A good staring point to learn the facts behind this airplane is BRAB, Burt Rutan's online autobiography. "Progress (or lack thereof) under the guidance of the FAA" is the biggest story here. It's well worth the time needed to make a deep dive on the facts behing this aircraftt because going from an anticipated aeronautical marvel to the biggest fail in modern General Aviation is nothing to ignore. And after all, throughout all of history, when has "authority" ever meaningfully contributed to achieving anything exceptional? Safe to say that "authority" never will, and that visionaries, pioneers, and brilliant engineers are the ones who'll accomplish the achievements which will advance society, not "authority".
I live in Dorval, which is where Montreal's international airport is. I've learned to recognize these just from the sound. The first time, I looked-up because some INSANELY LOUD and high pitched prop-driven plane was overhead. I saw this delta / canard twin engined pusher flying overhead. I hear this sound from time to time and each time I've gone outside to look-up, it was this guy again. If the plane I occasionally see is indeed this 80s starship, I have an idea as to why they may not have been a commercial success - they are the loudest thing in the sky! I dont understand how a fuselage / wing design can impact the loudness of engines and props but again, every time I've heard 'the loud one' it was this guy.
Whatever noise they produce, had no impact on sales. There were several reasons why it failed. The FAA interfered with the design because at the time, they didnt trust composites so forced Beech to add unnecessary structural supports, which added weight, reducing its performance. The cost of making such a 'futuristic' aircraft was high as well. Both of these equaled an aircraft that performed like a 'normal' (for the time) Turboprop, but cost as much (at the time) as a business jet. So most seeking an aircraft in its price range, went with the jets. It also didnt help that Beechcraft offered free maintenance plans with the Starship, which caused owners to get them serviced FAR more often than they otherwise would have. People saw the amount they were in service and equating that to mean they always had problems instead of owners just abusing/taking advantage of the maintenance program to keep them in tip-top shape. Its "All-glass" cockpit didnt help much either. While a neat idea in theory, it using CRT's for all the screens added alot more weight and heat up front. That heat needed to be dissipated by cooling systems, which make the cockpit loud. In short, the Starship was too far ahead of its time to do very well. Id bet if it was remade today, with all the proven tech advancements and experience with composites, it would be a far better aircraft. As for the noise, that could likely be rectified with a more modern turboprop with fewer blades, but honestly, even though ive not heard a starship, i think ALL turbo props are loud and kind of doubt this is an exclusive trait of the starship.
@@lyianx Pusher turboprops are extra loud due to the interaction of the (often supersonic) blades with the flow of exhaust from the engine. This configuration has a few advantages (including doesn't disturb flow of air over the wing, no need for a prop deicing system because the props are bathed in hot exhaust) but noise complaints are a disadvantage.
A good staring point to learn the facts behind this airplane is BRAB, Burt Rutan's online autobiography.
"Progress (or lack thereof) under the guidance of the FAA" is the biggest story here. It's well worth the time needed to make a deep dive on the facts behing this aircraftt because going from an anticipated aeronautical marvel to the biggest fail in modern General Aviation is nothing to ignore. And after all, throughout all of history, when has "authority" ever meaningfully contributed to achieving anything exceptional? Safe to say that "authority" never will, and that visionaries, pioneers, and brilliant engineers are the ones who'll accomplish the achievements which will advance society, not "authority".
I live in Dorval, which is where Montreal's international airport is. I've learned to recognize these just from the sound. The first time, I looked-up because some INSANELY LOUD and high pitched prop-driven plane was overhead. I saw this delta / canard twin engined pusher flying overhead. I hear this sound from time to time and each time I've gone outside to look-up, it was this guy again.
If the plane I occasionally see is indeed this 80s starship, I have an idea as to why they may not have been a commercial success - they are the loudest thing in the sky! I dont understand how a fuselage / wing design can impact the loudness of engines and props but again, every time I've heard 'the loud one' it was this guy.
Whatever noise they produce, had no impact on sales. There were several reasons why it failed. The FAA interfered with the design because at the time, they didnt trust composites so forced Beech to add unnecessary structural supports, which added weight, reducing its performance. The cost of making such a 'futuristic' aircraft was high as well. Both of these equaled an aircraft that performed like a 'normal' (for the time) Turboprop, but cost as much (at the time) as a business jet. So most seeking an aircraft in its price range, went with the jets.
It also didnt help that Beechcraft offered free maintenance plans with the Starship, which caused owners to get them serviced FAR more often than they otherwise would have. People saw the amount they were in service and equating that to mean they always had problems instead of owners just abusing/taking advantage of the maintenance program to keep them in tip-top shape.
Its "All-glass" cockpit didnt help much either. While a neat idea in theory, it using CRT's for all the screens added alot more weight and heat up front. That heat needed to be dissipated by cooling systems, which make the cockpit loud.
In short, the Starship was too far ahead of its time to do very well. Id bet if it was remade today, with all the proven tech advancements and experience with composites, it would be a far better aircraft.
As for the noise, that could likely be rectified with a more modern turboprop with fewer blades, but honestly, even though ive not heard a starship, i think ALL turbo props are loud and kind of doubt this is an exclusive trait of the starship.
@@lyianx Pusher turboprops are extra loud due to the interaction of the (often supersonic) blades with the flow of exhaust from the engine. This configuration has a few advantages (including doesn't disturb flow of air over the wing, no need for a prop deicing system because the props are bathed in hot exhaust) but noise complaints are a disadvantage.
Just saw one fly over Los Angeles. Are these still common or are they rare?
I send you the link wikipedia for more information
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_Starship