Beechcraft Starship

[mlefebvre]

Talk about the ultimate canard design, isnt the Starship, pure beauty in motion.

 

Check out this link: http://www.bobscherer.com/Pages/Starship.htm

 

This plane is the reason I got interested in canards in the first place. Too bad they dont make this beauty anymore. Any other commercial applications of this design out there? I think I saw a jet version once in a photo.

 

Marc

[Dave Clifford]

Not only did they stop building them, they bought them all back and destroyed them!! Freaking lawyers!!

[Jim Sower]

<... Any other commercial applications of this design out there? ...>

 

I recall an Italian plane (Avanti?) about the same time and size back when Starship came out. It was a 3-surface ship - Canard (small compared to Starship) for pitch trim, T-tail (small compared to Lear, etc) for pitch control. Haven't heard of it for some time. Maybe it went the way of the Starship.

 

I seem to recall that Starship was Beech's bet that fossil fuel prices back then would stay high and make jets unaffordable and turboprops' better fuel specs would more than compensate for what they lacked in performance. Well, oil prices came down and jets got more affordable (and fractionals got popular on account of the ability to capitalize a jet more widely and therefor more thin).

 

Beech lost their bet, there went Starship and here we are.

 

As best I recall .... Jim S.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by Jim Sower

I recall an Italian plane (Avanti?) .... Maybe it went the way of the Starship.

Piaggio Avanti - still in production.

 

Originally posted by clifford

Not only did they stop building them, they bought them all back and destroyed them!! Freaking lawyers!!

I believe 52 Starships were produced, and Beech has purchased 40 of them. 12 Owners would not sell, and the Starships are still in use. I seem to recall that the reason had nothing to do with liability, and everything to do with the scarcity of important replacement parts, which were no longer economical to produce for such a small number of aircraft. With 40 aircraft in reserve, they now have spares for the 12 that wouldn't sell.

[CBarber]

You have got to be kidding....., no offense (even though you did not seem to mind offending), I do not usually associate such lazy (IMHO) thinking to aviators.

 

I know we lawyers tend to be an easy target, but I believe liability was not the reason for the Starships demise....it was market influances. I could be wrong.

 

None the less, the Starship is/was a strikingly beautiful plane.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

Proud to be a Lawyer (and an easy target for future flames <g>)

IMHO, blaming lawyers for lawsuite ABUSE is like blaming guns for murder or all engineers for spaceshuttle disasters. It is easy to focus on abuse. Of course, YMMV.

[Dave Clifford]

Sorry to offend you Chris, it was not not my intent.

[CBarber]

....I do not mean to make it a soapbox issue (esp. on this forum)....but it is what and who I am, and I think I do way more good then bad... I hope <g>. If I don't make the occasional counter-remark in defense, I feel I am contributing to the degraded opinion of my profession (and risk further bad feelings by that very remark)

 

I too did the same thing when I joked about the Government being here to "help" you. I had, in my lazy thinking, forgotten about the hardworking government employee trying to do tough jobs in a, IMHO, extremely bureaucratic and political environment.

 

Rembember, there are only three lawyer jokes, the rest are TRUE stories. <g>

 

Gee, now I am lawyer bashing too ;-).

 

I hope I did not come off as rude to you, just had a differing viewpoint.

 

Oh, again, the Starship is a beautiful plane. Too bad it it did not prosper...whatever the reason.

 

All the best,

 

Chris

[marbleturtle]

The Avanti design was purchased by and is in production with Ferrari corporate in Italy. It is not a true Canard, but who cares... its beautiful! It flys almost as fast as a jet, with half the fuel burn and less restrictive T/O & Landing minimums. It was at Oshkosh this year.

[Jon Matcho]

...Avanti... It is not a true Canard...

I understand that 'canard' refers to a forward wing contributing to up/down control. The plane as a whole does not need to look like a Long-EZ to be considered a canard aircraft. In other words, any plane that has any sort of canard wing in the front can be considered a canard aircraft.

 

Here's a link to the Piaggio Avanti: http://www.piaggioamerica.com

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by marbleturtle

The Avanti design was purchased by and is in production with Ferrari corporate in Italy.

According to Piaggio's web page, they sold _A_ plane to Ferrari, not the whole shooting match.

 

Originally posted by marbleturtle

It is not a true Canard.....

 

Agreed, and here's why...

 

Originally posted by Jon Matcho

I understand that 'canard' refers to a forward wing contributing to up/down control. The plane as a whole does not need to look like a Long-EZ to be considered a canard aircraft. In other words, any plane that has any sort of canard wing in the front can be considered a canard aircraft.

Not really. Any plane that has a wing ahead of the "main" wing can be said to have a canard wing or canard surface on it, but that doesn't make it a canard aircraft. For that, the canard flying surface would have to be the one providing the primary pitch control. According to the Piaggio web site, the canard surface on the Avanti is fixed, so (as MT said) the Avanti would _not_ be considered a canard aircraft.

[marbleturtle]

Canards use their front wing surface for elevation control. The Avanti has a traditional rear T-tail with elevator. The lift usually generated by a single main wing is divided between a large thin rear wing (kept in the middle of the fuselage for airodynamic reasons but moved back for extra passenger space) and a smaller wing on the nose to assist with front lift. Technically the Avanti is not a true canard, but who cares. Its sleek, fast, efficient, and beautiful!

[marbleturtle]

... oh, and they did sell the "whole shooting match" to Ferrari. Mr. Avanti couldn't get the plane in production (he has been trying since 1987) so he finally sold the "whole kit and caboodle" to a family board member of Ferrari who has placed it under partial control of Ferrari Corp. which is a subsidiary of Fiat Corp. With Ferrari investment, now the plane is in production. The whole story was in Flying magazine over the Summer. As you are so often fond of pointing out, web sites don't always contain accurate information.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by marbleturtle

... oh, and they did sell the "whole shooting match" to Ferrari.....The whole story was in Flying magazine over the Summer. As you are so often fond of pointing out, web sites don't always contain accurate information.

 

Not that this has anything to do with canards, and at the risk of starting another pissing contest, what do you make of Piero Ferrari's quote at NBAA in 1999:

 

"Perhaps the most important thing to point out is that Ferrari's involvement in Piaggio is my personal involvement only, not the company's. On the other hand Ferrari completely supports these ties with Piaggio. I own 10% of Ferrari and the rest is in the hands of FIAT and the Agnelli family..."

[Jon Matcho]

Originally posted by Marc Zeitlin

Any plane that has a wing ahead of the "main" wing can be said to have a canard wing or canard surface on it, but that doesn't make it a canard aircraft.

I was not aware the definition for 'canard aircraft' was so specific.

 

I wonder if the designer of the planes with canard wings in the attached picture requires a similar education.

 

BTW, one of the planes is the Triumph Business Jet, by Scaled, a similar design to that of the Avanti.

[marbleturtle]

1999? Try for something a little more current.

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by marbleturtle

1999? Try for something a little more current.

OK. From the December 2002 "Flying" magazine (not the summer - there were no articles in "Flying" during the 2003 calendar year about the Avanti or the company that I could find), page 56-63, here's the sum total of references to Ferrari and Piaggio in the article that is 99% about the Avanti aircraft:

 

Page 56 - "But now, after the assets of Rinaldo Piaggio S.p.A. were purchased in 1998, and the company restructured as Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. with Piero Ferrari (executive vice chairman of the famous car company) installed as chairman, the Avanti is finally climbing throught the economic overcast and finding its place in the sun."

 

Page 63 - "With the backing of Ferrari, the new Piaggio Aero Industries appears to be well funded and dedicated to supporting and improving the Avanti."

 

So, using your source, I see nothing that indicates that Ferrari purchased the whole of Piaggio, nor anything that contradicts Mr. Ferrari's statement at NBAA 1999 which I quoted above. Since the asset purchase occurred in 1998, I would expect the statements to be consistent, and they seem to be. Unless you have some other information source (web or otherwise) that more fully explains the financial dealings between Ferrari and Piaggio, I'm happy to accept the Piaggio chairman's explanations.

 

 

With respect to Jon's questions about the definition of "canard", the same article states:

 

"Many people confuse the Avanti's forward wing with a canard, like the one on the Beech Starship. In fact, because their development happened about the same time, and because both are turbo-prop pushers with a forward horizontal surface, many pilots believe the Starship and Avanti have a common design philosophy. That is totally wrong. The Starship is a canard airplane with the forward surface providing all pitch control. The Avanti is a three-surface airplane with the conventional T-tail providing all pitch control while the forward surface simply adds lift and reduces the loads on the horizontal tail. The only thing that moves on the Avanti's forward wing is a small flap that extends in concert with the main wing flap to balance the pitch changes of the main flap, and to improve lift of the forward wing at low speeds."

 

Hope this helps in people's understanding of the facts.

[marbleturtle]

First you say they only sold _a_ plane to Ferrari... now you quote assests were purchased in 1998... and now with the backing of Ferrari the company will go on... but nothing indicates Ferrari bought Avanti...

 

Do you actually read what you type?

[No4]

Come on guys!

Who gives a monkeys who owns Piaggio?

That clique will all be in bed together, it doesn't really matter who owns it on paper.

 

As far as the definition of a canard goes, it depends who is writing the dictionary. Some say it must have a fixed "tail" at the front, some say a fully moving forward elevator is not a canard, and some that a big fore wing like Proteus becomes a tandem wing aircraft.

 

It's only words.

 

At the risk of mentioning the Starship again,

here she is leaving Farnborough, England, what a beauty...

[marbleturtle]

Pretty!

 

I wonder if we could convince Burt to draw up plans for those now that Beechcraft doesn't want them? I would need a bigger garage... but then I could have more than 2 kids!!!

[Marc Zeitlin]

Originally posted by marbleturtle

Do you actually read what you type?

 

Ad hominem with no backing data. OK...

 

Yes, I also _understand_ what I read, which is apparently not one of your strong points. You stated:

 

"The Avanti design was purchased by and is in production with Ferrari corporate..."

 

Here's the rub - the word "Ferrari", in these discussions, applies to two things - first, the corporation "Ferrari", and also the person "Piero Ferrari". You do not seem to be able to keep these seperate. Your original claim was that Ferrari CORPORATE had purchased the Piaggio design. This was not supported by the Flying article, as shown above - the reference to "Ferrari" on page 63 is ambiguous at best, and most likely refers to Piero, not corporate, given the other statements on page 56 and Piero's quote.

 

The NBAA quote from Piero Ferrari (the person, not the corporation) explicitly states that the involvement of the name Ferrari is his personal involvement, NOT the Ferrari corporation's (of which he, Piero, owns 10%).

 

Nowhere, in either article (the Flying magazine one, or the NBAA quote) does it state where all the money to purchase Piaggio's assets came from - all we have to go on is the statement that the assets were purchased in 1998, Piero is the Chairman of the new Piaggio, and that he also happens to own 10% of the Ferrari Corporation, which has purchased ONE aircraft from the new Piaggio Corporation.

 

Again, if you have some data (a reference or cite is acceptable) that indicates where the $$$ that purchased the Piaggio assets came from (in 1998, prior to Piero's statement at NBAA), and if that data also indicates that the Ferrari Corporation bought "the whole kit and caboodle", as you originally claimed (which would normally be interpreted as 100%, or something close to it) I'll be happy to admit that you're correct, since I really don't give a rat's ass who owns Piaggio, and have no vested interest either way.

[crashdog]

Yeah, OK, whatever to the arguments...

 

The starship is remarkable. What we really need to do is to encourage someone else to pick up the concept for an executive aircraft that is designed in the same way, composite construction, pusher turbo-prop, canard, speedy. I wonder what the intellectual property issues are with working up a similar design and going into production.

 

It is always interesting that leading edge thinking takes so long to become mainstream, particularly in aviation. I think that most people in this forum are convinced about the qualities of the design over a conventional plane design.

 

I wanted to point out that one of the advantages that the Piaggio p180 has in its configuration is that the cabin is unencumbered with the spars required for the main wing, and that this fact is the main motivation for designing the two lifting surfaces at either end of the cabin. The room in the Piaggio is substantially more than in a similarly sized Citation.

 

cheers

 

blue

[No4]

Mark and Marble,

There is always the PM button, or you could start a new thread.

no one cares!

 

Crashdog,

The trouble I think is getting people to buy the damn thing. Commercial aircraft are notoriously conservative, look at an Airbus 340 compared to a 707, or a Jetstream 31 to a DC-3, it's hardly evolution.

 

Airbus and Boeing are now switching to composites for their airliners and with Burt's innumerable outstanding successes, several of his designs are actualy going into certified production now. Boeings Sonic Cruiser (a canard) didn't receive any orders, and they have been sitting on a blended wing body for years.

 

As far as the Starship goes, it doesn't really outperform the Beech King Air by very much, if at all, and that is it's stable sister.

 

If however with these difficult times in the Middle East, and there were some sort of oil crisis sending Jet fuel costs sky high, I expect to see many highly aerodynamic aircraft such the Starship appear, and my crystal ball prediction is that they will use diesel engines.

 

I think it is human nature that once a few airlines start to use these design, then everyone will follow , and take them for granted.

 

I get quit excited about the thought of a Starship with twin 1500 hp diesels sitting on the ramp waiting for me to press the loud button.

 

[marbleturtle]

The problem with creating another aircraft similar to the Starship is the fact that manufacturers are not dealing with rational customers. If Beechcraft could produce a prop pusher that traveled just as quickly as a jet on half the fuel, it would still be a tough sell near the same price as a jet. That's simply because if you have enough money, you buy a jet powered aircraft. Aircraft with exposed propellers are for people who can't afford a jet powered aircraft.

 

Same with automobiles... look at who is driving what and why. The decisions rarely surround performance, efficiency, or anything rational. How many $80,000 W12 Phaetons do you think Volkswagen is going to sell?

 

One example of irrational purchasing behavior I found funny... Boeing had some difficulty selling the 737 in the private corporate market until it relented to customer requests and added turned up wing tips. Apparently, some customers thought it looked cool, like a Lear or Gulfstream jet. It didn't matter what happened to efficiecy on the 737 design.

 

I don't think the price of fuel going up will change this. So it takes $20,000 more to fly long distance... this is not a big consideration to the 9 figure crowd.

 

What would be great is if they could get a Starship design priced around the King Air's price. That would be something they could sell.

[mlefebvre]

What about a new upgraded Starship that uses duel jet propulsion instead of duel prop? That may appeal to the "jet set" crowd. Maybe even make either an option to the airframe to appeal to a variety of customers.

 

Here is a crazy question: Why are homebuilt craft usually of the "sport" variety (when I say sport I mean smaller and performance oriented) as opposed to someone scratch building a learjet type business jet that can sit 10 people, or whatever. Could such a kit or plans built plane be feasable? Could the Starship ever be produced in the homebuilt market really? I guess you could ask, why would you, but, none the less....

 

Marc

[Dave Clifford]

There have been a number of jet kits that have come and gone over the years. One manufacturer to keep your eyes on for a small business class jet kit is from AeroComp. They have been around for a number of years and are always improving and adding to their kit lineup. Heres the link to check out their jet under development. I would be surprised if they DO NOT bring this to market as a kit.

 

http://www.aerocompinc.com/