Canard

[ChristianGodin]

Anyone can tell me wy twins like Beachcraft starship, piaggio an Velocity V-Twin has not been more popular when taking into account the many benefits related to these airplane; no stall, no spin on one engine, inside room, speed...

[johnggreen]

Of the Velocity, I know nothing other than it's dog ugly.

 

The Piaggio is in a niche bracket between turboprops and jets.  It is a very good airplane with moderate sales numbers.  Just too easy for a buyer to move to a jet.

 

In 1994, I was at the Beech factory to purchase a new A-36.  There was a Starship there with about 500 hours on it as I recall.  Beech would have sold it to me for barely more than the A-36.  According to the salesman, the airplane simply didn't deliver compared to the tried and true "big" King Airs.  Over weight and not nearly as fast as promised, the support structure for such an advanced plane was limited.  People/companies that can afford such an airplane want a mission ready aircraft and they already had that in the King Air with a broad support structure that reached far beyond the Beech factory and service network.

 

That being said, the Starship development probably did as much to advance composite technology as any single event and it was one bitchin' looking airplane (that means good).

 

Jgreen 

[aviatoreb]

Anyone can tell me wy twins like Beachcraft starship, piaggio an Velocity V-Twin has not been more popular when taking into account the many benefits related to these airplane; no stall, no spin on one engine, inside room, speed...

 

There is a doctor/businessman in town here who has a share in a piaggio that comes and drives him all around sometimes.  He has nothing but good things to say about that plane.

[gjkirsch]

If I recall correctly, the maintenance on the Beech was reportedly very high, the Piaggio is expensive upfront and running right into the jet market, the last is an experimental that you build or buy something someone else built.  There are a lot of expermintal planes in the market with a canard.  There was even a 182 mod that included a canard that was modestly successful but cost to much for the benefit

[aviatoreb]

If I recall correctly, the maintenance on the Beech was reportedly very high, the Piaggio is expensive upfront and running right into the jet market, the last is an experimental that you build or buy something someone else built.  There are a lot of expermintal planes in the market with a canard.  There was even a 182 mod that included a canard that was modestly successful but cost to much for the benefit

 

That 182 forward canard airplane is a very special airplane with a very special mission.  It is a knockout at STOL for the bush pilot.

 

http://www.katmai-260se.com/performance.html

 

Notice that it can cruise 153 knots but still stall at 31knots, and it needs less than 400ft of runway for take off and landing.  Not too shabby - that would make a cool second airplane if I had "a few" extra bucks.

 

It is an expensive mod....but if your bush mission calls for STOL and some carrying capacity it is hard to beat.  Looks good with tundra tires too.

[Seth]

In the velocity twin, the canard stalls before the wing does, thus the nose lowers and the airspeed gains again.  Thus, before the wing stalls during an engine out, the nose will, and the plane will nose over to keep airspeed up.  Actually, a quite awesome statically and dynamically stable design.

 

However, I can't comment on the others if the canard stalls before the wing as I'd need to do more research.  Probably with the velocity due to the similarity of design, but I don't know about the others.

 

The 182 King Kamati and Kamati are amasing STOL aircraft - google it. 

 

-Seth

[johnggreen]

Not meaning to disparage, just an observation.  Though the Katmai will produce pretty impressive STOL performance, the Skylane is simply not designed for utility use.  In a rough field operation, the tricycle gear will fail sooner than later compared to a conventional gear 180/185 and the cabin volume is limited compared to the 206.  That being said, I own a stock 1975 Skylane that I can dependably take off and land in 700 feet and cruise at 140 knots, so I'd have to say that for $300,000 the Katmai delivers very, very little additional performance.  The canard does make it look "peculiar" though if you like that.

 

While in the construction business, I operated owned two Helio Couriers.  In a 15 knot wind, they would take off in less than 100' and climb backwards.  They would also operate from a field so rough as to give a Jeep pause.  I used to take the middle seats out and carry a small "dual purpose" dirt bike with me on most flights so I'd have transportation no matter where I went.  Try that in a Skylane.

 

There is a Katmai owner on the Cessna Pilot's forum that has a 1200TT Katmai with 200 hours since the conversion.  He claims he has $300,000 invested, asking $220,000, and crying for a buyer if you feel that urge.

 

Jgreen

[scottfromiowa]

Of the Velocity, I know nothing other than it's dog ugly.

 

The Piaggio is in a niche bracket between turboprops and jets.  It is a very good airplane with moderate sales numbers.  Just too easy for a buyer to move to a jet.

 

In 1994, I was at the Beech factory to purchase a new A-36.  There was a Starship there with about 500 hours on it as I recall.  Beech would have sold it to me for barely more than the A-36.  According to the salesman, the airplane simply didn't deliver compared to the tried and true "big" King Airs.  Over weight and not nearly as fast as promised, the support structure for such an advanced plane was limited.  People/companies that can afford such an airplane want a mission ready aircraft and they already had that in the King Air with a broad support structure that reached far beyond the Beech factory and service network.

 

That being said, the Starship development probably did as much to advance composite technology as any single event and it was one bitchin' looking airplane (that means good).

 

Jgreen 

Really?  Perhaps we should have a poll on that statement/opinion/judgement/editorial regarding the Velocity Twin (Cover aircraft AOPA Pilot February 2013...)  Let's see A Velocity Twin or a Cessna 182.  To quote another but switch it up a bit "The 182 Skylane is NOT in my top 20 much less top 50 airplanes availalbe to the General Aviation Pilot"  The velocity and velocity twin?  Sweet looking airplane and based on review on the "No Spin Twin"-performance is exceptional because the close-mounted engines, full-feathering props and canard design make the Twin Velocity virtually incapable of spinning.  Even with one engine shut down, the airplane is well mannered and esy to control.  A three-blade MT propeller was chosen fo its light weight and ground clearance.  The spacious cabin is well appointed.

Rate of climb: 2000+FPM

75% cruise: 185 knots on 16gph

Economy cruise: 175 knots on 12gph

Beauty is indeed very much in the eye of the beholder...

[Alan Fox]

The Starship was on the leading edge of composite and computer design when it came on to the market , unfortunately the faa would not certify it unless it was designed with about three times the materials it really needed .....With no real "heavy" composite airframes to lay the groundwork , the feds really killed the program before it began....Eventually Beech tried to buy back all of them , but there are a few still out there flying...The Starship was the first all composite(carbon fiber) civillian aircraft  ,  and the first all glass cockpit.......Pretty impressive for a 1970s design........The chase plane for Rutans spaceship one was a Beech Starship...... 

[Mcstealth]

The Piaggio is in a niche bracket between turboprops and jets.  It is a very good airplane with moderate sales numbers.  Just too easy for a buyer to move to a jet.

 

There is a charter or fractional company that flies Piaggio's exclusivley, and one comes into Kerrville very frequently. I talked to the pilots. Of course they swear by the capabilities of the plane, as they should I guess. What the pilot said to me, and I thought interesting, was that the "star level" people that they ferry are concious of the fact that the Piaggio is "greener" than the jets. That the plane actually brings them customers over from competitors because the plane is "greener".   FWIW. This statement has nothing to do with the OP

[kris_adams]

The Starship was on the leading edge of composite and computer design when it came on to the market , unfortunately the faa would not certify it unless it was designed with about three times the materials it really needed .....With no real "heavy" composite airframes to lay the groundwork , the feds really killed the program before it began....Eventually Beech tried to buy back all of them , but there are a few still out there flying...The Starship was the first all composite(carbon fiber) civillian aircraft  ,  and the first all glass cockpit.......Pretty impressive for a 1970s design........The chase plane for Rutans spaceship one was a Beech Starship...... 

 

I was able to "trail" one of the remaining Starships into KPUJ about 6 months ago.  I landed and talked with the pilot.  Sure looked sweet in the air and on the ground.

[carusoam]

Canards must be tough on props? Tires kick up FOD and pass them through $$ prop blades...?

In this case, composite blades...

Or is that just the cost of doing business?

Best regards,

-a-