Beech Starship - File 05 of 11 - starship04.jpg (1/1)

[Troy[_2_]]

[Hans Holbein]

Troy schrieb:

What is the Problem with this design?
Why did they come up with it so late?

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Hans Holbein > wrote:

> Troy schrieb:
>
> What is the Problem with this design?
> Why did they come up with it so late?

It was a significant departure from the way Beech has always built
airplanes -- from metal and -- significantly -- did not deliver the
desired performance.

Most Beech products use similar components, but the Starship was one of
a kind and required too much logistical support, so they bought almost
all of them back and scrapped them.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Hans Holbein]

Orval Fairbairn schrieb:
> In article >,
> Hans Holbein > wrote:
>
>> Troy schrieb:
>>
>> What is the Problem with this design?
>> Why did they come up with it so late?
>
> It was a significant departure from the way Beech has always built
> airplanes -- from metal and -- significantly -- did not deliver the
> desired performance.
>
> Most Beech products use similar components, but the Starship was one of
> a kind and required too much logistical support, so they bought almost
> all of them back and scrapped them.
>
I was not specifically talking aubout Beech, I meant the canard design.

They had something like this at the end of war in japan, but then again,
aircraft were designed the conventional way until today with few
exceptions like the Typhoon, the Kfir, the Raffale and some Rutans.

Is there anything about the canard layout which makes it improper for
airliners or transport aircraft?

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Hans Holbein" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn schrieb:
>> In article >,
>> Hans Holbein > wrote:
>>
>>> Troy schrieb:
>>>
>>> What is the Problem with this design?
>>> Why did they come up with it so late?
>>
>> It was a significant departure from the way Beech has always built
>> airplanes -- from metal and -- significantly -- did not deliver the
>> desired performance.
>>
>> Most Beech products use similar components, but the Starship was one of
>> a kind and required too much logistical support, so they bought almost
>> all of them back and scrapped them.
>>
> I was not specifically talking aubout Beech, I meant the canard design.
>
> They had something like this at the end of war in japan, but then again,
> aircraft were designed the conventional way until today with few
> exceptions like the Typhoon, the Kfir, the Raffale and some Rutans.
>
> Is there anything about the canard layout which makes it improper for
> airliners or transport aircraft?

If you consider the supporting structures such as spars and the actuation
mechanisms to move the surfaces, canards likely require too many compromises
to be easily worked into concepts for transport aircraft and airliners.

If it doesn't save money or produce a higher return on investment, buyers
aren't going to go for it.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Hans Holbein > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn schrieb:
> > In article >,
> > Hans Holbein > wrote:
> >
> >> Troy schrieb:
> >>
> >> What is the Problem with this design?
> >> Why did they come up with it so late?
> >
> > It was a significant departure from the way Beech has always built
> > airplanes -- from metal and -- significantly -- did not deliver the
> > desired performance.
> >
> > Most Beech products use similar components, but the Starship was one of
> > a kind and required too much logistical support, so they bought almost
> > all of them back and scrapped them.
> >
> I was not specifically talking aubout Beech, I meant the canard design.
>
> They had something like this at the end of war in japan, but then again,
> aircraft were designed the conventional way until today with few
> exceptions like the Typhoon, the Kfir, the Raffale and some Rutans.
>
> Is there anything about the canard layout which makes it improper for
> airliners or transport aircraft?

Canards generally have a smaller CG range than conventional-tail
configurations. Their perceived advantage is at the low end, where they
produce lift, rather than a down force, thus reducing stall speed.

At high speed, however, a conventional tail actually can produce lift,
while a canard would produce a down force.

The canard's use on some fighters and the Russian SST is to add
maneuverability and transonic stability and does not apply to light
aircraft design.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.