Piaggio P180 vs. other turboprops

[CMN]

Not many P180's in this part of Europe, so I'm seeking information from owners/operators/pilots of this fine piece of machinery. The set up is:

Buy a (used) turboprop, preferably multi-engine, to seat at least 5 people comfortably with range to fly Scandinavia to southern Europe non-stop.
The candidates are B200, B350, P180, and perhaps a Citation if the figures work out. The A/C will be put on an AOC for charter when not flying for the owners.

I currently fly a PC-12 which could easily do the job, but it has one major disadvantage.

Anyone with operational information on the P180 willing to share ?

[HonestoGod]

Just a couple of teeny weeny things you will want to include in your cost benefit analysis.

If you kit the Piaggio to the same spec as a PC12/TBM850 it will cost you $6,300,000 - yip thats right.


Whereas there may be 15 TBMs and 10 PC12 operating in the UK, you will be an orphan, there is currently no Piaggio operational in the UK.

I personally like the cut of the Piaggio but it is not to everybodys taste, so although you may like it and buy it......when you come to sell it, the market is limited.

Of course there is the thing about Piaggio themselves. It is not unusual for a manufacturer to go through hard times, but Piaggio seem to be constantly on the edge.

Best of luck with your flying

[CMN]

Well, I've heard of a used P180 at 4.5 mill USD. But you're right about getting it sold again...and what about maintenance. That's probably a fair deal more expensive that the Kingair. And available shops to do it. None in Scandinavia as far as I can see....
That's why I wanna hear from some operators/pilots.

[J32/41]

I wouldn't go for the P-180 for charter work to be honest. They are more expensive than the B200 and at the end of the day they are still a turboprop which will put a few people off.
Due to the higher costs you will need to charge more than say a KingAir operator.

[Super Ted]

Just thought I would add my bit of experience into the mix. I have been flying a P180 on and off for the last 3 years. I cant really fault it! Sure its a got a few little problems like any other aircraft but you cant beat it on perfomance with any other similar priced aircraft.

You cant really compare it to a B200 as it goes 100kts faster and the rest with a stand up cabin and full stand up washroom with noise levels that are quieter than most jets! You have to compare the Avanti with things like the Citation II's, Bravo's,CJ1,CJ2. I operated one on a AOC and after a lot of hard work we were doing 70 hours a month! We didnt even bother competing with B200's as we were taking people off citations and even Excels! Once the passenger flew in it there was no turning back!

You can get a good 2003 model with the increased weights that make it an Avanti II for $5.3. Now thats not bad for the performance you get (6 pax plus bags 1300-1500nm).

With regard to maintenance all you need to do is get an engineer to do you monthly checks and for the big ones send it to Dusseldorf.

Personnaly I would have one now and put it straight back into the UK charter market, but theres the small issue of my bank balance!

All the best

[Cirrus320]

CMN

This site may be of help

http://www.jetsales.com/mesinger/comparisons/aircraftcomparisons.html

Where abouts in Southern Europe & how many hours do you envisage?

[CMN]

Super Ted,

Sounds promising. What's the aircraft like from a pilots perspective ? I'm thinking cockpit setup, noise level, handling....will it operate from unimproved fields ie. grass ?

Cirrus,
Based in Denmark with (regular) flights to Italy, Serbia for example. Probably around 300 hrs/year + charter.

thanks for the input so far...

[CMN]

We've dropped the turboprops, and are now looking for a light jet to seat at least 6 comfortably. In the 4-7 mil. USD range there is an endless que of new or used A/C for sale.

If buying a used it must be well maintained and up to JAR OPS 1 standard as it's going on an AOC. I'm very reluctant to buy one from outside Europe, as they are usually not up to JAR OPS standard and requires a lot of (paper)work.
A year 2000 Lear 45 with only 1500TT is seen @ 6.7 mil. USD.
Or a Citation VII 1998, 3000TT @ 6-7 mil. USD.
Or a (a bit larger) Hawker 800A, 1990 with 5100 TT, @ 6 mill. USD.

Or smaller CJIII ??

[Fossy]

Hi CMN

Used aircraft into Europe / EASA

Just be reminded, that no EASA country accepts an aircraft with a Form 337, respectively a STC which is not validated by them, except this STC has been installed before Sep 28, 03 on the same type of aircraft, which was registered in an EU country before this date.

Source: EASA Regulation 1702/2003

Holders of STC (or equivalent), approvals of major changes, major repair design approvals or approvals of parts and appliances issued under national regulations by Member States prior to 28 September 2003 and grand-fathered in accordance with Regulation 1702/2003, article 2.13 and 2.14 do not need to demonstrate their capability, until the time they apply for a new STC, major repair design approval or ETSOA * under Part 21.

P.S What about this new jet, called Grob SPn, something around 7 M US$.

[CMN]

According to http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=254293, the Grob still has a long way to go. Sad, because it looks very interesting. Kind of like a PC-12 with jet engines...

[HonestoGod]

The GROB did look interesting, until last week that is.

Very sad for the test Pilot and his family a thoroughly likeable guy. May he rest in peace.

[airmen]

Fossy is right, do not forget to check the papers if the aircraft was privately operated, for comercial it is an other story...

You have to check what you want, like cabin height, usable seats acc. trip lenght, TO and LDG perf.according elevation of typical envisaged field and maintenance costs.

Excel is nice for the cabin and luggages, Hawker has less space than Excel for bags...Sovereign is the best!

[Harsay]

Avantair operates 30 something P-180's and they fly the snot out of them, as they operate a fractional business.

They are solid workhorse, and support in Europe is very good.

It's a very nice quite cabin and smooth ride compared to any other turboprop you may want to look at... and it's a hot rod. Take a ride in the back, it really sells the aircraft.

Dave Harsay

[SnowPilot]

Don't get a III or a VII the MX would kill you

[CMN]

You're not the first one to say this, but I'd like if you could give me something more concrete ?! I guess any plane could give you grey hair maintainance wise if you're unlucky enough...
I heard the same about Hawker 800...

[Fossy]

Hi CMN

no general statement could be given, since you could be lucky and get a good maintained aircraft. I assume you will check all the history before you going to buy an aircraft, and if there are strange or repeating records for the same problem, ... By the way, check which is the closest Maintenance Organisation to your homebase, perfect would be one at the same location, because you could save a lot of money because of positioning flights into maintenance.

rgds

[flyboyike]

I know it doesn't really answer your question, but I think the Piaggio is an amazingly cool-looking aircraft.

[formulaben]

The Piaggio is faster and much roomier than the B200, not to mention the newer avionics. It'll get above the weather, no go around it. I'd give it another look. It makes a CE550 (Citation II) look old, slow, and small; and with nearly HALF the fuel burn.

HALF.

[SNS3Guppy]

I have a little over a thousand hours in the P.180. It's the fastest production turboprop, and holds eight world speed records in it's class. It's quiet (inside) goes to FL410, and will outrun a Citation (but so will a duck). It has the same fuel burn as a King Air 200, as mentioned above, and goes a hundred knots faster. It has a surprisingly large cabin...you wouldn't think it's that big from the outside. External baggage, single point refueling, and for a small turboprop, it does okay on one engine. Standard avionics on the Avanti are the Universal UNS1-K and a Collins 85 five tube EFIS, and on the Avanti II the Collins ProLine.

Avantair is the biggest operator of the type, but averages at least half the fleet down for maintenance at any given time, and does a LOT of charter to get their owners where they need to be. That's not well publicised. They have a lot of parts and support availability issues, and requently make the decision to send the airplanes anyway while waiting for parts (which results in more down time and a lot of ferrying to maintenance locations). Parts are expensive, and some very difficult to get, such as brake assemblies.

The airplane flies conventionally, with no surprises. It's a single pilot airplane, but like most complex cockpits, really ought to be crewed by two.

Something Avantair found when having their various interruptions in service was that passenges for whom a turbojet or turboprop was chartered to fill in for the missing aircraft would often complain that they had paid for and expected the Piaggio...it was roomier, quieter, and more comfortable, and they liked it's advantages. One of the biggest advantages for the business aircraft department is that it looks good to stockholders and the public...the appearance of turboprop frugality with the speed and performance of a jet. Even when offered other equipment, many passengers there strongly prefer the Avanti.

[SnowPilot]

can you expand at all on the parts availability problem?

Also how often do you have to change the brake assemblys?

Are the parts isssues an AOG problem, like it just broke and we can't go anywhere or is it a we found this part worn during inspection and you can't go anywhere?

[SNS3Guppy]

How long brakes last is up to you ;) .

I'm not certain I understand your question. If the aircraft is down and you need a part, then it's down and you need a part. This is true of any airplane. Whther a part is broken and needs replacement, or it's worn and needs replacement, what's the difference? Needs replaced is needs replaced.

Parts availability can sometimes be a difficulty. Getting brake assemblies runs in cycles. These aren't field rebuildable; these get sent back, and are expensive. They're expensive enough that operators tend not to stock them as rotables. It's a specialized carbon fibre assembly. My opinion on the brakes is that judicious use of reverse thrust and feather during taxi, proper power management, and allowing the airpalne to rollout on landing instead of heavy braking will contribute to long brake life. On the other hand, I've seen crews wear them out fairly quickly.

Avantair's problems were largely self-made...a failure to stock parts when that many common aircraft were in use was a mistake; aircraft were constantly being canibalized to keep each other flying...their parts management was mostly musical parts among the fleet, and the problem was that when aircraft came in for work, they'd get ravaged to keep other aircraft flying, and then couldn't be released right away. Another common issue there was a failure to address maintenance issues right away, or to overlook them, leading to bigger problems and frequent grounding. A small department operation shouldn't face these issues.

In fairness to Avantair, they operate quite a few hours on an annual basis, and never end up twice in the same place at night except by coincidence. The aircraft arrive at a maintenance base only for scheduled inspections or when something goes wrong...the aircraft does not have nightly attention by the maintenance department. The company has changed hands and operations philosophies several times, which has left the maintenance department (and flight department) in a constant state of change...which also has contributed to the down time. I don't know that as a corporate or charter operator of the type, you'd see nearly the downtime or difficulties that they have faced...again, they're the largest single operator of the type in the world.

The flip side of the coin is that as the largest operator, one might suppose they would get preferential treatment for parts and service, but this isn't usually the case.

Their aircraft are flying often in the order of eighty hours or more a month each, sometimes double that.

My impressions of the aircraft were favorable. I believe any corporate department which has experience stocking and maintaining an inventory and maintenance program for their aircraft won't find the Piaggio any more difficult or different to maintain. There's no reason why it can't be made to have a high reliability rate. The downtime I saw with Avantair isn't necessary, and the program could clearly have been much improved. That isn't as easy done as said in an organization of any size, or one that's micromanaged as it was...the aircraft are capable of being more reliable and being operated more efficiently, in my opinion.

I did receive reports from time to time within the maintenance department that some components were difficult to obtain from Piaggio. I can't verify this personally, as I wasn't involved in ordering parts.

Piaggio tends to use small wiring, with multiple splices, and multiple wires into terminals that aren't normally seen on US aircraft. I do know of occasions when this became an operationla issue with locating faults in splicing, unions, grounds, etc. The size of the wiring makes it a little more susceptible to damage or failure, though this is also preventable through proper handling.

The airplane flies nicely; for turbojet performance it operates on a turboprop budget with DOC's being reasonably low (can't provide specific figures, but roughlly comparable to a BE-200, but faster, higher, and quieter). As I said before, customer preference as strongly in favor of the Piaggio when presented with alternate choices; the customers loved them.

[tacr2man]

Try searching Airgo on google, they seem to in favour of the avanti in a similar operation to what you are looking at:)