Beech Starship

[cessna182b]

I read somewhere that they were all gone - that Beech had bought them all back and destroyed them (due to liability concerns - about which they were not talking?). Not so! - one showed up today in Asheville. I looked it up on the FAA Registry, then did some research - which revealed that there are still six registered. Just a bit of Aviation Trivia - for anyone who is interested.

Dave

 

[SCCutler]

There are a stalwart few who remain devoted to the Starship; one such aircraft is represented by a frequent visitor at Beechtalk.com; if you look there, you can find much written about it.

 

[silver-eagle]

The Starship was used as a chase plane for the SpaceShipOne and the White Knight. Burt is a diehard Starship owner.

 

[mikea]

The Starship was used as a chase plane for the SpaceShipOne and the White Knight. Burt is a diehard Starship owner.

AFAIK, Burt doesn't own it. It's owned by a friend of his.

 

[Joe B]

AFAIK, Burt doesn't own it. It's owned by a friend of his.

True but there's more than friendship involved. That Starship is owned by Paul Allen who put up most (all?) of the funding for Spaceship One. Paul also was a major investor in the original Eclipse. He was Bill Gate's first partner, which goes a long way towards explaining the source of funds.

 

[mikea]

True but there's more than friendship involved. That Starship is owned by Paul Allen who put up most (all?) of the funding for Spaceship One. Paul also was a major investor in the original Eclipse. He was Bill Gate's first partner, which goes a long way towards explaining the source of funds.

Really? I heard Burt talk about the one he used for photo ops and I don't remember it registering it was owned by Paul Allen. Burt might have two Starship owners he hangs with.

Paul Allen isn't a pilot. I smell medical issues.

 

[flyersfan31]

No factory support. They are about as orphaned as an airplane can get.What a shame -- an aircraft before its time.

 

[wby0nder]

I saw either a Starship or a Piaggio letting down into Des Moines a couple days ago. Very unique sound and profile.

 

[Joe B]

Really? I heard Burt talk about the one he used for photo ops and I don't remember it registering it was owned by Paul Allen. Burt might have two Starship owners he hangs with.

I stand corrected. N-number search shows it was indeed owned by a different friend of Burt Rutan's. Dunno how I associated it with Paul.

Paul Allen isn't a pilot. I smell medical issues.

Paul's cancer was 25 years ago - I doubt that would even slow down a medical application. OTOH Paul Allen doesn't have to worry about his medical to own a plane. I didn't say he was a pilot.

 

[Erice]

I know there is a Starship based at the Walla Walla airport in Washington state (KALW). My former CFI saw it a few times when he was training/instructing there. I don't think he ever flew in it, though. I'll have to ask him again.
________
GR650

 

[Everskyward]

I've seen this Starship a number of times in Aspen. I took this picture about 4 years ago. At the time I looked up the N-number and figured out it was the Spaceship One chase plane.

 

[DeeG]

Absolutely gorgeous plane. Too bad that Beech wouldn't support them. Company I used to fly for was thinking about getting one to replace the B200 we were flying. I still have the 'new plane brochure' for it, 1994 model year.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Starship was used as a chase plane for the SpaceShipOne and the White Knight. Burt is a diehard Starship owner.

That Starship landed right in front of me as I was taxiing to parking at OSH 2006. I was holding short of 27 when it landed on 27. Way cool.

 

[gprellwitz]

I saw either a Starship or a Piaggio letting down into Des Moines a couple days ago. Very unique sound and profile.

On the ORD/PHX trip, we heard a couple of Piaggios on frequency. Man, I was jealous! (Of course, we were sitting back in steerage at the time!)

 

[Ted]

The Starship - a Long-EZ that's all grown up!

Definitely a really cool plane. That said, whatever I've read on it seems to indicate to me that the King Air is still the way to go for something of that class.

What bothers me is that Beech had that campaign to scrap most of them. It makes me sad when people outright destroy things, especially like that. Aside from generally being wasteful, it's losing a piece of history.

 

[Anthony]

Cool looking plane, but more expensive and slower than its rivals in its class. Still an interesting design though.

 

[Ken Ibold]

At the time it was designed/built, the FAA didn't have a clue about certifying structural composites. The result is a grossly overbuilt airframe, which was waaaaaaaay heavier than it needed to be. That cascaded throughout the finished product, in design, performance and cost.

 

[Noah Werka]

I werked for Beech out of Teterboro and Farmingdale at the time the Starship was being developed. Went to Witchata for King Air training. There were several 3/4 scale test models flying at the time. Toured the factory and got to see the full scale models in all stages of production. Beech limited the production run of the Starship to 50 or so planes. Beech spent 300 mil. on the development of the Starship. Their purpose was not to develope a new aircraft, but to learn composite technology. They learned well, reaping over 700 mil. in gov't. contracts supplying composite parts for new military aircraft. Quite an interesting experience in Witchata.

 

[colomtnflyer]

IIRC, one of the remaining owners also purchased 3-5 other airframes, to use as parts as needed on the primary airframe. Beech asked the owner to give them up, but was rebuffed. This might explain (if accurate) the additional airframes still listed on the FAA Registry.

 

[Tristar]

I've only seen a starship once when it landed in my Florida hometown. I thought it was one of the coolest looking airplanes and probably a blast to fly. Too bad there are few left.

 

[Teller1900]

I grew up in Wichita; my high school is about a block from the Hawk-eech-theon plant, and my house is about a mile offset from the final approach course to their plant runway. I still remember as a kid, looking up and seeing those things fly over. Even sitting in my basement watching cartoons, those engines made such a distinctive (and loud) noise that I would run upstairs to see it fly by. I think I would sell my first born to get to fly that plane (and log it).

 

[wabower]

I werked for Beech out of Teterboro and Farmingdale at the time the Starship was being developed. Went to Witchata for King Air training. There were several 3/4 scale test models flying at the time. Toured the factory and got to see the full scale models in all stages of production. Beech limited the production run of the Starship to 50 or so planes. Beech spent 300 mil. on the development of the Starship. Their purpose was not to develope a new aircraft, but to learn composite technology. They learned well, reaping over 700 mil. in gov't. contracts supplying composite parts for new military aircraft. Quite an interesting experience in Witchata.

That makes no sense.

 

[cessna182b]

I saw either a Starship or a Piaggio letting down into Des Moines a couple days ago. Very unique sound and profile.

There is a Piaggio based in Asheville, and it flies just about every weekday. A worthy successor to the Starship IMHO.

Dave

 

[flyersfan31]

That makes no sense.

Have you seen the pricing on new G36s? Spare parts? Nothing at Beech makes sense!!!!!

 

[Ted]

That makes no sense.

Seemingly it makes no sense, but a lot of managers at varying companies find that it makes sense to do. Basically, many larger companies build up knowledge on stuff by working on development projects. While the end product is frequently unsuccessful for whatever reason, the lessons they learn from it then usually apply to whatever other project that is significantly more lucrative.

So, the wording is perhaps slightly off. Yes, the purpose is to build an airplane. If people had been knocking down their door for more, I'm sure Beech would have supported it. However it seems that most of the enthusiasm is from people like us, rather than those who actually would buy the planes - hence why it failed to displace the King Air. The greater purpose in building the airplane was for the company to develop internal knowledge about new things that they previously did not have knowledge regarding, which fed into other projects.

This is common in a number of industries. Often you see them as concepts that never make it to market, other times you never hear about them at all because the projects are cancelled for whatever reason at some point prior to release. Sometimes you see the project release, and usually it ends up like the Starship - it gets a minor following, is ultimately unsuccessful and generally forgotten about, but internally the lessons learned then applied to something else that you know a lot more about, and never make the correlation.

 

[Everskyward]

If people had been knocking down their door for more, I'm sure Beech would have supported it. However it seems that most of the enthusiasm is from people like us, rather than those who actually would buy the planes - hence why it failed to displace the King Air.

I think that people who buy airplanes, especially for business, buy airplanes which are practical rather than airplanes that are cool, and the King Air was much more practical for a number of reasons.

 

[Ted]

I think that people who buy airplanes, especially for business, buy airplanes which are practical rather than airplanes that are cool, and the King Air was much more practical for a number of reasons.

Mari, as usual you hit the nail on the head. That's what I was trying to get at.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

IIRC, one of the remaining owners also purchased 3-5 other airframes, to use as parts as needed on the primary airframe. Beech asked the owner to give them up, but was rebuffed. This might explain (if accurate) the additional airframes still listed on the FAA Registry.

There's still one parked out back at the Evergreen museum at MMV too, so they haven't all been scrapped.

 

[sba55]

Have you seen the pricing on new G36s? Spare parts? Nothing at Beech makes sense!!!!!

It makes just as much sense as the others and their products. $560k for a Seminole? I'd rather buy a used and old C90 for a little (not much) bit more.

Personally, I'm just amazed (and thankful) that people are still buying these new planes.

-Felix

 

[wabower]

From my days as head of the financial audit field team and later the IT consulting engagements at Beech, I maintained contact with a number of the financial high-ups at the company for a number of years. Although I wasn't there when the Starship was produced, my information and recollection of the project is somewhat different

What really happened was that Beech introduced the airplane and guaranteed performance to buyers based on Rutan's scale model. I still remember the model doing low passes at the NBAA show in Dallas. The production airplane didn't perform to expectations due to weight and other reasons primarily related to the somewhat primitive composite technology available at the time.

When the performance numbers didn't materialize, most of the buyers opted out of their contracts. Based on their initial order book Beech had commited to the first production run (~53 airplanes) only to find they had nowhere to go with them. The company decided to complete and (hopefully) lease ~40 airplanes in progress, since they committed to buy or build the necessary parts and pieces. The other choice was to simply grind up the remains and start over.

They (correctly, for once) determined that the best course of action (or the lesser of evils depending on your viewpoint) was to lease as many as possible to end users for a while, gain operational information and service experience and pull the plug when it became too expensive to support the limited fleet of completed airplanes. The notion that Beech had to buy all of them back is folklore. They were never able to sell them in the first place. They successfully bought back (or traded out) most of the remaining fleet. I completed the sale last week of one of the King Air 350's that a Starship owner accepted in trade for her Starship.

Seemingly it makes no sense, but a lot of managers at varying companies find that it makes sense to do. Basically, many larger companies build up knowledge on stuff by working on development projects. While the end product is frequently unsuccessful for whatever reason, the lessons they learn from it then usually apply to whatever other project that is significantly more lucrative.

So, the wording is perhaps slightly off. Yes, the purpose is to build an airplane. If people had been knocking down their door for more, I'm sure Beech would have supported it. However it seems that most of the enthusiasm is from people like us, rather than those who actually would buy the planes - hence why it failed to displace the King Air. The greater purpose in building the airplane was for the company to develop internal knowledge about new things that they previously did not have knowledge regarding, which fed into other projects.

This is common in a number of industries. Often you see them as concepts that never make it to market, other times you never hear about them at all because the projects are cancelled for whatever reason at some point prior to release. Sometimes you see the project release, and usually it ends up like the Starship - it gets a minor following, is ultimately unsuccessful and generally forgotten about, but internally the lessons learned then applied to something else that you know a lot more about, and never make the correlation.

 

[Ted]

Wayne, what you describe all falls in line with a project that is what I described. These sorts of development projects that are paving new ground frequently overpromise and underperform. So, that all sounds right to me.

Let me be clear that it's not that companies who do these projects intend on losing money. Companies (at least good ones) are in the business to make money, and if they can make money while at the same time doing this research, that's exactly what they'll do. Furthermore, in the course of learning this new information, one of the least-costly ways (if done right) tends to be making a new product that you'll actually end up selling and thus making money off of. In some cases, it's probably the only way to do it if FAA certification is involved. I'm probably not explaining any of this well, but what you tell me increases my certainty that the kind of project I described is what this was.

 

[Ted]

It makes just as much sense as the others and their products. $560k for a Seminole? I'd rather buy a used and old C90 for a little (not much) bit more.

I find that no less amazing than the fact that Cessna can still sell new 172s and 182s for the prices they do (and still manage to lose money on it), especially when you've got a number of alternatives out there that are higher performance and look cooler.

What amazes me further is that Mooney doesn't sell more planes, and that Lancair hasn't taken a bigger chunk out of the high performance singles market than it has. Looking at the value on, say, a IV-P compared to an Acclaim Type S (probably where the biggest market share is being taken), Columbia (yes I know it is/was a Lancair), and SR22 turbo, I know where I'd put my money.

I suppose the one thing I can say is that in spite of the fact that little has changed on these planes, the people who buy them probably have enough money that there's not a tremendous concern. For example, my flying club has a Piper Archer II. I love that plane, and have put about 130 hours on it since the end of March/beginning of April. It really is a fabulous plane for a number of reasons. Yes, it's slow and not as efficient as, say, the Mooney or your Bonanza, but I can see why they've got their popularity.

We also have a Piper Archer III that is in the process of being rebuilt and will become the replacement for the Archer II once it is finished. Last night while I was in the hangar, I went over and looked inside the interior of the Archer III, and was I ever impressed. Comfy leather seats, a truly new looking interior with dual 430s. I could see where someone looking at the new Archer III vs. buying an older Archer II or Cherokee 180 would look at something like that and say "Yeah, I want the new one." Personally I wouldn't do it, I'd buy the older one and update it if I really wanted that (and I'd not have dual 430s, but that's just me).

The other question is one of maintenance. You pointed out a used King Air for about the same price as a new Seminole. I'm right there with you on that, and if I had the money I'd absolutely go out and buy a used King Air. But for a lot of people, I could see where having a used King Air and the associated potential maintenance issues and costs becomes less attractive than having a new Seminole, where the thing is simple and everything is new so you should theoretically not suffer as many problems. Theory and practice are different, I'm just saying I can see the argument that some would make, even if I never would. I don't buy new cars, and I wouldn't buy a new plane for the same reasons.

Personally, I'm just amazed (and thankful) that people are still buying these new planes.

As am I. That means in 30 years they'll be around for you and me to buy. It's just too bad that most of the planes that I would most want to buy were discontinued in the 70s or 80s with no real replacements having come up since.

 

[flyersfan31]

It makes just as much sense as the others and their products. $560k for a Seminole? I'd rather buy a used and old C90 for a little (not much) bit more.

Personally, I'm just amazed (and thankful) that people are still buying these new planes.

-Felix

AT the rates they come off the production line, they can only amortize fixed costs over, what, 5 units per year? It's all overhead cost.

 

[Ted]

AT the rates they come off the production line, they can only amortize fixed costs over, what, 5 units per year? It's all overhead cost.

Nevermind what lawyers have done to liability insurance for GA aircraft and anything that touches them.

 

[wabower]

The Starship was nothing more or nothing less than another airplane that Beech thought would fill a niche in their product line. Their offerings had become stale, and they were trying to recapture their past position of market leadership and prestige. They thought they could do it with a bold stroke and it didn't work.

Trying to attribute or impute any other reasons for building it are it are simply not true. R & D is a never-ending expense for defense contractors and manufacturers, but thinking that they would build and market a GA airplane as proof of concept for a defense contract isn't realistic. Military hardware doesn't require FAA certs, and the company had many other alternatives to develop and test composite technology.

Beech had built a strong military (and commercial carrier) sub-contract division prior to the time I started doing the audit work in the early 1960's. It accounted for a substantial portion of the company's revenues and earnings, but was purposely a very quiet part of the business, and much of the work was done in remote (almost isolated) plants away from Wichita. I had a security clearance for much, but not all of their operations, and suffice to say they were involved in some big stuff that later became their primary business and eventually led to their decision to sell off the GA side of the business.

They now like to spin the deal and say the Starship provided them with good experience re. how not to build composite airplanes, but that's just BS too. If they learned so much, why has the Premier been such a bust? Why has it taken 10 years to get the new mid-size certified? And then had to get special FAA dispensation to save it at the end. What is the most recent Beech (in-house) design that has proven to be successful in the marketplace? They bought the Beechjet from MU, the Hawker from the Brits. What else have they done? Everything they had done to earn a top spot in the GA market has fallen apart. Their customer service and parts support was once the industry standard, then became the industry joke. Now they have refocused and it's back to OK, but not nearly as good as before. They aren't out of the woods by a long shot.

Wayne, what you describe all falls in line with a project that is what I described. These sorts of development projects that are paving new ground frequently overpromise and underperform. So, that all sounds right to me.

Let me be clear that it's not that companies who do these projects intend on losing money. Companies (at least good ones) are in the business to make money, and if they can make money while at the same time doing this research, that's exactly what they'll do. Furthermore, in the course of learning this new information, one of the least-costly ways (if done right) tends to be making a new product that you'll actually end up selling and thus making money off of. In some cases, it's probably the only way to do it if FAA certification is involved. I'm probably not explaining any of this well, but what you tell me increases my certainty that the kind of project I described is what this was.

 

[Ted]

Clearly we have different views, which is fine. I definitely enjoy hearing info from people who've got some extra inside info.

 

[wabower]

Clearly we have different views, which is fine. I definitely enjoy hearing info from people who've got some extra inside info.

Guess so. Say again your background, references, examples, etc that define your view of this particular situation?

 

[dmccormack]

R & D is a never-ending expense for defense contractors and manufacturers, but thinking that they would build and market a GA airplane as proof of concept for a defense contract isn't realistic. Military hardware doesn't require FAA certs, and the company had many other alternatives to develop and test composite technology.

Most (not all) DoD contracts require that COTS (Commercial off the Shelf) technology/products be investigated first, and that there be a commercial (i.e. "productization") plan for any DoD funded R&D effort (such as SBIR/BAA).

I have no idea if these constraints applied to this instance, but in the last 10 years or so, a commercial viability plan is a CDRL of most DoD R&D efforts.

 

[Ted]

Guess so. Say again your background, references, examples, etc that define your view of this particular situation?

Suffice it to say that I'm probably not supposed to talk about them (not for national security reasons or anything, just better off for my own sake).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I find that no less amazing than the fact that Cessna can still sell new 172s and 182s for the prices they do (and still manage to lose money on it), especially when you've got a number of alternatives out there that are higher performance and look cooler.

Remember that there's more missions out there than going fast. The 172 is a training airplane for the most part, and a significant percentage of 172 sales go to flight schools. The rest go to people who just want a dirt simple airplane that's easy to fly and maintain, and they just want to get up in the air and don't care that the plane is "slow" because it's still twice as fast as driving.

Likewise, the 182 is a heavy lifter, not a go-fast machine. Sure, it's faster, but it'll burn more fuel. However, when you want to take three of your buddies and their bags for a weekend trip, or go land at a 1500-foot unpaved backcountry strip, or fly for 5-6 hours at a time in comfort (nice upright seating position and wide cabin), or... The list goes on and on. Sure, it's not as fast as a Mooney, or a Columbia, or a Bonanza - But it'll lift a bunch of stuff into the sky, get off the runway in a hurry (I've flown off a 1000-foot strip in the 182. Yes, one thousand.), and take a real beating on some unimproved surfaces without costing you a fortune in landing gear maintenance. It's the best all-around plane, and by that I mean that it's good at the largest number of things. In fact, it's great at pretty much everything except for going faster than 145 knots, being super-efficent, and looking sexy.

The metal Cessnas obviously appeal to a large portion of the market - In 2007 they shipped 373 172's (133 R, 240 SP) and 301 182's (161 NA, 140 Turbo).

What amazes me further is that Mooney doesn't sell more planes

I'm with you there. I wonder if all the OWT's have hurt them over the years.

and that Lancair hasn't taken a bigger chunk out of the high performance singles market than it has. Looking at the value on, say, a IV-P compared to an Acclaim Type S (probably where the biggest market share is being taken), Columbia (yes I know it is/was a Lancair), and SR22 turbo, I know where I'd put my money.

Well, if you didn't have to BUILD the thing, that would increase sales by orders of magnitude. The other thing is that it's only two seats (how many certified two-seaters for sale that aren't LSA's right now?) and it is a go-fast machine that's challenging to fly, practically the exact opposite of the 182. The 182 can fit a lot more people's mission profile.

For example, my flying club has a Piper Archer II. I love that plane, and have put about 130 hours on it since the end of March/beginning of April. It really is a fabulous plane for a number of reasons. Yes, it's slow and not as efficient as, say, the Mooney or your Bonanza, but I can see why they've got their popularity.

Easy to fly, easy to maintain, hauls a pretty good load (ours are both at 1005 ±1 pound useful load, or 717±1 payload with full fuel, or 801±1 payload with fuel to the tabs), simple systems, etc. It's another good all-around plane, and IMHO has better ground handling and is easier to land than a 172.

I am, however, surprised that the DA40 (232 shipped in 2007) doesn't sell better than the 172 (373 shipped between the R and SP), and completely obliterate the Warrior and Archer (27 and 16, respectively). It's got all the same advantages (simple, easy to fly), full-fuel payload beats the new Archers by over 100 pounds, it's a good solid 30 knots or more faster, and it definitely is a lot sexier than the old metal birds.

We also have a Piper Archer III that is in the process of being rebuilt and will become the replacement for the Archer II once it is finished. Last night while I was in the hangar, I went over and looked inside the interior of the Archer III, and was I ever impressed. Comfy leather seats, a truly new looking interior with dual 430s. I could see where someone looking at the new Archer III vs. buying an older Archer II or Cherokee 180 would look at something like that and say "Yeah, I want the new one." Personally I wouldn't do it, I'd buy the older one and update it if I really wanted that (and I'd not have dual 430s, but that's just me).

The problem with the new Archers is that they've gained a lot of weight. The useful load has dropped by nearly 50% compared to the late-70's ones.

The other question is one of maintenance. You pointed out a used King Air for about the same price as a new Seminole. I'm right there with you on that, and if I had the money I'd absolutely go out and buy a used King Air. But for a lot of people, I could see where having a used King Air and the associated potential maintenance issues and costs becomes less attractive than having a new Seminole, where the thing is simple and everything is new so you should theoretically not suffer as many problems.

I doubt there's very many people, if any, were considering a used King Air and decided on a Seminole instead. Completely different missions, again. The King Air carries a lot of stuff and goes fast. The Seminole just sits on the ramp at the flight school and dreams about being able to climb on one engine.

As am I. That means in 30 years they'll be around for you and me to buy. It's just too bad that most of the planes that I would most want to buy were discontinued in the 70s or 80s with no real replacements having come up since.

So, which planes are you speaking of?