Beechcraft Starship in google maps?
12-24-2008, 08:28 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: CRJ
Posts: 68
From Wikipedia:
As of autumn 2008 only six Starships continue to hold airworthiness registration with the FAA. Three Starships are based in Oklahoma, one in Washington, one in California, and one is still registered to Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation in Wichita, Kansas.
Beech viewed the airplane as a liability as well as a financial loss to continue to support, so in 2003, they recalled all the leased airplanes and destroyed them at Evergreen's center in Arizona (by burning). Saw a news article on TV once about an eccentric individual who loved the things and owned 4, I think. He owned them and wouldn't give them back, no matter what the price.
Unfortunately, Beech built a composite airplane using aluminum techniques. It ended up too heavy and too expensive (time-consuming) to build. They only built 53 airframes. It was slower than comparably-powered twin turboprops, even though it looked like it was going fast.
Rutan used one to chase Starship-1 during it's re-entry.
Three have been certified for RVSM as of Mar 2008.
As of autumn 2008 only six Starships continue to hold airworthiness registration with the FAA. Three Starships are based in Oklahoma, one in Washington, one in California, and one is still registered to Raytheon Aircraft Credit Corporation in Wichita, Kansas.
Beech viewed the airplane as a liability as well as a financial loss to continue to support, so in 2003, they recalled all the leased airplanes and destroyed them at Evergreen's center in Arizona (by burning). Saw a news article on TV once about an eccentric individual who loved the things and owned 4, I think. He owned them and wouldn't give them back, no matter what the price.
Unfortunately, Beech built a composite airplane using aluminum techniques. It ended up too heavy and too expensive (time-consuming) to build. They only built 53 airframes. It was slower than comparably-powered twin turboprops, even though it looked like it was going fast.
Rutan used one to chase Starship-1 during it's re-entry.
Three have been certified for RVSM as of Mar 2008.
The history of the Starship development is very interesting and if you were a Beech engineer, probably very frustrating too. Under the original composite design, the aircraft would have likely delivered the efficiency and performance that was first conceived. It is my understanding that at the time, the FAA was very reticent in approving this new airframe in part due to the new method of construction (composite). In order to satisfy the FAA, Beech repeatedly re-visited airframe strength and design issues (more than once if I am correct). All of this created not only the long delay in certification, but added extra weight which significantly hurt the final products performance numbers. Plus, the extra weight put the aircraft MTOW over 12,500...so now a type rating was required too. As a result, if I remember correctly, the aircraft had a difficult time competing economically with the BE-200. After delivery, there were a number of MX issues with the aircraft too, and I think Beech spend lots of time and $$ service the relatively few customers who where flying the aircraft. It is my understanding that was why Beech (Raytheon) made the decision to halt any further product support and buy back the 50-odd airframes.
I grew up in Wichita and often saw these aircraft flying around town. They were a treat. If it was quiet outside, you could here one approaching overhead for a ways off, they had a very distinct sound.
12-24-2008, 09:11 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: C172 Left
Posts: 642
The history of the Starship development is very interesting and if you were a Beech engineer, probably very frustrating too. Under the original composite design, the aircraft would have likely delivered the efficiency and performance that was first conceived. It is my understanding that at the time, the FAA was very reticent in approving this new airframe in part due to the new method of construction (composite). In order to satisfy the FAA, Beech repeatedly re-visited airframe strength and design issues (more than once if I am correct). All of this created not only the long delay in certification, but added extra weight which significantly hurt the final products performance numbers. Plus, the extra weight put the aircraft MTOW over 12,500...so now a type rating was required too. As a result, if I remember correctly, the aircraft had a difficult time competing economically with the BE-200. After delivery, there were a number of MX issues with the aircraft too, and I think Beech spend lots of time and $$ service the relatively few customers who where flying the aircraft. It is my understanding that was why Beech (Raytheon) made the decision to halt any further product support and buy back the 50-odd airframes.
I grew up in Wichita and often saw these aircraft flying around town. They were a treat. If it was quiet outside, you could here one approaching overhead for a ways off, they had a very distinct sound.
I grew up in Wichita and often saw these aircraft flying around town. They were a treat. If it was quiet outside, you could here one approaching overhead for a ways off, they had a very distinct sound.
12-24-2008, 11:59 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: CRJ
Posts: 68
Interesting website...thanks. I do take small issue with the website's comments regarding MX...I was not there however a number of our family friends involved with Beech at the time have a few interesting stories about service and support for the small fleet. Partly due to what the website does accurately claim about the Raytheon support program, but additionally there where a few particular MX issues with at least a small number of the aircraft.
Still...what an interesting aircraft....
Still...what an interesting aircraft....
