Beech Starship

[RightPedal]

What happened to the Starship? Someone mentioned it in another thread. I had forgotten about them.
A few years ago there was one that came to GNV for Gator football games. Man that was one cool machine.
Like a Skymaster, it had a unique sound as it flew through the air. Final aproach to GNV rwy 10 was right over my house. When I herd that sound it ment time to go to the airport.
Someone mentioned that they flew one. It would be fun to here about it.

Blue Skys

 

[enigma]

Never flew one, but in reading about them, I gather that the Starship was too heavy. By the time the original Rutan 80% POC airframe had been scaled up to the full sized bird, and brought into compliance with the FAA mandates for lightning strike survivability among other things, it just weighs too much to offer any real advantage over a conventional KingAire.

I understand that the FAA certification branch was very demanding in the certification process. Since the Starship was the first "bigtime" composite airframe to be certified, the Beech engineers were forced to overdesign every aspect of the airframe.
I have also read that even though the Starship itself was a financial failure, Beechcraft learned enough about composite design/manufacturing, information that it has been able to use in other areas, to make the Starship project a success from a R & D standpoint.

It is my opinion (FWIW) that the main advantage to the canard configuration (stall resistance) is of no real consequence when the aircraft is flown by professional pilots. When was the last time you heard of a KingAire that stalled when turning base to final? It is also just my opinion, but Beech took too large a bite when they attempted to develop an aircraft that featured more than one new technology. (composite airframe and flapped-wing equiped canard configuration) They would have been better off building a composite airframed KingAire, or an aluminium Starship.

regards,
8N

 

[reaperman]

I worked on the Starship program for the company that built power supplies for the Glass cockpit, so I absorbed a fair amount of scuttlebutt during and after the completion of the program. The consensus was that there was just too much bleeding edge technology aboard, that made the plane far too expensive for what it did. I think the price was $4.5 million. At the time, you could buy a hell of a lot more capability than a starship provided for that kind of money. I don’t remember the exact instrument layout but the panel consisted of about fourteen CRTs, two of them color, and each replacing a single normal instrument. No flat panel displays, no multifunction stuff. Lots of weight, huge costs. I believe only 53 were ever built and most are still owned by Ratheon/Beech.

 

[GeorgeTG]

canard configuration

The Starship is a great looking plane!

Unlike the mentioned stall resistance which is arguable and only a side effect of the canard aerodynamics, the big benefit of a canard configuration is reduced drag.

No tail down force = no induced drag from balancing CG & Center of Lift

Problem: how do you have flaps on the main wing, without stalling the canard (which also is used for pitch control) up front.

in the Starship they added a variable sweep canard=complexity extra weight...

the Piaggio Avanti is (arguably) one of the most efficient AC.
they avoided the whole mess with the canard by keeping the elevator and horizontal stab on the tail and putting flaps on the wing and the canard.
The Avanti's CG is a bit more forward than a conventional AC but not as much as on a canard. The tiny horizontal stab is all that's required for balance & pitch control...

Cheers
George

 

[jetdriven]

the Piaggio Avanti is (arguably) one of the most efficient AC.

they avoided the whole mess with the canard by keeping the elevator and horizontal stab on the tail and putting flaps on the wing and the canard

The Avanti's CG is a bit more forward than a conventional AC but not as much as on a canard. The tiny horizontal stab is all that's required for balance & pitch control...

I've never flown an avanti but I know the chief pilot of the only 135 operator of one. The forward "canard" is actually a wing, it is not equipped with control surfaces. It has a conventional T-tail foir control. This is one incredible airplane FL410 certified and it would true out at 385 KNOTS TRUE! Once flew LA-IAH in 2 hours. It is also, all alimunim except for the horiz stab on some of them.

I don’t remember the exact instrument layout but the panel consisted of about fourteen CRTs, two of them color, and each replacing a single normal instrument. No flat panel displays, no multifunction stuff. Lots of weight, huge costs. I believe only 53 were ever built and most are still owned by Ratheon/Beech.

I looked at the cockpit of a starship 2000A and it was 5 multifunction honeywell displays, just like in the 737NG's and 757's. Besides the power levers and the three standby instruments in the center of the panel that was about it.

Did you know that the starship was certified in the "commuter" category?

|The pilot told me it goes 325 KTS in cruise. I read in the POH it has engines similar to the 1900, 1200+ SHP PT-6's. My 1900D has 1279 SHP engines and can do 280 Kts. A KA-350 will do over 300 Kts but I have no idea the HP, fuel burn, or pax loading. My guess is the KA-350 will go almost as fast and haul more people a whole lot cheaper. Any -350 drivers out there comment on this? There are about 50 of these starships all over kansas hidden in hangars in Great Bend, Wichita, and Salina.

 

[E120ASA]

The great 350 = 15,100 ramp, 15,000 max takeoff, 1050 aside PT6a-60a engines, 550 lbs weight in baggage compartment, commuter aircraft type, 35,000 ft at 315 kts. lands like a big 172. Great airplane. max fuel 539 gals max range about 1800 nm.

 

[puddlejumper]

With a typical exectutive interior, the BE-350 can seat 11 pax in the back. That would be double-club, one on the belted potty seat and 2 in the removable jumpseats in the baggage compartment. The 300 had a 14 pax commuter configuration, I'd imagine the 350 could seat maybe 17 or so in commuter layout.

SIC required with more than 9 pax seats right? I don't have my FAR-AIM right here.

290 ktas is about it for the 350 at FL230, the 300 is a bit faster at maybe 305 ktas with it's 1000 pound lower weight and 34" shorter fuselage.

The P.180 Avanti is a blast to fly. I demoed one once and the worst part was ATC asking what kind of plane is that!? Is it a jet?
360ktas at FL230 easy. I think the book says it maxes out at 392 ktas and can go to FL410. The 300 gets doggy above FL270 heavy

Oh, and if I remember right, the canard on the P.180 has flaps on it right? It's been a while.

-PJ

 

[reaperman]

Unlike the mentioned stall resistance which is arguable and only a side effect of the canard aerodynamics, the big benefit of a canard configuration is reduced drag.

As always, you can't get something for nothing. Much of the induced drag eliminated by having a positive lift canard is gained back because the canard is always at a higher angle of attack (closer to stall) than the wing.

I looked at the cockpit of a starship 2000A and it was 5 multifunction honeywell displays,

Throwing good money after bad, there. The plane as built was as I described.

 

[A1FlyBoy]

The Starship worked just fine and met the published requirements. What killed it was the constant maintenance and the sky high costs - especially for what the Starship was.

 

[HappyFlying]

I've never seen a Starship flying but there were three of them sitting in a row at Raytheon in San Antonio this spring. I stopped on the taxiway and snapped a picture. Even if they weren't a success, I still think they look pretty cool.