I thought Southwest Aviation in Tulsa got setup to ski the gear? Saw a bunch being overhauled while I was there.

As of last week, Piaggio said there are no approved overhaulers left in the USA.

ICJ is looking at the stc...so call them and voice your vote.

Aatinc might get the nod from Piaggio and start up again.

But as of now, I'm told there is not and we are pushing them for some other type of official approval for extension.

I know it's not required for P91..but not having any option is different than being able to choose not to.

I think we sorta built our own mess without any sizeable p135 operators to keep the market strong. It was not required so there was no demand and now no one to service.

O&N developed the Silver Eagle, a modified Cessna P210 with a 450 HP Rolls-Royce [Allison 250] engine. I knew Myron Olson and visited his outstanding facility several times at Seamans airport (2500 foot runway).

I doubt Griggs has the willingness, knowhow, capability and resources to develop an STC for the Avanti. BWDIK.

Just landed Edinburg Scotland via tuna Can argh

I would do STC for aux tank in a heartbeat as long as cost was within reason!!

Within reason is relative

I am very good at justifying and then adding rationalization.

I plan to work 12 more years,

My favorite justification,

It'll grow back

I wonder how pressure refueling complicates any stc?

The mentioned site looks like all traditional fueled system.

Im not an engineer but it seems the plumbing for pressure fueling has got be quite a bit more than filling aux tanks by gravity.

The stc from that site show things like electric pumps that have far lower pump rates we would need.

It's certainly doable but seems more complex than slapping some aux tanks on a P210

With all due respect, I have the impression that you are oversimplifying a bit the situation... Apples compares with apples, not oranges...

The Piaggio mod, include a unpressurized fuel tank installed inside a pressurized vessel. The plumbing need to pass through the aft pressure bulkhead. There are two containers, a tank in a tank, with dedicated plumbings to relief any possible leaking/gassing outside of the cabin and fuselage. All the plumbings are interconnected with the existing system to allow the high pressure single point refueling and proper operation of the crossfeed. The extra tank is fitted with fuel level sensors. The fuel computer has been upgraded to take care of the extra probes and compute the extra fuel. Some PL21 equipments (EDC, DCU, AFDs... Not peanuts!) have been upgraded to compute and display the extra fuel. All those items are (E)TSO Authorized.

It is simple? No
It is expensive? Yes
It is invasive? Yes
It is integrated? Yes
It is over engineered? Maybe
Could be done differently? Probably yes
Could you find better solutions? Depends...

You can blame Piaggio for many things but usually they are good in keeping everything Integrated and properly designed and certified. Every solution is a tradeoff: you don't care of the baggage area and willing to trade some seats too. Is this the standard use case for every P.180 user? Piaggio MPA was designed for 5100 lbs of fuel, but with just 4 seats...

Some of the equipments of the old Avanti are simply not anymore supported for upgrades from the respective oems and Piaggio was not willing to support "patchworks" or suboptimal solutions or borderline certifications...

I wonder what car you drive. Try asking for a factory upgrade of some significant parts from a newer model. No way. You have to find a private shop that is willing to design the mod and certify it. This is called STC in the aviation work, only more expensive... Don't blame Piaggio (on this specific topic), just find someone that can properly do the mod you need with all the tradeoffs/limitations you are willing to accept. It will be also cheaper.But beware of miracles.

Maybe I'm just too much biased...

I checked with Signature Edinburgh Scotland on fees for Piaggio.
Fuel is reasonable.
£450 handling fee I can live with.
£1,200 per night parking is beyond comprehension.

Is this the norm in Europe

David, I'm curious what your perspective is on this - based on your BT profile I guess you are a P180 owner, are you also involved in a company trying to STC something? "Kuranga Power Company" from your profile doesn't seem to be primarily in the business of aircraft modification.

I agree with Daniel that Piaggio's solution has some advantages of completeness and full integration. But I could also see that other solutions could be achievable with some possible tradeoffs.

For me, that aft CG problem I mentioned is a bit of a killer. Hard for me to take full fuel in the stock system without being out aft CG, or taking quite a bit of ballast. So for me to be enthused, the additional fuel would need to go somewhere well forward of the baggage compartment just for CG.

I hated watching them put 150lbs of lead in the nose after my Garmin upgrade.

Like man, stick a 80lb battery or two up there or something useful. I don't know. Just seemed like a wasted opportunity to move something forward instead of dead weight which would help cg without loosing precious useful load.

Keeping fuel in multiple places may be the key.

Per the POH, the closet has a max weight of 90 lbs. The evo's with an extended tank hold 400 lbs of fuel there, and certainly the tank weighs something itself. So I could definitely see how structural modifications were necessary.

This kills me as well, though there is very little actual space up there. The ballast is lead and thin. :(

Yeah, I hate it too. I think I have 108 lbs of lead plate. :(

I suspect moving the battery wouldn't gain that much after adding back the large gauge cables that would be necessary to go all the way back to the engines. Not to mention the effort to get it all there.

But CG is still significantly aft with only pilot and full fuel on board. Pax load helps, baggage load hurts, more fuel hurts. Temporary ballast under pilot seats is mandatory with full fuel load.

You folks understand the gear much better than me. I knew it better during the buy...but my gear is still 8-9 years out so my memory has gone to mush.

Which gear would I have if un-modified (2003, ser# 1063)? Does someone rebuild this gear today...or no? I keep getting emails from Advantage Aviation Technologies about Piaggio Landing Gear Overhauls... https://aatinc.net/fixed-wing-capabilities/

The Mag gear was only factory on the Evo AFAIK and an STC for Avanti 2s.

I am not clear on what makes an overhaul facility "approved" and how that approval plays into Manufacture vs FAA legality. APRO was approved but is no longer working with SAFRAN which owns/bought Messier-Dowty which made the original gear.

What I was told is that Advantage Aviation was not approved but "had been doing some anyways". Therefore Piaggio was gonna see if they could be an option to get approved. Is that just a nod from Piaggio...I don't know.

How does approval with the manufacturer relate to doing the work and signing off in a logbook, I don't know. A quick Google on the topic didn't reveal the answer. Just for my own knowledge, I'd love it if anyone has details on how any particular vendor gets qualified to overhaul a specific part

It also seems that Piaggio tried an STC for the Avanti 1 with a company called Lowcountry Aviation. Google shows an announcement for the development of the STC but it must have never been completed. Not sure how much work was already completed if a new company is picking it up.

Legally a vendor just needs up to date maint manuals for the part and access to parts. Depending on the vendor those manuals can be very expensive.

Mfr approval would relate to whether they sell parts to the maint facility and be approved to do warranty work.

One of the reasons I settled on a TBM is that all the gear overhaul/maint manuals are available through Daher for free, and the parts are available.