Re: Single engine jet (VisionAire).

Date:         24 Jan 98 02:53:46 
From:         greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis)
References:   1 2 3 4
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

In article <airliners.1997.3043@ohare.Chicago.COM>,
Filip De Vos <fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be> wrote:
>Odilo Vazquez (ovazquez@erols.com) wrote:
>: Visionaire is currently working a "claimed" 100 plane backlog.  They have
>: enough impetus to actually build a new manufactruign facility.
>: Unfortunatley Burt Rutan is inoved in this and it probably will be
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Huh?
>
>: overbudget and way late (example Beech 2000).
>
>What was the cause of the Starship's apparent non-success?
>Conservatism with prospective owners? Competition with the King Air, which
>remained in production? With pre-owned King Airs?

Due to its composite construction, the Starship was heavier and more
expensive than the conventional aluminum competition.  And, due to its
canard configuration, required significantly more runway, especially for
takeoff.

I understand that composite construction has come a long way in the
time since and that it's now possible to make structural members out
of composites that are competitive to aluminum ones with regard to
strength-to-weight.  But back when the Starship was certificated this was
not the case.

There were other "real world" issues that aren't a factor with experimental
prototypes but become acute during the certification process for a civil
aircraft.  Things like de/anti-icing equipment (the Starship's pusher
propellers were especially problemmatic in this regard since they effectively
prohibited pneumatic boots) and lightning protection for example.

greg