velocity dreamer Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Remember the posts arguing which of these two planes are sweeter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rviglierchio Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Hands down the Starship! That "ferrin" plane is nice too, and all we have left...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Erickson Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Hands down the Starship! That "ferrin" plane is nice too, and all we have left...... what do you mean ? there is still a Starship flying, comes into Chino all the time. saw it take off last week. see linkwww.bobscherer.com/Pages/Starship.htm Quote Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rviglierchio Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Lynn, See if you can convince him to come to Columbia this year. You too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocity dreamer Posted March 2, 2008 Author Share Posted March 2, 2008 There are a few starships flying. I had one come in the other day to Fort Smith Arkansas. it was registered in Mexico though. This picture is sad. Waiting for the scrap pile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Matcho Posted March 2, 2008 Share Posted March 2, 2008 Remember the posts arguing which of these two planes are sweeter.I like both, but seeing Piaggios in flight makes me appreciate their existence, and root for that particular type to continue. Fast as a jet, and better economy. I've seen them overhead in my backyard at least twice, making a very distinctive sound and going much faster than anything else up there. I'm sure the next time I see one overhead I'll be as excited as I first was. Canard, 3-surface, it's all good -- I love 'em all. Quote Jon Matcho Builder & Canard Zone Admin Now: Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E Next: Resume building a Cozy Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverquit Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I like both, but seeing Piaggios in flight makes me appreciate their existence, and root for that particular type to continue. Fast as a jet, and better economy.Yeah, I drooled over it at OSH last year. Costs the same as a jet. The salesman let me go inside. Sho' ain't no Lear. Lots of party room! My opinion but I'm optimistic we'll see something like the Starship again. When the FAA comes around to finally accept new materials and technology for applications come up to make it economical, we'll see it I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gontek Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 My vote is for the Piaggio. My prof. Dr Jan Roskam was a contributor to the design of the Piaggio. http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=401http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Roskam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Roskam My years of learning from Dr. Roskam using the Piaggio as an example has biased my vote. Maybe if I new more about the starship... but in my opinion the Piaggio is supreme and the Piaggio II is starting to pick up in sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aiman Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 When the FAA comes around to finally accept new materials and technology for applications come up to make it economical, we'll see it I'm sure. Airbus A380, Boeing 7E7 (Dreamliner)? Those aircraft both use composites extensively throughout the airframe. Mind you, they aren't the all-composite-wonder that the Starship was, but still, the FAA seems to have taken no major issues with them (yet). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jprock Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I might have missed something... Did the FAA doom the Starship? I don't seem to remember that. (I'm starting to not remember a lot of things) I do remember the Starship not having enough range to be competative with the market. A friend of mine was a Beech salesman and he said the biggest problem was that the Starship couldn't fly New York to Florida without refueling... That was the biggest possible market, and he lost many sales when people found out about the limitation. Could someone remind me what the FAA did to kill off the Starship? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argoldman Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I might have missed something... Did the FAA doom the Starship? I don't seem to remember that. (I'm starting to not remember a lot of things) I do remember the Starship not having enough range to be competative with the market. A friend of mine was a Beech salesman and he said the biggest problem was that the Starship couldn't fly New York to Florida without refueling... That was the biggest possible market, and he lost many sales when people found out about the limitation. Could someone remind me what the FAA did to kill off the Starship? Yes, JP, The faa did nix the SS. Since composite construction was new, at the time, the FAA requried all kinds of additions for various reasons (strength according to them, lightening protection etc etc,) which brought the EW up to the point where commercial success was in great doubt because of reduced range, speed, payload-- But was it cooooool. The real question is why did they recall all of them (that they could get) and relegate them to the glass shreader???? It almost reminds me of GMs electric car. Quote I Canardly contain myself! Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn Erickson Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 Yes, JP, The real question is why did they recall all of them (that they could get) and relegate them to the glass shreader???? It almost reminds me of GMs electric car. Lawyers and liability. and they would be required to supply parts, which are another liability. Quote Evolultion Eze RG -a two place side by side-200 Knots on 200 HP. A&P / pilot for over 30 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velocity dreamer Posted March 4, 2008 Author Share Posted March 4, 2008 I being a aircraft refueler have had the experience dealing with both. I also got to fly in a starship. ( starship and B-17 are my two most exciting rides). I personaly find the piagio just simply ugly. And as far as range goes, how many turbo props have that range once you start sacrafising fuel for payload. I think the fact that those who have actually flown the starship are not wanting to let go of them says the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edge 513 Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 I being a aircraft refueler have had the experience dealing with both... I personaly find the piagio just simply ugly. In the air the Piaggio is a thing of beauty. On the ground the placement of the gear and its jutting mechanically outward with all kinds of dangley bits makes it look pretty dang fugly, if not also pretty wobbley. Definitely an ugly Betty on the ground. Now, me thinks that both in the sky AND on the ground the Starship is gorgeous! If the Piaggio never had to land, they would get my same rating!! If I was fortunate enough to own a Piaggio, I think it would not be to hard to overlook the gear...and get used to the 'dangley bits'...wouldn't be hard at all....no sir. Quote Self confessed Wingnut. Now think about it...wouldn't you rather LIVE your life, rather than watch someone else's, on Reality T.V.? Get up off that couch!!! =) Progress; Fuselage on all three, with outside and inside nearly complete. 8 inch extended nose. FHC done. Canard finished. ERacer wings done with blended winglets. IO540 starting rebuild. Mounting Spar. Starting strake ribs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.