Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
MO11 wrote:Boutique Air bought two. It tried to bid EAS contracts with them at near-Pilatus pricing. No takers.
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.
JBo wrote:The wiki particle on the Avanti has some interesting information about its design and its purported efficiency over similar-sized biz jets.
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
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.
A380MSN004 wrote:It's not a cheap aircraft at all. Remember a private jet company charged us 3500€ for AVN - LBG flight (321NM)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
CARST wrote:Let's see if further Avantis will be produced at all...
Kent350787 wrote:M-ETAL was operating regularly in Australia earlier in the year too.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.