I refer to the link to the picture of the MU2 shown as N7560. This acft is actually N756Q - the Q can just be made out. This acft, an MU2B-20 or F model, is based at Interair and appears to be company owned. I understand that it, and JES - an MU2B-30 or G model, are currently under major overhaul and N756Q is not far off flying again, the engines being back from overhaul. JES should follow shortly afterwards. There is also another short body version based at Essendon, N728FN, an MU2B-25 or K model.
The specifications shown in the !!!!!!!!!!!!!! info section are a little out as far as the Marquise is concerned. I recall the best speed for the Marquise (MU2B-60) from the flight manual was about 284kts at around FL240. (I should check this when I get to work again). While the acft was certified to FL350, the speed dropped off markedly above the level I have mentioned.
Interair had another Marquise in the early 80's and this acft was the first of the 3 Marquise that have been lost in Australia. This was MLU, being lost at Bargo, about 50NM south of Sydney, the other 2 being BBA and MUA. These 3 almost certainly were victims of carriage of excess ice where it could not be seen and at least 2 of them were probably on autopilot when the acft became uncontrollable.
The autopilot in the Marquise had "Vertical Speed Hold" a feature that is desirable for descent but not for climbing. I attended the Forum held at Sydney a few years ago where Flight Safety showed videos of icing trials carried out as a result of a procedure similar to a "Special Certification Review" that the FAA does when specific acft have unforeseen problems. The videos showed an enormous amount of ice being purposely built up on a short body MU2. The result was predictable, but provided the speed was kept up, the acft behaved in a reasonably normal manner, as most acft will when carrying a load of ice. It should be noted that a number of GA acft now have flight manual speed requirements when carrying ice. The Flight Safety personell present at this seminar were involved with these trials and agreed that a lack of situational awareness of the flight conditions were more than likely a major cause of the acft picking up the ice and the acft then rapidly getting to an unmanagable condition. THe MU2 now has an ice detector fitted to the nose of the acft and this emits an aural warning signal when conditions are conducive to ice formation. Another simple way of monitoring the conditions at night was to leave the taxi lights on from start of taxi until shutting down at your destination.
These 3 Marquise accidents were largely the reason for the restrictions that CASA, or CAA as they were at the time, put on the type for additional pilot training and experience before solo operations on the type. There were no restrictions on passenger carrying involved in this.
I am sure that when the other 2 fatal accidents are looked at, - both to G model acft, the reasons will be seen to be common to many other accidents - not just MU2's.
The Tullamarine accident previously described, involved a pilot who had done more like 150 hours of ICUS and who had had an incident at Sydney on the previous leg. The radar tapes showed that his ground speed was still around max gear speed at about 7NM final, and with major excursions from both the localiser and the glide slope up to the point where he hit the terrain. It was not a nice night, with ML Tower asking pilots to report when they were on the ground as they could not be seen from the tower.
I understand that the Bathurst accident involved ducking under a very low layer of fog/stratus can be a very unhealthy way to finish a flight.
There was a G model lost at sea, infact there is a photo of it upside down in the water, in the NZ Avation Disasters book. I think it was bound for NZ and there is a date and position noted in the book that I could also check on if any one is interested. I think it was flown by a US ferry pilot.
The accident report for the Meekathara accident lists a Mooney as the other acft in close proximity.
For interest, the G model was nowher near as fast, 250kts TAS was about all that one could expect at 96% RPM and max torque for the conditions.
In the late 80's, Interair also operated JER, a G model, Marquise MVU and also MIU as noted elsewhere. JES was also owned but not serviceable at that time.
The PIG shown in the background of the photos of the early model MU2 at Essendon, mentioned by DF, would probably have been FSC as Forrester Stephen Aviation (FSA) had a number of them in the late 60's - some of which were operated by "Commuter Airlines" which from memory was a related company to FSA.
They were a challenge to fly, but as someone else said, they were rewarding also. One important item was to get the roll trim sorted out immediately you became airborne, to reduce the amount of spoiler required to keep the wings level. Then wait until you reached Vyse before starting flap retraction. Depending on the model, a minimum of flap 5 (J model??) is required for take off, but I think flap 20?? is the minimum setting for the G model. They are definitely curvature of the earth machines on take off if flap is not used. And yes, I enjoyed them too.
Re my MU2 post:
One other related item that I forgot is that the "follow the US system" will bring us the "Multi Engine Land" endorsement that BIK mentioned previously. As stated, the regulator will abdicate their responsibility and leave the insurance companies to perform the regulation of pilots via the hip pocket.
Look out for this in the Reg changes that are currently up for comment, as it won't be only the MU2 that is affected. The Beech 200 and C90, EMB110 and Metro 2 are all in the area (below 5700kg) that will be covered by this crazy proposal to follow the US system. At least one well known US instructor has expressed his desire that the US have mandatory type training such as we currently have.
The Kiwi's have dabbled with this sort of system, and are mostly back with separate type ratings for almost all types including singles.
I suggest that any one interested have a close look at these proposals (Part 61?) and make their thoughts known!!
Rgds
Blackburn