Starships

I saw that pic yesterday and thought about asking the same question here, but didn't get around to it
tongue.gif
.... I'd also like to know why these are all sitting awaiting to all be scrapped
confused.gif
 
Here is one of many good sites about the Starship:

http://www.starshipdiaries.com/

From the same site, a fairly concise description of their impending demise:

http://www.starshipdiaries.com/today.html

Bottom line is the plane didn't live up to it's expectations. Too slow and expensive to compete with other planes in the same market. Beechcraft slowly bought back most of the fleet over the years, and is choosing to slowly discontinue the fleet. The mothballed planes will be used to support the few still in private hands (along with parts being salvaged for other uses).

A google search will give you lots of other information on the plane, its history, and its (lack of) future.
 
Anyone read J. Mac Mclean's (sp?) article in flying about 2-3 months ago about how all the star ships are retired? Why is this?
 
Basically Beech has decided to buy up all the airplanes and discontinue supporting them due to the costs of product support (not to mention potential liability) on a very small number of airframes. Some will go to museums, the rest will be scrapped.

J. Mac McClellan did have a nice piece in "Flying" a few months ago about the end of the Starship.
 
I wish those articles went more in to the politics and prejudice involved. That aircraft was basically killed by FAA restrictions, especially on gross weight and take-off restrictions.

They don't like composite airplanes.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wish those articles went more in to the politics and prejudice involved. That aircraft was basically killed by FAA restrictions, especially on gross weight and take-off restrictions.

They don't like composite airplanes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know that they gave composites a rough time when the Starship was trying to get certified (adding a ton of weight to the plane to address their issues was a performance killer), but don't you think they've eased up on that attitude since then as experience with the materials has increased?
 
Well I'm looking at the Cirrus manual here and I see a airframe life limitation of 4350 hrs.

No, I haven't seen any indications of the FAA lightening up on composites yet. Maybe they know something we don't.
 
Guess I was thinking more along the lines of Airbus's use of composites, as well as some of the new business jets....

I'm certainly not real knowledgable in this area, though...
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

No, I haven't seen any indications of the FAA lightening up on composites yet. Maybe they know something we don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boeing has announced that the majority of the primary structure – including the fuselage and wing – on the 7E7 will be made of composite materials.

source
 
I think that the main concern with composites is how they last/age. Do they dry up and become brittle after 20-30 years...who knows? I know there is quite a few Buses flying with thousands of hours with composite tail sections. The 4000 hours restriction on the Cirrus is a little strange. It would definitely decrease the value. I have seen 99'-00' 172's with 4000+TT that still sell for 70-90k. Still a good airplane...if maitained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top