Thanks Terry. That would make sense if Piaggio is looking for Advance to essentially resell through Piaggio.

Ps- we cross on several forums and threads. If you ever make it close to KLNS, look me up.

You might want to connect with owner at EMT and CNO who both use the same A&P IA Piaggio specialist, a guy named Say, who knows these very well and seems to be doing all sorts of maintenance and overhauls in-house with a good understanding of electronics and automation (which most A&P's are not so good at). He even services the gear, although I don't think it counts as an overhaul.

I have EMT owners phone if you want to DM me.

I would love to see your Avanti!

FL390 and getting decent speed today. Magic carpet makes traveling easy.

Tested endurance of P180 yesterday. Started w 2800 exactly on the gauges. Climb at best climb rate to FL400. Pulled power back to long range cruise setting. Played around w power settings and determined 208lbs/side was the most efficient setting. Below that and speed dropped off more than fuel burn percentage wise. 5 degrees nose up seemed like the best spot to be.

Late in flight I got cleared to FL410 to avoid a large deviation. The way temps worked out it was about the same efficiency at both altitudes.

I touched down with 555lbs total on the gauges.

TAS was anywhere from 310kts to 330kts. 320-323 seemed like the most efficient spots. While I avoided a fuel stop door to door time would have been virtually identical had I done a fuel stop and spent 35min on ground and flown at FL280 entire way. That way would have been less airframe time but an additional 1000lbs in fuel.

Either way, 1323nm into a 35kt headwind is pretty good considering I was going into a busy airspace at the end. The only planes I figure that can reliably do the trip yesterday would be jets w quoted range over 1700nm. Cj3, Phenom, 560. 441 doesn’t count as I don’t want to spend 6 hours at 11.5k cabin altitude after a day of meetings.

4:46 is a long time in the plane though. I was sick of Bloomberg News by the end. Need to find a good portable text messaging basic email email solution.

I still cannot understand how this plane was never more popular. Sound meter showed 71db late in the flight. I burned half the fuel of a legacy jet. The workload is extremely low.

Hi Anthony, what actual airspeed(s) did you use for the climb?

In many aircraft, best climb rate does not offer best fuel efficiency or best time. For instance, in the TBM, which as you know shares the same -66 engines, best climb rate is 124 IAS, but climbing at 170 IAS provides a faster trip with less fuel burn. (Obviously all this can change drastically depending on winds; eg in the TBM, climbing at 124 IAS makes sense if you're picking up a big tailwind aloft.)

The Piaggio POH seems to suggest 160 IAS for climbs, but there are also places where it references 154 IAS, and I've never been clear what the difference between 154 and 160 is, or whether 160 is the optimum speed for time and/or efficiency.

Curious anyone's thoughts/experiences with this.

I use the ‘climb’ AP setting which holds 160 up to 28000ft. I have tested a variety of speeds and climb tactics. Holding 160 seemed to yield best block fuel burn. Probably bc fuel burn drops off so much in upper 30s and at the weights I fly at it climbs quickly.

Best block time seems to be climbing at 200ias to fl28000 then Mach .52 after that. That’s a more typical profile for me.

I can do the flight yesterday running flat out at FL400 but I would have landed with about 150lbs less fuel, which is not enough reserve IMO.

Per POH - 160 KIAS is "recommended" climb speed below 30,000', 154 KIAS is Two Engine Best Rate.

As a practical matter, 160 results in a fairly significant deck angle, and I think a bit faster is probably a better climb experience. But... I don't know the efficiency tradeoff. Usually efficiency goes to climbing to altitude faster. The 124 vs 170 you cite for the TBM is interesting and a surprisingly large differential.

Anthony has posted before that 180KIAS climb results in just about the same total fuel burn but faster (more efficient). Since then I've casually experimented with 160-180 ias climbs and his findings have anecdotally played out. I'm working to keep IAS up at the end of the climb to decrease the time to get to an efficient/faster AOA. If you climb high, and IAS is low at the end...she takes a long time to speed up.

I'm glad Anthony posted that flight. I took some eye-brow raising from 4.4 hour flight once...

T-Mobile + Starlink direct LTE in 2024 (maybe?) will enable satellite to phone service. Email may be a stretch but texts should work

Seems like the intent is for ground use in remote areas but fun to speculate how it'll do in flight.

Do not know if it would be similar with the performance of the P180, but the KA300 has the same 'recommended climb schedule' of 160kts (though only to 10k), then it drops off as you get higher, but it certainly is not the best performance climb to altitude. I thought Tom Clements spoke to that saying that it was more about a variety of best options to include just comfort for the passengers (sort of like the 1500/1600 or 1700 climb props question).
Though I am surprised by the single airspeed to FL300 ( ), I would be interested in someone could actually show where the manufacturer states that 160kts is the most fuel-efficient climb and under what conditions.

I’m not sure I have seen it in a succinct statement that “do it this way is most fuel-efficient”. But this is the climb procedure described by the performance charts.

I believe the 441 can do that trip non stop at an 8000 ft cabin altitude by flying at FL280. It would also be about as fast, routinely cruises 310-320 knots.

RVSM for a 441 doesn't make sense. On the headwind days, flying high slows you down, on the tailwind days, you have all the range you need and can slow down at FL280 to get more. Plus a cabin altitude of 11,500 ft isn't reasonable for long distance flying, IMO. Despite that, the 441 dash 10 conversion can do ~1800 nm FL280 in still air.


Too costly new, not well supported, too weird, OEM stability concerns. You did not experience the economics of buying it new.


Rough estimate for C560V for the same trip: 4700 lbs, 3:41 flight time. So right at double the fuel, and significantly faster. This is also max thrust, if I go long range cruise, can save more fuel at the cost of time. Max thrust for you means a fuel stop, it wouldn't for me.


Workload is quite low in a jet, too. I only have one lever per engine. Let's compare workload if an engine fails right at rotation. :-)

Mike C.

Engine failure at rotation in Piaggio. Step on the ball.

I didn't realize you got to skip that step in the 560 :-)

Took a trip in 990RS today which is based at my home airport. I was in the back this time as they were doing multiple approaches to get deeper familiarity with the Garmin. Nobody wore headsets whatsoever and we could keep a normal conversation between back and front. They're just dead quiet inside - the two other passengers also commented on how quiet it was.

Plane draws a crowd everywhere. People came out of the FBO and lunch place just to chat and ask about it.

What a wonderful machine.