Piaggio Avanti and RWY less than 1000 meters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Poland, Wroclaw
Age: 54
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piaggio Avanti and RWY less than 1000 meters
Hallo!
This is my firs post on PPRuNe Forum. I hope not the last
The home base of my company is EPLU - small airfield in Poland (Europe). There is only 1000 meters RWY in EPLU with no stopway. Here you are the airfield chart. We have the Beech King Air C90A and now we are thinking about the new plane. Simply choice is B200, but maybe some faster plane? The turboprop below 5700kg with two engines is the base. I have the Avanti II POH and AFM, but I am looking for the opinion of the Piaggio Avanti pilots.
My question is:
What about with the Avanti II’s ability to take-off and land at smaller fields (less than 1000 meters)?
This is my firs post on PPRuNe Forum. I hope not the last
The home base of my company is EPLU - small airfield in Poland (Europe). There is only 1000 meters RWY in EPLU with no stopway. Here you are the airfield chart. We have the Beech King Air C90A and now we are thinking about the new plane. Simply choice is B200, but maybe some faster plane? The turboprop below 5700kg with two engines is the base. I have the Avanti II POH and AFM, but I am looking for the opinion of the Piaggio Avanti pilots.
My question is:
What about with the Avanti II’s ability to take-off and land at smaller fields (less than 1000 meters)?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the Piaggio has the same fuel burn as the King Air and is bigger inside than the King Air, it's also 100 knots faster, flies higher, and goes farther. It's approach speeds are greater, and it's got a small wing; it's takeoff distances are longer.
You can get it into small spaces, but you really ought to be looking at 4,000 to 5,000'. Don't forget to consider your single engine performance, and plan for single engine climb-outs, density altitude, and the ability to stop without anti-skid (as the aircraft has none). A lot of Piaggio pilots flat spot tires when the carbon brakes heat up and start to grab.
If you're looking for a short field airplane, the piaggio really isn't it. If you're looking for a high performance airplane that's economical to operate, then the piaggio might just be it, but don't compromise yourself on your runway.
You can get it into small spaces, but you really ought to be looking at 4,000 to 5,000'. Don't forget to consider your single engine performance, and plan for single engine climb-outs, density altitude, and the ability to stop without anti-skid (as the aircraft has none). A lot of Piaggio pilots flat spot tires when the carbon brakes heat up and start to grab.
If you're looking for a short field airplane, the piaggio really isn't it. If you're looking for a high performance airplane that's economical to operate, then the piaggio might just be it, but don't compromise yourself on your runway.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some performance info
Pulled this off an online Database.
I agree with the last post about not compromising field length, but I think that you should be fine based on the numbers I've seen. I;ve only flown the aircraft once, but am familiar with one particular operation and they routinely operate into a 3500 ft strip. Weather permitting of course.
PIAGGIO-DOUGLAS AVANTI P180
Engine: P&W PT6A-66 Wingspan: 46.00 ft
Horsepower: 850 Stall: 90 kts Length: 47.25 ft
Range: 1746 nm Height: 13.08 ft
Svr Ceiling: 41000 ft Empty Wt: 7200 lbs
Rate of Climb: 3000 ft/min Gross Wt: 10810 lbs
Max Fuel: 405 gal Single Eng ROC: 900 ft/min
Takeoff (over 50 ft obstacle): 2630 ft
Landing (over 50 ft obstacle): 2650 ft
Regards
Bman
PS
4000-5000 ft for a 5k turboprop is a bit of overkill don't ya think?
I agree with the last post about not compromising field length, but I think that you should be fine based on the numbers I've seen. I;ve only flown the aircraft once, but am familiar with one particular operation and they routinely operate into a 3500 ft strip. Weather permitting of course.
PIAGGIO-DOUGLAS AVANTI P180
Engine: P&W PT6A-66 Wingspan: 46.00 ft
Horsepower: 850 Stall: 90 kts Length: 47.25 ft
Range: 1746 nm Height: 13.08 ft
Svr Ceiling: 41000 ft Empty Wt: 7200 lbs
Rate of Climb: 3000 ft/min Gross Wt: 10810 lbs
Max Fuel: 405 gal Single Eng ROC: 900 ft/min
Takeoff (over 50 ft obstacle): 2630 ft
Landing (over 50 ft obstacle): 2650 ft
Regards
Bman
PS
4000-5000 ft for a 5k turboprop is a bit of overkill don't ya think?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Poland, Wroclaw
Age: 54
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy and bman0429 - thanks for the reply 
.
I know the brakes problem, but I think (like bman0429) the 4000-5000 ft is a little too much. But on the other side the RWY is never enough long ... I am not looking for a short field airplane - our RWY will be longer (4430 ft) for about two or three years. I am only looking for opinion, is it possible to operate from short RWY before we rebuild it. Now I know - I can do that, but with big caution.
.I know the brakes problem, but I think (like bman0429) the 4000-5000 ft is a little too much. But on the other side the RWY is never enough long ... I am not looking for a short field airplane - our RWY will be longer (4430 ft) for about two or three years. I am only looking for opinion, is it possible to operate from short RWY before we rebuild it. Now I know - I can do that, but with big caution
.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello,
Have a look at the GROB spn, its a certainly makes sense as an alternative to the Piaggio.
www.grobspn.com will tell you a lot.
Have fun!
Have a look at the GROB spn, its a certainly makes sense as an alternative to the Piaggio.
www.grobspn.com will tell you a lot.
Have fun!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do as you will. I flew the airplane for a thousand hours, and our company policy was nothing less than 4,000'.
You said your runway will be 4430 feet for a couple of years...does that mean it's that length now and they're lengthening it later?
Run your numbers. Bman has posted numbers here, and you can get them from the performance charts in your book. Raw distance numbers, yes, but realistic numbers...no. It's not a transport category airplane, and the performance numbers aren't gauranteed. My experience has been that the airplane doesn't do everything the Itallians like to say it does. it just doesn't. It's a great airplane, but I've watched average pilots use every inch of 4,000' runways on several occasions, and I've watched experienced pilots blow out the tires.
As I said, you do as you will. You can shoehorn the airplane into smaller spaces. But what about your takeoff distances when you lose one engine at V1...what about your abort distances?
Take accelerate-go distance over a 50' obstacle. 30 deg. C day, 2,000' field elevation, you're looking at 4,400' of published distance, assuming your departure profile is perfectly flown, and the numbers are correct. Don't count on it. Your field is closer to sea level, but at the same temperature at sea level, the book states 4,000' of distance. To abort the same takeoff, the book gives you 4,600' of distance with reverse. If you haven't tried an abort using significant reverse, you may not appreciate that control can quickly be lost...you most likely won't have reverse, or much reverse available. In other words, those distances will be longer than published. Further, if you're aborting with cold brakes, the distance will be longer yet, as the carbon brakes are poor when unheated.
A standard takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle under the same conditions, 30 deg C, at sea level, is 3,200'. Seems that's close to your runway length, isn't it? Again, bear in mind these aren't transport category numbers...no gaurantee that your airplane will meet them. Certainly don't count on your performance being better than the published numbers.
You can choose to ignore accelerate-stop distances, accelerate-go distances, and even climb gradients if you wish, but the data is right there, and it SHOULD be considered.
We always used 4,000' as a minimum number, and often 5,000 isn't enough. I'v flown the airplane in and out of fields nearly 10,000' in elevation, regularly out of places with that much density altitude; it does get off the ground, it does do it's job, but no matter where you fly, you need to be planning for te engine failure, not all-engine operation.
You said your runway will be 4430 feet for a couple of years...does that mean it's that length now and they're lengthening it later?
Run your numbers. Bman has posted numbers here, and you can get them from the performance charts in your book. Raw distance numbers, yes, but realistic numbers...no. It's not a transport category airplane, and the performance numbers aren't gauranteed. My experience has been that the airplane doesn't do everything the Itallians like to say it does. it just doesn't. It's a great airplane, but I've watched average pilots use every inch of 4,000' runways on several occasions, and I've watched experienced pilots blow out the tires.
As I said, you do as you will. You can shoehorn the airplane into smaller spaces. But what about your takeoff distances when you lose one engine at V1...what about your abort distances?
Take accelerate-go distance over a 50' obstacle. 30 deg. C day, 2,000' field elevation, you're looking at 4,400' of published distance, assuming your departure profile is perfectly flown, and the numbers are correct. Don't count on it. Your field is closer to sea level, but at the same temperature at sea level, the book states 4,000' of distance. To abort the same takeoff, the book gives you 4,600' of distance with reverse. If you haven't tried an abort using significant reverse, you may not appreciate that control can quickly be lost...you most likely won't have reverse, or much reverse available. In other words, those distances will be longer than published. Further, if you're aborting with cold brakes, the distance will be longer yet, as the carbon brakes are poor when unheated.
A standard takeoff distance over a 50' obstacle under the same conditions, 30 deg C, at sea level, is 3,200'. Seems that's close to your runway length, isn't it? Again, bear in mind these aren't transport category numbers...no gaurantee that your airplane will meet them. Certainly don't count on your performance being better than the published numbers.
You can choose to ignore accelerate-stop distances, accelerate-go distances, and even climb gradients if you wish, but the data is right there, and it SHOULD be considered.
We always used 4,000' as a minimum number, and often 5,000 isn't enough. I'v flown the airplane in and out of fields nearly 10,000' in elevation, regularly out of places with that much density altitude; it does get off the ground, it does do it's job, but no matter where you fly, you need to be planning for te engine failure, not all-engine operation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Poland, Wroclaw
Age: 54
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNS3Guppy thanks. This is what I am looking for - real opinion from real Avanti pilot , but of course I am not happy. I have still only 1000 meters RWY ...
, but of course I am not happy. I have still only 1000 meters RWY ...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey bartfl...
I see you are from Poland. Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that the Polish Air Ambulance operates a P180 in EMS configuration. Why don't you have an informal chat with they crews? Unless you are in somehow either related or prevented from doing so...
PZ
I see you are from Poland. Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that the Polish Air Ambulance operates a P180 in EMS configuration. Why don't you have an informal chat with they crews? Unless you are in somehow either related or prevented from doing so...
PZ
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
know the guys from the Polish Air Ambulance, and I know their opinion. But two opinion are better than one
).Regards
PZ
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're using a Piaggio for forestry work?
All these toys are for politicians and MPs amusements, together with couple of A320 and DA Falcons enlisted in the AF...
Be my guest, I am a tax-payer
PZ
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Age: 37
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avanti AFM
Hi Guys.
Please can I ask does anyone on this thread or related have a copy of the Avanti AFM as my company is looking to review the figures as a potential purchase in the future.
Please can I ask does anyone on this thread or related have a copy of the Avanti AFM as my company is looking to review the figures as a potential purchase in the future.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A privately owned P180 was based (maybe still) at Fairoaks/Chobham about 10 years back.. Runway length something like 2700ft ? I could never understand the thinking... the owners had only another 20 min to drive to Farnborough.. seemed a bit silly to be playing around with that length of runway..
Fairoaks runway 813m; Farnborough runway 2440m (LDAs and TORAs less at both); Fairoaks landing fee about £68 for PC12; Farnborough landing fee - if you have to ask you can't afford it.
Avanti is no longer based at Fairoaks (used to be a Do228 based about the same time) but used daily by Be200/350, PC12, AC90/95, TBM700/850. There was a Citation CJ3 in a few weeks ago; on arrival had practically stopped halfway along the runway.
Avanti is no longer based at Fairoaks (used to be a Do228 based about the same time) but used daily by Be200/350, PC12, AC90/95, TBM700/850. There was a Citation CJ3 in a few weeks ago; on arrival had practically stopped halfway along the runway.
Last edited by chevvron; 10th Aug 2012 at 20:39.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blackbushe ain't that far away, and has a 1335m runway. Much better!
I believe the Piaggio moved out of Fairoaks some time ago: I certainly have never seen it there. Someone told me they kicked it out for being too noise, but is it really louder than a jet?
I believe the Piaggio moved out of Fairoaks some time ago: I certainly have never seen it there. Someone told me they kicked it out for being too noise, but is it really louder than a jet?