BeechTalk - BT - The definitive Piaggio P180 Avanti thread.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Oct 2023, 14:22

Adam, are the leading edges painted, but also heated by bleed air?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Oct 2023, 15:19

Username Protected wrote:

… are the leading edges painted, but also heated by bleed air?

Yes - mine are.

Many of the newer Avanti II in particular (though it can be retrofit) have stainless leading edges, but I believe they have a reputation for being difficult to get a perfect aerodynamic smooth transition to the rest of the wing and so can actually degrade performance a fair amount. The Avanti wings are pretty dependent on laminar flow for efficiency.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Oct 2023, 16:11

Username Protected wrote:

Adam, are the leading edges painted, but also heated by bleed air?

Yes, they are on main wing. On front wing they're electrically heated, but still painted. Not sure about the elevator if it's electrical or bleed.

Props are automatically deiced by the exhaust, so no need for heating on them.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Oct 2023, 20:48

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure about the elevator if it's electrical or bleed.

There is no deicing on the tail, somehow it apparently doesn’t need it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Oct 2023, 20:53

Username Protected wrote:

Not sure about the elevator if it's electrical or bleed.

There is no deicing on the tail, somehow it apparently doesn’t need it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Oct 2023, 20:59

Username Protected wrote:

Does the piaggio have a jackscrew-type trim or a trim tab?

Jack screw type. Whole horizontal stabilizer moves.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 28 Oct 2023, 13:11

Username Protected wrote:

Tested endurance of P180 yesterday. Started w 2800 exactly on the gauges. Climb at best climb rate to FL400. Pulled power back to long range cruise setting. Played around w power settings and determined 208lbs/side was the most efficient setting. Below that and speed dropped off more than fuel burn percentage wise. 5 degrees nose up seemed like the best spot to be.

Late in flight I got cleared to FL410 to avoid a large deviation. The way temps worked out it was about the same efficiency at both altitudes.

I touched down with 555lbs total on the gauges.

TAS was anywhere from 310kts to 330kts. 320-323 seemed like the most efficient spots. While I avoided a fuel stop door to door time would have been virtually identical had I done a fuel stop and spent 35min on ground and flown at FL280 entire way. That way would have been less airframe time but an additional 1000lbs in fuel.

Either way, 1323nm into a 35kt headwind is pretty good considering I was going into a busy airspace at the end. The only planes I figure that can reliably do the trip yesterday would be jets w quoted range over 1700nm. Cj3, Phenom, 560. 441 doesn’t count as I don’t want to spend 6 hours at 11.5k cabin altitude after a day of meetings.

4:46 is a long time in the plane though. I was sick of Bloomberg News by the end. Need to find a good portable text messaging basic email email solution.

I still cannot understand how this plane was never more popular. Sound meter showed 71db late in the flight. I burned half the fuel of a legacy jet. The workload is extremely low.

I couldn’t agree more! I really appreciate you posting stuff like this, it helps the rest of us do less trial and error. It is mind boggling to me why these planes aren’t in every hangar. The other day I had a head wind in my Epic and it was hot at 340 and I went 4.5 hours and landed with just over 60 gallons, so I was really wondering where my piaggio would land if I throttled back a little. I have 100-150lbs less fuel is my problem.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 29 Oct 2023, 23:39

Do you guys have a planning number you use for fuel/time tradeoff? For example, the cost of fuel per pound vs the cost of airframe time means you are willing to burn X pounds of fuel to save Y minutes?

I’ve been thinking it’s something like 10 lbs/min:

10 lbs/min / 6.7 lb/gal * $5.50/gal * 60 min/hr = $492.54/hour

That seem like a reasonable gouge for non-fuel cost of airframe hours? Obviously this assumes enough fuel for a given trip to be able to burn a bit more to save time (by staying lower, for example).

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 10:27

Username Protected wrote:

Do you guys have a planning number you use for fuel/time tradeoff? For example, the cost of fuel per pound vs the cost of airframe time means you are willing to burn X pounds of fuel to save Y minutes?

I’ve been thinking it’s something like 10 lbs/min:

10 lbs/min / 6.7 lb/gal * $5.50/gal * 60 min/hr = $492.54/hour

That seem like a reasonable gouge for non-fuel cost of airframe hours? Obviously this assumes enough fuel for a given trip to be able to burn a bit more to save time (by staying lower, for example).

I would suggest 15lbs/min would be more accurate if you include the engines in it. When I do the math, it is less expensive to fly in the mid to higher 30's but at max cruise. The only time it really makes sense to me to throttle back is for long distance to prevent a fuel stop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 12:03

Username Protected wrote:

Do you guys have a planning number you use for fuel/time tradeoff? For example, the cost of fuel per pound vs the cost of airframe time means you are willing to burn X pounds of fuel to save Y minutes?

I’ve been thinking it’s something like 10 lbs/min:

10 lbs/min / 6.7 lb/gal * $5.50/gal * 60 min/hr = $492.54/hour

That seem like a reasonable gouge for non-fuel cost of airframe hours? Obviously this assumes enough fuel for a given trip to be able to burn a bit more to save time (by staying lower, for example).

I would suggest 15lbs/min would be more accurate if you include the engines in it. When I do the math, it is less expensive to fly in the mid to higher 30's but at max cruise. The only time it really makes sense to me to throttle back is for long distance to prevent a fuel stop.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 19:54

All you Avanti I & Early Avanti II's - I have serial 1123 , so small motors and Avanti I interior.. The interior is in good shape, but the shades and trim around the windows are sh@t as we all know.. Has anyone found a good replacement source for the shades and trim?

picture - https://photos.app.goo.gl/rQAYk8bp9Mcp68ee8

David
N184AV

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 20:08

Afterglow in Tulsa did our interior. Highly recommended. Dave maybe be able to help you source what you are looking for...

https://www.afterglowaircraftdetailing.com/locations-1

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 20:28

When we had our redone we removed the trim. Its a clean look.
We did get new shades. They are new but still flimsy so not sure how many years they will last.

You might be able to see if you zoom on this pic. I'm not sure how they get the leather to wrap around without the plastic frame to hold it.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 20:32

Thank you Matt & Matt.. Ya, I have used JetShades on other planes over the years, and they are VERY functional.. just not as clean as I would like sometimes.. but still better than the folded paper towels..

Might see about cleaning off the residue from the glue, and just leaving the trim off.. could get 5 knots from the weight savings.. ( that is humor just in case... )

David

Username Protected · **Posted:** 30 Oct 2023, 21:45

As long as we are talking about interiors, anyone change out the Avanti I “cheese grater” bits for the cleaner single piece Avanti II light/O2 panels?