Turbo props need larger cabins because you are in them longer. Haha

I will take a small tube jet over a larger prop plane any day.

Edit. Totally agree that the Piaggo could have been a very popular owner flown TP. I would probably own one if they were more popular and well supported.

Mike

My experience will 100% of passengers is the opposite, except where fuel stop avoidance becomes a consideration.

For a typical 1,000 nm trip per Foreflight flown for speed:
CJ3+: 2h30m, 2,728 lbs
Piaggio: 2h44m, 2,028 lbs

But the Piaggio does it with another 13" of headroom, another 15" of cabin width, less noise, and a lower cabin altitude. The seats in a Piaggio are akin to domestic first class and the seats in the CJ3+ are akin to Domestic economy class. While difficult to measure, the Piaggio also does it with a smoother ride, as it's insanely impervious to turbulence given its higher wing loading and additional wing.

If you fly with more of an eye towards fuel economy, the Piaggio can do 2h50m @ 1,719 lbs and the CJ3+ does 2h40m @ 2,269 lbs.

I've yet to find a passenger who wouldn't take this trade off.

Ed

My experience will 100% of passengers is the opposite, except where fuel stop avoidance becomes a consideration.

For a typical 1,000 nm trip per Foreflight flown for speed:
CJ3+: 2h30m, 2,728 lbs
Piaggio: 2h44m, 2,028 lbs

Ed

Last week I flew to CA from Denver. A good friend flew an Ultra. Same day, same winds. I beat him per flight aware by a few mins. 2 to be exact. Winds at FL350 were a little more favorable than him at FL450.

On way home he left next morning and had a 100kt tailwind. I had about 40 when I did the leg. He beat me by about 14 min on that leg.

He burned more than 2x the fuel. And cabin was not stand up for anyone


Everyone who has ever seen Piaggio in person says it’s way cooler than any jet they have ever seen. It looks like the future.

It actually worked quite well for fractional - Avantair was just run like a poop show and they did not charge what was required. There will never be a pax that doesn’t prefer a p180 over a small citation cabin. Even my 9 year old daughter has commented it’s no contest.

I have been looking at cj3 just for range upgrade. More I look, more I realize that is only upgrade. Everything else is backwards.

Lands longer.
No single point.
No elec windshields
No potty a large human can comfortably use
Louder
Worse ride
Less seats
Worse panel (not looking at 3+)
Burns a lot more gas (does depend on leg, long not bad)
Williams tax
Cj3 owners all have more maint issues than me or any Piaggio owners I know have. I have looked at logs of 4 different planes. 3 have had aog due to fadec issues.

That all said, if you need to go 1300 into a 100nm wind, p180 just won’t do it!!!

I don't think anyone is knocking the performance or cabin of the Piaggio, but as already pointed out, they just weren't sold very well. Not that theydidn't sell, but that Piaggio didn't do a good job of understanding their market and selling to it.

In fairness I think that there was both a perception and some reality back then that owner pilots didn't buy new multi-million dollar airplanes. I suspect that expected to sell to corporations that would later off load them to smaller companies that would then sell to owner-operators.

The Mustang, M2 and CJ3+ have all proven pilot owners buy new airplanes!

With just 215 airplanes in operation it has become a very cool, albeit very niche airplane.

Flight Plan Detail: I went to Foreflight to find the a ~1,000 nm trip with calm winds and quickly came to KMCK -> KOAK (1021nm), which was showing a 6-8 knot tailwind. Close enough.

The performance numbers I used are for an Avanti I -- an Avanti II (or a I with II engines, which can be done as well) would be maybe 15 knots faster.

The 2hr45m estimate assumed flight at FL320 for the Piaggio. If you flew at FL390, which is what I did for the fuel efficient version, you get closer to 3 hrs. For the CJ3+, I used whichever altitude showed the fastest travel (can't recall at this point).

The only other adjustment my Avanti Foreflight profile uses, based on experience, is (i) +2.8% for cruise speed, (ii) +7.5% for cruise fuel, and (iii) 30 lbs additional climb fuel (for ATC level-offs during climb). The cruise speed and and fuel adjustments reflect running the plane at ~789 ITT. P&W recommends continuous use below 790 ITT, though the Piaggio book assumes a little lower temps. With these adjustments, my plane achieves Foreflight profiles +/- a minute when ATC doesn't take a hatchet to my flight plan.

As to the range, I don't find the additional range of the CJ3+ that compelling. If the plane could actually make it cross-country without a fuel stop, that would be huge. But it can't. And I don't fly from San Francisco to Ohio very often.

I can't find a single pilot plane that's better overall than the Piaggio, including the Phenom 300, which I flew for awhile -- and the Phenom 300 dominates the CJ line in every area as far as I can tell. If I were to give up the option of single-pilot flight, I can't imagine anything short of say a Falcon 50/900 being an "upgrade". And if you focus on new planes, you're into Praetor territory, and that's an indulgence I can't wrap my mind around (my insurance company might think the same). Own a $20 million plane for 20 years and you're about $100 million poorer at the end of it.

We get it the Piaggo is a great plane. But you can’t tell me they are supported like the Citation line.

I have a very close friend that bought one and had a nightmare with maintenance.

The challenge with support is a big deal for owner operators.

Chips point is if they sold better originally there would be more of them and better support system.

Mike

I find my Piaggio is excellently supported. By comparison, I have 8x as many hours in it as the Phenom I flew. The Phenom was AOG once. Piaggio hasn't been.

What's fascinating to me is that, at today's prices, you could operate 2-3 Piaggios for the price of a CJ3+ or Phenom 300. And while it's possible my experience is unusual -- though from the text thread I am on with other owners I don't think so -- surely the dispatch rate on 2 Piaggios would crush a CJ3+ or Phenom 300. Even if the CJ3+ or Phenom 300 were perfect, it still has required downtime.

I certainly agree that if the Piaggio were better marketed, it could have been more successful and would be a better proposition. The Italian government also bears blame, as there have been three excellent suiters for the company, all of which they have turned away over what I gather are labor and nationalist considerations.

I looked hard at P180s when I was doing research to move up from the SR22. I have ICJS local to me so service was covered. But I was nervous about parts availability plus there were horror stories of huge dollar brake/gear overhauls, inability to get RVSM with Garmin (I think that's been resolved now?) and general nervousness about the future of the company.

Plus, IIRC my plane was just over 1/3 the price of a P180 (comparing full Garmin in each). that cost difference will be a LOT of Jet-A. Not to mention there are tons of spares in the market which will keep the fleet going for a very long time.

That being said, my wife did love the P-180 cabin.

Adam,

I think the Ferrari of the skies is also bad branding. 

Generally, my view is that products fall into value, premium, and luxury. 

Premium products deliver more value for more price (eg iPhone or BMW). Luxury is paying more for something that doesn’t really deliver more product valve (eg Ferrari, LVMH handbag) relative to the price.  Luxury provides exclusivity or signaling value, but the cost/benefit analysis of a Ferrari vs other automobiles is way off the curve when you put aside brand and signaling value (which to some, like me, is actually negative).

Compared to its competitive set, the Piaggio to me is a premium product, eg better cabin area, hot wings, so aerodynamic it burns little fuel, and fantastic safety record. It is not a luxury product when you compare it to other aircraft makes/models. Maybe Gulfstream has found its way into that category, but maybe not even. NetJets may be there vs other fractional/jet card programs.

So the Ferrari / Piaggio analogy is really a costume that doesn’t fit, unless you’re just thinking “Italian craftsmanship,” and that’s pretty thin.  Also, people care about reliability in aircraft and I don’t think that is the Ferrari brand image. 

I would have used a slogan that describes the plane succinctly for what it is: "Size of a mid-size jet, performance of a light jet, quieter, more fuel efficient, and lower cabin altitude than either."

Ed

Ed—I agree with that 100 percent. When Piaggio owners talk about their planes, it’s about efficiency, speed, and comfort. If we have to use a car analogy, then it’s probably closer to a classic Porsche 911, a great do-everything car that’s fast, comfortable, and can carry two kids or baggage.
If I were Piaggio I would focus on those three attributes: fast, comfortable, efficient. The competition is always going to be a compromise in one of those areas.