“Pretty sure” or I know because of “fact X” are two majorly different things. Many of your assumptions on achieving “ better performance” (especially on the wing area) are groundless. Smaller wing area doesn’t always mean “better performance”. Better performance on what - Speed, cruise, altitude, drag, lift, High alpha? And what shape and config are we discussing?
The Starship’s wing design (a Delta/sweep back hybrid type) was chosen in order to achieve a golden ratio of low speed and high speed region optimum performance. Kind of similar to Concorde’s wing design concept which was not pure delta so it could perform formidably at subsonic region as well.
Starship’s design proved to work on wind tunnel testing and on POC with brilliant results. The fact that it didn’t work as well on the 1:1 built prototype has little to do with its design and more to do with other factors that didn’t scale up accurately to provide same performance results. If on the other hand the results on both the model and POC were dreadful then your point would make perfect sense.
As far as wings go, it is a general rule that swept back wings have certain advantages over conventional shaped wings (given the speed region asked to operate). Those advantages include - increased speed (obviously) by delaying compressibility effect, lower turbulence, longitudinal stability for tailless designs, fuel storage hence more range, better aerolelastic behaviour at high g manoeuvres etc.
The factors are so many that you cannot seriously blanket-statement dismiss a design just by saying “oh smaller area, better performance.” From an aerodynamics and aeroelasticity point of you it makes zero sense, without dissecting the specifics.
I will agree that the EVO was the pinnacle of the Piaggio’s design and the one that unlocked all the airframe’s potential. After all it was a design conceived by Dr. Jan Roskam and his team from KU aerospace. The man is a legend in academia (remember studying his publications on year 1 at university. His books are like bibles for aeronautical conceptual design and used in many aerospace projects.
Don’t be phased by comments like that, most of them are groundless. Read the article from Smisthonian, that I attached on an earlier post, that gives an unbiased look into the Starship’s story and how incredible it was and could have been had the right people being trusted to finish the job.
I was talking about his dissing the Avanti too, and I’m (mostly) kidding, this is sort of like arguing which sports legend was the best. Although I can see Mr. phutyoo is no huge fan of these two aircraft, even my comment showing the Collins Pro Line 4 being used across many aircraft rather than a “one-off” went unaddressed.
The only downside of hearing about the bad sides of these aircraft for me is that maybe I won’t enjoying flying them as much in the sim, but the reality is neither of them can be called “successful”, so we all know they aren’t perfect.
We heard from FlightFX recently, I really wish the other Nick from Black Square would throw some bits our way about how it’s going. Seems like we will see the Avanti first in MSFS, my big fear is that I’ll be used to flying with Collins Pro Line 21 at 400 kts, and once the Starship comes the cathode ray tubes and 315 kts will feel like a downgrade.
You make no secret of constantly ridiculing everything about this plane - the awesome retro-futuristic design idea the luxury interior and fully on hating on this airplane hm?
And the same about Tesla.
But think about it as an awesome experiment to bring mankind a step closer to the future.
If we would not have people just “doing it” - and going the risky step alone trying to change the world to the better and bringing technology to the next level instead of endless financial discussions and economy discussions, there would also be no Tesla and electric sports car hype and no SpaceX (and with it the REAL first steps into building real star ships like in sci-fi movies) too.
A would without visionary thinking would lead to never having real space ships and real space exploration and also no robots and whatnot because always narrow local thinking would stay the most important aspect of this planet (inclusive installing nationalist ultraconservative hardliner-dictators everywhere and orchestrating wars and whatnot in a never-ending spiral). Instead of really beginning the 21st century one world to go into a bright future.
And nothing represented an era of positive thinking and the idea of a great change into the better coming than the eighties.
No wonder the Beech Starship is from the eighties
Awesome that is one epic piece of airplane design, looks absolute epic and stunning on the outside, and has the typical warm cozy seventies-design-style interior most Beechcrafts have:
That’s part of their charme. They are both experiments where designers have tried something new. That alone - combined with the question whether the Starship could have been a success if it hadn’t been rushed to the market - assures them a permanent place among the aviation legends
My content was deleted due to not being the topic I was participating in. We were discussing a possible Asobo-backed B2000 in MSFS 20204 in which a sideline discussion that the P.180 may be a better fit.
If Blacksquare wants to bring a B2000 into MSFS that is their decision and my comments are not related in any way to their development. If Blacksquare becomes the Asobo-backed company to make this happen then good for them.
However, I am not going to have my comments hijacked over to what is now a marketing thread for a third-party developer. My comments were given in the general support and enjoyment of two great airplanes. They were not designed to support comment on a developer and I do not wish them to be taken out of context.
I understand that moderation is not always easy and individuals have to use their best judgment. I am in NO way disputing the moderation choice in this matter. I only relate the ramifications as it affects the spirit of the comments I provided.
Best wishes to Blacksquare as they bring this product to fruition.
Don’t worry I understood the vibe of your response. But don’t get discouraged, the negative publicity and comments stand true only (or mostly) to how the whole project was managed by the “suits” and perceived by the conservative narrow minded FAA at the time.
From engineering/development and innovation standpoint the aircraft was a gem and certainly was a platform that could be developed into something extraordinary for its class. A year 1 aerospace student can vouch for that. As an aerospace engineer myself and aviation fan, that’s more than enough reason to admire it. The same way I admire Concorde which was also a huge financial failure. Yet it was so ahead of its time that gave us a number of aerospace innovations that were implemented in future airliners; and of course gave birth to Airbus.
On top, having studied the whole background behind its development, and also having talked to people that worked on it leaves me immune to comments of that type.
Anyway, looking forward to its development by BlackSquare. Would love to see their current status on the project.
Oops haven´t looked that closely because I thought there is only one aircraft with such an extreme design and backwards-mounted turboprops
But yes the Avanti is a different aircraft; it just looks like the Starship.
Starship pictures are rather hard to find, could only find these two in Google picture search:
By all the information known to me,(mainly second hand info from someone who talked to Nick at FSExpo last year) yes, it should be the next in line. I don’t remember where but I swear I read something from someone at Just Flight recently suggesting we will see more info on it at this year’s FSExpo.
on just flight forum, after many people said they were eagerly waiting for the Starship, Nick has been mentioning the Starship in various post recently and gave us some hints on its development, so yeah the project is still under development and not in a forgotten box
Black Square said
Yes, the tablet will be coming to the TBM! I’ve already made the tablet for the Starship, as well. I’m glad you’re looking forward to it.
Black Square said
Oh, yes, the TBM will get a tablet, and I’ve already made the one for the Starship. My older aircraft are a little different of a story. I would like to do standalone versions of them, which would receive the tablet, but I think I’m going to wait to see what FS2024 brings us, good and bad, before I undertake that project. Thanks for asking!
he won’t have time to be bored with the amount of project / improvement on going.
Hope at some point he got some well deserved holidays
Source from Just Flight’s facebook, definitely can’t wait for more previews. Nick works fast but I wonder if the AMS-850 suite will slow him down at all, if he hasn’t been chipping away at it this entire time.
It should also be mentioned that apparently Nick is planning on including some form of VLF/Omega Navigation, which originally came with the Starship as it’s sort of “GPS” while actual GPS was still in it’s infancy.
There is a publicly available Starship POH that describes this feature in great detail. I’ve heard plenty of stories of people flying on Omega back in the day. I do wonder if we’ll get a version of the AMS-850 with a GPS receiver as an option (which is a valid option for Beechjets with the same avionics), so we can actually shoot approaches with it. Otherwise we’ll be pretty limited.
I figure there will be the option for that, as well as an additional GNS430 on the lower pedestal, as Rob Scherer’s Starship features that. I think it was also capable of VOR/DME based RNAV if GPS isn’t equipped, so that’s another thing. It should be able to be RNAV1 capable without GPS while in navaid range.
With almost 30 years of flight-simming under my belt, this is the FIRST GA airplane release I’m excited for. First day buy for me 100%, maybe even sick-day worthy.
