Guest

Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:05 am

Hey guys,
For those of you who are interested, this just came across the Web on Aviation International News...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erik Frikke



Starships Headed to Slaughter

The Beech Starship fleet is being destroyed at the behest of its manufacturer Raytheon, which owns 40 of the 50 production airplanes built between 1988 and 1995. In recent weeks Starships have been flown to Pinal Air Park in Marana, Ariz., near Tucson, and corralled at Evergreen Air Center’s heavy maintenance facility, which at press time had destroyed six airplanes by sawing them up and burning the carbon-fiber sections in an incinerator. The goal is to complete the destruction of the airplanes under Raytheon control by year-end. Asked why, a company spokesman said, “The costs of supporting the fleet are prohibitive. There are many parts on the Starship that are unique to that aircraft. We have a backlog of parts, and we will part out those aircraft that are being decommissioned to add to that backlog.” He also asserted that, with such a small number of in-service airplanes, retrofitting the fleet for new requirements such as RVSM is a prohibitively expensive proposition. “The Starship was a good aircraft that unfortunately didn’t meet market acceptance,” the Raytheon Aircraft spokesman said. Looking on the positive side, the spokesman noted that the twin-turboprop pusher served as a “springboard for the knowledge and experience with composites that have taken us to the Premier I and Horizon.”


The Starship is one of those airplanes that I guess that I'll never have the chance to fly. Personally, I thought the design was pretty neat; but I guess it was one of those "near miss" airplane - it just missed being a good airplane and Raytheon is finally putting it out of its misery. The last time I remember hearing about a manufacturer buying back and distroying all examples of an aircraft was the old Cessna Skyhook helicopter. Are there any other examples?

Jetguy
 
aaron atp
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:21 am

It's about time.

I think the starship was one of the greatest engineering failures of modern aviation; hence the fact it didn't receive "market acceptance." The Piaggio Avanti is everything the starship was meant to be but wasn't...

To your question, no, I can't think of any non-prototype that was recalled to be destroyed; but I could think of quite a few that should be (the CJ2 and the MU-2 pops into mind).
 
aaron atp
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:17 pm

Another Negative Comment

Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:25 am

The starship was an incredibly unsightly POS upon close inspection.
 
Guest

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:35 am

I'll agree with the "POS" description of the Starship - it looked like it had been painted with a broom and was never up to the "Beechcraft" standard that you come to expect from them. I was always intrigued by the cannard concept. I helped a friend build a Q-200 homebuilt and it was a lot of fun to fly. I always wanted to see what the Starship flew like.

I have to disagree with your comments about the MU-2. I've got around a 1000 hours in a MU-2 Marquis and I actually liked flying the airplane - once I got the appropriate mindset. It has to be flown as if it were a jet with propellers and not a propeller-driven aircraft powered with turbine engines. Once you got that worked out in your mind, flying the airplane was actually a lot of fun. As I remember, it had the same wing loading as a Lear 35, T-38, and B727 so you can't expect it to fly like it was a King Air.

Jetguy
 
aaron atp
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 3:13 am

The canard concept is great, I think the Long EZ is a great little plane and the P180 takes the design another step forward. (The Q200 certainly is a unique little airplane)

The closest I've ever come to certain death was because of an MU-2 and its owner/pilot (no fault of my own), so that has a lot to do with my disdain for it. The LR35 (and others) may have the same wing loading, but at least the wings are stiff enough to make you feel a bit safer.

That, and the others don't have suicide doors that open into the prop arc!!! (I know other models were built with the door aft)
 
citationjet
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 3:20 am

There were lots of reasons why the Starship was not successful. some of the reasons that have been discussed here in Wichita are:

The plane ended up overweight.
Certification proved much more difficult than expected.
The FAA was inexperienced at certifying composite structure.
The type of person that would buy a Starship would appreciate the radical new design. However Beech found out that the decision makers in purchasing aircraft like the Starship tend to be conservative, and have to answer to the bean-counters.
The plane was pretty expensive. A small jet was about the same price.
The plane was very noisy. You could hear it approaching and recognize the sound long before it flew over.
Beech learned a lot about composites from this development program.

I am not saying that I agree with or endorse these ideas. But merely stating what has been discussed in the general aviation community here in Wichita among engineers at Beech (Raytheon), Cessna, and Bombardier (LearJet).

BTW, there have been numerous Starship aircraft sitting outside at the Wichita Airport (ICT) for a couple of years.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
Guest

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 3:52 am

You hit the nail square on the head when it came to the MU-2...

The problem was with "Owner/Pilots"

The problem was that 10 or 15 years ago the early models could be purchased on the used market for what you'd pay for a good light twin and there were a lot of well-to-do doctors, attorneys, and businessmen that succumbed to the lure of the cheap turboprop. ("Let's see, for $100,000 I can buy a 180 knot Cessna 310 or a 270 knot turbo-prop MU-2? Gee, that's a no-brainer...") All was well and good, except that many of the new owner/pilots didn't realize that when it came to maintenance they were essentially maintaining a $1 million turboprop that they bought cheap. They also, in many cases, "self-insured" because of the high requirements the insurance company placed on them; after all, it was just another airplane and they really didn't need to go to FlightSafety for initial and recurrent training. Everything usually went reasonably well for those guys until the maintenance issues finally caught up with them and they found themselves in the air with one engine. At that point, the training that they received in the Seneca, C310, Aztec, etc. that they received their multi-engine rating took over and they promptly did exactly the wrong thing to survive an engine loss in a MU-2. The airplanes did exactly what airplanes do when they are mishandled and a significant number of them turned themselves into lawn darts.

As far as suicide doors? I've flown the Aerostar and Turbo Commander that had doors in or near the prop arc, but the long-body MU-2's doors were aft of the wing and so too were the short body's, I believe. The Commander had an electrical interlock to keep you from doing something stupid.

The wings on the MU-2 are plenty stiff. The airplane weighed, as I remember, somewhere around 11,000 pounds. The wing span and area was roughly equivalent to the wing on a Cessna 182. The problem with the ride on the MU-2 was with the landing gear, it had a tendency to allow the airplane to lean. Until you get used to the feeling it does have a tendendency to freak you out. It was also the most difficult airplane to get consistently good landings. On the plus side, it had a cabin that had 10% more volume than a King Air 200; it flew 10% faster and burned 10% less fuel than the KA200. My MU-2 instructor at FlightSafety made the "tongue-in-cheek" comment that "You won't feel comfortable flying the MU-2 until you accept the fact that you are out of control 10% of the time."

The MU-2 definitely isn't one of those airplanes that you can be half asleep when you fly it. If you need one of those kind of airplanes, go buy a King Air or a straight-wing Citation.

Jetguy
 
aaron atp
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:17 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 4:18 am

I think you're right about the door, they were awfully close on the short bodies, but not quite as close as close as the turbo commander. It's still the Hiroshima Screamer in my book.
 
Mr Spaceman
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 5:09 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 6:51 am

Hi guys.

I thought the Beech Starship was a very neat aircraft to look at when it hit the scene. With it's composite construction, huge winglets, canards, and pusher props, it was obviously quite unique. (I wonder if Burt Rutan was involved in it's design?) I'm sorry to learn that the whole fleet is being destroyed, but then again, I wasn't aware that it was a POS and looked like it was painted with a broom if you got up close to one.

I Love the Piaggio P-180 Avanti.  Big thumbs up Almost every day I see the same one fly right over my home while flying to and from Toronto's Buttonvile Airport (YKZ). Like the Starship, it also has an awsome sound that can only be an Avanti. My girlfriend & I always quickly step outside to watch her fly by. She's quite an eye opener.  Wow! Especially during climbout!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andy Vanderheyden
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



Regarding the Mitsubishi MU-2. I used to refuel one several times a week back in the late eighties/early nineties. It was a dedicated medivac aircraft, and was always busy. If I remember correctly, during refueling, no more than 250 liters could be pumped into the tip tanks at a time ...... or the bird could tip over! You couldn't go near it on the ramp while it's engines were running without wearing a headset, or you'd go deaf! I think it had Garret or Allison turboprop engines.

Here's a comparison of the cabin doors on the MU-2, the Rockwell 690 Turbo Commander, and the Piper Aerostar 601.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Zeljeznjak
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tony Zeljeznjak



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bevin Shively
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © José Rodrigues



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pierre Langlois
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Erik Frikke




Chris  Smile
"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 9:51 am

I had the chance to sit in a Starship during a run-up.
When you sit in the back seat with the engines at running at full power, it's almost as loud as the cargo hold of a C-130. (Thats Loud!)
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 2:26 pm

The point is liability. The Starship was, and is, a great airplane. The problem is in it's construction. It is built, ad you all know, from composites. Fiberglass if you will that was spun around a mold for the fuselage. An exceptionally strong aircraft off the line but not easily repaired when damaged. The best that could be expected for a damage repair is 50% of original strength. That would be great if all work was done properly, sadly it wasn't. The poor airplane has been saddled with inferior repair work since the first was dinged.

The point being that Raytheon took the responsible stance that they should be destroyed. It would be very nice if they were instead donated to museums but then that would also raise the problem that a museum could sell it. And, almost done, Raytheon holding ownership while on display at a museum would cause tax problems for the company. A true Catch-21 for the Starship.

I have pictures of 34 of them and will be sad when the last is scrapped.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:11 pm

Shame the Russians didn´t buy them, to gain know-how and good planes rather inexpensive.
As for going on the Starship (9 left in private hands?), I found this homepage http://www.cfi-inc.com/starship.html so if someone is interested for a trip contact them.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:33 pm

No, all they have to do is remove the data plates and it isn't an aircraft any more.

That is what the A&P school at UAA did to get their MU-2. The sold the data plate back to the Mitsubishi. One more airframe they don't have to support, and the school got a test stand that wasn't an airplane.

BTW: On the MU-2. Got to see one come in on a dead engine about two years ago. It was on a medivac flight with patient. That next winter the "accidently" spun the sucker in IFR conditions, but recovered!

Anyway it wasn't that long after, that particluar medivac program got two King Air 200's to replace the MU's.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:39 pm

Oh and the other thing about any canard design is that they are ground hogs.

Universally ground hogs.

Canards are designed so that they are "stall proof". Meaning that you nead to have the canard stall before the main wing, this makes the nose drops and causes and "automatic" recovery. Canards also are allowed to carry part of the design load.

Since the Canard won't develop any lift until the mainwing does, that means you can't lift the nose on take-off. On a convential aircraft you can use elevator inputs to push the tail down and shorten your run.

The Starship was a dog in hot and high conditions.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Mr Spaceman
Posts: 2723
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 5:09 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:31 am

Hi guys.

> L-188, it's inertesting to learn that any aircraft with a canard design is a ground hog!

You stated ... Since the Canard won't develop any lift untill the mainwing does, that means you can't lift the nose on take-off.

That statement has me wondering what the purpose is for the trailing edge control surfaces that both the Starship & Avanti have on their canards.

They look like they could be used as elevators or flaps during the takeoff roll, which when deflected downward, would help create lift and thus raise/deflect the canard and nose to an upward pitch.

Or perhaps they can't create enough lift over the canards to help raise the nose during takeoff, so they're only used as flaps during a landing approach.

They obviously have some purpose. If you (or anyone) could explain their use, it would be appreciated.

Here's some photos that show the Starship & Avanti's canard control surfaces.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Robert Friedlander
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Davies



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Propfreak
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter Tonna



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jason Whitebird



Chris  Smile
"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 12:30 pm

On the Avanti those surfaces are rigged with the flaps to counter the pitch forces generated by the flaps.

The Avanti is not a canard. It is a panard, All of it's pitch controls come from the tail surfaces just like a normal aircraft. Piaggio wanted as big of cabin as possible for their aircraft, so they located the wing as far aft as they could get it. But this ment the aircraft was nose heavy. Installing those "canards" they generate lift and hold the nose of the airplane up. Which solved the nose CG issue. Also, and somebody might want to check me on this, Those canards and the fact the payload of the aircraft is spread between two lifting surfaces, provides the Avanti with one of the largest CG ranges out there.

On the Starship, which is a true Canard, the canard is sweep wing to counter the pitch forces generated by the flaps. It still is the only civilian aircraft that ever entered production with sweep wings. The control surfaces on them are in fact the Elevators. Again as in the Avanti, Beech wanted as large of cabin as possible so they went with the Canard design so that part of the load could be flown on the Canard.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:10 pm

So can i ask how come the Piagiio Avanti was such a hit and the Starship wasn't? Doesn't the Starship outperform the Avanti- faster, more powerful, better looking, bigger etc?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:11 pm

Actually I belive the Piaggo has the better numbers.

And I belive it was with less power too.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:14 pm

I did a bit of research and it turns out the Starship is in fact the better performer(according to my source).

Beechcraft Starship
Max cruising speed: 386mph(621km/h)
ceiling: 41,000 feet
MTOW: 6,531kg's
capacity: 10 seater

Piaggio Avanti
Max cruising speed: 482km/h
ceiling: 41,000feet
MTOW: 5080kg's
capacity: 10 seater

So the starship has a higher cruising speed and can take a higher load than the Avanti can
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 3:41 pm

I won't argue those numbers but keep in mind that a Starship needed 1200 SHP a side to generate those numbers, while an Avanti makes due with only 850 SHP.

That is a pretty big difference.

You wouldn't have the ground roll and the T/O to 50 numbers for both aircraft by chance.

That is where you should see the difference.


Also keep in mind that the Avanti isn't fiberglass. They only used it in sections where they needed it. Most of it's construction is pretty conventional. That lowers the cost of repairs and ownership.

Beech 2000 data on this site
Avanti data on this site



[Edited 2003-06-22 08:46:08]
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Guest

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 7:58 pm

"So can I ask how come the Piaggio Avanti was such a hit and the Starship wasn't? Doesn't the Starship outperform the Avanti- faster, more powerful, better looking, bigger etc?"

Positive Rate...
The Piaggio "such a hit"? You must be speaking "relatively" of course. In all of my travels across the States, I've run into exactly two of them - both operated by the same company. As I remember, the Piaggio was pulled off of the market here in the US for a few years because sales were so bad.

The Piaggio had one other big plus (in the eyes of some owner/operators) - it didn't need a type rating where the Starship did. On the negative side of the ledger is the fact that (in my personal opinion) it is FREAKING UGLY ! ! ! Good numbers or not, esthetics have to enter into the equasion at some point.

The bottom line is both the Starship and the Piaggio were (are) sales flops. Even with the Piaggio back on the market, there's no way that I would ever recommend a company purchase a one, the on-going support for what can only be described as a government supported "limited production" speciality aircraft could only be described as a nightmare waiting to happen.

Jetguy

(Note: The above rantings are solely the opinion of someone who doesn't matter and probably has no idea of what he's talking about. - The Editor)

[Edited 2003-06-22 13:10:42]
 
DodgeCharger
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 6:38 am

RE: Beech Starship

Sun Jun 22, 2003 10:27 pm

It seems that in the early 90s the Starship used to be a somewhat regular visitor to Dallas Love Field (maybe it still is...don't think so though). I can remember sitting in class in elementary school though and hearing that very distinguishing sound and knowing it was a Starship. It had a sound that was similar to a falling bomb to me.
 
citationjet
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:26 am

RE: Beech Starship

Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:29 am

Today's Wichita Eagle had the following regarding the Starship:

To date, 6 aircraft have been decommissioned; 3 prototype and 3 production.
The company is in discussions with the individual owners of the 10 aircraft not owned by the company.
The company reportedly invested more than $500M in development. (That's $50M each for the 10 aircraft, which sold for $4M each).
The design was based in part on work done by Burt Rutan. If I remember correctly, they flew a 85% scale version prototype early in the development.
The paper goes on to say However its performance was not significantly better than the top of the line King Air. In addition the plane which sold for $4M cost about twice as much as a King Air. Business jets took over the market the Starship was after. The Starship was the first pressurized all composite business turboprop.
Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
 
Guest

RE: Beech Starship

Mon Jun 23, 2003 6:46 am

CitationJet...
Back in the mid 80's, I was offered a marketing job at Cessna. Back then, Cessna had hung Garrett 331-10's on the Conquest II (The Conquest III?). It was my understanding that the Marketing Department squashed the idea because the airplane gave the Citation 500 / Citation I as run for the money and they weren't about to become their own worst competition. It was up to a couple of different mod shops to get the "-10" STC for the Conquest. The rest is history, are there any Conquests out there without the mod? What a nice airplane!

Jetguy

(Don't you like the way these threads evolve?)
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:35 pm

L-188, You are correct about removing the date plate. I do know of one aircraft flying today that had this done, but it is a 1 off exception.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3312
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:09 am

I'll miss the Starship -- they were a common sight at VNY during the 1990s, and I always hoped to fly one.

Steve
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:45 am

Didn't the Smithsonian or the Boeing museum get the 85% prototype?

IMissPeidmont.

You may be surprised to know this, but I wouldn't put money down that there aren't a couple of PA-18's flying up here in Alaska, where the DATA plate is the only original part from piper.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
timz
Posts: 6084
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:52 am

L-188's link says the Avanti max cruise is 644 km/hr, Positive Rate says 482.

Were some of the Starships never sold at all?
 
lapa_saab340
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:42 pm

RE: MU-2

Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:19 am

Jet
Sorta going off the original topic, but could you elaborate more about the handling qualities of the MU-2? What makes it different from other similar-sized turboprops, and what do you mean it should be flown as a jet? I've seen the plane before and from what I remember it uses spoilers for roll control, but that's about all I know. I've also heard 'hangar' stories about its handling qualities, but since you've flown the type I was curious to hear from someone who's actually flown the thing.

Cheers
Fernando
 
Guest

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 7:45 am

Fernando...
I'll try and answer your questions, but you'll have to understand that it's been 15 years since I've flown the MU-2 - so if make any memory induced errors I'll have to leave it to others to correct them.

One of the design criteria for the MU-2 was to design an airplane that would out perform its competition - the various King Airs, Turbo Commanders and Merlyns. At the time, Cessna and Piper hadn't come out with their competing aircraft yet. The Mitsubishi designers actually came up with a pretty good way of accomplishing their goals - they used a relatively small, high speed wing (it's about the same size as the wing on a Cessna 182). To allow the airplane to operate out of shorter runways they used full-span fowler flaps. To provide roll control in conjuction with the full-span flaps, they used spoilers for roll control. All in all, it's a very effective way of doing things especially when you think that the design was done back in the mid-60's. That's the good news, the bad news is that the airplane, because of the spoilers, had a very "quirky" (read: different) feel to it when it came to the roll axis.

The wing, as I mentioned, was comparatively small and there wasn't a lot of room, internally, for fuel so tip tanks were added. This resulted in a lot of weight out the wing tips - which added to the distinctive feel of the airplane. You Lear pilots will understand the feeling very well, you guys who fly Cessna 310s and 340's will have an idea of what it's like having all of that weight out on the wing tips.

As far as the spoilers go, they aren't very large, as I remember, they are about the same size as a standard yard stick. They are effective enough, not there's no "feel" associated with their use - artificial feel is provided by springs attached to the spoiler linkages. The resistance that they provide is the same regardless of aircraft speed. The spoilers are effective, but their effectiveness is a function of aircraft speed. At low speeds, it takes a whole lot of control movement to get a response. It's not dangerous, just different. At high speed, it doesn't take very much movement to get the desired result. Again, it's not dangerous at all, just different. In fact, since the airplane uses spoilers (lift destroyers) for roll control instead of ailerons there is no adverse aileron yaw and therefore little or no need to use the rudder in turns. You can roll the airplane back and forth with your feet flat on the floor and the ball will stay square in the middle of the turn coordinator. Roll trim is provided by small "trim ailerons" which are actually small trim tabs mounted on the trailing edge of each flap.

Now for the "Jet like" characteristics. As I said in a previous post, the MU-2's wing loading is comparable to the Lear 35, T-38, and Boeing 727. The airplane needs to be flown fast to get the lift from the wings. In standard propeller twins, in the event of an engine loss, the drill is to clean up the airplane - retract the gear and flaps - and accelerate to "blue line" (best single-engine rate of climb speed). In many twins, you're only looking at having to accelerate a few knots to get to "blue line". The MU-2 is a totally different breed of cat in this area. Because of the small, highly loaded wing, the best single-engine rate of climb speed is 156 knots. (Based upon flaps O) The takeoff flap setting is Flaps 20. Vmc is 99 knots. If you suffer an engine failure right at rotation - or shortly afterward - the normal response of a "normal" light-twin pilot is to clean up the flaps and "go for blue line". This is the correct response for nearly all propeller-driven light twin aircraft that I can think of EXCEPT for the MU-2. Under those conditions, you are nearly 50 knots below the best single engine rate of climb speed and you just pulled the flaps out from under yourself. The airplane is going to do exactly what airplanes do under those conditions - turn itself into a lawn dart. The MU-2 procedure is basically the same as it is in many jet aircraft. You maintain your current configuration and wait for the aircraft to accelerate. As the airplane accelerates, you perform a progressive clean up - you don't fully retract the takeoff flaps until you've accelerated to 156 knots. When flown properly, it really performs well. When flown like a King Air or Seneca, it will kill you every time. Pilots with jet time have no problem with the concept, pilots without jet time need to be very careful. That's why simulator training is so important in high performance aircraft like the MU-2.

In the real world, it takes most guys around 50 hours or so to get comfortable flying the MU-2, about the same as it takes most guys to get comfortable in a new jet. The MU-2 is a very well built airframe, to my knowledge, there has never been an AD issued against the basic airframe. It is quirky, but that's what makes it enjoyable to fly. It's one of those aircraft (like the Lear) that you have to be awake when you fly it and you have to work at to give the passengers a good ride. It's been said that if you can fly an MU-2 (or Lear) well, you can fly anything well. Personally, I'm glad that I had the opportunity to fly them. I think that the experience make me a better pilot.

Oh, by the way, I've noticed that the majority of those pilots who bad mouth the MU-2 are pilots who have little, if any, actual time flying the airplane - kind of like the old Luscombe storys you used to hear about. (I owned one of those too and it wasn't anywhere near as bad as the hangar experts would lead you to believe.)

Jetguy
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 1:52 pm

"You may be surprised to know this, but I wouldn't put money down that there aren't a couple of PA-18's flying up here in Alaska, where the DATA plate is the only original part from piper."

I would be shocked if the case were otherwise L-188. I can think of many aircraft that this is pretty much the case. and not only in Alaska.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 2:39 pm

I'll second that IMissPiedmont. I flew a 172 tonight that I doubt has one single original part from Piper. Big grin
 
Guest

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 3:16 pm

I read some where, several years ago that there are more Bell 47's flying than can be accounted for by subtracting the numbers destroyed in accidents, etc from the number built by the factory. I doubt if this is still true, but with switched data plates, bogus parts, etc. etc. etc. you can sure see how it can happen.

IMissPiedmont, you're probably right. You can buy brand new Super Cubs built by Cub Crafters. I understand that Piper is doing a "slow burn" because of it.

The same kind of thing has been going on for several years in the Volkswagen crowd. Do you want a brand new US legal "old style" VW Bug. Simple, all you need is a VIN Plate off of any old wrecked/junked VW and there are folks in Mexico who will "install" in on a new Mexican Beetle and voila... You've got a brand new US legal 1960 - something Bug. All you have to do is drive it back across the border. If you want one, you'd better hurry, they're going out of production sometime this year.

Jetguy
 
POSITIVE RATE
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 11:31 am

RE: Beech Starship

Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:12 pm

Timz 644km/h is probably right. 482 does seem a little slow. Must have been a misprint in the book that i have.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:33 am

Max cruise in the Piaggio is 395 knots. However, you won't go very far at that speed. Now that it's back in production, Flying and AOPA Pilot have both done articles on it and have detailed performance specs, if anyone would like me to post them. Max on the Starship is only 235 knots I think.

The one advantage (in my mind) that the Starship had over the Avanti was the cockpit. The Starship has something like 6 large primary displays and 8 smaller secondary displays...a LOT of glass. The Avanti is still being sold with it's ancient Collins cockpit (circa 1991 or so). It seriously needs an update.

It's a shame what the FAA did to the Starship. It could've been a LOT lighter, faster, and more efficient than it was. For example, the large ventral fin underneath the aircraft serves absolutely no aerodynamic purpose whatsoever. The FAA was worried about a prop strike, even though Beech insisted that the canard simply couldn't develop enough lift to make the props hit. So it's a nice fin for putting antennas on.

Personally, if I had the bucks I'd buy a P.180 over any light jet. I love 'em.
 
lapa_saab340
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:42 pm

RE: Beech Starship

Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:22 am

Jet
Thanks for the comments on the MU-2, that was very interesting stuff!

Cheers
Fernando

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: yblaser and 14 guests