Jump to content

Talk:Beechcraft King Air/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

comparison aircraft

Looking over the comparisons, I noticed that the Piper PT-31T Cheyenne was listed as a comparable aircraft. I'd like to suggest that the Cheyenne III (PT-42) would be a better comparison, based on aircraft dry and gross weights, as well as power plants.

both the PT-42 and the Cessna 425 are rated to carry fewer passengers than the King Air B-100, but they are closer than the alternatives.

DocKrin (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not to merge. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Beechcraft Super King Air into Beechcraft King Air. Although I understand the original rationale for addressing the 90/100 series as the King Air and the 200/300 series as the Super King Air, I think that the recent discontinuation of the C90GTx changes the equation, as Textron Beechcraft is now no longer producing any 90/100 series aircraft while continuing to market the 200/300 series simply as the King Air. Hence, to the casual observer (i.e. someone outside the Wikipedia and/or Beech enthusiast community), the 200/300 series now is the King Air. Furthermore, as 200/300 series sales remain strong, the justification for labeling these aircraft by their former name will seem increasingly tenuous as time passes.

I concede that the resulting page would be overwhelmingly long if it were simply merged with no other changes, but this could be addressed by moving most 90/100 series content to a new page titled Beechcraft King Air Model 90 and 100 or something similar, and referencing that page with hatnotes. Carguychris (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: The two types are different enough and have enough content to warrant separate pages. The earlier aircraft haven't become non-notable just because they are out of production.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest that these not be merged or renamed. The aircraft, while related designs, are not the same aircraft and in fact have three different type certificates:
If anything they should be reorganized to indicate those three aircraft types. - Ahunt (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment in support: I would support that. I'm actually still somewhat on the fence regarding whether it would be better to have a single "primary" King Air article; what tipped the scale was Textron's current aircraft naming practices. My proposed merger is really better characterized as a double move, and I would support using different names, as the main impetus is to do away with the "Super King Air" title since Textron not only dropped the "Super" title 25 years ago but has now stopped producing the "standard" aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The customary week has elapsed with most comments in opposition. I am closing the discussion and instead proposing to move both pages, as this seems to be more widely supported. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 March 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 04:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

– Textron Beechcraft recently discontinued the C90GTx and is thus no longer producing any King Air 90/100 series aircraft. The 200/300 series remains popular, and for the past 25 years, it has been marketed solely as the King Air rather than the Super King Air. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the 200/300 series should be called by the name that the manufacturer now uses, and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the default "King Air" page should not discuss a discontinued aircraft rather than the popular current-production aircraft. The relationship between the aircraft would be explained with hatnotes, and I propose that the search term "Beechcraft King Air" would redirect to the current-production 200/300 series, although I would be open to other suggestions. This proposal replaces a previous merger proposal that I've withdrawn because it proved unpopular. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose nothing wrong with the current two articles the type certificates still use King Air/Super King Air and clearly still the common name, I am not sure why you think the King Air page should not discuss an aircraft not in production, this is an encyclopedia and most aircraft described are not in production. Direction to the Super King Air article is clear from the top of the article and re-directs are in place to assist. MilborneOne (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Support This aircraft has not been officially known as the Super King Air for decades; King Air should refer to the entire breadth of the product line, not solely models that have since been discontinued, particularly when they have been superseded by these aircraft that are still in production. For all intents and purposes, a "new King Air" is now a King Air 250/350, and the fact that people use an old name for them in common parlance doesn't change the fact that an authoritative source should refer to them correctly. TexMarshfellow (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
See, for example, Ram pickup.TexMarshfellow (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Also, Wikipedia has never and will never be an "authoritative source". The WMF has made other goals for Wikipedia such as social engineering a priority over content. BilCat (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's an apt comparison and not apples to oranges at all. A popular vehicle was once marketed as the Dodge Ram Pickup and is now marketed simply as the Ram Pickup. Some folks still connect the Ram brand to Dodge but the connection will become more tenuous with time. Textron has similarly rebranded the Super King Air simply as the King Air. On a technical level, I recognize that the 200/300 remains the Super King Air, and many in the aviation industry will likely refer to it as the Super for years to come, but the whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is to call things by the names most sources use, and both the manufacturer and authoritative sources in the industry have increasingly stopped using the term "Super" except in technical documentation. Carguychris (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure a change in marketing material is enought to trump all the other hundreds of references and officiual sources that use Super King Air. MilborneOne (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but can we agree that the King Air (no qualifier) page should at least be moved, since it is no longer sold as the King Air? Carguychris (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Special request Perhaps I have muddied the waters by simultaneously proposing to move both King Air pages, which consolidated both discussions here. Due to its discontinuation, I think that the case for moving King Air to King Air 90 and 100 is much stronger than the case for moving Super King Air, assuming that redirects and hatnotes make it clear that the Super King Air is the current production series. When discussing the merits of the proposals, please clarify whether you are referring to one in particular, or to both. Carguychris (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry too much about having "muddied the waters". Beech did that already when they dropped the "Super", and we're just trying to deal with the long-term consequences of an already-confused situation. BilCat (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that's something we can all agree on. Carguychris (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beechcraft_King_Air/Archive_1&oldid=1219364638"