Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was The Starship A Failure?  
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 49
Posted (11 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

And why would all these be going to the incinerator? It isnt that old.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Hellmann

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offline727200er From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2013 times:

This has been covered before but...

Business people were too conservative to buy this aircraft, so yes it was a failure.

Beech is buying the few out there back and destroying them because they have lost enough money and are not willing to deal with liability etc.

"they who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only at night" - Edgar Allen Poe
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29913 posts, RR: 58
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

The aircraft was also a pavement hog.

Compared with a cheaper and more conventional King Air, this Starship was expensive, a lousy performer, and unconventional.

User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 49
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1851 times:

Are there any flying anymore?

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Do a search.......You'll find this was well covered a few months ago, and it will answer many of your questions.

"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineCRJDispatchKid From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 99 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

I think the last Starship was finally bought back by Raytheon. The Starship is no longer.

And by the way, those things were LOUD.

User currently offlineAviaar From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1691 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.

[Edited 2004-03-27 03:37:21]

I'd rather be flying (real original)
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5510 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1650 times:

Yes a few are still flying, I saw one earlier this week fly into MCO. Wish I would have known how 'rare' they were.


User currently offlineERJ From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 245 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1524 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.

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1445 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.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Was The MD 90 Family A Failure? posted Mon Oct 24 2005 02:47:18 by Georgiabill
Was The BAC 1-11 A Success Or Failure? posted Tue Nov 18 2003 19:40:24 by IslandHopper
Was The CV990 A Reason For Spantax Failure? posted Mon Jul 3 2000 15:21:25 by Montenegro
Why Was The 737 Original Built? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 20:28:05 by 747400sp
What Was The N Number Of The CO DC-10? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 18:46:49 by AirTran737
"my Dad Was The Pilot On That Flight..." posted Sat Sep 30 2006 22:42:21 by Jawed
What Was The First Airline To Offer A Website? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 06:29:36 by Joffie
THY Was The Airline That Operated More 707 Models! posted Fri Aug 18 2006 21:45:04 by CV990
What Was The GRT? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 00:47:28 by N702ML
When Was The Last 747sp Flight On The LAX-SYD? posted Sun Jun 25 2006 01:20:29 by 747400sp