This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bleah, I started formatting the specs, but I don't have enough energy to do it all. If someone is willing, please finish it, and stay consistent!-- Alexandermiller 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything else at all like this plane? How efficient was it?
"Is there anything else at all like this plane? How efficient was it?" -- not very; sales were slow due to this relative lack of efficiency, not just the recession as the article implies. I'll see if I can find a source for this, as it would be good context for the article. The contemporary Beech King Air, which used the same engines, was more efficient in the same size category. Nothing inherently wrong with a pusher configuration -- see the similarly configured/engined Piaggio Avanti, which IS efficient and darn fast, though pricey -- but the Starship tried to shoehorn too much novelty into one airplane and ended up being a piece of interesting industrial design/art rather than a solid piece of engineering, as a result. Burt Rutan can be rightly credited with a lot of innovation, but you can't win 'em all Cstoten ( talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to clean this article up, it's too much of a disaster right now for me to get involved. It's on my list of things to do, but that's way down the road. ericg ✈ 07:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started adding refs and doing some initial cleanup. More to come... 98.232.5.210 ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
In the Lead this text:
should probably be moved to the first paragraph of the Development section. Then if needed cut it back to what can be covered by references. A couple sentences will need to be added to Lead summarizing the rest of the article ( WP:Lead). - Fnlayson ( talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what its RCS is? Mztourist ( talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking for references for the main wing area. A French publication lists this as 55.65 square meters. Most sources show 26.1 square meters. Scaling images of the Starship taken from above and knowing the span, 16.6 meters, 55.65 square meters looks more likely. Does anyone know what is going on here? Are they not counting the huge strakes? -- Stodieck ( talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
"The POC aircraft first flew in August 1983"
I appreciate the aircraft may be a bit divisive, but to call it a piece of crap seems to be out of place in an encyclopedia. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:38F1:4BF0:827D:360C ( talk) 16:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"On August 25, 1982, Beech contracted with Scaled Composites to refine the design and build an 85% scale proof-of-concept (POC) aircraft."(Emphasis mine.) BilCat ( talk) 18:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bleah, I started formatting the specs, but I don't have enough energy to do it all. If someone is willing, please finish it, and stay consistent!-- Alexandermiller 19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything else at all like this plane? How efficient was it?
"Is there anything else at all like this plane? How efficient was it?" -- not very; sales were slow due to this relative lack of efficiency, not just the recession as the article implies. I'll see if I can find a source for this, as it would be good context for the article. The contemporary Beech King Air, which used the same engines, was more efficient in the same size category. Nothing inherently wrong with a pusher configuration -- see the similarly configured/engined Piaggio Avanti, which IS efficient and darn fast, though pricey -- but the Starship tried to shoehorn too much novelty into one airplane and ended up being a piece of interesting industrial design/art rather than a solid piece of engineering, as a result. Burt Rutan can be rightly credited with a lot of innovation, but you can't win 'em all Cstoten ( talk) 17:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to clean this article up, it's too much of a disaster right now for me to get involved. It's on my list of things to do, but that's way down the road. ericg ✈ 07:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started adding refs and doing some initial cleanup. More to come... 98.232.5.210 ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
In the Lead this text:
should probably be moved to the first paragraph of the Development section. Then if needed cut it back to what can be covered by references. A couple sentences will need to be added to Lead summarizing the rest of the article ( WP:Lead). - Fnlayson ( talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what its RCS is? Mztourist ( talk) 05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking for references for the main wing area. A French publication lists this as 55.65 square meters. Most sources show 26.1 square meters. Scaling images of the Starship taken from above and knowing the span, 16.6 meters, 55.65 square meters looks more likely. Does anyone know what is going on here? Are they not counting the huge strakes? -- Stodieck ( talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
"The POC aircraft first flew in August 1983"
I appreciate the aircraft may be a bit divisive, but to call it a piece of crap seems to be out of place in an encyclopedia. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:38F1:4BF0:827D:360C ( talk) 16:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
"On August 25, 1982, Beech contracted with Scaled Composites to refine the design and build an 85% scale proof-of-concept (POC) aircraft."(Emphasis mine.) BilCat ( talk) 18:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)