26 Apr 2024, 15:20 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 11 Jul 2021, 11:32 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/12/20 Posts: 185 Post Likes: +37
|
|
Wait, what? You have a 3 day recurrent at flightsafety. Just did 2 full weeks for initial and thought the reoccurring was still a solid week.
Honestly, the fact that only flightsafety does piaggio is a knock against the plane. It's too niche to have competition.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 11 Jul 2021, 17:38 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/06/20 Posts: 1316 Post Likes: +1302 Location: Tulsa, OK - KRVS
Aircraft: C501SP
|
|
Username Protected wrote: To quote Jason Crandall: "That makes it the slowest plane I've ever owned". And yet Crandall is now flying a jet The Brazos Valley folks are based at my home drome and I am under the flight path for TUL (where Intercontinental Jet is based) so I see (and hear) a lot of P180s around here. I could see their popularity rising if oil prices keep climbing. Also, my wife commented on how large the Avanti cabin is compared to our 501. I'm with you on the enviro grounds, similar to how the movie stars were buying Priuses (Prii?). that could override the "it has propellers" stigma with those who care about such things. A P180 was beyond my capital budget so I went 501. Also, I have had 2 really bad experiences w/ Italian mechanical things and swore (regularly) never to buy anything mechanical made in Italy. I'll keep watching this thread to see if my fears are wrong....
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 11 Jul 2021, 17:57 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/12/20 Posts: 185 Post Likes: +37
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Multiple in airplane training options if you don’t like flight safety. None that my insurance liked...
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 11 Jul 2021, 18:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6360 Post Likes: +5545 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Adam,
The recurrent at Flightsafety is 2-3 days depending on the program you choose. I personally like the 3 day program as that’s how fast my brain works. I hope you are doing well. Thanks Bob for correcting. I've changed the post to reflect that. It wasn't a dig at the Premier per se (which I love), but just a reality with jets in general. Cessna, Phenom or many other jets are just bigger commitments. BTW, I actually think it's wrong - a TP is harder to manage than a jet from safety perspective, so it doesn't make any sense that the FAA makes it so much more onerous.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 11 Jul 2021, 22:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/29/09 Posts: 4697 Post Likes: +2404 Company: retired corporate mostly Location: Chico,California KCIC/CL56
Aircraft: 1956 Champion 7EC
|
|
Quote: BTW, I actually think it's wrong - a TP is harder to manage than a jet from safety perspective, so it doesn't make any sense that the FAA makes it so much more onerous. And a twin Beech is harder to manage than most Turbo props. It all depends on the type. The EMB120 school was a full month at FSI, I think the CJ4 was only 2 weeks...( and glad I was not footing the bill)
_________________ Jeff
soloed in a land of Superhomers/1959 Cessna 150, retired with Proline 21/ CJ4.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 11 Jul 2021, 23:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 02/26/21 Posts: 27 Post Likes: +7
|
|
In the EASA part of the world both a TP and a Jet would need a type rating. Before EASA most countries even would require a rating for a PA31 or a C421. One of the reasons why the MU-2 didn't have as many incidents/accidents before the FAA issued the SFAR.
Looking at a 1300NM mission: It's hard a find anything that can compete. An old Metro III or a C441 could do it; a KA350 can, but on a 1300NM trip the speed differences do add up.
A Phenom 300 can, but the "cheapest" I could find on controller was around $5.5M vs a nice Avanti-II for around $1.5M (just based on asking price). An Avanti-I could be found for less than $M but would probably need some avionics upgrades. $1.5M would also buy a Premier 1A, but I'm not sure it could do the 1300NM even with just 1 or 2 pax. The higher end C525 series can, but more capital and smaller cabin.
The whole discussion about SPE waivers for C550/560 only applies to FAA; The only legacy citations approved for SP would the the C501/551 under EASA ruler. The C551SP would be a candidate if you can find one and could be operated like the C501SP as in the C501SP thread.
Interestingly the FAA doesn't consider the Phenom 100 and 300 a common type.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 12 Jul 2021, 04:23 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6360 Post Likes: +5545 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In the EASA part of the world both a TP and a Jet would need a type rating. Before EASA most countries even would require a rating for a PA31 or a C421. One of the reasons why the MU-2 didn't have as many incidents/accidents before the FAA issued the SFAR.
Looking at a 1300NM mission: It's hard a find anything that can compete. An old Metro III or a C441 could do it; a KA350 can, but on a 1300NM trip the speed differences do add up.
A Phenom 300 can, but the "cheapest" I could find on controller was around $5.5M vs a nice Avanti-II for around $1.5M (just based on asking price). An Avanti-I could be found for less than $M but would probably need some avionics upgrades. $1.5M would also buy a Premier 1A, but I'm not sure it could do the 1300NM even with just 1 or 2 pax. The higher end C525 series can, but more capital and smaller cabin.
The whole discussion about SPE waivers for C550/560 only applies to FAA; The only legacy citations approved for SP would the the C501/551 under EASA ruler. The C551SP would be a candidate if you can find one and could be operated like the C501SP as in the C501SP thread.
Interestingly the FAA doesn't consider the Phenom 100 and 300 a common type. Turbo Commander can do 1300nm fully loaded, easily. Get the long-wing models and they can push almost 2000nm. SPE waivers are also kind of useless if you ever want to leave the country (and with a long range jet like that - isn't that part of what it's there for?). They're 2 crew planes in every other nation in the world, so you might get stuck somewhere.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 12 Jul 2021, 22:18 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/09 Posts: 8457 Post Likes: +8436 Company: OAA Location: Oklahoma City - PWA/Calistoga KSTS
Aircraft: UMF3, UBF 2, P180 II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Adam - yes it goes to FL410, but it slows way down when it’s hot, which, has been the case in the flight levels lately for me.
I had to deviate and climb to avoid a line of T storms on the way home today. I'd planned for FL350 but climbed to FL390 which was enough. The highest I've been is FL400. I don't like to go that high just because you do slow down some. But it wasn't bad today. I was doing 349-350 at that level, ISA +4, 524 lbs/hr fuel flow and 2,000 lbs of fuel left so weight was about 10,600 lbs. I might could squeak another knot or two with more fuel flow/torque but I like my ITT's under 800. We went a little faster as we burned some more fuel off. Flight time for 1238 NM was 3:39 and about 1950 lbs. I think I could have easily tweaked from there for another 250 NM or so in range today. The photo shows 41 knots of tail wind but the trip average was closer to 20. I love the Premier. My favorite light jet but I just couldn't convince myself it would do this trip non stop. Of course the P180 can't do it going west a lot of the time. And I looked pretty hard at the Turbo Commanders (more than once) but one anywhere near as nice as my P180 would have cost more, been slower and flown lower. Being able to get high makes cross country work a lot better on days like today and Wednesday when I'm headed to south Florida. Speed, range, cabin, opex and capex are all variables you have to balance in figuring out what a great plane looks like. I think the P180's unique balance of all of those make it a winner.
Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.
_________________ Travel Air B4000, Waco UBF2,UMF3,YMF5, UPF7,YKS 6, Fairchild 24W, Cessna 120 Never enough!
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 13 Jul 2021, 10:10 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/24/18 Posts: 727 Post Likes: +340 Location: NYC
Aircraft: ISP Eagle II SR22 g2
|
|
Username Protected wrote: In the EASA part of the world both a TP and a Jet would need a type rating. Before EASA most countries even would require a rating for a PA31 or a C421. One of the reasons why the MU-2 didn't have as many incidents/accidents before the FAA issued the SFAR.
Looking at a 1300NM mission: It's hard a find anything that can compete. An old Metro III or a C441 could do it; a KA350 can, but on a 1300NM trip the speed differences do add up.
A Phenom 300 can, but the "cheapest" I could find on controller was around $5.5M vs a nice Avanti-II for around $1.5M (just based on asking price). An Avanti-I could be found for less than $M but would probably need some avionics upgrades. $1.5M would also buy a Premier 1A, but I'm not sure it could do the 1300NM even with just 1 or 2 pax. The higher end C525 series can, but more capital and smaller cabin.
The whole discussion about SPE waivers for C550/560 only applies to FAA; The only legacy citations approved for SP would the the C501/551 under EASA ruler. The C551SP would be a candidate if you can find one and could be operated like the C501SP as in the C501SP thread.
Interestingly the FAA doesn't consider the Phenom 100 and 300 a common type. C501sp stallion or Eagle II can do it. About a million.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 13 Jul 2021, 12:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/25/20 Posts: 30 Post Likes: +15
|
|
Regarding some of the previous comments related to Piaggio's marketing efforts and relative value of the P180 compared to other aircraft..... We've been involved in the market for at least 20 years and have interfaced both with Piaggio Italy and Piaggio America on both new and used. To me, the issue has never been with the airplane itself or the hesitancy of the buyer to look at something "different'. Rather, it seems like Piaggio consistently marketed the airplane to the wrong crowd. Instead of targeting the KA350 and getting beaten consistently by an airframe that could ALWAYS be sold cheaper, they should have been working to steal CJ buyers away from Textron. The other issue is that they only had one demonstrator in the US, and now have none. It's hard to convince someone how great a new airplane is when you can't put someone in it or go for a ride. Support has always had its issues, but Piaggio does make the effort and will support the airplane. Unfortunately, even though they mean well, sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, organizationally... To kick-start new sales of this airplane, they should make support the #1 priority, (Ala Mitsubishi) and then start trying to pick off CJ owners who are tired of the cramped cabin. Just my 2cents.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread. Posted: 27 Jul 2021, 08:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/13 Posts: 6360 Post Likes: +5545 Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I hope it's a good future owner not entirely focused on military contracts.
_________________ Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|