In about nine months, I intend on retiring.

Currently I work in Germany, while my family lives in California. I work approximately 2 months on, 1.5 months off. I've been doing this gig for six years, but I'm ready for it to be over. Upon retirement, I plan to enjoy the fruits of my labor, and spend a lot more time with my family, including grandchildren. My A36 cannot carry the entire family. For that reason, I am pondering a C208.

I don't need pressurization, but I do need the seats. The PC-12 is nice, and would do the job, but like I said, I don't need pressurization and the -67 motor seems to have more instances of engine failures compared to the -114. That itself would have been enough to keep me away. Other than the PC-12 and C-208, I can't think of another comparable airplane that can do what I want.

Have others on this forum made the switch from A36 to C-208? Anything to be wary of? Words of wisdom? Things that you wish someone would have told you beforehand?

At this moment, I plan to keep the A36 alongside the C208. That may change as I move along with this process, however, if I find that the two aircraft overlap. I appreciate any ideas shared.

John

Also look at the Quest Kodiak. I just like the stol feature of the Kodiak.
PT6s are all the same, I dont see any more failure on the -67 than others.

I transitioned from a T210 to a C208B. I have been flying the Caravan for over 15 years. The transition is easy and you will find that the Caravan is in many ways a much easier airplane to fly. I owned a part of a B36TC concurrently with the Caravan. I found that I felt much more comfortable in weather in the Caravan because of the reliability of the PT-6 and greater degree of redundant systems.

Please feel free to pm me if you want to discuss. Ed

I've flown all three, A-36, Caravan, and the Kodiak.

First l like a utility type aircraft, I drive a pickup, so I have that bias.

When you strap into a Caravan, you feel like you are getting ready to fly a tank. It is so confidence inspiring that it could get you into trouble. You feel a kind of "bring it on" attitude. The controls are very stable, it isn't any big deal to fly without an autopilot because it has a GREAT trim system and just stays where you put it. The downside is the size, BIG wingspan, tall tail, but I'm sure you checked all that out. Last they are hard to find with an executive interior.

The Kodiak is very similar to the Caravan (built for missionary missions). I thought they should have added the GFC700 to the G1000 and little things like the trim system are not as good as the Caravan. One MUST have option IMO is the single point fueling. Getting up on a tall ladder to fuel either a Caravan or Kodiak sucks and it is very possible to go places without full service ground support so it is a factor.

I would rather have TKS than boots given the history of crashes in ice in either one. There is a lot of body hanging out there in weather that can collect a ton of ice.

Fuel burn takes getting used to. If memory serves at low altitude about 55 GPH in a Caravan and just a bit less in a Kodiak. It seems shocking until you calculate how much you can haul and the cost differential of Jet-A.

They also hold their value extremely well and I doubt you would ever have a problem selling either one if you decide to change directions. Unless Kodiak stepped up on price, I would stay with a Caravan just because you have a worldwide parts and support base that is un-matched.

I think the Navajo series is the heaviest hauling unpressurized piston airplane, might deserve a look.

I am always cautious about buying a bigger plane to take bigger family trips.... my observation with others has been that it's hard to get everyone on the same schedule and on the same page about where to go. Grandparent trips with one of your kids' families per trip and then a different trip with the next branch... seem to be more realistic for most families.

My dream isn't a big plane but having my kids learn to fly and meeting us at the destination in their planes

Hi John, welcome.

When I ran the numbers on the Caravan and the PC12, with over 300 hrs per year, my operating cost per mile was about the same, maybe slightly in favor of the PC12

What made the difference for me was the following:
- Full fuel range - 1500+NM
- Full fuel payload - 1200lbs
- Pressurization is nice and you can get above the weather
- Very good ice airplane. Had heard (but not witnessed that the C208 was not as good)
- Potty (although I'm sure you can put one in a C208)

I also looked at a Kodiak too. No matter what, you cannot go wrong with any of them.

If you are travelling distances, the PC12 wins hands down though.

Thanks.

My family is at the point now where I'm doing two or three trips to move everyone to the vacation spot. That's what I'm trying to avoid. If I could find an airplane to carry ten passengers (some growing in weight) for 1.5 hours, I'd be a happy camper.

Absolutely no desire for a 30-40 year old Navajo.

I have flown 10 people many times in the Caravan. Full fuel is 6.5 hours and 1200-1500 pounds of payload. Add 300 pounds for each hour of fuel you take out. Two Suburban loads of crap will fit in the pod. The best is that you have four cabin doors. Load the passengers and jump in the front door and go.

We do have a potty.

In Africa we flew in commercial caravans with 14 people including the pilot.

Would a Cessna 206 fit your requirements?

Even if pc12 engines fail more than caravans, the greater speed and glide range of the pc12 would require MANY more engine failures to see similar numbers of crashes.

No. Too few seats and about 1,000 lbs short of payload at that.

I have nothing useful to add, but I do have logorrhea......

1) It would be exceedingly cool to unload the Suburban into the Caravan and say, "Is that everything?"

2) FWIW, a Beech 18 would do this mission really well at about the same speed and fuel burn.

3) My son has a little Caravan time. I asked, "Is it true that it handles like a big 172?"

"No," he answered. "It's easier. More like a big 182."

A Pilatus does everything a Caravan can do better than the Caravan except for the pod. The Caravan is much simpler.

The limiting factors on the Caravan are 1) speed; 2) high altitude performance; and 3) icing. The new Grand Caravan Ex with the big engine and TKS addresses these shortcomings to a point, but it still not a Pilatus.

I fly to Aspen 2-3 times a year in the Caravan. I only fly in the morning when it is cool and it is clear. No IFR in the Rockies for me. The climb performance out of Aspen is anemic.

We do a lot of trips into private unpaved strips. The landing gear is hell for stout.

It is the easiest airplane to land, and very easy in a crosswind. I was doing a demo flight for a friend yesterday. I held 165 knots indicated until 200 feet agl, and I was still able to make the first turnoff. When a controller tells you to keep your speed up on final, there is zero stress.

For flight planning, figure 155 knots at 300 to 350 pounds per hour.

Finally, it has one of the roomiest cockpits with outstanding visibility.

What is your data source on this? The -67 has one of the lowest in flight shutdown rates of any turboprop engine. I don't have the data specifically for the -114 though.


If you need to haul 10 adults plus all their luggage, PC-12 can do it but you had better pack light. It isn't really a weight issue if 1.5 hours is your range (if you are talking 1.5 caravan range, then that's 1 hour in a PC12), the issue would be more of a space issue (which the caravan would win hands down in that department).

Here is an example weight and balance with 10 adults. If you had some lighter folks in the back four seats you could carry up to 260#s in the luggage compartment (400#s in the luggage with 8 people).

This loading is 1550#s of cabin payload plus 4.5 hours of fuel, 1000nm range plus :45 reserves.

10 people, not 10 adults