What was that airplane?

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:47:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

This one:
http://xcski.com/gallery/osh_seaplanes/143_be103_2
(hit the button a few times for more views)

That's definately the configuration of the airplane I saw. Didn't see
the blue paint but like I said, it was moving fast and somewhat
blocked by the trees.

Corky Scott

This one:
http://xcski.com/gallery/osh_seaplanes/143_be103_2
(hit the button a few times for more views)

Thanks Paul...... That's the one.

Are you the photographer, cause I just asked in the binaries aviation
group if the photographer (or someone else) could post a few shots.

In a previous article, Shiver Me Timbers said:
This one:
http://xcski.com/gallery/osh_seaplanes/143_be103_2
(hit the button a few times for more views)

Thanks Paul...... That's the one.

Are you the photographer, cause I just asked in the binaries aviation
group if the photographer (or someone else) could post a few shots.

Yes, those are my Oshkosh 2003 pictures on that gallery. I borrowed a
Kodak DCSPro14N 14 megapixel camera from work for that trip. Nice camera.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Why is "abbreviation" such a long word?

In a previous article, said:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:47:27 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
This one:
http://xcski.com/gallery/osh_seaplanes/143_be103_2
(hit the button a few times for more views)

That's definately the configuration of the airplane I saw. Didn't see
the blue paint but like I said, it was moving fast and somewhat
blocked by the trees.

There was another one of these at Oshkosh that was plain white (or maybe
bare metal, I don't remember and I never got a good picture of it). The
guy showing it was trying to become a full-time importer of these
aircraft.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
It was pity that stayed his hand. "It's a pity I'm out of bullets", he said.
-- RwP

There was a very bizarre looking amphib (I think from Russia) that I saw
at OSH last year. It was a twin with the engines mounted on pylons in
the back. Any chance this was such a plane?

wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:07:05 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:


As I said in my blog entry of November 14th, 2003, whenever anybody asks
"what was that airplane", they just saw a Beech Starship:


I know what the Starship and the Piaggio Avanti look like and this
definately wasn't either. Remember, I said the engines were mounted
on pylons. They were not mounted on the rear of the wing. They were
hung out off the rear fuselage and the wing was clean and not swept
back.

It's possible that there was a canard, but I really did not see one.
i'm only assuming that the engines had the props facing the rear
because of the strange noise it made, I did not actually see the props
themselves as the airplane was moving fast and there were trees in the
way of my view.

Corky Scott


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"Ron Snipes" wrote in message
news:z1Ujc.3500$pJ1.3246@lakeread02...
Might have been a Beechcraft Starship. They are getting rare, beech is
trying to buy them back and cease support.

Hey, Ron. Any idea why they're doing this? Something wrong with them are
are they just not lucrative enough for the company to support?

-c
PP/ASEL

gatt wrote:

Hey, Ron. Any idea why they're doing this? Something wrong with them are
are they just not lucrative enough for the company to support?

The latter. There aren't enough of them out there to justify support.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

This one:

I saw two of those at Sky Manor last summer, so there are definitely some in this
area.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

Hey, Ron. Any idea why they're doing this? Something wrong with them are
are they just not lucrative enough for the company to support?

The latter. There aren't enough of them out there to justify support.


I have read (but have not confirmed) that the reason there aren't enough of
them is that their performance is not all that hot, especially for the price.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

I have read (but have not confirmed) that the reason there aren't enough of
them is that their performance is not all that hot, especially for the price.

Pretty much correct. The original design took full advantage of composite
construction and probably would have been a great airplane. The FAA made Beech add a
lot of reinforcement with materials the FAA understands (eg. steel, aluminbum, etc.),
and the added weight pretty much made it uncompetitive.

As they say in the miltary, the first guys to hit the beach get mowed down.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.