I wonder if a Guzzi America rep was onboard. (pic)

[Gliderjohn]

Flew by my house. A Piaggio P180 Avanti. Cool looking and distinctive sounding. Wife and I were working on some landscaping when I hear the sound. I sprinted to the house for the camera and then checked out what it was.

GliderJohn

[Vagrant]

flying version of the MP3? everything is backwards.

[oldbike54]

 One of those flew over us in Jay's backyard in Siloam Springs , probably 800 ft altitude . Yeah , unique look and sound 

 Dusty

[JoeW]

Guzzi reps probably need to fly coach or maybe stand by.

[Markcarovilli]

Guzzi reps probably need to fly coach or maybe stand by.

:1:

[bad Chad]

I think Piaggio motorcycles have nothing in common with Piaggio aircraft, they are two entire different companies.

[Guido Valvole]

During the years Concorso Italiano was held at Laguna Seca Golf Ranch, just west of the track /county park and directly under the landing pattern for Monterey airport, one flew over several times a day. Distinctive and loud. Contis on the exhausts? Or Termis? Very advanced aircraft.
cr

[K250]

Good picture! 

[HardAspie]

Those suckers are wonderful. The usual Rutan sort of canard aircraft solves a problem. Stability requires centre of gravity ahead of centre of pressure. That causes an intrinsic tendency to pitch down until in a vertical dive. So a smaller wing is located at the rear of the aircraft. This horizontal stabilizer provides a downforce aft to balance the nose down tendency. But this pitch stability and control comes at a cost. The HSTAB is a wing and it develops drag; parasitic and induced. And then the situation becomes worse when the mainplane must now lift not only the weight of the aircraft in any flight condition, but also the downforce of the HSTAB in that condition, thereby making more drag itself.

Yeah, but using the canard as pitch control is a problem. Imagine an all flying foreplane moving to a pitch up condition, that small wing pitches up relative to the aircraft. But now the aircraft pitches up in response and that increases not the angle of incidence of the foreplane relative to the aircraft, but relative to the airflow. This causes pitch divergence. That is dangerous.

The Piaggio P 180 solves both of these issues. The small foreplane unloads the HSTAB from down force during flight just as would a standard two surface canard design. But pitch control is at the rear of the airplane and so there is no pitch divergence.

Upshot is that the P 180 handles great. it is fast, my computer is malfking at the moment and I cannot look its cruise up, but it is fast. And it is fuel efficient. Lovely things. Italian design at its finest.

[kirby1923]

I believe the Wright brothers started that canard thing. (as a successful machine)
The aircraft has an un Italian look about it. Didn't sell well. Even the MU-2 another shape that only it's mother would love sold well for a while 'cause it was quick.

Fast is very relative and most pilots know it (aircraft) has to look good to be good.

:-)
 

[HardAspie]

Yup, Wright Flyer was canard...and not easy to control. The Mitsubishi MU 2 was fast, and I always thought them beautiful. But they have high wing loading, engines quite far off centre line, and spoiler only roll rate control...and the Garrett turbines are fixed shaft and a bit slow to respond. MU2 will  get ahead of you and stay there all the way to the ground.

[canuguzzi]

I guess the parachute drop with the Guzzi customer loyalty gift landed in the neighbors property?

[kirby1923]

Yup, Wright Flyer was canard...and not easy to control. The Mitsubishi MU 2 was fast, and I always thought them beautiful. But they have high wing loading, engines quite far off centre line, and spoiler only roll rate control...and the Garrett turbines are fixed shaft and a bit slow to respond. MU2 will  get ahead of you and stay there all the way to the ground.

I will have to disagree.

High wing loading is a pre requisite for high performance. The Mu 2 also did not have ailerons as you stated, and it had triple slotted flaps. It could be flown to almost 0 indicated airspeed in high AOA. The Garrets responded instantly to the condition lever because they were a constant speed engine, unlike the PT-6 free turbine. It could be stalled (completely departed) with one engine feathered and the other engine at full power under complete control and would fall straight ahead.
I have bout 1800 hours in the MU 2. (Mitsubishi test pilot)

The Beech King air is still around although not near as fast (or good) because it looks like a classic aircraft.
Another words it looks good.

Hey I am sorry to go off, this is a moto forum with a few pilots so just...ah

:-)

[HardAspie]

I will have to disagree.

High wing loading is a pre requisite for high performance. The Mu 2 also did not have ailerons as you stated, and it had triple slotted flaps. It could be flown to almost 0 indicated airspeed in high AOA. The Garrets responded instantly to the condition lever because they were a constant speed engine, unlike the PT-6 free turbine. It could be stalled (completely departed) with one engine feathered and the other engine at full power under complete control and would fall straight ahead.
I have bout 1800 hours in the MU 2. (Mitsubishi test pilot)

The Beech King air is still around although not near as fast (or good) because it looks like a classic aircraft.
Another words it looks good.

Hey I am sorry to go off, this is a moto forum with a few pilots so just...ah

:-)

You are an MU 2 pilot! Wonderful! Yes...everything you say is correct. It is just not as forgiving a plane as the Beech. Its high wing loading made it fast and also smooth flying. I always loved the things. They are tough as anvils too and quite a few still fly.

[MGPilot]

...this is a moto forum with a few pilots so just...ah

Apparently some seriously experienced pilots along with us bug smashers....

[kirby1923]

You are an MU 2 pilot! Wonderful! Yes...everything you say is correct. It is just not as forgiving a plane as the Beech. Its high wing loading made it fast and also smooth flying. I always loved the things. They are tough as anvils too and quite a few still fly.

Yes,

High wing loading doesn't suffer incompetence.

:-)

[kirby1923]

Apparently some seriously experienced pilots along with us bug smashers....

I have the highest respect for "bug smashers".
:-)

[HardAspie]

Yes,

High wing loading doesn't suffer incompetence.

:-)

:-)

That is what i understand about them. Train and retrain, fly it by the book like an airliner not a Cherokee and it will reward you highly.

[Stormtruck2]

Hell, if Hoover can fly it (I know it was actually a Shrike) anyone can.  (Running and ducking) lol

[HardAspie]

Hell, if Hoover can fly it (I know it was actually a Shrike) anyone can.  (Running and ducking) lol

Shrike Commander!
Not too many Commander twins flying. Big costly AD on spar carry through.
Duck, Goose! Whatever.

An Aero Commander twin was lumbering about above my town a couple of days ago. Back and forth. Aerial photography?

[HardAspie]

I thought the Beech Starship was also beautiful.  I had the good fortune to work on the development program to wind the fuselage as one large piece.

Whoa! That is a wonderful thing to have been part of. Yes it was a beauty. I understand the FAA did not trust FRP main construction and bogged it down with many unneeded pounds and so hurt performance.

[oldbike54]

 Of course the real joke here is the idea that Guzzi has an American Rep 

 Dusty

[Stormtruck2]

My aerobatics instructed had a Commander and an MU-2.   Said his favorite was which ever one he was flying at the time. Killed a few years ago on a 135 flight.  Midair in the pattern. His Baron entering the pattern, an A-36 climbing left turn hit him at the left wing root. 1,800 agl I think. 8 killed.

[HardAspie]

My aerobatics instructed had a Commander and an MU-2.   Said his favorite was which ever one he was flying at the time. Killed a few years ago on a 135 flight.  Midair in the pattern. His Baron entering the pattern, an A-36 climbing left turn hit him at the left wing root. 1,800 agl I think. 8 killed.

Oh my.

I have always equated motorcycling and aviation. Each is perfectly safe until the crash.

[Stormtruck2]

Me also. I got back into bikes because of the cost of aviation. A PA28-160 is $140hr wet, a PA-32-260 over $200 hr wet. My bikes are $5 hour wet. Still get my yanking and banking in, and the sense of speed.  Aerobatics on a bike though are less fun, and more painful.

[oldbike54]

 


                                          Whomping on the ground always hurts .

 Dusty

[Stormtruck2]

                                          Whomping on the ground always hurts .

 Dusty

So I've heard. 

[HardAspie]

                                          Whomping on the ground always hurts .

 Dusty

The best and most succinct post of the day! 

[HardAspie]

Me also. I got back into bikes because of the cost of aviation. A PA28-160 is $140hr wet, a PA-32-260 over $200 hr wet. My bikes are $5 hour wet. Still get my yanking and banking in, and the sense of speed.  Aerobatics on a bike though are less fun, and more painful.

Understood. Airplanes, I was learning how to design the bloody things. But both design and operation of aircraft went away: finances out climbed my earning ability. Motorcycles! And I can ride it to the store.

[Chuck in Indiana]

Understood. Airplanes, I was learning how to design the bloody things. But both design and operation of aircraft went away: finances out climbed my earning ability. Motorcycles! And I can ride it to the store.

[/b]

This. *Nobody* flys cheaper more frugally than me.  I build and maintain my own airplanes. That said, I can play with my motorcycle all day for the price of an hour in my most frugal (Guzzi content) airplane.
This is Mouser. 130 mph @ 4 gallons per hour. Serious fun, but still expensive.