Though it was sometimes hard to tell while reading the article, Wednesday's New York Times piece by Christopher Drew addressed an interesting topic: the Air Force's King Air program that uses GA airplanes as a launching point and then installs sophisticated electronic gadgets to create a spy platform that gets the job done when other options aren't available. It's a surprisingly entrepreneurial approach to battlefield needs.
The Air Force started doing it with used King Airs but quickly realized the advantages of starting from scratch with a new airframe. Hawker Beechcraft supplies a King Air 350ER (for extended range) and L3 installs communications and surveillance hardware, some of which is classified. The electronics in the airplane, which the Air Force designates the MC-12W, are worth twice the cost of the airframe. It's a great story of a terrific airframe filling the role that unmanned planes can't. Drew even quotes an Air Force intelligence official as saying that in the field the troops prefer the MC-12 to a drone, as the crew, which is actually onboard the aircraft, can communicate more effectively with the troops whose boots are on the ground. Now the Army wants to do the same thing.
Unfortunately, the story makes it sound as though the King Air is a new thing for the military, which it is only in the context of geologic time. The Army started flying King Airs soon after the airplane was introduced in 1964. The Navy has been using the T44 as a trainer since 1977 to provide multi-engine instruction across service lines; every branch has been flying it for transport for decades. A King Air served as Air Force One under President Lyndon Johnson. Bottom line: The military has operated hundreds of King Airs for decades. It's an old story, true, but a good one. The airplane is rugged, easily convertible and it hauls a good load. Our armed forces, and militaries around the world, use the King Air becasue it gets the job done.
Which is why Drew’s focus on the luxuriousness of the model is so perplexing. In one paragraph he says that the airplane is "commonly associated with business executives flying to meetings and wealthy vacationers to weekend ski outings," and adds that "King Airs have also drawn celebrity pilots like the late actor and comedian Danny Kaye." I find it interesting that Drew couldn't find a living celeb to associate with the King Air. Kaye, an entertainer who died in 1987, bought his airplane 40 years ago. Digging for more dirt, Drew also commented on the interiors of the used King Airs that had been been gutted for the conversion, pointing out the "bubinga wood veneers" in some, the "stereo and high-definition television system" in another and the "jazzy metallic strips" on one more. Drew noted that one was emblazoned with the owner's daughter's initials as part of the N-number.
Of course, except for the N-number, all of this decadence can be obtained for the family's Dodge Caravan at WalMart.
Indeed, Drew's insistence on portraying the King Air as a flying carpet for the rich is puzzling. One can only speculate that the story of great used airplanes being snapped up by the military and put to use as spyplanes wasn't sexy enough for the Times. Instead, the paper turned to the cliche that executive airplanes are playthings of the very rich. Yawn. I liked the "used airplanes become spyplanes" theme much better. It's an actual story.
The use of the playthings theme, which Congress wielded a couple of years ago to cudgel already battered auto execs into submission, is now apparently being used to denigrate operators of twin turboprops. It goes to show either that there's a built-in bias against personal airplanes or politicians and members of the press turn to this hurtful mode of attack because they've found that it resonates with disaffected consumers. Sadly, it's probably only a matter of time before this kind of class envy makes its way down to fat cats flaunting their wealth in Skyhawks and Comanches. "Vinyl seats and two-tone paint schemes?" Shocking!
All Comments
Isn't it funny how pendulums swing so wildly? It really is true that there have been some ridiculous excesses among the wealthy. There have indeed been a number of greedy people who are selfish. As if we don't know this already! So now the government is supposed to step in and "fix" this? Sounds like something right out of Karl Marx's playbook. Big government is capable of fixing nothing. It seems that its primary role is in building monuments to itself as it pretends to serve the poor citizens who need protection from the wealthy. But who will protect us from the biggest bully of all? Hopefully "we, the people" will wise up enough to start electing people who really will serve us rather than their own elite selves- for a change!
The US Navy has been flying the T44 since 1977 not the Air Force.
What percentage of GA pilots own a King Air? Next to my little PA-16, a King Air is pretty fancy, not that I'm complaining.
I am sick and tired of Dear Leader going after GA, those nasty business jets when he flies in the biggest Business Jet in the World for free. Where were the complaints when he was on the Campaign trail in his GA B-757? These people are always concerned with what other people are doing but believe they are above any comments against them. Why isn't Obama talking about the millions of jobs that GA creates? Why is he trying to destroy those jobs on one hand while saying he is trying to create others on the other? Sorry for the rant but between this BS and having to deal with the garbage the government has put upon CFI's, GA pilots in the DC area and now GA pilots in General I am fed up!
Hi jmajane,
Sorry to bust you're bubble but I don't think Obama had anything to do with this article... Its just seems to me that newspapers still need to be sold so writers and editors will jump on what they believe is an story that spun a bit will let the general population will side with the author and increase sales. All the time putting down business' that generate the jobs that's so scarce...
Totally brainless... Putting down the most efficient tool that business executives have at their disposal....
Your biases are showing. I thought this was about flying , not politics. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
The reason they bought the used planes is so they could get them now and not wait months. They may have been flying King Airs but weren't using them this way.
For one thing the article is political and the NYT does a very good job of parroting and even cheer leading for the current administration which is opposed to General Aviation. General aviation is the epitome of class warfare even if they are using one of the lowest aircraft on the Luxury scale as an example. Still, the article was supposed to be about utilizing "off-the-shelf" and relatively inexpensive GA aircraft in what would be tremendously expensive, purpose built military aircraft.
I didn't notice that they told how this approach can save millions of dollars be they used or new King Air aircraft.
It strikes me as a bit strange they'd go after the King Air as Luxury as it's very low class compared to the luxury jets. Note I did not say biz jets where it's already difficult to explain to the general public that time is money and in that world time is a LOT of money.
Just briefly...When I retired I was offered a consulting job that would have had me traveling to a number of sites around the country. I found it would be cost effective to purchase a new TBM700 (they didn't have the 850 yet) and use it instead of commercial flights to hit twice as many sites in a day. At the end of the 3 year contract I could have sold the TBM700 and been way ahead.
I think the NYT in their usual manner just took the time "as long as they were there" with the King Air to explain how they are normally used by the filthy rich that fly their own airplanes.
The only author that needs scrutiny here is Robert Goyer. This is one of the worst articles that I remember reading in Flying Magazine. That article left me confused and frustrated. First of all, I am getting super tired of reading political articles in a "Flying" magazine. If a pilot, such as myself, is interested in getting political news we have plenty of sources for that and Flying magazine is not one of them.Secondly, I was confused by the fact that Mr. Goyer was supposedly criticizing the NYT author and yet complimented him numerous times. Calling his topic "interesting" and in the very next paragraph stating, "It's a great story of a terrific airframe..." and further more in the next paragraph, "It's an old story, true, but a good one." Also, why is it "Unfortunate that the story made it sound as though the King Air is a new thing for the Military"? Whether a NYT reader is a pilot or not, they would know that the Military has been using all kinds of different airplanes for a very long time. As far back as 1909 from what I remember in school.Furthermore, who cares that the NYT author believes that King Airs are luxorious? Which by the way, they are! And they are also, "commonly associated with business executives flying to meetings and wealthy vacationers to weekend ski outings". I know this because I've flown them! Also, if Mr. Goyer "finds it interesting that Drew couldn't find a living celeb to associate with the King Air", does that mean that HE can't? Because I can! You really do not want me to write a laundry list of celebs that own King Airs, I'll even throw in a list of super star athletes that own them too if you want.Finally, was Mr. Goyer truly serious when saying, "all of this decadence can be obtained for the family's Dodge Caravan", when talking about the outfittings of a multi million dollar King Air? Or does he have a terrible sense of humor? I'm not sure if this Flying magazine author is considered part of the "press", but he sure sounds like one, with his own "mode of attack", because he "finds it resonates" with Flying magazine consumers.
