $0.20/ lb. 5 trips a day/ 365 days a year. That’s about $400,000 *more* revenue per year. OK that’s optimistic, but lets say you only fly half the days of the year (extremely unrealistic) and you’re only flying a full load half the time, so on the average you’re only carrying 550 lb more per trip. That’s still $100,000 *more* revenue, in return for paying $80,000 more interest on the financing. That’s $20,000 *more* Joe puts in his pocket, every year. Even with a really bad dispatch rate and sub-optimal load planning, the Grand Caravan wins. This is precisely why you see the Alaska operators operating more Grand Caravans than the regular caravans at about a 5:1 ratio.



As far as the Otter goes, in terms of size of load into length of strip, a recip. Otter will beat the Kodiak, a turbine Otter (either flavor) will flat smoke it, 500 lb. more into a strip 2/3 the length. (based on the respective manufacturers’ claims)

If we examine only STOL Capabilities, the Turbine Porter will carry the same useful load in and out of the same size strip. A turbine Otter will carry a substantially larger load into a much shorter strip. So there are existing, flying certificated aircraft that you can buy today which can do that as well or better.

If we remove STOL from the equation, both the caravan and the Grand Caravan can carry bigger loads the same distance at speeds that are not practically different. So, there are existing, flying certifcated aircraft that you can buy today, that can do that as well or better.

The only way it makes economic sense to put a new aircraft through certification is if you have a whole bunch of people who are flying 1000 miles (500NM round trip) to take a 1400lb payload into a 700 foot strip. Doesn’t make sense otherwise. Existing planes equal or beat it in the heavy load/short strip arena, and existing airplanes beat it in the load/range/speed arena. The thing is, there just aren’t a lot of commercial operators who have a regular need to fly long distances to land on a short strip. I’m sure that if you think, you could point to a few isolated examples of folks with that mission profile, but not enough to justify the millions and millions it costs to certify a new turbine aircraft. The cynical among us might suggest that Hamilton, et al are exploiting others’ faith to provide themselves a living while they play with designing interesting, expensive, but not economically feasible aircraft. I, of course, am not that cynical. I do however, think that they are providing an answer to a question that isn’t being asked. Time will tell, we’ll check back in 10 years and we’ll see if there’s 250 Kodiaks operating.

BTW, how many of those Angel 44 airplanes have they produced? They’ve had the type certificate for oh, 17 years now. How many millions of other peoples’ money were thrown down that rat hole?

While the Kodiak will never be produced in the numbers predicted by Eclipse, they will likely make 25 or more a year for many years to come.

The Quest website claims one a week.

 

[aalexander]

Was poking around on the Quest Site. From one an article from about a year ago:


The US Fish and Wildlife Service has already ordered five planes for spotting birds.


Really? This seems just a little difficult to believe to me. I knew that the F&WS was looking for a replacement for "pinocchio", the Garret engined Beaver that they use for migratory bird studies, and certainly a Kodiak might be a contender. I wasn’t aware that the Fish and wildlife service was in the habit of putting down non-refundable deposits on airplanes that aren’t certificated.


From that same article.

" business executives will purchase the plane for easy access between company locations, as they can land the Kodiak on a road....."

Hmmm, sounds like exactly the same snake oil that Helio was trying to sell 50 years ago. Nobody bought it back then, either. Executives just aren’t going to be landing on roads in front of their facilities. Didn’t happen half a century ago, won’t be happening now.

 

[mvivion]

aalexander,

You are viewing this purely through the very narrow goggles of the Alaska Part 135 equation. A couple of your statements are wrong on that as well--for example, Wright Air in FAI has bought six or seven brand new Grand Caravans and put them into 135 service. No ratted out interiors, no beat up airframes, no used up engines, and they are doing quite well, thank you. In fact, they are doing great, compared to about any other 135 operator in AK.

The Kodiak is being built FOR SALE to the mission aviation community. That community has a number of very well used aircraft, from 185
s to Helios, to Porters, to Turbine Beavers. Problem is, avgas is nigh onto unavailable in most of the world, and virtually all these airplanes are totally worn out.

So, Quest has a business plan. They build airplanes largely for the missionary community. But, the mission aviation community doesn't fly non certificated airplanes. As long as you are certifying the airplane, why not offer it for sale to others? For every one you make a profit on by selling it to Joe fisherman, that profit goes into the kitty to build another missionary airplane. That is a beautiful business plan.

You seem to have completely missed the point of this airplane. It is NOT being built for the VERY limited Alaska FAR 135 market. As you noted, MOST of those folks aren't buying new airplanes, they'd prefer to fly junk.

The Kodiak is being built for a specific flight regime. THat regime includes substantial range, because in MOST parts of the world, gas stops are a LONG ways apart. And, by the way, US federal agencies are ordering the airplane largely because of turbine reliability and its FUEL RANGE, which is important in their missions as well.

This airplane isn't designed for Alaska. Get over the notion that every airplane that advertises STOL capability is designed to be flown only in Alaska. You are absolutely correct that STOL capability is pretty much irrelevant in most 135 operations in Alaska.

There are a lot of parts of the world where STOL performance AND serious range are far more important than how many cases of soda pop, beer and pampers you can shove in the back and fly 100 miles. That is not the mission of this airplane.

I believe they built more Archangel airplanes than you suggest. Most would have been registered overseas, however, not on the US registry. I know of at least two that were offered for sale with over 12,000 hours on the clock. Maybe those were the only two that ever got used, I dunno. The missionary community has a LOT of airplanes that are getting high time, though.

Otters, even turbine Otters, aren't any cheaper than the Kodiak will be, and they are all very old airplanes, and most are high time as well. Also hard to support. Kodiak will have that same problem, but they WILL support the airplane, to keep it working in the mission community. Its hard to beat starting off with a clean slate, as in a brand new airframe.

MTV

 

[aalexander]

You are viewing this purely through the very narrow
goggles of the Alaska Part 135 equation.

I realize that, and I understand everyplace isn't Alaska.

A couple of your statements are wrong on that as well--for example, Wright Air in FAI has bought six or seven brand new Grand Caravans and put them into 135 service. No ratted out interiors, no beat up airframes, no used up engines, and they are doing quite well, thank you. In fact, they are doing great, compared to about any other 135 operator in AK.

Yeah, I was using that as a "for example", certainly there are operators buying new Caravans, but there's plenty buying well used ones also, in fact you later in your post you comment that most do.....errrrrr what was your point again?

So, Quest has a business plan. They build airplanes largely for the missionary community. But, the mission aviation community doesn't fly non certificated airplanes. As long as you are certifying the airplane, why not offer it for sale to others? For every one you make a profit on by selling it to Joe fisherman, that profit goes into the kitty to build another missionary airplane. That is a beautiful business plan.

That's the identical business plan the folks with the Angel 44 have. 17 years since certification and as I understand it, they've built the certification model. period.

And, by the way, US federal agencies are ordering the airplane largely because of turbine reliability and its FUEL RANGE, which is important in their missions as well.

Yes, I understand that the Kodiak, when certified might be just the ticket for the migratory waterfowl program, I think I alluded to that in my previous post. perhaps you missed it. Were it certificated already, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them order a few copies. I am however very surprised that the federal government would place a large deposit down to order an airplane that still a ways off from certification. If you say you have specific knowledge of F&WS actually ponying up the bucks to place an order, I wouldn't claim I knew differently. I'm sure your contacts in USF&WS aviation are better than mine.

This airplane isn't designed for Alaska. Get over the notion that every airplane that advertises STOL capability is designed to be flown only in Alaska.

I don't hold that notion. I have been using that as a reference point as it's familiar to many readers.

There are a lot of parts of the world where STOL performance AND serious range are far more important than how many cases of soda pop, beer and pampers you can shove in the back and fly 100 miles.

Sure, but that begs the question, just how great is that demand and does it really justify spending 25 million dollars (Quest's number) of donations that could have been used for something else?

I believe they built more Archangel airplanes than you suggest.

Uhhh, Mike. Evangel, as in Evangelical not Archangel. The company was Evangel Aircraft, the plane was the Evangel 4500. It's possible, I suppose that they made more, but I'm skeptical it was a lot more. I didn't just hear of these yesterday. I've been interested in this airplane for a while, ever since I saw one in Pilot Point 20 years ago and said " What the hell is that" I've researched them, sought out information, read whatever I could lay my hands on. I've even corresponded with a guy who flew them in Columbia. I can tell you for a fact, there weren't many made. Exactly how many is a little blurry. Jane's says 7. Aerofiles.com says 8. I suppose it's possible that they really manufactured several hundred, and I just didn't get that memo, but if I missed it, so did Jane's, and they keep track of that sort of stuff. That's what they do.

 

[GeorgeMandes]

The cynical among us might suggest that Hamilton, et al are exploiting others’ faith to provide themselves a living while they play with designing interesting, expensive, but not economically feasible aircraft. I, of course, am not that cynical. I do however, think that they are providing an answer to a question that isn’t being asked. Time will tell, we’ll check back in 10 years and we’ll see if there’s 250 Kodiaks operating.

Let's see. A new company starts that is privately funded, develops a plane designed for the Alaska/bush/float/MAF/etc. market, names it an Alaskan name, has the former Chairman of Alaska Airlines on their board of governors, has Tom Hamilton of Aerocet, among other things as a designer, introduces it as the AK trade show, and has many attributes that would or should be designed into a clean sheet of paper aircraft and you either believe it will fail or wish it will fail? What am I missing?

George
George

 

[GeorgeMandes]

The cynical among us might suggest that Hamilton, et al are exploiting others’ faith to provide themselves a living while they play with designing interesting, expensive, but not economically feasible aircraft. I, of course, am not that cynical. I do however, think that they are providing an answer to a question that isn’t being asked. Time will tell, we’ll check back in 10 years and we’ll see if there’s 250 Kodiaks operating.

Let's see. A new company starts that is privately funded, develops a plane designed for the Alaska/bush/float/MAF/etc. market, names it an Alaskan name, has the former Chairman of Alaska Airlines on their board of governors, has Tom Hamilton of Aerocet, among other things as a designer, introduces it as the AK trade show, and has many attributes that would or should be designed into a clean sheet of paper aircraft and you either believe it will fail or wish it will fail? What am I missing?

George

 

[mvivion]

aalexander,

You need to take a close look at the list of names on the Board of Directors of Quest Aircraft. This isn't Tom Hamilton's baby anymore. This is a VERY serious bunch of VERY experienced business people.

The missionary community has for years used aircraft to support their worldwide effort. Those aviation groups have done a remarkable task in amazing places with their aircraft. I'm not a member of those communities, but I think they are better qualified to decide where their development dollars should go than I am. I talked to a few of them, and the Caravan simply doesn't have the performance or fit the profile of what they need.

Hence, they're building their own airplane. By the way, developing a new aircraft type of this size for $25 million, is dirt cheap. A lot of the work is getting done gratis, not to line someones pockets.

FWS has told Kodiak that they will buy five airplanes. I too seriously doubt that they've put down non refundable deposits. That said, I do know that they have the funds appropriated, and in a no year account to buy them. They'll buy em, and not to replace N754, but to replace a bunch of thrashed 206s that were never designed to do the job they do.

MTV

 

[GeorgeMandes]

Depending upon your mission, you might consider a "business plan" of operating a turbine aircraft in remote parts of the world to look after poor, sick people to be either the worst idea possible or the best.

I am just glad that need exists, and that the organizers of Quest are making it happen, so that the rest of us that appreciate a turbine, STOL aircraft can benefit from another choice in the marketplace.

George

 

[pwfeenstra]

Thank you, George. I agree with you wholeheartedly. It has been such a blessing to be associated with Quest and their donors. Everyone involved has a tremendous focus on their "Big Picture". The Kodiak will more than meet it's intended objectives in both the commercial world and on the mission/humanitarian field. Back to the post, my vote is a clean 185.

 

[bob turner]

So does the Missionary air force use Helios? I always thought it was 185s until the 206 came along, then they put bushwheel nose wheels on those and did even better? I have very little experience with the 206, but what little I have says to get a light 180. If the MAF uses Helios, I would be impressed!

 

[Africub]

Hi

In Tanzania MAF are using 206 and Caravan, though there are many strips too short for the Van, a turboprop a bit smaller than the van will suit them very well if it has the STOL ability.

Also for many of us operating on demand charter the Kodiak would be ideal, bigger than the 206, smaller than the van and with better field performance. At the moment a 1999 Caravan in decent condition is fetching 1.3 million so the Kodiak is also cheaper than many second hand vans. If it was certified now we would be buying one instead of the Caravan.

Tim

 

[mvivion]

The missionary community has been the power users of Helios for some time, I believe. They have quite a variety of aircraft in service, as noted. That, too is an issue--a dozen different aircraft types to support with maintenance, parts, pilots, etc. That is a nightmare any way you cut it.

aalexander, I would argue that there simply is NO business model similar to the Kodiak airplane, and never has been. This is a very unique approach, and the program is being run by people who are not only dedicated to the success of the program, but also well versed in the business world. In fact, far better versed than most aviation outfits.

I think they'll succeed, and frankly, I hope they do. Great product, and a wonderful mission.

MTV

 

[freestone]

So, to the use of the Kodiak:

Do you think that the Caravan will always be a more polished plane, and if extreme STOL is not needed, a better bet given its proven ability and resale?

Perhaps the one fly in the ointment to me of the caravan is all the icing problems - I wonder how the TKS and the design of the quest will do in comparision.

 

[GeorgeMandes]

Do you think that the Caravan will always be a more polished plane, and if extreme STOL is not needed, a better bet given its proven ability and resale?

Perhaps the one fly in the ointment to me of the caravan is all the icing problems - I wonder how the TKS and the design of the quest will do in comparision.

I think only time will tell as to the resale value of the Kodiak. Certainly the Caravan is an established product with enough units to make for a fluid market.

The Caravan has certainly had its challenges in icing -- probably a combination of the altitudes it is flown, the routes it is flown (scheduled routes in the mountains), its power to weight ratio, and its design. I believe the Caravan is going to TKS this year or next.

I think only time will tell on the Kodiak on ice, but it does start out with TKS and more power. Kodiak and, soon, Caravan drivers may need an old rain coat for preflight in the hangar when the TKS solution is being regularly used.

George

 

[Louis]

I have flown a 800 helio for years. I know have a 295, wich is the best model. It is on amphibious wipline (one time approval). In fact i have three ( one is for sale). If you ever are around montreal, quebec, it will be a pleasur to fly with you so you can try tundra tires, floats, and the smallest hp 250 model.

If you have your hours on supercubs, the transition is pretty fast, if you have a lot of time on 185, then, well, heu..., you would need a lot of training hours because speed is something dangerous in an helio, it is designed to land slow, if you do it in speed that approch the speed you need in a 185, then you put yourself in a precarious state. Control of the Helio becomes more effective at speed below 70 mph, over that, you cant use full deflection of the control because there is spoilers on top of the wing that are connected to the ailerons ( not the slats in the front, another gizmo that pop out of the top of the wing ). Properly flown as the manual say to fly them, in the speed that the manual say, they are very good and particulary safe airplane. Do not fly them like the 185 manual say to fly a 185. I say that because i had to check a high-time 185 pilot on a helio, and it was a rough job. I had to quit the mission. He wasn't believing the manual and was too scared to fly them safely. These spoilers on top of the wing ( again, not the front slats) take a little time to get used to it if you come from a cessna world where slow flight ailerons control are almost non-existant, and usable from on stop to the other. You have to restrain yourself from doing that at slow flight in an helio, because the ailerons ( with the spoilers ) are fully operational at slow speed and using half of their travel is already a lot.

Louis

 

[Talkeetnaairtaxi]

Over the years I have owned 3 Helios and 2 C-185's that all had to work for a lining in Alaska.

Both fantastic planes.

C-185 is faster, about 30% cheaper to operate per hour, is a lot easier to land on pavement, has good parts availability and lots of mechanics who know how to work on them.

The H395 with the GO-480 or the H295's will land and take off a lot shorter than any C-185 ever built. The Helio will Handel rougher strips and haul a heaver loads and has a lot more room than A C-185. The Helio is one of the safest planes ever built in the event of a crash.

Helio parts are getting hard to find, mechanics that know the Helio are not common.

Every high time C-185 pilot that I know that tried to fly a Helio with out a lot of Instruction from a Helio instructor either wrecked the plane or scared them self and hated the Helio. If you buy a Helio Find a very experienced Helio pilot to teach you how to fly it.

For my personal needs having a Pa-18 and a C-185 is the perfect combination . I do miss flying the Helio's and miss the take off and landing performance.

On a different note I have high hopes for the Kodiak I think it will fill a niche that is needed for back country or third world operations.

Jerry Jacques