Man, I remember when I was 6 years old my mother introduced me to Geoff. He took me to the airport in Van Nuys and he showed me the Fanstar and this very same video. This really brings back memories.
I can see Ray Wilcox, the Chief Test Pilot at the Fanstar, he was my flight instructor in both JetStar II and Falcon 900. Great person and excellent pilot.
I remember Wayne O’Berg from Air Center and AAR of Oklahoma back in the days when I was flying the Jet Commander. A great guy and a talented engineer. Too bad the FanStar was not successful.
Thanks for the informative video. I liked the original Jetstar with 4 turbojet engins. I thought the Jetstar II with the turbofan engines would have sold better than it did. Anyway all Jetstar aircraft are majestic looking. On the ramp, rotating at takeoff and/or flying.
I flew the Jetstar in the USAF. Left the service in 1984 and worked with the Fanstar people in CA to introduce it to the military. They ultimately went with the BA700. It would have been a sweet ride. Someone lost a lot of $$$ in development
I was very familiar with this project. The Jetstar II, as you probably know, had some cockpit systems "nicer" than the older dash 6's or dash 8's. But all models of the airframe made a great candidate for the conversion. They were discussing adding winglets, all AC electrical throughout the aircraft and approximately a 3400 NM range. I agree the CF34 engine is very very good. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Fanstar didnt quite sell as many as they thought here in the early 80's, but 202 were built and are still in use. The CF34 engine is very popular still.
Although it was a valiant effort it was essentially a challenger probably just a little shorter, but... let's face facts! people wanted range and a lengthy cabin over anything else and that's why the Gulfstream G-IV and the Falcon 900 won people over and were willing to pay the price. the estimated cost for these corporate jets at the time G-IV: $27m Falcon 900:$ (about the same)
Absolutely correct: too little, too late. What I don't see mentioned anywhere is the limited stock for conversion--only 202 were built, and who knows how many were truly airworthy as feedstock (and could be supported long term with parts and aging aircraft requirements). Also, Bombardier and Cessna were starting to introduce/expand their respective lines, so while economically it might have made short term sense, there was no way this would have been a profitable venture. Cool concept though!
You know I'm not trying to take anything away from Lockheed even if I consider them War Profiteer's / War Monger's But I'm familiar with the JetStar and in this day and age where we seem to be Turbo/propping DC-3s C-47s it's really not that spectacular that someone had the testicular fortitude to hang a couple of Turbo Fan's where a Quad of P/W used to hang I would certainly guess it changed the CG a bunch and possibly made the old gal a joy to fly to say nothing of the added thrust I'm sure the fan's generate .. But I'm not so convinced about the Million's in R&D or design I mean I'm sure Lockheed billed Uncle same millions and millions because well that just what those fella's do .. it's just basic SOP for corporate day to day business Now if someone would just get the old Elvis JetStar flying with a pair of fans again that would really be cool ..The bulkhead that the twin Pratt & Whitney's hung on I'm sure was beefy enough to handle the smooth power of the GE fans..But I see no reason why that aircraft could not go on flying it was certainly built like a tank ...
A guy just bought Elvis's JetStar, the estimate to get it flying was around 6 million I think......plus it would be too loud, even if it was restored. I thought the same thing, do a FanStar conversion. His channel is called Jimmy's world.
I think the crucial pitfall of the Fanstar was overestimating the desire for business jet purchasers to make an purchase on the economics alone. Aircraft orders procured by executives, or from the discretionary money of an extremely wealthy individual are not looking to save nor are they necessarily looking for engineering superiority. While, of course they’re looking for performance but they’re also looking for prestige and luxury. The posture is notoriously form over function. Dassault has been struggling for years with their more efficient but just as useful 7X/8X as compared to Gulfstreams G550s and 650s, with Gulfstream selling over 1000 and Dassault selling under 350 as of 2022. Owners who for years get full use out of their Global 6000 will upgrade to a 7500 just because they can despite no change in use. The Fanstar was undoubtedly dealt a tough hand. The larger GIV along with the longer range Falcon 900 and the Challenger to follow with the same engines really didn’t flatter the Fanstar on a ramp lineup. For the engineer, pilot and aviation enthusiast, the Fanstar was a genius feat, demonstrating the great legacy of the plane that pioneered business aviation, but to the executive or industrialist that wants to show how they spare no expense with ease, a discount recycled jet is a hard sell, even if it means saving millions. Edit: I will say the trend described above primarily applies to long range aircraft, where what they “can” do is emphasized a lot more than what they “actually” do. I definitely think buyers of smaller jets can be influenced more significantly on economics alone.
It' so sad....the plane could have still been flying today. I don't have all the details, but it's my understanding that the founder of the Fanstar and GE (the manufacturer of the engines) got into some kind of a pissing contest. Lawsuits were filed, etc. The plane got parked in a hangar in KVNY sans engines and the project simply 'went away'
Jimmy Farris Thanks a lot for that info. When I was first introduced to Tort law I learned pretty quickly that it rarely solves anything. Unless you have oodles of money and a point to prove.
Can’t help but wonder if the project, like that of the Howard 500 years before it, was too little too late. Plus the political and tax ramifications at the time? However, it sure seemed like a “what’s not to like?” type aircraft.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Man, I remember when I was 6 years old my mother introduced me to Geoff. He took me to the airport in Van Nuys and he showed me the Fanstar and this very same video. This really brings back memories.
I can see Ray Wilcox, the Chief Test Pilot at the Fanstar, he was my flight instructor in both JetStar II and Falcon 900. Great person and excellent pilot.
What a beauty! Thank you for sharing this nice videoclip!
Should've found a way to get rid of those ridiculous slipper tanks.
I remember Wayne O’Berg from Air Center and AAR of Oklahoma back in the days when I was flying the Jet Commander. A great guy and a talented engineer. Too bad the FanStar was not successful.
Beautiful aircraft and idea. Imagine my consternation when I attempted, as an early planespotter, to identify this plane at Van Nuys.
Thanks for the informative video.
I liked the original Jetstar with 4 turbojet engins. I thought the Jetstar II with the turbofan engines would have sold better than it did.
Anyway all Jetstar aircraft are majestic looking. On the ramp, rotating at takeoff and/or flying.
I flew the Jetstar in the USAF. Left the service in 1984 and worked with the Fanstar people in CA to introduce it to the military. They ultimately went with the BA700. It would have been a sweet ride. Someone lost a lot of $$$ in development
This was such a great project and I am so sorry it did not make it.
Such a gorgeous kitty!!! Is he/she still alive?
Great informative video. I flew Jetstar I’s as well as II’s so I would have loved the opportunity to fly one of these. Im sorry this didn’t pan out.
Shame this didn't take off, on a side note I had no idea the CFM-34's we're around for so long. Thanks for the upload!
I flew the Jetstar II for several years.. I had heard rumors about the 2 engine concept but this is the first seeing it! Very cool!
YES ! I flew all models -8, 731 conversion and the II as well. Great machines
I was very familiar with this project. The Jetstar II, as you probably know, had some cockpit systems "nicer" than the older dash 6's or dash 8's. But all models of the airframe made a great candidate for the conversion. They were discussing adding winglets, all AC electrical throughout the aircraft and approximately a 3400 NM range. I agree the CF34 engine is very very good.
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Fanstar didnt quite sell as many as they thought here in the early 80's, but 202 were built and are still in use. The CF34 engine is very popular still.
You're confusing JetStar with FanStar. There were 202 JETStar built, but only one was converted to a FanStar.
Nice bit of info thanks for the post
If I'm not mistaken the TR's are 'internal' cascading type....like on the Canadair Challengers. (same exact engine by the way).
You should change the Thumbnail.
HA, I remember that in Mojave and always wondered why we didn't see more of them. It was a very classy gal in the air.
The Jetstar II is a beautiful and awesome looking business jet, but i think just the two cf34s make it look even sleeker
I guess cost was an issue since I would have picked the Jetstar II airframe. CF34 is a very good engine.
Love the concept. Too bad it didn't work out.
Wonder what ever happened to the prototype?
It was scrapped ;(
Although it was a valiant effort it was essentially a challenger probably just a little shorter, but... let's face facts! people wanted range and a lengthy cabin over anything else and that's why the Gulfstream G-IV and the Falcon 900 won people over and were willing to pay the price. the estimated cost for these corporate jets at the time G-IV: $27m Falcon 900:$ (about the same)
Absolutely correct: too little, too late. What I don't see mentioned anywhere is the limited stock for conversion--only 202 were built, and who knows how many were truly airworthy as feedstock (and could be supported long term with parts and aging aircraft requirements). Also, Bombardier and Cessna were starting to introduce/expand their respective lines, so while economically it might have made short term sense, there was no way this would have been a profitable venture. Cool concept though!
You know I'm not trying to take anything away from Lockheed even if I consider them War Profiteer's / War Monger's But I'm familiar with the JetStar and in this day and age where we seem to be Turbo/propping DC-3s C-47s it's really not that spectacular that someone had the testicular fortitude to hang a couple of Turbo Fan's where a Quad of P/W used to hang I would certainly guess it changed the CG a bunch and possibly made the old gal a joy to fly to say nothing of the added thrust I'm sure the fan's generate .. But I'm not so convinced about the Million's in R&D or design I mean I'm sure Lockheed billed Uncle same millions and millions because well that just what those fella's do .. it's just basic SOP for corporate day to day business Now if someone would just get the old Elvis JetStar flying with a pair of fans again that would really be cool ..The bulkhead that the twin Pratt & Whitney's hung on I'm sure was beefy enough to handle the smooth power of the GE fans..But I see no reason why that aircraft could not go on flying it was certainly built like a tank ...
A guy just bought Elvis's JetStar, the estimate to get it flying was around 6 million I think......plus it would be too loud, even if it was restored. I thought the same thing, do a FanStar conversion. His channel is called Jimmy's world.
I think the crucial pitfall of the Fanstar was overestimating the desire for business jet purchasers to make an purchase on the economics alone. Aircraft orders procured by executives, or from the discretionary money of an extremely wealthy individual are not looking to save nor are they necessarily looking for engineering superiority. While, of course they’re looking for performance but they’re also looking for prestige and luxury.
The posture is notoriously form over function. Dassault has been struggling for years with their more efficient but just as useful 7X/8X as compared to Gulfstreams G550s and 650s, with Gulfstream selling over 1000 and Dassault selling under 350 as of 2022. Owners who for years get full use out of their Global 6000 will upgrade to a 7500 just because they can despite no change in use.
The Fanstar was undoubtedly dealt a tough hand. The larger GIV along with the longer range Falcon 900 and the Challenger to follow with the same engines really didn’t flatter the Fanstar on a ramp lineup.
For the engineer, pilot and aviation enthusiast, the Fanstar was a genius feat, demonstrating the great legacy of the plane that pioneered business aviation, but to the executive or industrialist that wants to show how they spare no expense with ease, a discount recycled jet is a hard sell, even if it means saving millions.
Edit: I will say the trend described above primarily applies to long range aircraft, where what they “can” do is emphasized a lot more than what they “actually” do. I definitely think buyers of smaller jets can be influenced more significantly on economics alone.
Basically, the Bombardier Challenger is what this does for about the same money used.
I want a jetstar 2 beautiful
Why didn't this get done?
GE screwed them on the engines.
@@plasticinthetree4261 sad
What no thrust reversers?
Yes. Internal cascade-type, instead of external buckets.
Do you think if it had three motors on each side and they were vertical would it work
Why did it fail. Aviation is such a fickle business.
It' so sad....the plane could have still been flying today. I don't have all the details, but it's my understanding that the founder of the Fanstar and GE (the manufacturer of the engines) got into some kind of a pissing contest. Lawsuits were filed, etc. The plane got parked in a hangar in KVNY sans engines and the project simply 'went away'
Jimmy Farris
Thanks a lot for that info. When I was first introduced to Tort law I learned pretty quickly that it rarely solves anything. Unless you have oodles of money and a point to prove.
Can't help but picture this going the same route as putting those engines on a Saberliner. Aviation is a rough business.
Can’t help but wonder if the project, like that of the Howard 500 years before it, was too little too late. Plus the political and tax ramifications at the time? However, it sure seemed like a “what’s not to like?” type aircraft.
www.upi.com/Archives/1990/07/06/Jury-awards-64-million-verdict-against-General-Electric/7750647236800/
meh.......needs more smoke and thunder JT-9's