Hi all,

Hope you're all well and getting ready for Christmas.

I had a question about the Piaggio P.180 Avanti aircraft. This particular aircraft intrigues me.


What makes this aircraft so quick? According to the website below it's maximum speed is 745 km per hour (or 402 knots true air speed). That's quicker then the Dash 8 Q400 and Saab 2000 which respectively in their own right are considered quick turboprop aircraft. Obviously the Avanti is a lot smaller and plays a different role (not transporting lots of pax) but it's speed is impressive.

Are there any Piaggio P.180 Avanti pilots on this forum? What's it like to fly? Economical to run?


Cheers.

I once sat next to a P.180 pilot deadheading, and he said the plane was a blast to fly and really loved it. That said, they’re noisy and make a very distinctive and annoying sound.

I always hoped further prop enchantments would help. It’ll be a real shame when they go, though, as they’re beautiful and perform really well.

I suspect planes like the Honda Jet are killing it slowly, as P.180s are pricy.

intriguing aircraft indeed, it is a business plane, so I don't think it will be economical to run.

The wiki particle on the Avanti has some interesting information about its design and its purported efficiency over similar-sized biz jets.

Unfortunately, it sounds like the past decade hasn't been so kind to Piaggio and the company went into receivership last year as deliveries dropped due to the bankruptcy of one of their biggest customers, among other things.

The Piaggio Avanti is quick and efficient because of its aerodynamic profile, long thin wings, the fixed frontal wing that makes the tailplane smaller, the pusher configuration, 950SHP turboprop engines on the Evo.
It's a well designed aircraft.

The receivership is owed to poor management rather than lack of sales IMO.
The Avanti sales teams have been lazy and have left many markets unexplored.

I'm amazed how high they can fly. Often tracked them at FL370 and I believe their ceiling is FL410. Must be the highest flying prop-jets out there. Their distinctive hum can be heard however high they are.

Boutique Air bought two. It tried to bid EAS contracts with them at near-Pilatus pricing. No takers.

I am not to far from ALB, and I could hear the Avantair (when they were around) P180s on approach, and when they were taking off. They had a very annoying square wave type of sound due to the exhaust passing through the props.

MO11 wrote:

Boutique Air bought two. It tried to bid EAS contracts with them at near-Pilatus pricing. No takers.

certain airports have banned them due to the sound they make. if I recall correctly they are not permitted to fly into Naples

JBo wrote:

Unfortunately, it sounds like the past decade hasn't been so kind to Piaggio and the company went into receivership last year as deliveries dropped due to the bankruptcy of one of their biggest customers, among other things.

The Italian military has thrown Avanti another lifeline which hopefully would save the EVO from disappearing altogether.....



https://www.flightglobal.com/business-a ... 23.article


Their proposed corporate shuttle seems a viable way to attract more buyers if they could price it more competitively against similar-sized props and jets...



https://www.flightglobal.com/business-a ... 90.article

JBo wrote:

The wiki particle on the Avanti has some interesting information about its design and its purported efficiency over similar-sized biz jets.

Absolutely, but in a nutshell (or three)… laminar flow.

It has a multi-surface/multi-wing design, with each element contributing to lift.

It has a pair of small, fixed forewings having slight anhedral and landing flaps, reducing the load on the tailplane, even when the flaps are deployed, by reducing the pitch-down moment created by the deployment of the main wing flaps. This in turn allows the size of both the tailplane and the main wing to be reduced.

The cabin cross-section varies continuously along the length of the aircraft; and the slowly changing curve helps prolong laminar flow on the front of the fuselage. Piaggio claims that the fuselage contributes up to 20% of the Avanti's total lift.

The front and rear airfoils are custom sections designed to achieve a drag-reducing 50% laminar flow at cruise. The company claims the overall design of the P180 Avanti II enables the wing to be 34% smaller than on conventional aircraft.

And the pusher propeller design helps too; low-drag laminar flow is maintained to around 50% of the wing chord, compared with around 20–25% for conventional tractor turboprops where propeller wash disturbs the airflow over the wing.

Summary
Carefully designed airfoils, smaller wing, smaller tailplane, slippery fuselage, pusher propellers, laminar flow, laminar flow, laminar flow.

Unfortunately all this efficiency costs money.
(p.s. I'm not an engineer, so you would do well to take it all with a pinch of salt)

If I was mega rich then this is the aircraft I'd have to get from A to B. Why would you need to have a small jet. These aircraft fly at jet-like speeds and are probably cheaper to run then a jet. You could fly in this aircraft on short to medium haul routes

If you’re “mega rich”; this isn’t it—non-stop LON to NYC, nope. Hawaii, nope. SYD to LAX would be difficult to impossible. But as your short haul city to the nearby island home, yes.

PerthBoy1987 wrote:

If I was mega rich then this is the aircraft I'd have to get from A to B. Why would you need to have a small jet. These aircraft fly at jet-like speeds and are probably cheaper to run then a jet. You could fly in this aircraft on short to medium haul routes

Well...from Perth - ADL or ASP may be doable...you might even manage as far north as DRW.....

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=PER-ADL/ASP/DRW&DU=mi


http://www.avantievo.piaggioaerospace.it/

The Avanti is truly an amazing aircraft, and it is a bit of a misnomer that they are loud. Like the Mitsubishi MU2, which is infamous for how "loud" it is on the ramp, Avantis aren't so much loud, but have a different sound. Avantis are actually quieter than a King Air, but the aluminum props make a distinctive whine that some people compare to nails on a chalkboard. They are, indeed, ridiculously fast and super efficient. They are apparently also quite nice to fly as a pilot.

Incidentally, the reason they are so fast is the same reason a Long-EZ or Cozy is so fast. Canard pusher aircraft move extremely efficiently through the air. They also designed a laminar flow wing (think a Mooney, Comanche or 787) that allows for higher speeds at lower power settings.

TC957 wrote:

I'm amazed how high they can fly. Often tracked them at FL370 and I believe their ceiling is FL410. Must be the highest flying prop-jets out there. Their distinctive hum can be heard however high they are.

The Cheyenne 400LS also has a ceiling of FL410 and may be the most capable light turboprop ever built, but never caught on.

I think there is one of these aircraft in Australia. I think it's.the only one in Australia. I'm not sure what it's role is though.

Here she is..... VH-ICK..... .....

M-ETAL was operating regularly in Australia earlier in the year too.

It's not a cheap aircraft at all. Remember a private jet company charged us 3500€ for AVN - LBG flight (321NM)

A380MSN004 wrote:

It's not a cheap aircraft at all. Remember a private jet company charged us 3500€ for AVN - LBG flight (321NM)

Lufthansa may charge you that for 7 or 8 seats on a regular CRJ seat over that distance ....

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

A380MSN004 wrote:

It's not a cheap aircraft at all. Remember a private jet company charged us 3500€ for AVN - LBG flight (321NM)

Lufthansa may charge you that for 7 or 8 seats on a regular CRJ seat over that distance ....

Best regards
Thomas

I dont get the comparison

A380MSN004 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A380MSN004 wrote:

It's not a cheap aircraft at all. Remember a private jet company charged us 3500€ for AVN - LBG flight (321NM)

Lufthansa may charge you that for 7 or 8 seats on a regular CRJ seat over that distance ....

Best regards
Thomas

I dont get the comparison

The avanti has 7-8 seats. Getting 7-8 seats may cost 3500€ on a normal airline for that distance depending on how early you buy the ticket and level of Luxury.

Web500sjc wrote:

A380MSN004 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Lufthansa may charge you that for 7 or 8 seats on a regular CRJ seat over that distance ....

Best regards
Thomas

I dont get the comparison

The avanti has 7-8 seats. Getting 7-8 seats may cost 3500€ on a normal airline for that distance depending on how early you buy the ticket and level of Luxury.

Lol ok but there's no commercial flight between AVN (Avignon) to Paris.

Could the aircraft be used as a charter operation for transporting 7 to 8 pax over short and medium haul distances? There could be a niche for this aircrwft.

PerthBoy1987 wrote:

Could the aircraft be used as a charter operation for transporting 7 to 8 pax over short and medium haul distances? There could be a niche for this aircrwft.

Its a pretty expensive aircraft in the 7 To 8 pax category.

A CJ4 for instance is cheaper To operate

Let's see if further Avantis will be produced at all...

After going into insolvency (they declared bankruptcy last year), the Italian company started a restructiring program and now (last month) cleared the sale of the company.

Would be set to see them go after investing millions of Euros into a new construction facility of the improved EVO model, but I don't believe in a bright future for such a small manufacturer.

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... aggio-sale

A380MSN004 wrote:

Web500sjc wrote:

A380MSN004 wrote:

I dont get the comparison

The avanti has 7-8 seats. Getting 7-8 seats may cost 3500€ on a normal airline for that distance depending on how early you buy the ticket and level of Luxury.

Lol ok but there's no commercial flight between AVN (Avignon) to Paris.

Of course. The price per mile is still not high..

Or course driving to Marseille would have saved them 90% .

best regards
Thomas

I must admit I don't understand the Avanti. Ok, so all the horizontal surfaces give lift, but there are 3 of them. That's 6 wing ends - more than a biplane. Why doesn't it just have a cannard like the Beechcraft Starship (I know that wasn't a successful plane)?

kurtverbose wrote:

I must admit I don't understand the Avanti. Ok, so all the horizontal surfaces give lift, but there are 3 of them. That's 6 wing ends - more than a biplane. Why doesn't it just have a cannard like the Beechcraft Starship (I know that wasn't a successful plane)?

As I understand it, in this configuration the main wing and the engines can be far back, so you don't get a wing spar in the cabin, and the noise is back there.

Starlionblue wrote:

As I understand it, in this configuration the main wing and the engines can be far back, so you don't get a wing spar in the cabin, and the noise is back there.

That would probably be even more the case if they just had a cannard and main wing.

CARST wrote:

Let's see if further Avantis will be produced at all...

Looks like 9 new EVO frames are assured with the firming up of this order.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/piaggio-fi ... 37.article


A welcome Christmas gift from the Italian government.

I was so bummed to hear about AvantAir and their other struggles lately. There was an operator near me (Manassas regional or Leesburg exec, i forgot) but I loved hearing them fly over the farm.

They are instantly recognizable due to the square-wave harmonic frequencies generated by the exhaust going through the props (even at high altitudes).

Kent350787 wrote:

M-ETAL was operating regularly in Australia earlier in the year too.

M-ETAL has been in heavy maintenance in Germany since August and will be there for quite a while.

One advantage of the three-surface design is that you can minimize trim drag at any CG location. In a conventional airplane or a canard, the horizontal stabilizer/canard will be loaded higher or lower depending on the CG location, which affects the trim drag.

There are a lot of other aerodynamic considerations though, as with a canard you have deep stall concerns. Prediction is more difficult because of the flow interactions between all three surfaces.

So is it still operating in Australia?

It was a couple of weeks ago. I live on the centreline of YSSY 16L/34R, about 1000m from the threshold. Nothing else sounds like an Avanti; I thought it was a SAAB 340B in deep, deep trouble the first time I heard it. Rex 340Bs are in & out continuously, the Avanti only every now & then. Flightradar24 rarely says where it's coming from/going to.

kurtverbose wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

As I understand it, in this configuration the main wing and the engines can be far back, so you don't get a wing spar in the cabin, and the noise is back there.

That would probably be even more the case if they just had a cannard and main wing.

I heard from an instructor (so take this with a grain of salt) that the reason the Starship could not be certified was that Beechcraft could not demonstrate its stall recovery characteristics to the FAA's satisfaction. FAA wanted to see that it could recover from a deep stall due to the canard configuration. Beechcraft designed Starship so that the canards would stall before the main wing, and thus could not enter a deep stall, but FAA required it to enter a deep stall first, then recover, so technically it was impossible for Starship to demonstrate this requirement. If this is true, then perhaps having a traditional tail (with ventral strakes) in addition to the canards was an effort to ensure the Avanti would be able to demonstrate the FAA deep stall recovery requirement.

UPNYGuy wrote:

I am not to far from ALB, and I could hear the Avantair (when they were around) P180s on approach, and when they were taking off. They had a very annoying square wave type of sound due to the exhaust passing through the props.

You know, that could be fixed by re-routing the exhaust ducts through the spinner, or, if that wouldn't provide enough space, maybe though a duct that ran either along the inside of the fuselage and expelled the exhaust through the tail OR out to the wingtips. I wonder if there would be takers for the aircraft if they did this. Personally, I would take it over a similarly spec'd bizjet if they reduced the square-wave noise.

meecrob wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

As I understand it, in this configuration the main wing and the engines can be far back, so you don't get a wing spar in the cabin, and the noise is back there.

That would probably be even more the case if they just had a cannard and main wing.

I heard from an instructor (so take this with a grain of salt) that the reason the Starship could not be certified was that Beechcraft could not demonstrate its stall recovery characteristics to the FAA's satisfaction. FAA wanted to see that it could recover from a deep stall due to the canard configuration. Beechcraft designed Starship so that the canards would stall before the main wing, and thus could not enter a deep stall, but FAA required it to enter a deep stall first, then recover, so technically it was impossible for Starship to demonstrate this requirement. If this is true, then perhaps having a traditional tail (with ventral strakes) in addition to the canards was an effort to ensure the Avanti would be able to demonstrate the FAA deep stall recovery requirement.

But the Starship was certified.

kurtverbose wrote:

meecrob wrote:

kurtverbose wrote:

That would probably be even more the case if they just had a cannard and main wing.

I heard from an instructor (so take this with a grain of salt) that the reason the Starship could not be certified was that Beechcraft could not demonstrate its stall recovery characteristics to the FAA's satisfaction. FAA wanted to see that it could recover from a deep stall due to the canard configuration. Beechcraft designed Starship so that the canards would stall before the main wing, and thus could not enter a deep stall, but FAA required it to enter a deep stall first, then recover, so technically it was impossible for Starship to demonstrate this requirement. If this is true, then perhaps having a traditional tail (with ventral strakes) in addition to the canards was an effort to ensure the Avanti would be able to demonstrate the FAA deep stall recovery requirement.

But the Starship was certified.

Thats what I get for listening to instructors. Anyways, I did some reading and found that Starship development was delayed due to issues developing the stall warning system and pitch damping system. Reading between the lines, this is probably what my instructor was referring to, which still leads to the possibility that Piaggio did not want to go down the same road of development hell and opted for the configuration that they did - I.E. conventional T-tail with ventral strakes. Tried and true.

What would happen if they replaced the turbo props with some highly efficient turbo fans? She'd be even faster and perhaps a bit lighter. Less noise too.

I recall Beech tried that on an early King Air but the Avanti is so much more efficient.

I'm not a pilot, nor have I ever even flown in an Avanti. I know of several pilots who flew it and they all loved it, lots of power and fast. However, as a mechanic I can tell you it's a pain in the a$$ to maintain. Constantly having to clean the prop blades with jet fuel, or to remove the engine cowls, you have to disconnect the oil lines to the oil cooler (which lives in the cowl), that sort of thing. Definitely not economical to maintain when it comes to a time thing. Goes without saying that I don't miss working on the thing. I will say that it's a cool looking plane though, with a unique sound.

m1m2 wrote:

Constantly having to clean the prop blades with jet fuel, or to remove the engine cowls, you have to disconnect the oil lines to the oil cooler (which lives in the cowl), that sort of thing.

leaky connections or "loss less" ones?

jet fuel ( and some soot ) from the prop blades?

Just soot from the exhaust (which had to be cleaned with jet fuel). I once removed the prop spinners and they looked like the inside of a stovepipe. All black and full of soot. The oil cooler connections were regular AN fittings, not the loss less ones. I've only ever seen those on hydraulic fittings such as on a brake unit or where a hydraulic cart connects to an aircraft. Just the fact of having to disconnect oil lines to remove the engine cowls appalled me.

m1m2 wrote:

Just soot from the exhaust (which had to be cleaned with jet fuel). I once removed the prop spinners and they looked like the inside of a stovepipe. All black and full of soot. The oil cooler connections were regular AN fittings, not the loss less ones. I've only ever seen those on hydraulic fittings such as on a brake unit or where a hydraulic cart connects to an aircraft. Just the fact of having to disconnect oil lines to remove the engine cowls appalled me.

jetfuel as solvent. sooty will be an issue with most pusher arrangements, right?

I've seen it in the marine domain to have easier access to parts hidden behind the oil heat exchanger.
Seems to have been an aftermarket fix.

You are correct, the soot would likely be an issue with most pusher arrangements although the P180 (with the Pratt and Whitney PT6A-66) is the only pusher I've ever worked on. As for the oil cooler, that's the way it was made from the beginning. Very difficult to make aftermarket fixes to airplanes, would require an approved mod from someone who did a lot of work to get it looked at by regulators. In Canada, that would be an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) if it was done by an outside agency, or it would have to be a mod from Piaggio (in this case).