Seattle to Atlanta --1900 nm direct -- in 6 hours? I'm curious about such a flight. You have a flight track or Flight Aware that shows that flight?

Believable? Who said anything about that? Would just like to see how it's done.

The weather patterns right now make it very unlikely you can achieve an average tailwind of 50 knots on that route, particularly the second half in the doldrums of the southeast US. At FL270, the current average tailwind is 20 knots over that route. In the winter, much better chance.

I could find no recent (last 6 months) IFR flight N801PB has made that matches the claim of Seattle to Atlanta non stop in 6 hours.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N801PB/history

Doing it VFR is very unlikely as that would be slower speeds, higher fuel burn, and less tailwind.

Mike C.

I love it when my haters come out to play. Have you 2 nothing else to do with your lives than have me prove you wrong again? Lol

I love that you guys have my tail number memorized. Beyond hilarious!

I thought this was a P180 thread?

Clearly not.

So in a thread about the P180, a curious and off topic claim is made about a specific flight. Using 4th grade math for about 5 seconds (1900 divided by 6) curiosity is raised, followed by a legitimate request for information (shouldn’t make a claim in an aviation forum about an aviation feat you’ve allegedly done if you can’t buck up and back it up). Then, Mike’s post raised real doubt on this story.
Now, more than a half a day later, no response, no support for a challenged story. Just juvenile sniping. We all know the old saying “if the facts are against you, attack the other side.” That doesn’t shake the truth -- just the opposite, it highlights the story’s weakness.

Fellows:

Jason has flown some looong legs.

Here's one:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N801 ... /MMSL/KPDK

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N801 ... K/tracklog


The PC-12 will go a long way:

http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/00-def/ ... eFacts.pdf


The Claimed Trip:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=KSEA-KATL& ... 330&SU=kts

I have run into winds of over 100KTs up high.

If he had an average 60 KT tail wind, it's doable.

Jason may have been in a different plane, or have stretched the meaning of the word "just" , but I don't think we are justified in calling "BS" on his Seattle to Atlanta claim.

I've made many posts with with pics and data of my long distance flights. You poo poo all of them. Go re-read one of the other threads.

You're a dork! Get a life lol

P.s. Why don't you use your real name on BT like the rest of us?

I've made many posts with with pics and data of my long distance flights. You poo poo all of them. Go re-read one of the other threads.

You're a dork! Get a life lol

P.s. Why don't you use your real name on BT like the rest of us?[/quote]


Your bad manners are on display again. Of course, this happens frequently on BT (your vile insult of religion a recent example). The issue is not long flights generally. Nor any other long flight you may have done. It's one specific flight you claimed in black and white. The childish temper tantrums after being called out don't camouflage anything. In fact, it's pretty obvious by now the claimed flight didn't happen. Pilots call out inflated claims and tall tales in aviation, just like they do dangerous aviation practices. Count on me doing that the next time you try this. For the teen age attempts at insults spoken so far and for the infantile one you will respond to this with, those don’t deter – they bring more resolve and scrutiny.

Just got an email from the P180 owner again:

Well, here I am at FL350 burning 290lbs per side per hour and showing 364 KTAS (temp is ISA + 11)

I was given two rules of thumb ways of planning fuel burn. The first tends to be real close to actual for me as I almost allows go for fast vs efficient

First way
1st hour 800lbs
2nd hour 700 lbs
3rd hour 600 lbs
4th hour 500 lbs

Second Way
1st hour 800lbs
Every hour after 600 lbs


Good fuel economy. 86gal/hr for such a big plane is impressive.

Just an interesting aerodynamic observation in this nice photo - you can clearly see the narrowed "area rule" waistline on the engine nacelles. Basically subtracting the volume of the wing at that joint, so the air doesn't have to compress, just flow slightly sideways. One of the many things that make the Avanti slippery.

On February 2nd, 2016 Mr. Alessandro Mazzoni, father of P.180 and holder of the "three lifting surface" patente, passed away in his birth place Florence at age of 84.

Godspeed Mr. Mazzoni.

Sad to hear that, Daniele. It's a remarkable design and one wonders why not more aircraft has incorporated it? To what extent does his patent extend - is it for all 3 lifting surface planes, or is it just in this configuration?

Here's a drawing I found of the P180. Wingspan is pretty short for such a big plane, I'm assuming because the 3 surfaces help with lift.

Google for Patent CA1239919A1, it seems it expired on 2005.

I know a couple of design with this configuration, three small surfaces gives same lift with reduced overall drag.

Despite it's aerodynamic efficiency is certainly more complex and expensive to build an aircraft that way.

I guess that increased use of composites could help, but it's too late for the P.180 itself to be updated with this technology.

Daniele

For the aficionados, here's an immersive walk around and talk about all the features of the Avanti II. Very interesting to hear about some cool features like the ice warner that works like a tuning fork etc. Man, I want one bad…

http://youtu.be/s17WjwKJ6Uk