Gipps Aero Ga10 Trumped

[red750]

It looks like the 10-seat turbo-prop GA10 has been trumped by a machine that looks like a baby Cessna Caravan, called the Quest Kodiak. This is by no means a new aircraft, having first flown in October 2004. Over 50 had been produced by May 2011, with the major user being the Missionary Aviation Fellowship, which uses them in Borneo and Haiti, among other places. The first (and so far only) example in Australia was registered in Nov 2011.

 

From specs on both manufacturers websites, it appears that the Kodiak trumps the GA10 in most other aspects as well:

 

......................................................GA10.............. Kodiak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTOW ...........................................4450 lb ............7255 lb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Max Cruise Range .............................750 nm ..........1005 nm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T/O Ground Roll ..............................1800 ft ..............934 ft

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cruise Speed ....................................150 kts ............185 kts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROC ...............................................1000 fpm .........1371 fpm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seats .................................................10 ...................10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other specs for the GA10 are not yet published.

 

[ATTACH=full]1334[/ATTACH]

 

.

 

[ATTACH]18256[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[djpacro]

I guess that buyers will also compare payload-range performance, specific air range (nm/lb fuel), operating cost and purchase price. Pay the money and take the choice.

 

 

[mnewbery]

GA10 Rolls Royce model 250 B17 ~400SHP continuous, SFC 0.7lbs/shp/hr

 

Kodiak P&W PT6A-34 ~750 SHP continuous, SFC around 0.6lbs/shp/hr (maybe 0.5 if you are careful)

 

Of course the Kodiak will climb like 'the proverbial' and out perform the GA10 on a hot day. You are gonna pay for it at the pump. If the operator is getting paid per seat rather than per kilo and not using the Range/TODR/Climb rate performance, the GA10 wins to the tune of 70-80 L/hr. To FL140, the Kodiac will take 10+ minutes and the GA10 will take

 

14 minutes. (33 litres vs 26 litres at MTOW) So the jump pilot will burn an extra 7 litres per load in the Kodiak.

 

Trumped? Really?

 

 

[mnewbery]

Using the magic of Excel, I can tell you that for paying passengers, the same-same point for profitability is between 300 and 350NM for these types. The maths is icky, PM me if you want a copy of the spreadsheet I used. The GA10 is more profitable for the shorter missions such as skydiving. Note I was being generous by awarding the PT6A-34 a sfc of 0.5 lbs/hp/hr. Unit on the left is litres burned per kilogram payload at MTOW.

 

For the brown box brigade, we have this:

 

[ATTACH=full]1335[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]18257[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

[Guest verminator]

I don't know what is in the spreadsheet, but you need to go far and wide to find a turboprop that has better overall economics that a PT6-34. An aeroplane that can do 1,000fpm at S/L will need a lot of flat rating to still be doing 1,000fpm at 14K which is what you are implying

 

 

[Robbo]

The GA10 flys like a dreamand handles well

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

As a jumper i'll go the Kodiak. faster sortie times means more loads per day = more revenue between 100 hourlies. that should outweigh the extra fuel burn. Also drop zone in the US is putting 14 jumpers in it and still pulling 1000fpm at height. Cost of the Kodiak around 1.8 mil us. What willl the van work out at. I saw the Kodiak at Airventure and it is built like the proverbial.

 

 

[Guest verminator]

how's the spinning at the aft CG going?