Thank you Jon!

Flying at ITT=790C, I seem to get TAS about 3% better and fuel flow about 7% worse. So similar net effect to Jon's 5% adjustor. That's what I run for a Foreflight profile. I haven't tried slowing down 3% and comparing fuel flow, though I imagine the profile might be pretty spot on for that.

Mark, the I (which is slower) does get noticably better mileage than II/Evo, at least when comparing max cruise to max cruise. That might be part of your confusion. Your prior bird was a II and your new one is a I, right?

Flying at ITT=790C, I seem to get TAS about 3% better and fuel flow about 7% worse. So similar net effect to Jon's 5% adjustor. That's what I run for a Foreflight profile.

Flying at ITT=790C, I seem to get TAS about 3% better and fuel flow about 7% worse. So similar net effect to Jon's 5% adjustor. That's what I run for a Foreflight profile. I haven't tried slowing down 3% and comparing fuel flow, though I imagine the profile might be pretty spot on for that.

Mark, the I (which is slower) does get noticably better mileage than II/Evo, at least when comparing max cruise to max cruise. That might be part of your confusion. Your prior bird was a II and your new one is a I, right?

It's not crazy on a long flight at FL390 at ISA and mid weight. Looking at some book numbers:

CLIMB 687 lbs/hr for 0.45 hrs = 309 lbs
CRUISE (MAX CRUISE 2000 RPM FL390) 456 lbs/hr for 3.73 hrs = 1701 lbs
DESCENT (3000 FPM) 385 lbs/hr for 0.2 hrs = 77 lbs
TOTAL = 2087 lbs for 4.38 hrs, or 476 lbs/hr on average
of course before taxi and misc atc delays.

It can be miserly. 2400 lbs. Included a weather diversion and unexpected events. Won't be doing that again...

Nope. Aerosmith Aviation in Longview. Great shop.

https://www.aerosmithaviation.com

Paint, Interior, Full Garmin Panel.

Going to have Simsair do the windshields and steel brakes when they get here (probably next year).

Original brakes are carbon. They stop very well. But super expensive to overhaul when worn, are a little grabby, and don’t hold plane statically on ground well when cold.

But I believe the steel brakes are 80 lbs heavier. No free lunch.

Original brakes are carbon. They stop very well. But super expensive to overhaul when worn, are a little grabby, and don’t hold plane statically on ground well when cold.

But I believe the steel brakes are 80 lbs heavier. No free lunch.

Right, I'm agreeing!

Only detail is apparently someone told me 80 lbs versus 54 lbs. As you say, not huge for useful load, but it's back in CG a bit and I already have an aft CG issue. Having looked at your plane a while ago, your aft CG is even worse (unless you've weighed it and found it better, which is certainly plausible - I'd have weighed the thing). Not a deal breaker, but the aft CG is a bit of a weakness.

Right, I'm agreeing!

Only detail is apparently someone told me 80 lbs versus 54 lbs. As you say, not huge for useful load, but it's back in CG a bit and I already have an aft CG issue. Having looked at your plane a while ago, your aft CG is even worse (unless you've weighed it and found it better, which is certainly plausible - I'd have weighed the thing). Not a deal breaker, but the aft CG is a bit of a weakness.

Yeah, that’s what I’d probably do too. As you know, mine has more than 100lbs up front too. They all just tend to be aft cg.

Just renewed insurance, starting my fourth year. Modest increases, similar coverage each year. I won’t say it’s cheap - but it has been consistent.

Props to TJ and his team at Assured Partners for s smooth process.

I know in cars carbon brakes lasts alot longer. Is the true for aircraft? If so how much does it offset the higher cost?

Why is this one still listed on Controller?:

[Link]https://www.controller.com/listing/for-sale/193902841/2008-piaggio-p-180-avanti-ii-turboprop-aircraft[/Link]

It's been there a long time? Something wrong with it or price?