P-180 Q's

[PA-44Typed]

Does anyone have any info and real numbers for the Piaggio P-180 Avanti?
Single pilot?

In and out of 3400 feet?

Trip time and burn on a 500 mile trip?

Worth the extra $$ over a King Air 200GT?

Thanks

 

[avbug]

The piaggio doesn't have the same short field numbers as a king air. You can shoe horn it into small fields, but you shouldn't. 4,000 feet ought to be the minimum one is considering. Yes, it's a turboprop, but it aproaches and lands at learjet speeds. It's got the same wing area as a cessna 182...but considerably more weight. As light twins go, it has reasonably descent single engine climb performance, but don't bank on that out of a short field, especially one with obstacles.

It's not that much more expensive than a King Air, these days. It's roomier, considerably faster (forget the factory numbers, and plan for 370 true), does go to FL410, is definitely quieter, more comfortable inside, and a pleasure to fly.

Five hundred miles...two hours and fourteen hundred pounds, more or less. That's climb to altitude, the arrival, the whole flight. That's also climbing to FL330 or better, and a ballpark number. Figure the same fuel burn as a King Air 200 and a hundred knots faster.

 

[Rick James]

We fly our Piaggio's single pilot, it does get busy at times.
I would now want to fly out of a 3400' strip very often.
The new ones are roughly 7.2 million and I would highly recommend avoiding an older model out of warranty. The parts are incredibly expensive and sometimes hard to get. We waited (along with the rest of the fleet) months to get a door seal that would not squeel.
Avbug is pretty close to what I would plan on a 500 mile trip. We see 380 pretty regularly, but no way would I expect to see 400+ as Piaggio advertises.
I might lean towards a King Air just for the T/O performance and $$$.

 

[celloman]

The only way you will see 400 ktas is with the Piaggio 2 with the -b engines, around 30,000 ft. and ISA or less.

Like the others have said 3400ft can be done but I would not recomend it. Your payload will be very limited on departure.

Avbugs fuel burn is really close. If you use fltplan.com the P180 profile is pretty close so you can get an idea.

 

[PA-44Typed]

Thanks, he is really looking at a king air 200 anyway, I just thought I get some general world info on the P-180. Too bad it won’t do book numbers, speed was the only real advantage that I can see between the two and on a short (500 mile) trip the extra speed only save 20-30 min. Thanks again

 

[BoilerUP]

For comparison's sake, a 531nm segment that is our milkrun in the CJ2+ has averaged 1437.5 lb of block fuel and 1+33 flight time.

 

[corpflunkie]

If you have the 66b motors, you should be seeing 380 or so tas at fl330 up to about isa+6. Add 5-10 kts if you are maxed out on the itt(830). This assumes you aren't loaded to the max weight wise. DEN-DAL yesterday. 01+35, 388tas @fl330 isa +5

 

[Rick James]

If you have the 66b motors, you should be seeing 380 or so tas at fl330 up to about isa+6. Add 5-10 kts if you are maxed out on the itt(830). This assumes you aren't loaded to the max weight wise. DEN-DAL yesterday. 01+35, 388tas @fl330 isa +5

That's pretty accurate, however I have yet to see a difference between the -66A and B in speed (we have both).

 

[NotFurloughed]

As far as runway length is concerned, I completely agree with the 4000' number.

In fact, the factory pilot, Arthur St Clair who I know, and has been flying the P.180 forever would not even do a demo into a 3600' strip - let me clarify - he would have done the trip but stressed the fact that it would be setting precedent - a precedent you would not want to live up to on a regular basis.

4000 is a good number. It's a heavy plane for the wing, the approach speeds are high and there is no anti-skid.

 

[corpflunkie]

That's pretty accurate, however I have yet to see a difference between the -66A and B in speed (we have both).

The B engines should hold max torque to a higher alt,
for a given temp value(785?) which will give you a higher TAS. Another thing I have found is once you are at an altitude that you are limited by temp, in cruise bring the props back to 1870. I generally see about 5-7 kts increase in IAS. This doesn't work once above fl370 though. I have been experimenting quite a bit during 2000 hrs in the P180.

 

[Rick James]

The B engines should hold max torque to a higher alt,
for a given temp value(785?) which will give you a higher TAS. Another thing I have found is once you are at an altitude that you are limited by temp, in cruise bring the props back to 1870. I generally see about 5-7 kts increase in IAS. This doesn't work once above fl370 though. I have been experimenting quite a bit during 2000 hrs in the P180.

Our Piaggio II is heavier and has more drag than our I, so that may be why the speed difference is nil.
Are you saying that you bring the props back to 1870 to increase speed?
Though I only have around 1k hours of time in Piaggios, I still think my observations have merit.

 

[celloman]

Rick James,

Do you have one of the orginal Piaggio I's with the ACM?

They fly about the same speed as the Piaggio IIs with the -B.

-celloman

 

[corpflunkie]

Rick,

Try running with the props at 1870 when you are at fl330-350. I usually get a few more kts ias. Wait to bring them back until after you have accelerated to cruise speed. PM me your results, I am interested to see how it works on your planes. This has worked for me on most of ours at Avantair. And I apologize if seemed to be dismissing your experience in the P180

 

[Rick James]

Rick,

Try running with the props at 1870 when you are at fl330-350. I usually get a few more kts ias. Wait to bring them back until after you have accelerated to cruise speed. PM me your results, I am interested to see how it works on your planes. This has worked for me on most of ours at Avantair. And I apologize if seemed to be dismissing your experience in the P180

No offense taken, I still have much to learn about the Piaggio.
I'll try to bring the props back as you have shown. I'm curious as well about the results as I was under the impression that it would decrease the HP.
celloman- we do have the ACM (without the scoop).

As far as runway performance, I glanced at some tab data last night. It appears as if @SL 30c 10,500 you need 3000' to takeoff, forget about a RTO. I've done 3800' (very light) and I will never do it again.

 

[corpflunkie]

The key is to wait until you are temp limited and you can no longer produce 100%tq at cruise alt. Pm me your results, I am curious to see what you found.

CF