Picking up the conversation as to the practicality of Tigerfish's system on King Airs:
This system as presented by Tigerfish is a fuselage mounted system. The King Air has no fuselage hard points aft of the propellors. You would have to engineer two saddle structures in the fuselage to support this Tigerfish system. This would add considerable weight to the fuselage, and cut useful load. It would also make your airplane a "one off", with special IFCA inspections, whether you left the system installed or converted it back to a land plane. In other words, you detract from the re-sale value. Is this system possible? Perhaps, if you are willing to pay to get it done, anything is possible. Is it practical? I don't see it.
As far as a nacelle mounted system, which is not what Tigerfish has, the points where the gear trunnion and the anti drag link attach are hard points aft the nacelle. Though the actuator (hydraulic, not a jackscrew, unless you fly a very old one) attach point is beefy it can't be considered a hard point as it does not transmit gear loads to the structure. So you have two hard points about two feet apart fore and aft. There is no way that those two points could absorb torquing forces created by choppy water or crosswind landings. The attach points would need to be many feet apart.
And the main problem still remains: The King Air is a low wing airplane. It's the wrong platform to choose for this project. It just sounds to me like whoever thought up the idea of selling this system to Hawker/Beechcraft really didn't think it through. In fact, it sounds to me like this is the extent of the thought that went into it: Hmmm, there are more King Airs out there than any other turboprop, so let's tell 'em we're putting the system on King Airs!
Now if they said they were going to develop a system for the Twin Otter or Caravan (both are in current production) then that would be believable.
