I should clarify: the HYD FILTER light comes on whenever power is restored, ie battery re-connect, and it does not go off until the LAMP/SYST button is actuated and released.

This means if you connect the battery before flight, then forget to do the LAMP/SYST check during preflight, then go fly/land/shutdown, then open the GTRP door to check the annunciations, the HYD FILTER light will be on. But it is on because you reconnected the battery, not because it sensed a problem in flight.

My own conclusion is that unless one is careful and certain about doing the LAMP/SYST during preflight (I might be that careful if paying attention to a possible fault), the HYD FILTER indication is only worth paying attention to if it occurs during/after the LAMP (step 6) or SYST check (step 10). All other times it is so prone to simple human error as to be not useful, and thus being lit after step 2 is not worth paying attention to.

Many thanks for the explanation, Jon.

If anyone is looking for a Piaggio, let me know.

Just got mine back from D check and just put in new windshields, so could be a good time to find it a new home. Nothing will be due for a looong time now. D check is every 3600hrs.

Work missions keep getting longer so looking to move to something w at least 1900nm range. Piaggio just can’t quite get that done without a good push!

PM me if interested in learning more.

Single pilot with 1900+ nm range is a small list. What are you shopping for?

Only thing I know of that definitively does the range is the Super SII (Williams converted Citation SII). There are plenty of compromises in that selection, but it will do 1900 nm range in most winds. Not that many to choose from.

The Citation V won't do it unless you have a decent tailwind.

I don't see anyone going to a 300 knot lower altitude turboprop after flying a Piaggio.

If you are willing to go two pilot, there are plenty of choices in jets.

Mike C.

Cj3

I want to do 1320nm into 100kt headwind and cj3 will do it even with typical Denver arrival.

Good news is if I can’t sell my plane I have a plane I could easily never replace and be quite happy

Considered V - Ultra etc but given utilization I am above the LUMP programs and just ‘like’ the cj3.

Wait for the Honda Echelon. It'll do coast to coast SP with a bigger cabin than the CJ3.

All good things must come to an end...

From what I hear about the P300 and Pilatus 24, I wonder if single pilot insurance on the Echelon will be feasible for any non pro pilots.

From what I hear about the P300 and Pilatus 24, I wonder if single pilot insurance on the Echelon will be feasible for any non pro pilots.

I take it you are willing to become indentured to Williams.


So, not 1900 nm range?

Speed gain on the Piaggio won't be huge, maybe 30-40 knots.


My LUMP is 200 hours/year which works for me well.

The CJ3 has more inspections than the V (as planes got newer, they got more inspections generally). It does have some niceties the V doesn't have, like being SP out of the factory.

The V easily does 1320 nm into 100 knot wind, of course.

With the V or CJ3, you can operate at FL450 where the winds tend to die down somewhat, an option the Piaggio didn't have.

Mike C.

The single pilot thing is a big deal for international. While I know people seem to fly to MX all the time with the waiver, it appears to only be legal within US air space. Flying to Central and South America technically off table too.

Finding waiver single pilots for some dry lease scenarios I would like to do also trickier. There are lots of CJ pilots around Denver. I have hired Piaggio pilots for flights and it made me realize contract pilots only work well if you can plan your flights and stick to a schedule. Airlining pilots in and out makes things extremely complicated.

The Ultra in theory has the 'same' range as the CJ3 (about 1800nm in still air) if you slow it down a little bit. That's what I really wanted to buy, outside of awful fuel burn, it fits the mission quite well and will be able to be full Garminized like your V soon. I like the Encore+ w FADEC but it doesn't have the range - more fuel efficient but they seem to have cut fuel capacity (and added single point).

Interesting what you said about inspections, from what I can tell the CJ was less than the older Citations but maybe I don't understand all the Docs. They are overly complex in all versions IMO. Maint providers I have spoken with (WestStar) indicated CJ3 is less downtime by a good margin

Piaggio is much more straightforward IF you are flying around 200 hours per year. Once you get beyond that, you start to misalign things. My goal is to be able to fly 300 hours per year and only have one planned downtime of a week or two. That seems doable with CJ. Plus, if the plane is every down for a longer period, there are many planes to lease. Not as easy an option w Piaggio or even Ultra/V from the inquiring I have done.

If there was a way to just add fuel to Piaggio I would likely never sell it. Sitting in a CJ3 last week, it's laughable the cabins are considered the same class, there is absolutely no comparison. Piaggio cockpit much more comfortable once I sit down too.

But my main mission is covering long distances mostly solo or with just an employee or two so I am attempting to optimize for that. Time will tell if that is a 'smart' decision...

Yes, Flight Safety does recommend rotating at 120 knots to improve outcome in the event of engine failure on take off.

When I fly into Palm Beech county air park LNA with less than 3500foot runway or the time I landed Staniel Cay Bahamas with 3,000 feet on take off I am chunking balanced field out the window.

As Doug Rozendaal said risk x exposure. I do not choose to expose myself to short runways very often. Pretty sure I could borrow one of the other owner’s airplanes and stop way less than 2,000 feet. Take off IZ de challenge/risk.

Short runway I begin rotating once I see 103-108 knots depending on weight and how close the end of runway is.

POH discusses and I believe dirty airplane is a risk factor to be considered on short field take off.

Also I am pretty aggressive warming up my carbon brakes prior to short field take off so brakes will hold at least near full power and I push power up until around 105-108% which is allowed per POH limitations. I have intentionally practiced ~108% torque in sim and rudder holds heading on one engine.

Insurance will "likely" be available single-pilot it's whether or not the cost of that product is palatable to the consumer. The insurance market is still very tight single on the CJ3+/4/P300 and PC24 space - with most of those policies needing to be 'shared' (quota shared) due to the high hull values.

The second pilot (when opting for dual crew insurance) typically buys you much sharper rates and much higher liability limits. Quals for the SIC can usually be as low at 1000-1500 total time and a few hundred MEL hours - oftentimes no prior jet time will work as long as the SIC type rating is completed in the make/model.

Yeah, that’s perhaps why the Piaggio has a reputation for being a runway hog. I understand the reasons for their recommendation, but it throws book performance numbers out the window. It also means Acc/stop and Acc/go have no basis in data anymore.


They have a descriptive paragraph about it, but no hard data.


Interesting, where do you find that in POH? I see a Transient TQ limit in the engine limitations table, but it’s limited to 20 secs. Would be interested to see the POH verbiage about 105-108%.

Nothing to be found in POH about operations at 105-108%
Limitation is 123.3 torque for no more than 20 seconds.

So far I have only taken off pushing ~108% once on last departure after Flight Safety back in March. Runway 16 at LNA. Push power up near 100 before releasing brake and barely glance at torque during take off roll. Torque will slowly creep up. Yes, of course I hear the engine exceedance warning. My goal was to keep it under 110 then reduce once safely airborne before gear up.

I am well below 123.3% and also under 20 seconds for exceedance warning.
For a couple times a year getting ~950 horsepower on takeoff vs 850 seems to be a good trade off.

Wind shear in sim is fun.
"we don't take good engines to a crash"
If you push engines to the stops the engine exceedance warning goes away as programers figured you did it on purpose and need all 1400shp per engine.
If you don't crash in sim after escaping wind shear you see 6,000 fpm climb before reducing power.

Certainly not a technique I would use on a normal 4,000 foot plus runway.

Pratt experts advise certainly welcome if I should not ever be going over 100% torque.