Daniele - I wonder how I would get the .7 SB accomplished now that I have the garmin panel? Seems like it would be easier. Maybe they can do it once they get the RSVM curves into the TXi boxes.

Anthony - The Mach 0.7 Service Bulletin is SB-80-0159. It requires update of the copilot side Airspeed Indicator and a different strapping of the existing ADC-85.

I don't remember exactly your panel layout but IF the right side Airspeed Indicator is gone, there is no "formal" way to apply the Piaggio SB as it is, because the pre-mod configuration is different.

It would have been easier if the SB was applied (either for real or... ) before installing the Garmin panel with traceability to the existing removed configuration already upgraded to M0.7... But this is just my personal opinion.

Due to it's simplicity, the SB is NOT a technical issue. Just formal paper for certification...

At this point it's probably faster (and cheaper than going trough Piaggio) to find someone that can develop an STC to be applied to your specific config. Especially for you in the US.

For what is related RVSM into the Garmin ADC... Well... I can't disclose too much but be aware of this:

https://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2019-0269

While it is true that the above AD is for the Avanti II, the RVSM group approval was originally granted for the single P.180 type, so there is the risk that an updated SSEC will be released also for the Avanti (sooner or later, I don't know. It also depends on how many Avanti A/C still flies).

This not a big issue for you and I don't want to scare anyone, just wanted to let you aware that the original SSEC coefficients were updated recently, and may not be so straightforward to receive them on the Garmin ADC's... Especially if Garmin NRC has to be paid just for one A/C, because of the certification effort (TSO, flight test, etc.).

Without going too deep into tech details, all the above are just my thoughts based on public available info...

Ciao,

Daniele

That is SUCH a gorgeous bird!

The windshield is dramatically different and I'm sure cost a pretty penny in development $ but looks very nice. It was my understanding that they had significant development challenges in the original windshield design with the rake angle and maintaining acceptable optics being one of the main factors (going off memory from decades ago so...).

Is the windshield on the legacy models especially expensive to maintain / replace?

Don - That specific P.1ìì0 is the only one still existing with that splitted windshield.

I know Piaggio has some spare parts available, but starting from S/N 1004 (the first A/C sold to a customer) the windshield is the same of the later ones.

S/N 1001 (first flight A/C) was scrapped many years ago because reached the cycles limits.
S/N 1003 fuselage was used for structural fatigue tests (still going on in 2014 when the factory moved to the new plant).

It may be interesting to know that the first fuselages (20, IIRC) were built by Gates in US, sent as parts and finally assembled in Italy.

Later, all made in Italy...

Daniele

OK I see Daniele. Thank you very much for the explanation. I should've read your post more carefully. Thanks for sharing the beautiful picture of this bird.

Just getting caught up on my reading. Wanted to put in my two cents worth on the why and how of the shape of the P-180 as we (Piaggio America) explained it to prospects and the thousands who expressed interest at NBAA, Oshkosh and many other static displays we attended in years past.

If you view the airplane from the wingtip inboard you will see that the fuselage is shaped similar to a wing. The fuselage is a lifting body. The forward wing is a wing and NOT a canard. A canard controls pitch, the Avanti forward wing does not move and therefore does not control pitch. (The aft flight control on the forward wing is a flap and works in concert with the main wing flaps) It is a wing not unlike the main wing. It's job is to help hold the nose up so that the elevator doesn't have to create as much tail down force. Tail down force creates a lot of drag. Make the nose fly = less tail down force required = smaller elevator required = less drag = better aerodynamics = better performance (speed). At cruise, at certain altitudes, the horizontal stab is doing virtually nothing because the forward wing and fuselage create approximately 20% of the aircraft's total lift.
The nacelles as viewed from the front of the plane have a distinctive coke bottle shape to them. As air flows over the inboard part of the wing it is accelerated due to the curve of the nacelle. Think of the top of a wing turned on its side. Accelerated air on either side of the nacelle creates a low(er) pressure and therefore more efficient lift from the main wing.
Having the propellers correctly oriented aft of the wing allows for smooth uninterrupted airflow over the main wing which allows for a smaller wing with a higher wing loading The square feet of the main wing is similar to the square feet of a Cessna 172. The mid cabin, high wing loading allows a great ride in turbulence. Another benefit of having the props correctly oriented is that the thrust from the prop is (mostly) undisturbed by the wing and is therefore more efficient. Nobody puts a boats propeller on the front of a boat... that would be stupid.
If you need the utility of a King Air, go get one. They are great pick up trucks in the aviation world. If you want jet speed, turbo prop fuel efficiency, a stand up cabin, ... get an Avanti. If you need pure jet ramp appeal, go get a CJ-2 but be prepared to burn 60% more fuel than the Avanti to get a slightly slower speed and a cramped cabin.

Somewhere in another thread on BT I did some fuzzy math where the P180 gets better MPG than pretty much anything else in turbine world. Not even the SETP's were much ahead. It shows that if you really think about reducing drag, you can achieve a lot.

And something that the late genius home builder Mike Arnold has touched upon many times: interference drag where wing attaches to fuselage. At around 37:00 in this clip he explains very thoroughly his findings and you can see from his explanation why it's no coincidence that most really fast airplanes tend to be mid-wing designs (Aerostar, P180 etc). From a drag POV, it makes the most sense to put them there where no "nozzle effect", as he calls it, takes place. The P180 achieves even less drag by placing the wing both ahead and aft of the point of highest drag on a fuselage - and thats only possible to do on either canards or three-lifting-surfaces aircraft.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/rxvoDbZpoY8[/youtube]

Anyone who flew F-15Cs is very familiar with what he talks about at the 40 minute mark. Underneath the center of the airplane, there is a sort of tunnel that is formed between the two engines where the bottom of the intakes on either side extend below the bottom of the fuselage. With nothing on the centerline stores, drag is nominal. But, when the centerline pylon is put on the stores, the interference drag of the pylon alone exceeds the total drag of the two wing stations with pylons and external tanks. Adding an external tank to the centerline pylon is pretty much free relative to the total drag of the centerline station.

This public presentation provides a good summary of the aerodynamic concept described above by Arthur:

http://www.dias.unina.it/EWADE2011/Pres ... E_2011.pdf

It is funny to see the first wind tunnel models and how different they are from the final configuration.

The referenced Avanti III eventually become the EVO.

Just to add something to the presentation, I can say that the ENAV Flight Inspection aircraft was upgraded and used for certification of the RNP/LPV capability. At that time (early 2013) the only airport provided of LPV procedures in Italy was Rome Fiumcino. Since an international hub was not fit for Flight Testing activities, we were obliged to perform the activity at a DLR facility in Germany...

Daniele

I wonder if those little winglets on the factory plane (or new, quieter props) are available as an STC?

That is an awesome PDF Daniele. Personally I really enjoyed seeing the picture on page 6 and two other pages. Many people think that picture is photo shopped but it is not. That flight was one of many during a two day picture taking with famed aviation photographer Paul Bowen. He was sitting in the tail gunner position of a WWII B-25 and I was flying the P-180. For that particular picture we made, I think, three attempts. I was to fly at the photo platform until the last possible moment and then the B-25 broke right while I broke left. The overtaking speed of the P-180 made this very difficult despite the fact that I was as slow as I could get while still being able to pitch up towards the camera. I like this picture because the P-180 is so gorgeous but also because I'm proud of the center line flying. (The bomber crew and myself as we were in close formation during many of the pictures) Had the shutter snapped the picture a mili-second sooner the vertical fin would also have been on the center line but we had just started the breakaway and thus the slight left turn.
Flying behind the B-25 was two of funnest days of my flying career. I was warned very casually by the B-25 crew that wake turbulence would likely "kick the Piaggio out" when getting too close but don't worry, we'll just form up again start over. Having completed upset training years prior and having some aerobatics experience I still raised an eyebrow at the thought of getting into wake turbulence and being 'kicked out." As it turned out the P-180 did get kicked out often when too close to the wake turbulence of the bomber but that was exactly what Paul wanted in order to get pictures of the P-180 peeling off at a 45+/- degree bank. Too close directly behind the bomber induced a significant hum or buzz of the forward wing. I knew the one piece wing was strong enough to lift the entire airplane but I sure didn't want it out there buzzing up and down. 10 feet higher or lower eliminated the buzz.
Those two days further increased my passion for the P-180. It truly is the finest, most capable turboprop ever built.

Some ATC remarks as I recall them...

Center, Airliner 123, can we get 390 it's a little bumpy here.
Airliner 123 if you want 390 we'll have to turn you due to traffic ahead at 390 or wait about 20 more miles.
Airliner 123 What's the traffic at 390???
Center: It's a P-180... Turboprop
Airliner 123; What's he doin' up here???
My reply; Same thing you're doin' down there. BTW, it's smooth at 390.

This happened MANY times.
Approach. Citation 123 turn right to 230, following a Piaggio for runway 23R.
Citation driver, why are we sequenced behind a turboprop??
Appr. Well he's 20 knots faster than you right now.

Piaggio 320CA slow to 150 you're following a Citation and overtaking rapidly.

Piaggio 320CA we have to move you up or down for traffic you want higher or lower?
We'll take FL 410 Piaggio 320CA
Piaggio 320CA climb and maintain FL 410.
Full disclosure... 80% of the flights I was on were either just me or just me and a sales rep. It was easy to demonstrate the capability of the airplane.

Prior to my years flying the P-180 I had the pleasure of flying three different models of King Airs and the Hawker 800XP I loved the Hawker because it was the first time I was able to circumnavigate weather by flying over it. I never dreamed I would be able to do the same thing in a turboprop. Two years later I was introduced to the P-180 and i was instantly hooked.
Seeing lightening below you while pushing along at 39 or 41 k is a great experience.

Any recommendations for a buyer’s broker experienced with the P180? So far pretty much striking out in that department ... thanks in advance!

SAI in Greenville, SC. (GMU) https://www.saiflight.com/fleet.htm
Talk to Hunter Cuthbertson. 864-655-5330
Tell him Arthur sent you. It might get you a free cup of coffee.