Talk:Beechcraft Super King Air

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Specifications for KA350?[edit]

I was reading the article and noticed that although there is a specifications section for the B200, there is none for the B300 and King Air 350. Is there a specific reason for this? And if not, could I add this section to the article? -Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 00:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If this version has significantly different specifications, I believe it'd be worth to include them as well. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason why there are only specs for one variant: The WPAIR page content guidelines specify only one variant is to be used for the specs, usually the most common one, or one that is most representative of type. Every once in a while, you will see two specs templates in one article where two variants differ widely, but it's not the norm. If the B300 is more of the middle ground between the B200 and 350, then I've no problem changing the specs to that variant. - BillCJ (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a fast response! :) Thanks for the guidance Bill, I was unaware of that guideline. Is there any appropriate way in WP to give more detail (other than listing & brief description) about the variants of an aircraft and its specs? Maybe in an article of its own, separate from (but linked to) the main article about the aircraft? Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Some articles have so many variants with histories of their own that pages like P-51 variants: specifications, performance and armament are created. In this case, I believe that the 300/350 is different enough from the 200 in the specs department that it warrants its own article, so we would have Beechcraft King Air 200 and Beechcraft King Air 350/300. Failing that I think there should be a second specs template put on this page with the 350 numbers (just as the 100 page has two for 90 and 100 specs). - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a second set of specs for the 350. I'd forgotten we have two in the 90/100 article, so there is precedent within the King AIr family. There was enough opposition to splitting off this page fm the main one that I don't think we need to try to split this one again, but I'm open to it eventually if need be. - BillCJ (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that they used this airplane in Jurassic Park 3 when they were having a tour of the island.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The information regarding the B200 service with the Canadian forces is incomplete. The B200 is currently serving at CFB Trenton in a flight called the Multi-engine Utility Flight or MUF. they are used for various utility missions and personnel transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.137.59 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that shows this? - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Argentinian version: Beechcraft B200 Cormorán[edit]

I've noticed in the Spanish wikipedia that the Argentine Navy has developed a local version of the B200T for maritime surveillance, the Beechcraft B200 Cormorán. No sources are cited in that article, but it looks quite comprehensive as to encourage me to include a brief reference to it in this article (the english one). Please if anyone has any caveat let me know, so I can address it before proceeding to update this wikiarticle. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll need a reliable source, other than the es.wiki article, of course. If you find one, feel free to go ahead and add the brief mention. - BillCJ (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/raytheon_bk_air200/
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/beach_king_air350/
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/enhanced-surveillance-system-emarss/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beechcraft Super King Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted, all archived pages are "404". - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beechcraft Super King Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Using Template:RP citation style[edit]

The reference list of this article is very cluttered. There are also many instances of multiple citations at the end of a single sentence to different pages of a single source. This issue could be resolved by using the template:rp for the sources. I propose a change to this style. Scotteaton92 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scotteaton92: I support references pages style, it will defintely be easier to WP:verify.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beechcraft Super King Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Variants specs[edit]

Currently, only the 1981 B200 have specs, with mixed refs : a difficult to check Janes 2003 and the indirect Frawley via airliners (1995?) I propose to add the current variant specs (250/350i/350ER) with up to date references from textron/beech:

General
Variant 250[1] 350i[2] 350ER[3]
Crew 1-2
Capacity 10 11 11
Length 43 ft 10 in / 13.36 m 46 ft 8 in / 14.22 m
Span 57 ft 11 in / 17.65 m
Height 14 ft 10 in / 4.52 m 14 ft 4 in / 4.37 m
Cabin L × W × H 16'8" × 4'6" × 4'9"
5.08 × 1.37 × 1.45 m
19'6" × 4'6" × 4'9"
5.94 × 1.37 × 1.45 m
Weights
MTOW 13,420 lb / 6,087 kg 15,000 lb / 6,804 kg 16,500 lb / 7,484 kg
OEW[a] 8,830 lb / 4,005 kg 9,955 lb / 4,516 kg 9,455 lb / 4,289 kg[b]
Useful load 4,670 lb / 2,118 kg 5,145 lb / 2,334 kg 7,145 lb / 3,241 kg
Engines
Engine type (2×) PWC PT6A-52 Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-60A
Power or Thrust 850 shp / 625 kW 1,050 shp / 783 kW
Performance
Maximum Cruise 310 kt / 574 km/h 312 kt / 578 km/h 303 kt / 561 km/h
Ferry Range 1,720 nm / 3,185 km 1,806 nm / 3,345 km 2,670 nm / 4,945 km
Takeoff 2,111 ft / 643 m[c] 3,300 ft / 1,006 m
Ceiling 35,000 ft / 10,668 m
  1. ^ "King Air 250 Product Card". Beechcraft. 2016. 
  2. ^ "King Air 350i Product Card". Beechcraft. 2016. 
  3. ^ "King Air 350ER Product Card". Beechcraft. 2016. 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content says "These specifications should relate to a specific variant of the aircraft, and be labeled accordingly. Usually this will be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant. Each article should only have one set of specifications and any model differences should be described in the variants or development sections. Multiple sets of specifications are to be avoided." - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The 350ER is a 350i weight variant, so the choice would be between the 250 and 350i. I don't know which is the most numerous, any idea? --Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Since when are book sources depreciated? Just because you don't have a copy of Jane's doesn't mean it cannot be used as a reference. And why must specifications be limited to current versions?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Offline sources certainly aren't deprecated (and I got a jane's myself) but WP:verifiability is easier with online source thus makes a claim stronger. When sources of equal quality are available, the ease of access may be preferred. I would say the manufacturer is a better source for specs. And the manufacturer lists current variants specs.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

@YSSYguy: You tried to change and remove referenced info without explanations, I reverted with as summaries : "why deleting referenced info?", you did it again and I asked again "you have to explain deleting referenced info", of which you replied "Restored my cleanup/update/adding of information/relocation of information and removal of non-notable crash". I reverted again with "restored referenced details, "destroyed, the pilot sustained fatal injuries" notable crash", and you reverted again. Can we sort it out here instead of reporting WP:3RR?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually take a detailed look at what you were undoing?
Yes of course the diff for each modification --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You added prices of various models to the infobox a couple of months back. You did not provide any context for those prices; I added that they were 2016 prices in US dollars and you undid that.
You also rounded the prices. US$ are obvious in aerospace, even more for an american manufacturer.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I also added referenced text to the body of the article, explaining what a 250EP is - after you added the 250EP to the infobox model prices you neglected to add any mention of it anywhere else in the article, which means that it was just a random set of numbers in the infobox without any explanation or context. You undid that as well.
thanks for that. Just don't do it simultaneously with contestable info deletion.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I updated the text to reflect that production of the B200 ended four years ago, which is referenced by the latest version of the serial numbers list, a document that I can access as a person who works on King Airs every day and has a login for Beechcraft technical publications; and you undid that. As soon as I figure out a way for people like you who do not have access to Beechcraft tech. pubs. to view that list, I will update that reference.
even if you know your job, and I'm sure you are, you still need to provide the reference. And Beech tech pubs are a perfectly admissible ref, even if only accessible by a few, and you are!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I also updated the number built in the infobox, which is also referenced by the serials list, and you undid that.
if it's replacing valid refs, it's not admissible.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I added access dates to a couple of references that you added a couple of months ago because you failed to do that at the time; you undid that.
I personally don't care about access dates if the ref is already dated, So I don't add them but nothing prevents you to do so.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I moved the info about the crash of the Japanese military LR-2 to the same paragraph as the other information about Japanese military use - plenty of other editors would have removed the info altogether as it's not really notable, but it expands on Japan's use of the LR-2 and provides some context; you undid that.
No info was lost.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I corrected the text to show that it is the model B200GT that is marketed as the 250 and it is an improvement over the B200, you undid that.
Because as we argued about a few weeks ago, you didn't provide any ref.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I removed info about a crash that killed one person as it is not notable, being an event that did not receive significant coverage even here in Australia, where it happened. If you think it is notable fine, put it back in. Do not just do a mindless blanket reversion to do it though. YSSYguy (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
no need to do a mindless blanket modification either! When you want to add modifications, do it one by one.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I replaced them one by one to explain :

--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Beechcraft Super King Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Question? A help request is open: dead archive. Replace the reason with "helped" to mark as answered.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Checked. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beechcraft Super King Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beechcraft Super King Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).