Talk:Beechcraft Baron

Merge

Agree, it needs to be merged. Akradecki 17:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No opposition after over a month. Merging. - BillCJ 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Price

There is a reference from a commercial website. http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1123372 I am not sure if we can post commercial websites as references. Aldo L (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Somebody Should Have Left This Sentence Short.

"As expensive to operate as it is to buy, the 'next step up' from a Baron is a very big one." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.170.171 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

T-42A use by U.S. Navy?

Joe Baugher's website says that three T-42As went to the Navy, and his information is extremely reliable in my experience, but nothing in my extensive library about naval aviation says anything about them and nothing shows up in Google. I wonder if the Navy took possession simply because the Army was getting rid of them, but no plan to use them ever came to fruition (this would not be a unique occurrence; fortunately they were not destroyed as targets!). Does anyone have any information? It may not be appropriate to list the Navy under "Users". Carguychris (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

EM-11 Orka

Is it appropriate to include the EM-11 Orka as a comparable aircraft, when it's strictly a four-seater that was developed decades later, and as far as I can tell, it has never entered production? Carguychris (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Removing per WP:BOLD. Carguychris (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Air Force inventory in 2023/2024

FlightGlobal says that the USAF has one Baron in inventory, but the USAF Almanac disagrees. I wonder if this aircraft is 65-12697, listed as in storage at the United States Army Aviation Museum. Joe Baugher does not indicate that the U.S. military formally disposed of it. Anybody know? Carguychris (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Both FlightGlobal and the USAF Almanac should only list operational aircraft, so I would be surprised in FlightGlobal intentionally included a single museum aircraft in its list. That said, mistakes do happen, so it is possible that it is referring to 65-12697. However, the other civilian types on the FlightGlobal list include their Tri-Service designations if they have them, but the Baron is not listed as a T-42. This might indicate that the Baron is not one of the original T-42s, but a newer aircraft that is used but not officially owned by the USAF (similar to the G 120TP also on the list). - ZLEA _T\^C 18:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

...the other civilian types on the FlightGlobal list include their Tri-Service designations if they have them, but the Baron is not listed as a T-42. This might indicate that the Baron is not one of the original T-42s, but a newer aircraft that is used but not officially owned by the USAF... Good point, @ZLEA. Baugher doesn't describe what happened to at least three aircraft in the 1965 Army order, but this is by no means conclusive. It occurred to me that the lone Baron may be operated by AFSOC like some other oddball civil aircraft have been, or it may be an "under-the-radar" VIP transport like the VC-6A at the USAF Museum. I cross-posted the question to Talk:List of active United States Air Force aircraft, so an answer may emerge there. Carguychris (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The 2024/25 FlightGlobal directory also has the USAF having a single Baron listed under training aircraft - could it be at the test pilot school or something similar? I can't find an inventory of the USAF TPS, so this is pure speculation.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: could it be at the test pilot school or something similar?... this is pure speculation. Your speculation is just as valid as mine. Actually, the TPS may be more plausible that AFSOC, as I could envision it being used as a low-cost chase aircraft that can keep up with most rotorcraft, or as a flying testbed for small equipment. Carguychris (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)