I have small oil wetness on that lower left corner stud on the governor too. I think it comes from airflow but pools a little at that corner. I did try snugging that nut just a tad just to see and it may have helped a hair.

I have found the PT6s to be significantly more oily than my TPE331s on the MU2 ever were. A decent amount comes out via the breather, particularly if you top off the oil level. I run with it hitting between the 2 or 3 mark on the dipstick when cold and it is a fair amount less messy and I don’t fill as often as if I add another quart. Kip at IJSC said the same thing. Don’t overfill and you won’t dump as much overboard.

That said, that is a decent amount of oil below your engine, I have not seen that much. I get a couple drops below those overflow tubes in my hangar, but just a couple drops. I would make sure your oil level is at a safe level - ie not triggering the oil level light in the GTRP, not below about 3-3.5 on the dipstick when cold - and take that 1.5 flight to the mx center.

Ed, Jon, thank you for your answers. I flew to service and landed with a dry engine. This confirms the mechanic’s theory about prop shaft seal leaking during long flights at F410. It’ll be replaced next week.

What are the landing distance numbers on P180 with wet runway at sea level, typical (not minimum) landing weight?

See charts.

Ed thank you. The example in the chart shows an approach speed of 117 kts. Is that also the landing ref speed? One of my most used airports has 4500 and 5000 ft runways. Sounds like that would not leave room for error with light rain.

A few things:

(1) I believe the landing distance assumes the VREF appropriate for the landing weight: see table on left side. The example happens to be done at 117 KIAS. I cross the numbers at that speed, typically 117-121 KIAS. My median touchdown is 105-107 KIAS (some noise in there from mid flap landings).

(2) The ground roll in your scenario, dry, is about 1,300'. That leaves a lot of wiggle room, especially if you have some flexibility to cross the threshold below 50'.

(2) My home airport is KOAK and I land 28R/10L absent a runway closure, etc. I use reverse upon touch down and start breaking only below 50 KIAS. With that approach -- not even using breaking upon touchdown -- I have always been able to exit by Juliet (4,300') if 28R or echo (3800') if 10L. My median theshold crossing height is 30' AGL. That said, on a recent flight home, I was landing in IMC at night and crossed at 50' AGL given weather conditions. I touched down 1300' past the threshold, slowed to ~30 KIAS using only reverse in another 1,750' and very easily made Juliet. Dry runway, though, as I mentioned, I don't really use brakes.

PS* KOAK's runways are grooved. I am not sure what the book assumes, but I have to imagine not grooved.
Cheers

I found the takeoff distance rather than landing distance being the limiting factor on the P180. I made a quick calculator of takeoff distances for the EVO here:

https://loco667.github.io/piaggio/piagg ... lator.html

Do not use for operations, consult your AFM, etc.

Wow, that’s awesome. Can you add a 5000 or 6000 selector too!?!

The calculator is based on tables contained in a checklist I received from Piaggio. The checklist only contains 0, 2000, 4000 and 8000. The calculator doesn't do interpolation. It's hardcoded checklist values only. I have a new version of this checklist in the plane. I'll check if that one has 5000 or 6000. If it does, I will add.

Sea level, 20 C, max weight accel/stop is 5800 ft, accel/go is 5500 ft?

Those numbers seem large, are they factored at more than 1.0, that is more than actual distances?

Mike C.

The tables say it's unfactored. Please see the attached source table.

Sea level, 20 C, max weight accel/stop is 5800 ft, accel/go is 5500 ft?

Those numbers seem large, are they factored at more than 1.0, that is more than actual distances?

Mike C.

Every airplane is a compromise.

The P.180 is on my short list of possible future airplanes for me, something I'd fly for travel when I retire. So I have kept an eye on what it is like to own and operate one.

When I say the Piaggio is a runway hog, people bark at me. Well, it does seem to be one, particularly in comparison to other turboprops, but that's okay if your mission allows it.

But even compared t my jet, the runway usage is way bigger:

P.180 at 12,100 lbs, 20 C, sea level: 3300 ft ground run, 5800 ft accel/stop, 120 KIAS Vr.

Citation V at 15,900 lbs, 20 C, sea level: 3270 ft, with engine failure, reaching 35 ft AGL. Ground run is about 2300 ft. Accel/stop is 3270 ft. Vr is 103 KIAS.

A 3500 ft runway would be major pucker factor in P.180, no sweat in a Citation V.

The P.180 advantages are bigger cabin, less fuel burn, under 12,500 lbs (avoids certain rules and fees), single pilot even internationally. It all depends on what you need.

Mike C.

I think the step function jump in rotate speed from 11,550lbs gross (106 kts) to 11,551lbs gross (112 kts) in the added chart issued with the gross weight increase is along the lines of the large bump in MU2 rotate speed when SFAR procedures came out, ie there is some legalistic fudge numbers in there.

The change in MU2 numbers came in 1984, the SFAR didn't change change any of the AFM numbers from what I remember. 1984 was the last new MU2 sold, and the old numbers were based on rotate and initial climb right at Vmc of 93 KIAS. This produced really great numbers but at high risk.

The 1984 numbers were based on about Vmc + 10 rotation (~103 KIAS), with acceleration in the initial 50 ft to 113 KIAS. So the numbers are much longer now. Further, the chart clearly shows tampering bias to prevent really short numbers, even if the physics would say otherwise. For example, as you get closer to 2500 ft, the wind no longer matters, runway usage is the same at 0 knots as 30 knots, which is, of course, wrong.

Beyond that, my own measurements of takeoff distances were well under the book numbers even when following the book procedure perfectly. Basically, there is an overall bias.

Maybe the P.180 has a similar bias. Some of that is in the FARs. You can see that in the P.180 takeoff chart earlier in this thread where the slope of the wind lines is radically different between headwind and tailwind. The FARs have formulas that don't allow you to take all the headwind advantage, and they really penalize the numbers for tailwinds, this despite the physics being effectively the same for both.

My numbers for the Citation are similarly biased as well.

It should be obvious there is no change in the laws of physics around 14,000 lbs that suddenly flattens out the curve. It should also be obvious that flaps 7 lengths should never be shorter than flaps 15. Yet, this is what the book says. The takeoff distances even get slightly longer at the very light weights, so adding 1000 lbs reduces takeoff run? No way. So the book is clearly not a pure reference of performance, but it has been manipulated to achieve some operational goal.

It seems likely that the book numbers will always work, but it also seems there are cases where the book numbers are rather severely tampered with and you can get far better performance.

As someone who operated an MU2 out of KSQL, you understand this. You likely operated below book numbers for the majority of your takeoffs there.

Mike C.