Talk:Beechcraft King Air

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal. Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Aircraft In Lost (TV Series) 2 Hong Kong a military operator of the King Air? 3 Split proposal 3.1 Decision

[edit] Aircraft In Lost (TV Series)

From memory, the aircraft featured in Lost was a Beech 18 (twin fins, radial engines), not a King Air.Nick Moss 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong a military operator of the King Air?

I can't see as to how this could be correct since the city was never autonomous. When the King was introduced it was part of the British Empire now it's part of China. If no reference or explanation is forthcoming I will delete the reference. Lenbrazil 16:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal

The first two comments have been moved here from user talk pages

Bill, sorry for not responding sooner to your question about the military versions of the 90, and the general length of the article. I've been mulling it over, and I'm still not sure what would be best, but I'm wondering about splitting the article into one about the 90/100 series and another about the 200/300 series. That, to me, is where the logical split is, in a number of ways. The 200/300 (including 350), went by "Super King Air", and while there's a lot of commonality between the 90 and 100, there's much less so between the 100 and 200 (the exception would be the 90F which borrowed the 200's tail, but I wouldn't worry about that). Plus, the PT-6A engine comes in two "families", the large PT6A and the small PT6A (# of PT wheels being a big factor). The 90/100 KAs use small PT6s, the 200/300 use large PT6s, so there's a natural split there. If we split the article there, each would have a fairly decent length, and could possibly be split further down the road if they continued to grow. Just some thoughts.... Akradecki 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I had also wondered about splitting the Supers off from the King Airs. If we do that, then we really won't need to split off the military 90s (C-6/T-44/U-21). If you want, we can put a split tag on the King Air article for Beechcraft Super King Air, and solicit some other opinions. I'm inclined to support the split, for the reasons you outilined, and because it would divide the current content just about in half. But if you just want to go ahead an split them, I'm game for that too. - BillCJ 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't think the article is very long — especially given its lengthy and distinguished service — so I'm not clear on why you want to split it. In fact, the article could probably benefit from some expansion. Still, if you feel it must be split up (now or later), I think splitting off the 90/100 from the 200/300 makes the most sense (and I have seen just that in printed aerospace encyclopedias). I would also prefer they be identified by their original tradenames, "King Air" and "Super King Air", respectively. I've never liked the 1996 retroactive renaming since it confuses their notable differences. Having a separate SKA page also allows the fact of the confusing rebranding to be addressed only once in each article. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Initially I had a negative reaction to the idea of dividing the article into two, but I wanted to give it thought before I commented: while there are considerable differences between the KA90/100 from the Supers, they are all King Airs with a common design heritage. Other airplanes have evolved greatly from their original design (e.g., the 737). OTOH, there are big difference between the original KAs and the Supers. I can understand publishing them as two different articles. FWIW, I would personally prefer to see the King Air series handled as a single article until it gets too big and unwieldy to do so, but I see nothing wrong with the opposite decision. Mikepurves 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

After over a month, no new votes have been added. I count 2 full yes's, one qualified yes, and one qualified no. So at 3-1 in favor of the split, I will proceed to do that. Both qualified votes gave suggestions which addressed concerns they had for the split articles, and I will try to ensure those concerns are addressed as suggested. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)