Aviaar From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1767 times:
Were they unstable or unairworthy? Seems like a poor market wouldn't be the only factor contributing to its failure. I knew they weren't flying anymore, but I never knew why-if I get some feedback, it will be good to know.
If this has been talked about before, lets talk about it again right here.
Thanks for the replies ahead of time.
Edited: 10 minutes later, still no help. C'mon y'all, why did they go? By the way, I've seen some flying over my house before, right next to DFW. Haven't seen that though for about half a year at least.
ERJ From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
I read an article about the Starship's retirement, and it didn't really make sense to me. It seems such a waste to retire and destroy an entire fleet of such a unique and pioneering aircraft. I've only ever seen one up close. It came into PRC about 4 years ago. Seen a few from across the field at several airports. I'll miss it. It was always the highlight of any ramp it sat on.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8511 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1521 times:
They were too heavy. And it was the FAA's fault, not Beech's. The FAA ruined the aircraft.
The Piaggio P-180 (developed a few years later) was much faster (395 kts max vs 330 or so for the Starship), had a much bigger cabin, and had a better payload. It was also built out of totally conventional aluminum (in a new way, though, to get that smooth composite-looking skin).
It makes sense for Raytheon to get rid of them, though. Then they don't have to support them.