gumbyk said:
No, hopefully not.
Gumbyk was commenting on the Nomad, also unofficially known as the Gonad as it really was a balls up. Fantastic potential but under-powered, small payload (because under-powered) yet a lot of good concepts - flat floor, constant rectangular section fuselage ideal for freight ops, big doors etc, no residual fuel (unuseable fuel is a waste of fuel and payload), ailerons droop to become flaps as the flaps extend and roll control transferred to spoilers, the main and nose wheels interchangeable (though most operators left the brake disc off), etc etc. Some things could have been executed better but at least the initial thought was there.
It also had its preventable problems like the original engine intakes that iced up badly (one aircraft in the PNG highlands lost both engines on take-off at around 20C and high humidity because the inlet shape created a low temperature low airflow region around the intake - there were lots of photos of the iced up intakes floating around for months after that), the battery and a bunch of critical circuit breakers in the front of the left pod that was far too flexible (which resulted in more than one losing critical instruments on takeoff from rough strips when the vibration popped the CBs), etc etc.
What the Gonad needed most was for each of the 250B17 powerplants to be replaced with the complete power unit off the Mitsubishi Mu2 - two men can remove it in 20 minutes and it is totally interchangeable side for side. Three bolts, a hand full of control links and fluid lines, start/gen wiring and two identical cannon plugs. Magic.
Incidentally, like the Let, the Mu2 has a bad reputation yet in the 80s/90s it had a far lower accident rate than the KingAir in accidents per units registered, accidents per cycle and accidents per flying hour.