I’ve watched and read several glowing reviews of the new Kodiak 100 and it does indeed appear to be a very high quality product. But I’ve been wondering: we already have the default C208, plus a nice mod for it; and we have the Asobo PC-6 plus the excellent MilViz PC-6, with FSG’s PC-6 coming sometime next year; so with all these similar options already available, what are people finding the appeal of the K100 to be? Is it anything more than our collective love of new aircraft? Or is there something special or unique about this aircraft that really sets it apart from the others?
4 Likes
There is no right answer. Your question could be posed to the real world and you would likely receive a multitude of answers. All of those aircraft exist in the real world and there are missions and a market for each.
11 Likes
For me it’s mostly the detail that’s modeled in the Kodiak. Yes, it’s basically a smaller and more powerful C208, but everything on it works, and the flight model for it is great.
Cargo, passengers, working cupholder, opening doors, working circuit breakers, moving airvents, correct engine modeling (shows up especially nice with the NXi), having to actually dial in quite a bit of rudder trim for a full power takeoff, standby instruments that can show ILS/battery info etc etc.
Flight model is from the same guy that worked on the flightmodel for the JustFlight Arrows. It’s a really really good plane.
For some a lot of this might be considered pointless fluff, but for me it makes the aircraft a much better experience.
11 Likes
MortThe2nd has answered this perfectly, I have the same question, re the Twin Otter, I just don’t see the appeal for it now? Yes it is twin engine, but IIRC it is a very slow plane? Can anyone change my mind? at the moment I am not sure I am going to buy it. The quest seems the better option to me.
3 Likes
PC 6 is a tail dragger -never understood the appeal of that - and quite slow. The 208 is fine, but the flight model and the details of the Kodiak are way better. Best aircraft in the sim for m.
6 Likes
Here’s a short review I posted on Avsim
I bought it, thinking that I wouldn’t fly it much. Really didn’t have any expectations at all.
I think this plane deserves a solid 9/10. A bit of background, I’ve flown turboprops (King Air) and have a bit of time in them, but never a single engine turboprop. I ended up leaving a company that got Kodiaks right after I left, so never had the opportunity.
I think they did very well simulating how the PT6 engine works. They’re great engines, and Asobo really missed the mark. These guys did a really good job. Aerodynamics are fantastic. It is NOT an easy plane to fly, but it feels right.
For my test, I flew with about 1000 lbs of fuel, and no other payload, so a light aircraft. I’ll try flying it later at max weight. It started out with a simple traffic pattern to get used to the flight characteristics, and I’ve gotta say, it’s much more slippery than I thought it would be. But it makes sense, have you seen that wing?? LoL. This version of the PT6A-34 is rated at 750 SHP, so it’s a pretty powerful engine, especially considering that during my tests I was only at around 5100 lbs.
ENGINE START:
Starting the engine was awesome. It felt just like starting a real PT6. As soon as you introduce fuel, things happen quickly, and the related indications appeared to rise and settle very realistically. It was nice seeing the NG rise to a realistic 21/22% as opposed to the 12% from other planes in the sim have (caugh Caravan). The only thing I wish they had was the “ignition click” when starting, but it’s not a deal breaker at all. It doesn’t appear that HOT STARTS are modeled…
TAXI:
We’re pretty used to planes taxiing like BLANK in MSFS, so this is a breath of fresh air. It actually feels like the wheels are on the ground…not on skates. When you apply full rudder in either direction, the plane WILL turn. I think that the way this plane taxis is a good precursor to how the plane flies. It requires a light touch. No more needing to over control everything. I also like how they simulated HIGH IDLE and LOW IDLE. When you’re light, like in this flight test, the plane will move just fine on its own with the condition lever in LOW IDLE. When moving it to HIGH IDLE, it picks up speed pretty quickly. If you have your throttle set up to have reverse thrust toggled by a button, and you use your throttle to set the amount of reverse, you can taxi by using BETA to slow down, as opposed to constantly using the brakes (just like in real life).
TRAFFIC PATTERN:
The plane behaves similar to a cross between a Cirrus and a Caravan. It has a ton of aileron authority, especially at low speed. When you add power, you need a TON of right rudder throughout the takeoff roll and climb. I just trimmed the rudder during the climb, and it seemed to maintain coordination as long as the power was static. Leveling off, it required a re-trimming of the rudder. It’s surprisingly easy to hand fly, but it can get away from you if you’re not paying attention. It’s really a positive control aircraft, where as the Caravan or C172 are “set it and forget it.” I turned on the autopilot (with no flight plan) just to see if the basic functions worked, which they did. It seemed to behave more realistically in that the autopilot felt dampened. It wouldn’t do anything too drastic or sudden. If I put in a V/S of -1000FPM, it would get to the target V/S, but it didn’t initiate a dive to achieve that target. That was nice.
Putting out flaps was very satisfying in that you NEED to apply forward pressure on the yoke to prevent you from pitching up. It didn’t seem over exaggerated like with other planes, it felt “right.”
They simulated ground effect well too. I was doing a short-field landing, and was very slow. The ground effect simulation allowed for a smooth and short landing. The test field was about 5,500’ MSL, and the temp was 22 C, so it didn’t stop in 350’ as it would have if it was at sea level, but it performed very well.
MANEUVERS:
Next up, it was time to try out some maneuvers. I didn’t do steep turns, since there’s really no point, but do a full stall series, slow flight, and emergency descent.
The first one was a Clean Power On Stall. Holy Cow! That was an intense maneuver. About 5 knots before the stall, you lose all rudder authority. Some people would say that it’s too over done. I may agree to an extent, but remember, this is a really powerful engine. For comparison, the C208B Caravan, has about 880 SHP, and carries 1,200 lbs more. That’s only about 100 HP more. With the propeller slipstream pushing the tail right, and very little airflow otherwise, you’re going to lose rudder authority. I wanted to take it as far as it would go, and ended up getting into a spin! It recovered nicely, but I’ll probably do that a little higher from the ground next time 
.
The next one was a Clean Power Off Stall. It behaved just as you’d expect. It did try to drop a wing again, but pushing the nose over quickly fixed that. It felt good. It felt right.
The Approach to Landing Stall with full flaps went well too. Because the flaps were out, it didn’t drop a wing as intensely as it did with the previous two, but if it did, it was quickly fixed with small rudder adjustments. The plane became a falling leaf.
ENGINE FAILURE:
Well, why not. I pulled the Emergency Fuel SOV, and set the autopilot to maintain a descent at 85 knots (no idea what best glide is, just used 85 as an arbitrary target). Pulled the prop lever back to feather, and my V/S decreased a bit when the prop stopped moving. Now, in real life, when you try to restart a turboprop in flight, there’s a transition from the prop being in feather, to going back to a normal propeller pitch. During this transition, it feels like you hit a wall. You get a speed reduction, and then your speed will increase with a power increase. It did not have this transition. The speed remained constant, and so did the V/S. Not sure how they’d actually simulate this, but it’d be a nice feature if they were able to…though most people probably wouldn’t be flying the plane in this way. After all, if a PT6 fails…it’s done.
SOUNDS:
Sounds for this plane are spectacular. I wish they had the ignition “click,” but that’s about it. Stall buffet sounds are modeled, yoke trim sounds are modeled, the engine sounds are fantastic. I am very particular when it comes to sound, and they knocked it out of the park.
IN SUMMARY:
Engine Model 9/10 - I wish they modeled HOT Starts. It’s an initial fear that every turboprop operator is aware of.
Aerodynamics 9.5/10 - Maybe a tad too yaw sensitive, but otherwise, it really feels really really good.
Sounds 10/10 - Awesome sounds…make sure to turn off Headphone Simulation in your settings to get the full range of sounds.
Taxiing 10/10 - Finally! A plane that feels like it’s actually on the ground.
26 Likes
Weird to me how questions like this only ever get asked about GA/bush type aircraft in the sim and never airliners.
9 Likes
I’m going to pick up the Twotter as well, providing it’s good. It’s a twin, and Aerosoft are including ALL the versions (so floats and ski’s as well). For me they’re different enough. But that’s for everyone to decide for themselves.
I mean, if you’ve got a A320, why would you get a 737? They’re both twin engine tubes with about the same range. It’s because people like to fly different planes, and if they’re well done, they’re worth buying. The definition of ‘worth’ here is entirely subjective of course 
@V1ROTA7E thanks for the detailed writeup, it was a pleasure to read.
2 Likes
I fly a C208 everywhere. Use it with the Neofly add-on.
What the Kodiak will give me the PC-6 doesn’t is the short field capability with the cargo/pax capacity of the C208 for my Neofly missions. I can get into smaller fields easier now with the Kodiak.
And the product is just too cool. I discovered last night that if you load it up with no pax load in the weight and balance and look back the cargo space is empty. Add a passenger weight to one of the seats and a pax shows up in a seat in that location.
Thanks mort I guess you are right. I get it more with Airliners, I prefer airliners, GA I like, and oddly even though when flying a GA, like I have done with the Quest, threading it through mountains, I get bored where as on a Decent airliner I just love it even though I hardly doing any flying and just monitoring the systems aside from take off and landing or approach if its an odd one, so for GA I am a little more picky.
But thanks for your point view.
Although they look pretty similar, the Kodiak is quite different in performance to the C208. The STOL capability of the C208 is mediocre, it is bigger, and it feels far less nimble and responsive and also a tad underpowered. I could never warm to it. The Porter is a tail dagger and a very old plane, while the Kodiak feels modern yet rugged. So for me the Kodiak is more like a single engine glass cockpit Mini-Twotter, while the C208 feels more like a pregnant C172
6 Likes
Although the Kodiak and the Twin Otter use a variant of the same engine they are from different eras. The Kodiak II was introduced in 2018. At that time the DHC 6 (the -100, -200 and -300 are modelled by Aerosoft) had been flying for over 50 years and out of production for 30 years. The avionics are worlds apart, the Kodiak born with an all glass panel cockpit whereas the Twin Otter had an analog cockpit - with some upgrades added to the later models.
The Kodiak is flown by one person, the Twin Otter usually takes a co-pilot to fly. The Kodiak seats 9 the Twin Otter 20.
2 Likes
This has been an issue with several iterations of FS, at least back to FS2002.
Viking Aircraft acquired the license to restart production. You can get a brand new Twotter with Honeywell avionics and your choice of wheels (including tundra), straight floats, amphibian floats, or skis.
1 Like
You probably never will. It will take a huge effort to code the Honeywell Avionics suite and it’s only used in the Twotter 400 and the newer Pilatus aircraft. Compare that to simply putting the default Garmin or the Nxi in a plane model.
Yes. I agree… I’d still love to see it however.
The NXi is coming on great however.
All I know is, I’m just getting to know it, but I love the Kodiak! I fly pretty much 100% in VR and this one is the one I want to study. I’m not a pilot IRL and not even a student and don’t expect to be though maybe one day I’ll do a discovery flight. But I do aspire to learn realistic procedures and learn all the things VFR, IFR, vatsim, etc.
To me MSFS is mind blowing with VR and this bird takes it up a notch.
The combination of STOL capabilities with the ease of ground handling, take off and landing of a tricycle gear vs the taildragger STOL birds makes it a winner. It is simply the most modern STOL aircraft in real life and in msfs.
I could never afford to buy a real aircraft or really even to become a pilot, but even some aircraft that I might not fly often in sim I still like to collect and experience. I plan to buy the Twin Otter as well, not sure I will fly that one as often as the Kodiak but to me, I just love collecting the different well done aircraft and being able to experience them even if I don’t plan to fly a specific one all the time. The VR experience of each plane is really unique.
6 Likes
I’m the opposite to OP. I’ve been waiting for the Kodak eagerly for months. Seeing 3 PC-6s baffles me personally, completely unappealing aircraft. Tail draggers and slower than if I were to walk to the destination. Why we need 3 I’ve no idea.
The Kodak is just a much higher fidelity version of the 208 default for me so I’m loving it
After watching these Films of the Kodiak which demonstrate the unique qualities of this incredible Aircraft we’re full of admiration for what those Talented Devs at Sim Works Studios have given our Flight Sim Community. Thank you for giving us a great Christmas present Guy’s and we look forward to you making us even happier in the New year.
6 Likes
Benefit of a tail dragged is an increased distance between the prop and the ground which make them useful for off airport operations and bush flying (less chance of hitting the prop off something).
2 Likes