Talk:Piaggio P.180 Avanti

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Piaggio P.180 Avanti article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Updates

I'm slowly adding things to this page, partly based on my recollection from working on the project in 1980-81 Jim Hammer 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canard

I think the term 'canard' is misused here. The canard configuration is where the horizontal stabiliser and pitch control surfaces are placed ahead of the wing. In this aircraft, the horizontal stabiliser is located behind the wing, and there is a foreplane at the nose of the aircraft. The pitch control surfaces (elevators) are still located on the horizontal stabiliser. The foreplane doesn't have any control surfaces (although it does have flaps). I believe a more accurate desciption of the configuration would be a 'tandem triplane'. Nick Moss 23:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm revisiting this issue because, according to the article [[Canard {aeronautics)]], "The term canard has also come to mean any horizontal airfoil mounted in front of the main wing." Dictionary.com has, as one of the definitions, "Also called canard wing. one of two small lifting wings located in front of the main wings." This [patent for a tiltrotor lists fixed canards. The X-50 is described here as having a "fixed canard". The Kfir C2 is described here is described as having fixed canards. Seems like there is wide-spread usage of the term for fixed surfaces. There are more, but I'll stop with these. Unless someone comes up with a definitive source that says a canard has to have control surfaces, I plan on revision this article. Akradecki 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, even if it is not a forward control surface, if something is a forward lift-producing surface it is considered a canard. The configuration allows the forward surface (canard) to stall prior to the main wing, creating a condition where the aircraft itself will never truly stall. Control surfaces have little (or nothing at all!) to do with this. ericg ✈ 05:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ericg - As I understand (but I need to find citations) 3LS Aircraft (The Term I've heard used on aviation boards) are designed to stall like conventional aircraft, not Canards- and usually have the same critical AOA for both the Canard and the main wing. This is actually the configuration's primary benefit over a Canard- which _MUST_ stall the canard before the main wing in _ALL_ possible configurations and relative wind angles within the aircraft's envelope, simply because a main-wing-stall in a canard is otherwise unrecoverable. Because of the need to keep the aircraft's envelope useful, the 'worse-case' designed mainwing thus rarely is allowed to approach Clmax, necessitating greater wing area to achieve the same total lift as a conventional aircraft. This larger wing, and hence greater profile drag, usually offsets the drag advantage provided by the lack of induced drag by the horizontal stabilizer. 3LS gets around this by acting as a conventional aircraft during a stall - the rear tailplane provides the down-moment to lower the AOA, not the main wing. This allows the main wing to operate much closer to Clmax, and hence have substantially less area than an equivalent canard. In fact, theoretically a 3lS aircraft can have the lowest net lifting area because not only can the wing operate near Clmax, but also the main wing does not need to provide extra lift to counteract the tail down force, further reducing the required wing area. It is meant to be a 'best of both worlds' comprise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -ESC69.8.229.254 (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I also think that the forward airfoils in the Piaggio should not be called "canard". Piaggio itself —in its internet site— clearly states that Avanti's forward surfaces are not canards: "The Avanti II's forward wing (which is not a canard because it has no control surfaces)...".

Additionally, Piaggio calls its design "Three-Lifting-Surface Configuration (3LSC)" which sets it apart from what I understand as a canard design in which the forward airfoil is meant to be a pitch control surface that takes over the functionality of the horizontal tail in more conventional aircraft, not necessarily adding to lift. Actually, in most canard implementations there is no horizontal tail at all (Saab Grippen, Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, etc.

The contributer under the URL 69.8.229.254 above says that it is the horizontal stabilizer in a 3LSC aircraft that provides the nose-down moment during a stall and that is probably correct. But in the Avanti (and I don't have first-hand flying experience in it) the forward airfoils —by stalling first— can provide enough stall protection by automatically lowering the nose before the main wing stalls. I've heard Avanti pilots saying that —even if they keep the yoke all the way aft during a stall— see the nose drop when the forward airfoils stop flying and raise again when they come out of stall.JetDriver2 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also found myself jarred by the intro stating that it _resembles_ a canard configuration. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canard_%28aeronautics%29#Stability the front lifting surfaces on this interesting aircraft fall within the description of canards, so there is consistency work to be done ... I'd say that there are different sorts of canard, and the fixed lifting surfaces here are one of them but different from the control canard on a Eurofighter or Rafael. The aircraft has a 4 lifting surface configuration if one wants to push exceptionality, but I think it is better to be inclusive. One flew over and I thought "that's odd" and photographed it. Midgley (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, high time that lead was revisited. I have cut a lot of all that legacy nonsense that got left behind there, including the canard/stabilizer mess and the trivially commonplace observation that the fuselage tube contributes a little lift during cruise. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and remarks

I ve read that the aircraft is a blended wing body. I am rather against this description. Because the wing seems not to be joint 'seamless'-ly with the fuselage. Maybe the author has wanted to say that the body is well profiled and is creating also lift and is more like a 'lifting body'. But I am not 100% sure of that.

Anyway I agree that it is a rather good design : -- engines in the back reduces the noises in the cabin because the noise is carried by the airflow. -- the engine at the back in case of blade breakage won't harm the cabin because situated backward (the rotor burst area is behind the cabin). This accident happen hardly never but had to be taken into account as there is no containement for the blades (contrary to most turbo jet engines). -- I also have to admit that the canard was for me any surface place on the front of an aircraft being mobile or not. But the only examples of canards in my mind are moving ones (like the Eurofighter)...

Thecrusader 440 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also not call the Avanti a "blended wing body." It does have a lifting body, but usually the term "lifting body" refers to aircraft where the majority of the lift comes from the body, I think.

N22YF (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power/mass

For the power/mass computation, the curb weight is used. The numbers in the article suggest the fully loaded mass was taken, which seems wrong. If I'm right, the correct power/mass quotient would be ~ 0,373 instead of the 0,24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.179.143.145 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is normallly the maximum gross take-off weight compared to the take-off rating for the engines installed. In metric this is usually expressed as Power(kW)/MGTOW(kg) and in imperial measure as MGTOW(lb)/horsepower. I checked the numbers and they look right, as long as the MGTOW quoted is correct, although I inverted the imperial measure to the more commonly used parameter. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Police P180 Avanti

I See you ask for citation about the Italian Policer using P180s. Is the Italian Polizia di Stato official site sufficient?

http://poliziadistato.it/articolo/1246-Struttura_del_Reparto_volo

There's a list of aircreafts used. It's in Italian. It looks like there is no English version of this page. Anyway they state to operate one in Pratica di mare, where training is performed. It most probably is a first one to substitute the aging Partenavia P68 OBS fleet. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.176.55 (talk)

Sure that is fine, I will add it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.180 vs. P180

Upon checking the piaggioaero.com site (such as it is, and does suck[1]), I can find no evidence of a "P.180" designation. I suggest this article should be moved to "Piaggio P180 Avanti". —Quicksilver^{T @} 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.180 in Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89 and Brassey's World Aircraft & Systems Directory 1999/2000, and Piaggio appears to be referring to the Avanti as the P.180 in Avanti this advert printed in 2003. It appears the P.180 is the original use.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official type certifcate [2] uses P.180. MilborneOne (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The type certificate really gets the last word as that is the legal designation. What I have done in the past is indicated the type certifiable designation as "official" and then noted the other names of designations as "marketing names" or "marketed as". - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and now it's P180 (again)? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they didn't read this conversation. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually do check the talk page first. I had to go out today, or I would have responded sooner. While I understand the consesnus was against me, I don't appreciate it beibng moved back before I could at least respond, or being called "they" as if I were an IP editor. The company calls it the "P180", and thats what it should be here. Type certificate designations aren't officially binding. The name/designation is whatever the company (or operator in some military cases) calls it, and this is generally what reliable sources reflect. I'll take the issue of type certificate names up at WTAIR, as we seem to have this discussion far too often. It needs to be settled one way or another~~, and then I hope it's moved back to "P180"~~. - BilCat (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bill, I didn't realise you had requested it be moved. I just saw an admin-delete and a move, and assumed it was one of the usual suspects. Mea culpa. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was a little ticked, and if my tone came off harsh, I'm sorry. The move request doesn't show for us non0-admins, so you can't be blamed for not knowing it was me. I do try to check the talk pages, but I guess the moving admin didn't check it either. I've posted at WTAIR, so we can get a general consensus on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be moving this back without a consensus, and I'll abide by whatever the consesus is decided at WTAIR. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, but it wasn't necessary. I've been having a bit of a WikiRage-y day myself (primarily with the current round of stupidity at DYK, but that's another story!) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bill, the "they" remark was mine. I only saw that User:Ged UK had moved it with the edit summary "moved Piaggio P.180 Avanti to Piaggio P180 Avanti: Incorrect designation style per company website" - no indication that you had requested it or that they had seen this thread here. As for the issue of the type certificate name versus the marketing names, yes please do start a conversation on that globally, it would be good to have a consensus on it! - Ahunt (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, and my apology was meant for you too. My stress levels still a bit high, so I'm going to go offline for awhile. The thread is at WT:AIR#"Official" designations. - BilCat (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - hope you get a break there. I have added my comments on the discussion, thank you for starting that. - Ahunt (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noise signature and objective measurement of disturbance created

In flight, the P180 makes a distinctive sound with higher frequency components than conventional turboprops. This is due to the wing wake and engine exhaust flows impinging on the 5 bladed pusher propellers.^{[citation needed]} However, the the rear mounted propellers and engines make the cabin interior quieter than conventional turboprops. In flight, the Avanti has been measured at 82 dB on take off, making it one of the louder turboprops in service, but quieter than many common piston and jet aircraft. (Stage 3 noise limits are a minimum of 89 EPNdB for take off.)^[1] ^[2]

Waiting for Ahunt's comments. - Stodieck

I removed the first statement because it is unsourced and despite the tag dated this month statements like that have been in the article and unsourced for a long time. As per Wikipedia policy these can be removed at any time ("You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it"), which I have done so. You cannot just keep putting it back in without citing a source. For further on this matter, see Wikpedia founder Jimmy Wales' statement: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." On the other hand you keep removing quoted text cited to a reliable reference, specifically "Alan Parker, chairman of the Naples Municipal Airport Authority's technical committee, described the Avanti as "irritating loud" and compared the high pitched sound "to fingernails on a chalk board". This quote is relevant, reliable and correctly sourced. Your latest edit summary in removing this says "The article itself says that the opinion is "unscientific " therefore not technically founded. The FAA's measured data should take precedence." But if you check you will see that I never removed the FAA numbers. There is no reason that both the FAA data and other information cannot appear here. You also removed the statement "It has been the subject of noise complaints at airports such as Naples Municipal Airport, Florida, where the airport authority determined it was the nosiest aircraft using that facility" which is also relevant and correctly sourced. I don't know what your connection to this subject is, but your continued removal of sourced and relevant text and quotes and replacement with unsourced, and previously tagged and challenged text is contrary to Wikipedia policy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it looks like an admin, User:The Bushranger, has expressed his opinion on this discussion by reverting your changes. - Ahunt (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first comment was a clean up and update of the following: "The P.180 makes a distinctive square wave noise flying overhead, similar to the Beech Starship, due to wing wake and engine exhaust effects on the propeller." This statement was present and "unsourced" since November 2005, so your editing looks very biased. You haven't provided an alternative explanation or phrasing, sourced or otherwise.

Alan Parker's comments are his opinion and were quoted in the context of an article that pointed out that they were not the an opinion of an expert on the subject. The article also pointed out that expert technical data contradicted his comment. Alan was also quoted as saying that all he was seeking was to have Piaggio pilots reduce their prop RPM while in the neighborhood of the airport. Your quoting Alan out context of his own paragraph misrepresents even Alan's intent and completely ignores the intent of the referenced article. It is the most negative and biased representation of the information present, that could possibly be extracted. So again your editing looks very biased. I don't know what your connection to this subject is but your editing looks very biased. Why do you take it as your mission to assert your own opinion in the context of a Wikipedia article on the Piaggio P180?

I removed the section on the square wave explanation strictly because it is unsourced and appears to be original research. I have searched widely for a source for this explanation, but all internet sources that I have found that mention this merely point to this Wikipedia article as the source of that information. As the policy says unsourced text can be removed at any time, so I have done so. If you have a source for that statement, by all means add it in. My quote from AVweb, was just that, a quote. It is from a reliable ref and is relevant to the article. If you want to add more from that AVweb article on measures taken to try to reduce P.180 noise then that is fine, but your previous edits were to remove that source, not add from it. In answer to your question I have no connection this article or this aircraft type, other than my participation in WikiProject Aircraft. I spent most of my flying career as a helicopter pilot and never really saw an Avanti, except from a great distance. A long time ago I was asked to add this article to my watch list due excess vandalism seen on it and I have been watching it since, along with 7,878 other Wikipedia pages. So far we have a consensus to leave the article the way it presently is, but I have left a note at WikiProject Aircraft asking other editors to offer opinions, so let's see if anyone else wades in on it over the next few days. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The item that you just took out of this article is replicated and referenced by the AVWEB article that you have cited in the article itself, and "p180 makes a distinctive square wave noise" now generates 1090 hits on Google. "p.180 makes a distinctive square wave noise" now generates 68 hits on Google.

I suppose that we could pick one of these articles that doesn't identify the original source and use it as a reference for this article. This would satisfy your urge for outside citations. Try this one: http://www.rusvipavia.ru/en/113-piaggio-avanti-p180.html

However, I suggest that you need to understand that you have wandered into a tar pit that will only get deeper going forward.

"The P180 makes a distinctive square wave noise when passing overhead, similar to the Beech Starship, due to the wing wake and engine exhaust effects on the pusher propellers."

I eliminated the "Beech Starship" reference, since few people alive have any clue what one sounded like. I replaced the square wave statement, since 3-dimensional sound waves are not square, with a mathematically equivalent statement. "In flight, the P180 makes a distinctive sound with higher frequency components than conventional turboprops." (see Fourier analysis) While I can understand what the original author intended the original wording was imprecise. Yes, I do have a BSEE in Electronics.

Your comment "The P180 has been noted for its unusual noise footprint." is original research. The referenced news article makes no reference to "noise footprint". The article does point out that this airport is notorious for it's unusual history of noise complaints, and make numerous other points that you have failed to represent in the Wikipedia article.

The referenced article "Naples airport addressing noise complaints with Avanti aircraft" is unbiased and excellent. It is not linked correctly. Try, http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/apr/25/naples-airport-addressing-noise-complaints-avanti-/

I am composing a new spin. Stodieck (talk) 22:24 PST, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.18.93 (talk)

"I am composing a new spin". < beware WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will fix that one ref to the Naples article, which I originally inserted. The rusvipavia.ru article is cleary an unattributed copy of this Wikipedia article (compare the opening sentences of both which match word-for-word) and thus is just repeating the unsourced text about the "square wave effect" that was in here. This ref cannot be used as per WP:CIRCULAR. You will probably find if you check your Google hits that all of those are also tracable back to the unsourced claims in this article. Wikipedia is very influential on the internet, which is why it is important not to insert unattributed text. As you can see even reliable news outlets, like AVweb, quote unsourced statements on Wikipedia. The statement "The P180 has been noted for its unusual noise footprint" is merely to introduce the subject of the paragraph. If you don't like the wording that is fine I can choose something more closely aligned with the cited refs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Federal Aviation Administration (undated). "Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign Aircraft" (PDF). Retrieved 13 December 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Aircraft Noise Terminology - Palm Beach International Airport (undated). "FAA Stage Classifications". Retrieved 13 December 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Canards, wing size, and what the sources actually say

As I write the article currently says "The Avanti II's forward wing flaps automatically descend in concert with main wing flaps. This reduces the force the horizontal stabilizer has to produce to compensate for the pitch-down effect of the wing flap deflection. This allowed both the stabilizer and the main wing size to be reduced for efficiency [11][12].".

I have two comments:

The last sentence is ambiguous and shines a positive light on the Piaggio for something that is true of any canard aircraft. When we add a canard (or "forward wing") to a stable aircraft it has to generate lift, since it is the wing(+tail) that will stabilize the aircraft and that to this end they have to be aft of the CG. So any canard relieves the wing and tends to permit a reduction in main wing size.

The presence of the tail does reduce the required size of the wing. Because of its greater distance to the CG the tail has a greater stabilizing effect than the wing. Any increase in tail size and tail aft distance permits a decrease in wing size (this likely explains most of the difference in wing surface between Avanti and Starship).

The relation between the canard flaps and the reduction in rear surfaces is correct, but nowhere pointed out by the sources mentioned (11 & 12). In my view these make the point that the {canard + wing + tail} configuration results in smaller wing & tail surfaces than the {canard + wing} configuration.

That was the idea behind my edit regarding these sources. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

both the stabilizer and the main wing size to be reduced This comment is correct and it is not true that canards allow the main wing to be reduced in size. This is pointed out in note #11 (at the time you wrote this I think) "P180 Avanti-Specification and Description, page 55, Appendix", and in the patent. In spite of the patent this idea is not exclusive to Piaggio, Rutan built two 3LSC prototypes for Beechcraft at the same time this Lear-Piaggio design was being done.

Take off and landing are what determines the main wing a H stab sizing. The canards main wing is so far back that using flaps causes excess pitch down during landing. You have to oversize the canard winglets or use only small flaps if any at all. The Starship uses a large wing to provide a reasonable landing speed. The Starships flaps only reduce the landing speed by 10 knots (as I recall) and their inclusion in the design at all was really misjudgment. They created excess weight and expense with no real gain.

The Starship design tends to be associated with Rutan. But the design was started by Beech well before Rutan came in and the canard configuration was not Rutan's choice. Rutan's choice was the 3lsc Scaled Composites Triumph. --Stodieck (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll just repeat myself then:

The relation between the canard flaps and the reduction in rear surfaces is correct, but nowhere pointed out by the sources mentioned (11 & 12). In my view these make the point that the {canard + wing + tail} configuration results in smaller wing & tail surfaces than the {canard + wing} configuration.

I am not even discussing the validity of the sources or the physics at hand anymore. Please re-read carefully page 55 of the Appendix and you will see that it does not justify the ambiguous sentence I am referring to. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will just repeat your first comment: "When we add a canard (or "forward wing") to a stable aircraft it has to generate lift, since it is the wing(+tail) that will stabilize the aircraft and that to this end they have to be aft of the CG. So any canard relieves the wing and tends to permit a reduction in main wing size." - This statement is not correct and it was the target of my reply. Not the statement you have repeated. SORRY I am beating a dead horse here. Just ignore this whole thing. --Stodieck (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you make now, and how it contradicts my explanation above. I think the specifics of the CG position restriction and the low-speed constraints make it difficult to make a statement about the general trend: I agree with you that "it tends to permit a reduction in wing size" is not always true; but that does not mean that it always causes an increase in wing size.

Anyway, what I would really like us to work on is the sentence:

"This allowed both the stabilizer and the main wing size to be reduced for efficiency [11][12]."

Because it is not a point justified by the quoted sources. I suggest that we rephrase this sentence as

"Piaggio explains that the three-lifting-surface configuration allowed both the stabilizer and the main wing size to be reduced, reducing drag [11][12]."

I look forward to your comments. Thank you, Ariadacapo (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadacapo - There is a new link on the page that may address your concern about quoted sources. (Three's Company, Peter Garrison, Flying/December 2002) Ref should be the first one after the statement, "This allowed both the stabilizer and the main wing size to be reduced for efficiency."

Also there is a new page that addresses three surface types in general. Three surface aircraft --Stodieck (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This still does not address my concern (the statement may be true, but it’s not what the sources say), but I give up.

The Three lifting surface aircraft article rings all kinds of bells in my head. Only one (admittedly outstanding) production aircraft follows that configuration. If you are to avoid PoV-pushing I would recommend you do not base your statements on documents written by the manufacturer (owner’s manual, patent applications obviously are restricted to shining positive light) or on magazine articles (the "Three’s Company" article’s author mixes up stability and trim, and does not provide numbers or sources to support his claims). I suggest that books on aircraft design, flight mechanics (especially regarding stability and control) that present quantitative studies instead of presenting general trends would make for a much better starting point. Ariadacapo (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadacapo - don't give up, lend a hand, here is something that might be more to your taste. https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/3354/1/J%20Basto%20Nunes%20Thesis%201994.pdf

I have no interest in promoting Piaggio. The fact that, "only one (admittedly outstanding) production aircraft follows that configuration", is the problem that I would like to see get fixed. I was aware of numerous serious errors in the Garrison article. I refer to the Piaggio article on 3LSC because it is by far the most readable and direct description I can find of a particular topic. Having seen this description a student has some chance to see through the fog created by other attempts to describe the theory of 3LSC for higher level audiences (like the basto reference above). It is not overly promotional, it was written for pilots to understand. For a serious engineer, the reasoning should come through regardless of any association with a manufacturers literature. For people who are thinking by association only, there is no hope of understanding anything here.

It is now nearly forgotten that Burt Rutan made a pitched effort to introduce 2 3LSC designs at Beechcraft. This was apparently defeated by a corporate takeover. Instead of having 2 "outstanding" new aircraft, the Scaled Composites model 143 and Model 81 Catbird, Beechcraft ended up with an awful white elephant. The new owners made a pitched effort to permanently eradicate the physical evidence and memory of the Starship, and Rutan is now often painted with having selected the Starships configuration. That had been set years before he came on board.

The end result appears to be "billions" of lbs of jet fuel wasted daily. --Stodieck (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main photo change

current : pointing right, a bit from rear, grey sky
proposed: pointing left, frontside, blue sky

The current picture is really good at showing the P.180 configuration from above, the proposed is more classic and don't show it as well.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

other candidates
side, hills bg side, blue sky side, blue sky side, blue sky side, gray sky side/below frontside, almost clean, low res frontside

I think the current lead photo is a better choice as it shows the unique planform better. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting pictures

pointing right
climb side special livery Carabinieri clean side

on ramp
night close up front close up rear view props spinning production on snow up close, airshow

cockpit
cockpit on fisheye cockpit wide angle cockpît flight deck 1/3 on off, fisheye

interior
cabin facing aft cabin facing forward ambulance interior

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Piaggio P.180 Avanti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turbojets?

"The P.180 is reported to have good fuel efficiency relative to small turbojets flying in the same speed and altitude range"

Wow the modern turboprop has better efficiency than a turbojet of a similar size? Who would expect that? Why is it being compared to turbojets anyway? Almost any aircraft using turbojets still is a much older legacy type and not a direct competitor to the aircraft. This is like bragging that your new turbo four cylinder sedan gets better mileage than an equivalent naturally aspirated V8 sedan, even though no one has made those in decades. Does it get better mileage than other modern cars being offered on the market today, is the question.

I assume that whoever wrote this actually meant turbofans, jet powered business aircraft of similar size and speed. Either that or its deliberately misleading marketing material designed to disguise the fact that this aircraft actually isn't any better than modern competitors by comparing it to obsolete equipment. Which seems unlikely because people buying aircraft usually have better knowledge and look more carefully into the numbers, since it's a much more expensive investment and generally intended for business purposes, and they aren't going to be fooled by a simple trick like that. Idumea47b (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[FAANoise-1] Federal Aviation Administration (undated). "Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign Aircraft" (PDF). Retrieved 13 December 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[FAAStageClassifications-2] Aircraft Noise Terminology - Palm Beach International Airport (undated). "FAA Stage Classifications". Retrieved 13 December 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]