Flying the MU2 - facts please.

[Centaurus]

Friend of mine has bought an MU2. He has been given advice that you should not retract the gear after take off until at least 200agl as the gear doors cause significant drag and if an engine should fail just as the gear comes up controllability and climb rate is a problem until the gear doors are closed. Sounds like a myth to me.

Another instructor said that if an engine failure occurs below 150 knots during the take off climb it is better to deliberately crash land ahead rather than risk loss of control below 150 knots on initial climb-out. Surely this must be another myth as the aircraft would not be certified under these speed conditions.

Any Pprune advice on a recommended website dealing with MU2 flight ops would be appreciated. There certainly seems to be no shortage of personal opinions on the operation of this type and it would be nice to read facts.

[742]

It has been my experience that aircraft that are "different" from the general herd are victims of a large number of myths (as you aptly put it), some of which are strange and some of which are dangerous.

Your friend's insurance company should have a list of training facilities and/or instructors that they are comfortable with. I would go that route and ignore all of the bar and Internet talk.

[con-pilot]

Friend of mine has bought an MU2. He has been given advice that you should not retract the gear after take off until at least 200agl as the gear doors cause significant drag and if an engine should fail just as the gear comes up controllability and climb rate is a problem until the gear doors are closed. Sounds like a myth to me.
Another instructor said that if an engine failure occurs below 150 knots during the take off climb it is better to deliberately crash land ahead rather than risk loss of control below 150 knots on initial climb-out. Surely this must be another myth as the aircraft would not be certified under these speed conditions.
Any Pprune advice on a recommended website dealing with MU2 flight ops would be appreciated. There certainly seems to be no shortage of personal opinions on the operation of this type and it would be nice to read facts.

One piece of advice, advice that will save your friend's life and the lives of his passengers.

GET GOOD PROPER TRAINING! Find the best MU-2 school in the world and go to it and keep going to it for as long as he owns the the airplane.

The MU-2 is a killer of inexperienced pilots, actually it does a pretty good job of killing experienced pilots as well.

I have nearly 800 hours in MU-2s and count myself lucky. However, I did attend Flight Safety for initial and recurrency training.

Now, about gear retraction, yes the gear doors opening will add drag, however, using the wheel (remember the MU-2 has spoilers only for roll) to keep the wings level will add much more drag. Use rudder and aileron trim to keep the wings level.

It has been a long time, but I do believe that single engine climb speed is around 150kts. Now the MU-2 will come off the runway at around 110 kts. So if one loses an engine just after takeoff you will need to accelerate at least 40kts to 150 before you can start a climb. If you do not have the space to accelerate or you are coming off a hot/high airport,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well, good luck.

My best advice is to get rid of the blasted thing.

[captjns]

It has been a long time, but I do believe that single engine climb speed is around 150kts. Now the MU-2 will come off the runway at around 110 kts. So if one loses an engine just after takeoff you will need to accelerate at least 40kts to 150 before you can start a climb. If you do not have the space to accelerate or you are coming off a hot/high airport,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well, good luck.

My best advice is to get rid of the blasted thing.

My recollection of the rice rocket was... after lift off get the speed up to 140 - 150 kts for single engine purposes. The gear comes up pretty quickly as I recall. But an initial shallow climb just after lift off to get the speed was most essential. The long coupled versions took just a bit more time to get to that magic single engine climb speed, but the extra length of the long fuselage gave better single engine stability. It's been almost 20 years since I've flown the saki super star.

[Belgique]

Suggest you examine this link (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=MU2+SFAR&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) and take a good look at the FAA's MU2 SFAR NPRM that's about to become law in the States in early 2007.

The NPRM comments on the MU2's SFAR are illuminating.

[OverRun]

Thanks Belique for the FAA link.
FAA Proposes SFAR for MU-2
The FAA is proposing a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applicable to the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane that would create new pilot training, experience and operating requirements. Following an increased accident and incident rate in the MU-2B series airplane, the FAA conducted a safety evaluation and found that changes in the training and operating requirements for that airplane are needed. These proposed regulations would mandate additional operating requirements and improve pilot training for the MU-2B series airplane. The proposed rule would also apply to persons who provide pilot training for the MU-2B.

I knew the Western Australian BASI investigator, Don, who paid for increasing the understanding about this plane with his life. RIP.

[skiingman]

The FAA proposed rule mentions that:

The FAA type certificated the MU–2B
airplane in November 1965; the type
certification basis was Civil Aviation
Regulation (CAR) 10, which required
compliance with a combination of CAR
3 standards and special conditions. CAR
3 standards did not require a cockpit
checklist for the MU–2B, nor was the
airplane required to demonstrate the
ability to complete the takeoff climb
with one engine inoperable.

But it doesn't make any comments about whether or not the MU-2 does meet the required OEI climb gradients in the modern FARs. It seems likely that it does, but does anyone know for sure? It would seem pretty crazy to fly a type that can't climb with an engine failure. Thats like flying a single engine airplane with twice the risk.

[Centaurus]

Thanks for the info so far. I have forwarded it to the MU2 owner. In other pertinent info on MU2 handling characteristics would be greatly appreciated.

[gearpins]

donno about the MU2 my friend, but it is standard procedure on the airbus during wind shear not to change config including gear because gear doors have to open the bay then stow the wheels and close again. this whole process creates quite a bit of drag at a very critical segment of flight:)

[extreme P]

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=15511&highlight=mu2

Rather long but a good read.

[con-pilot]

While this information is a little late seeing your friend has already purchased an MU-2, hopefully this will enforce my recommend of getting the best training available.

I have researched the NTSB data base for 2005 and 2006 for fatal accidents involving turbo-prop aircraft the same class as the MU-2.

So far this year, 2006, there have been seven (7) fatal accidents in the United States involving cabin-class turbo-prop aircraft.

One King Air 200, loss of control on landing.

One Swearinger SA 226, loss of control while IMC.

Two (2) Turbo Commanders.

A Turbo Commander disappeared from radar after departing Anchorage, Alaska. The aircraft disappeared from radar thirteen (13) miles west of Anchorage. No wreckage or bodies have been found. The aircraft is assumed crashed and all persons on board dead.

A Turbo Commander suffered and in-flight breakup while at cruise altitude of FL 28.0. This aircraft was being operated under an “Experimental Category” certificate. The aircraft was fitted with experimental five (5) bladed propellers and had slipper fuel tanks mounted to the underside of the wings. There were level three (3) thunderstorms in the area.

Three (3) MU-2s.

A MU-2 crashed after losing an engine after takeoff. Aircraft rolled inverted and crashed on the airport.

A MU-2 suffered an in-flight breakup on decent while in IMC. There was no convective weather activity in the area.

A MU-2 suffered an in-flight breakup while at cruise altitude. There were level five (5) and six (6) thunderstorms in the area.

In 2005 there were three (3) fatal accidents in the United States and Canada involving cabin-class turbo-prop aircraft. All three (3) were MU-2s.

A MU-2 suffered CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) short of the runway while on an ILS approach. Reported weather was light winds, visibility 2.5 miles with rain and mist, tower visibility was 4 miles, ceiling was variable between 600 to 1,200 feet with broken clouds.

A MU-2 suffered CFIT on a clear VMC night. The pilot was sixty two (62) miles from his departure airport when he requested to return to the departure airport. When asked by ATC he reported that he had no aircraft problems, however, he needed to return to “have something checked out”. After the aircraft was cleared for the visual approach the aircraft over flew the runway at a low altitude and low airspeed. After flying past the airport the aircraft impacted a 62,000 pound earthmover sitting in a flat level field.

A MU-2 crashed shortly after takeoff due to loss of control. Aircraft rolled inverted and impacted the ground just off the airport property.

In the last two years there have been ten (10) fatal accidents involving cabin-class turbo-prop aircraft in the United States and Canada, six (6) were MU-2s.

Rather sobering. Train, train and train some more and do not ever get behind the airplane.

[Centaurus]

Gearpins. but it is standard procedure on the airbus during wind shear not to change config including gear because gear doors have to open the bay then stow the wheels and close again

Is that so? I think you will find that excess gear door drag is not the reason at all but more like the danger of the aircraft hitting the ground during a very low go-around so the gear is left down until you are no longer in windshear danger and the flaps are left down because retraction will cause loss of lift and the stalling speed goes up. Once the aircraft is out of critical windshear danger normal climb out procedures apply while the aircraft accelerates.

[extreme P]

Your Cathay interview will confirm that the gear doors do indeed add extra drag... ;)

[Centaurus]

Cathay interview will confirm that the gear doors do indeed add extra drag

Surely this is aircraft type dependant? Retraction of the landing gear on the 737 series makes no discernable difference in drag. Certainly while reference to the B737 series FCOM, and QRH advises the landing gear and flap positions should not be changed until clear of windshear, there is no explanation that could be construed that landing gear retraction drag is a significant factor in the recommended procedure.

The Cathay interview process may indeed include that gear door position may add extra drag but I believe that the main danger in a low level windshear escape manoeuvre is that the wheels may hit the runway in the go-around because of low airspeed - hence the Boeing advice of don't pull the wheels up until clear of windshear.

[extreme P]

Obviously a type with no "belly" gear doors will not add much drag. Either way, don't raise the gear.

[Centaurus]

Extreme P. Thanks again for the MU2 info you sent. Excellent material and passed on.

[Mac the Knife]

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/mu2_0206.xml

For what it's worth - I'm only a sawbones :(

[Centaurus]

Mac. Thanks for that - an aeroplane with an interesting background.

[Ag2A320]

IMHO,
After 13 yrs of Ownership and 1200 Hrs PIC on the Mits, the aircraft has the potential to hurt you but which aircraft doesnt, I was taught to fly it like a jet by the numbers and not by feel, which was a hard transition after flying Ag for years, A mitsi does everything as advertised unlike some other twin turboprops and is a steady 300KT performer, that will get in and out of 2500ft at gross climb to FL 250 and fly 1000nm. I would pick the MU-2 over any legacy turbine twin - Kingair 90,100,200, Gulfstream AC 1000, Conquest I,II or Piper Cheyenne all adaptations of existing slower piston designs. I've flown most , loved the Kingair 200, and Cheyenne 400LS, but for value for the money one can't beat an MU-2 (short or long body).

The B/CA article highlights the rumours but uses alot of fact to debunk the B/S and armchair flying by pilots that have never set foot in a Mits. Some pilots have flown it and hated, everybody is entitled to their opinions, but i tell those that i have encountered that they have probably flown one that wasnt properly rigged. plus it takes up to 100hrs PIC to start to feel comfortable with the aircraft, well it took me that long ; A PROPERLY RIGGED MU-2 IS A DREAM TO FLY! ; in fact will fly an ILS single engine fully config'd handsoff - no autopilot set the trims and leave it alone all one needs to do is adjust the FF to stay on the glide; POORLY rigged and incorrectly trimmed ,it is a handfull and and has the potential to be downright vicious; the flaps and flight idle fuel flow MUST be set correctly; a 1 degree spilt in the flaps at 20 will cause all a pretty nasty roll during retraction from flaps 5 to 0 and WILL kill you if something goes wrong. As an A&P/IA, I always tripple check any work on the flaps & engines: some mechanics and pilots, dont want to take the time to correctly rig them as it can take up to 10hrs to set the flaps and flight idle properly. I have been scared sh--less in mitsis, mostly ferrying aircraft bought from other freight operators, ramp queens and the odd sales demo with a pilot new to the MU-2 whose standard multi technique resurfaced even after a indepth brief of the differences between the MU-2 and rest of GA Light twins.

I was lucky enough train with an operator that understood the need to have a proper training syallabus and brought Mr. Reece Howell of Howell Enterprises, Smyrna TN :-www.mu2b.com (http://www.mu2b.com) to supervise the ground school and provided a fair and frank picture of the aircraft. we were required to review all the accidents back to 1967, read the FAA Special Certificate Reviews on the MU-2's and watch the icing video and the clear picture is that the largest factor is the Pilot, which is true for many other aircraft. The Mits served me well honing my IFR skills , i went from the left seat of a mits to right seat of a 727 and subsequently transitioned to other large jets and have found the need for pitch awareness,proper use of trim (all axis)and the inclusion of the IVSI in visual approaches very simliar between most Jets and the Mu-2;( the A-320 family being the exception as the FPV & Autotrim makes it so easy its almost a no brainer) I still maintain currency in my short body and believe that to safely fly a mits,one must fly a min of 50hrs a year. I have flown most of the much maligned GA aircraft:- V-Tail Bonanzas, Aerostars 700s ,Mitsi's, and Lears 24,25 and loved them all and hold them in high regard. inspite of the names- Doctor Killer, Tokyo Whore, Twin Honda, FearJet and Lawn Dart.

I recently went to Simcom(prefered FlightSafety & Reece) and found it not out of line with my "airline routine" of sim, however the instructor started to annoy me by day two, as being an A&P, I was more verse with the systems than he was, and while i feel there is a need for proper formalized training, it however must also be tailored to the Candidates experience; never had this problem with Reece Howell, i guess it was a clash of personalities; i objected to an Engine out with a NTS failure on liftoff as it is an unrecoverable senario and a waste of precious sim time.

As for the need of headsets ALL GARRETTS idle at 76%, however the Garrett is a quieter engine than a PT-6 at operating speeds of 96-100% and during flyover, the PT-6 seems a marked difference to linemen and other pilots cause its turning at 56% at idle.

The Gear retraction takes 17 seconds and will in an engine out scenario cost about 200 FPM as it retracts.

Mitsubishi originally published Airline Style Performance charts with Engineout charts at flaps 5 and 20 as well as TORA/TODA charts, however the FAA made them remove it as it 1) didnt conform to the GAMA standard and 2) was not "approved data "only demonstrated data. Under certain conditions the aircraft will NOT climb on one engine but this it true for all Aircraft in the Category (KINGAIR,MERLIN & TURBOCOMMANDER) - types certified also under CAR 3

I Fly the Mits same as the A-320, with the autopilot engaged most of the time so it allows me the time to manage the aircraft. I hand fly for proficiency when weather and other factors permit. In 1200 hrs on the Mits, have had a FCU failure in cruise( DAY IMC), oil line failure(hairline crack) on prop governor which led to an engine overspeed (Night IMC, overwater) and a bunch of other eye openers yet i'm not ready to sell the blasted thing and actually still enjoy flying it.

[Ignition Override]

Con-Pilot:
Very interesting info.

Aside from the MU-2, you reminded us of a (SW) Metro fatal accident. That might be the one described recently in Flying Magazine (?), whereby the solo pilot suffered a major, if not total electrical failure after takeoff. The switches to reset the generators etc could not be reached easily from the left seat, if at all. How was the plane certified for single-pilot operation? Could such a certificate be a nice, legitimate target for a lawsuit?

The company decide to then hire pilots for the right seat. Corporate leadership at its finest-only after the dead body (bodies) is recovered and buried.

[con-pilot]

Ag2A320, I'm not going to argue with you. As you stated "Some pilots have flown it and hated, everybody is entitled to their options". (I assume you mean opinion.)

Okay, I flew the MU-2 G, J, L and M series of MU-2s, all long bodies, for almost 800 hours. I am firmly in the 'hate it' category.

Now I'll admit the only other turbo-prop I have flown was King Air 200s, I have about the same amount of time in both. I read and understood your remarks concerning trimming and rigging of the MU-2, however, of all the problems I had with the MU-2 had nothing to do with rigging.

Now, a very short list of many of the problems I had with the MU-2.

Aft cabin electrical fire behind the baggage compartment bulkhead during cruise. Cause, improper wring at factory.

Cabin door frozen after landing, we were unable to exit the aircraft for over 45 minutes until the aircraft was put into a heated hanger and maintenance personnel worked with potable heaters. (You probably don't have that kind of problem in Florida :p )

Landing gear would not extend due to frozen micro-switches on gear doors. Was forced to extend the gear manually via the crank. (This happen more than once and it takes a lot of cranking to get the gear down.)

Tip tank fuel cap failure on rotation. The outer half was found on the runway and the bottom of the cap was at the bottom of the tip tank. Let me tell you something, that tank emptied fast, however, giving credit where credit is due, the airplane remained controllable for the 5 or 6 minutes it took me turn around a land in the opposite direction. Then again, it was only because I was in an MU-2 was I placed in that predicament.

Then there was what I call the case of the "auto throttle" malfunction. I'll bet you didn't know that at least one MU-2 had an auto throttle did you.? Now it was just one throttle that was 'somewhat' auto, the left one. To make a long story short I'll just tell the basic events.

The airplane involved was a brand spanking new MU-2 M (or N, whichever the long one was of that series). Total time on the airframe about a 100 hours. After takeoff one morning as I was cleaning up the flaps the airplane started yawing to the left. I looked down and the left throttle was dang near back to idle. Okay, I shove the throttle back up and tighten the friction knob. No problems, right? Next takeoff same problem with the friction knob so tight I can hardly move the engine control levers. After restoring power I climb out and start trouble shooting the problem. I discover that when I apply up trim with the wheel switch that the left throttle moved back. Nose down did not move the throttle foward. Problem was caused by the autopilot wiring bundle caught by the trim wheel and was wrapped around the left throttle cable. Problem only occurred when the autopilot head was in the up and locked position. I had a very interesting talk to factory about this little problem.

An engine failure in an L while at cruise, NTS worked, no problem, however, that was an engine problem not an airframe issue.

Now for all the problems I had in King Air 200s in the same amount of time.

Zero.

By the way, I agree with you 100% on the 'engine/NTS loss' on takeoff in the sim. A total waste of time. If that happens you are dead. I understand that one will have the same result in a Turbo Commander as well.

Be safe.

[Ag2A320]

Con,
Opinions is right!, I have no objections, flew all the same models, worked for R. George Mall / International Business Aircraft in Tulsa,OK to gain experience on the mits before i bought mine as i had low- multi turbine time, my ag time didnt hold water with the insurance company, flew with his 135 freight company for a year in all sorts of wonderful midwest weather.

I have had the same issues with the gear micro switch but was taught to treat them with WD-40 before known encounters with icing/ preflight. yes its approx 183 strokes to extend the gear.

Lost a fuel cap too - In OKC at dusk, the line man locked the cap, before he replaced it and rested it back into position on the tank, my co-pilot did the walk around,didnt give it a second glance as it appeared flush in the dim light; it was just resting in place with the tab flush, took off lost the cap, Tower called said we're streaming fuel from the right tip, checked the dump valves they were closed - emptied 90 gals in about 30 sec. It takes a fair amount of spoiler to hold it straight with one tank empty and the other full, got turned around and vectored for the downwind, all trimmed up then remembered i could dump the other tank too! kicked 25 gals out of the left to get down to 65gal landing limit and landed cussin' for not checkin them myself!, the Feds were most gracious didnt fine us, had some words with the lineman and FBO supervisor.

Burnt the Series /Parallel relay on ground during a post MTC run, shudder to think what could happen in flight. Traced it back to a foreman robbing parts off my P model in the hanger, and not properly re-installing which after melting the relay started a nice fire in the baggage compartment. The Shop paid to replace all the wiring and all new relays in the back.

Heard about your incident from G.Cruz who was MAI's Avionics chief from 71 -85, Himself and George were a wealth of info on the Mits.

your comments are most welcome, after 800hrs you definately know how you feel about the Mits, I have had some of the same issues, but these were minor when compared to what i transitioned from - Agplanes which tried to kill me on more occasions that i can recall, i can remember all the times i stupidly tried to kill myself! :}

maybe we flew the same dogs? N54US -J model is one that was around forever - god awful choclate brown paint scheme, new owners changed the registration; had a list of 30-40 MU-2 s/n i flew ; some of the top of my head

679BK
349MA
113SD
707AF
390K
217SB- Bendix FCU Failure
303FN
770MA
3UN
61BA
710G - Lgd door motor failed man extension
725MA
755MA
121BA
738MA
361JA
500PS
211BE
375CA - ACM turbine failure in cruise, cooked cabin
703DM
298MA
291MB
4065D
64MD
261KW
1790M
175CA

[con-pilot]

N54US -J model is one that was around forever - god awful choclate brown paint scheme, new owners changed the registration

I'll be darned, that very well could have been the J model I flew, didn't have that "N" number, but it sure had a god ugly chocolate brown paint job and it was around Oklahoma a long time.

The cabin fire I had was caused by the cigar lighters resistors mounted on the aft side of the baggage compartment bulkhead. The first sign I had that we had a problem is when one of the passengers came up and said that the cigar lighter was real hot. As I was looking for a CB to pull to kill the power the four passengers that were sitting in the cabin were trying to get into cockpit screaming "FIRE!". Being a clever little devil that I am (well not so little, I'm 6'5".) I had a crash ax in the cockpit, mainly because of other things that had happened to me other aircraft. Very, very fortunately the passenger riding in the co-pilot's seat was an ex-Air Force pilot. I gave him the airplane and was able to go back and take care of the fire.

The baggage compartment and headliner was not in very good condition by the time I got through I'll have to admit. But that was okay, the chief pilot chewed my arse out and said I should have had the passengers put the fire out. I had suspected that he was an idiot, now I had no doubt. :p

Heard about your incident from G.Cruz who was MAI's Avionics chief from 71 -85

I wished I had a camera in the cockpit to take a picture of my face when I looked down and saw that throttle moving all by it's self! :ooh: It was mind boggling!

Now I did fly the last series of the short model with the big engines, just on a demo flight. It had a name, not a letter, I can't remember the name now (comes with getting old). I will admit that airplane was very impressive.

[Ag2A320]

Con,

Its A Solitaire, yeah truly impressive 321kts max cruise, thinking of trading up into one, but with cuts pending at the dayjob and my other aviation ventures on the downturn, i'm not willing to put myself in the hole for an extra 15kts and quicker rate of climb.

I've been out of 135 game a long time, sold the business; lucked out got an airline slot and kept the airplane and have been managing to keep it because of my -135 Mu-2 contacts and my A&P/IA rating ; most years it cost me the same in expenses as the Turbo 310R we traded in for it, but if i get furloughed again it may very well have to go, it will be a very sad day for me but it will have been a fun ride while it lasted.

N54 Ugly Slut - memory serves me Chocolate brown with Orange & Tan accents - once joked with George Mall, when he said it was time to repaint it - Where are you going to get the same shade of Sh-t brown? at which point,he kicked me out of his office, it got repainted in what became the fleet colours : White with two blue cheat lines on the fuselage, tip tanks and vertical fin.

Intercontinental Jet of Tulsa bought the fleet of 35 Mu-2's after George's passing (Cancer); he had owned or brokered over 350 Mu-2s, some airframes like 54US, he bought 8 or 9 times over 30 years! Flew it after the repaint into area of level 4's on the TUL - DFW mail run, came out looking worse than Brown scheme, patches of paint missing everywhere.

[Crashking]

LINE SERVICE (to pay for Law school, already had my Private) - LRD 1976.

I was the Last Man to see a transient pilot depart in his nice MU-2 for the Factory Svc. center at San Angelo... see Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc. (http://mu-2aircraft.com/content.asp?id=85&sid=21)

@ the Fed-Man interview I stated the truth: He was clearly somewhat tired (age: 30's, maybe early 40s) after a long day, but IMHO fit to fly, no booze or obvious intox., familiar with his MeXican-registered plane 1 million %, and one of THE FEW Careful Ones that actually checked my replacement of his fuel caps. In the dark. I always liked to see that - I'd never made a mistake so far, but I surely will someday. Only ppl. that do real preflights are students and Pros. He struck me as a Real Pro - and I even made fresh coffee for him.

He filed IFR. After the pleasure of watching him preflight, I took my ladder back and, it being late, went into the ofc. where I heard him talking to ARTCC. They cleared him along right smart to 3000, then up to 5 or 7- I forget. He acknowledged crisply. But then he was seen to cleanly bust his assigned alt and just keep on climbing, as if in ATTITUDE HOLD mode. Many many ATC and other-AC relayed-calls, no answers. Ever.

They watched him go up to the AC's svc. ceiling, flail along steadily up there for quite a while... and then ... when the kerosene was gone... dive vertically into Kansas. Quite a ride, toured a few extra States but never enjoyed them, like Payne Stewart did in his Lear. So we pretty much knew the HOW = heart attack, anoxia, some pilot disability... but never the WHY.

I love everything that flies, but that aircraft is a killer unless you have ALL the MOST 2008-2009 recent FAA Re-Cert, Re-Training Reqmt's nailed and re-nailed.

I can accept that- some ACs just aren't for part-timers. Like Ted Smith's Aerostars, etc. We had an orthodontist once that took ALL his ratings from my instructor one after the other in just a few Mo. - Private, Multi, Instrument... and we BEGGED him not to buy that fine Aerostar on our ramp "For Sale". BEGGED HIM! But what do WE know? He's a DOKTAH :mad: and we're just.. pilots. So WITHIN THREE WEEKS he wound up strewing it, himself, and his wife all over the approach path to One-Three in Corpus. Lucky! THEY LIVED! In Full-body casts for 8+ mo. after leaving the Hosp. (chuckle) but...they were alive.

I think the MU-2 is a Flying Prostitute unless you are a HEAVY-RATED PRO. Wing Area = to a C-172's at THAT power loading and gross? NO ailerons... but Spoilers? Funky flaps that operate like NO other? Gimme a break ....

Rotate at 110, but if you lose one, no Vmc until 150? Sure, I'm gonna hold that designed-wimpy (un-needed!) rudder all the way over and take a 5-degree bank into my operative engine, until I realize that I am SPOILING THE LIFT on my Last Good Side. And leaving my tire rubber on the far fence. Right-O! And do NOT forget all that fuel-weight waaay out on the wingtips that has its OWN ideas about Rolling Angular Momentum. :ooh:

Yes, LOTS of simulator-time and MUCHO extra PRO-LEVEL training CAN solve this. But it's not and WILL NEVER BE a Non-Professional's airplane. As they so murderously marketed it. :=

I'm still troubled by one accident report: MU-2 shortie pinkie-diamond whatever was observed by other traffic to be "falling vertically in the level flight attitude" while
gently nodding its nose about 30 deg. up & down...up and down...all the way in.

I saw ONE MU-2 that I would have flown in. It had TWO nice guys up front with crisp starched white shirts and epaulets: 1 had 3 Stripes and the left-seater had 4. :cool:

PS: Oh yeah, I'm THIS guy: YouTube - AMNESIA CRASHING (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihih_XqeJv0)

[aseanaero]

I was taught to fly it like a jet by the numbers and not by feel

This comment was also made by a friend of mine that had a lot of time on MU-2 night freight ops.

He noted that a lot of the incidents were from pilots who were coming off piston twins and they were trying to fly the MU-2 like a 402.

Also when the tip tanks are half full minor pitch changes are amplified as all that fuel races from either end of the tip tanks , I did about 100 hrs in the right hand seat and it took me ages to work out what was going on. I was hand flying and got the aircraft all trimmed up and then it would pitch up, stabilise , trim and it would pitch down. It turned out the captain was just easing a bit of rudder on to initiate a minor pitch change and the fuel in the tip tanks would take over from there. When I worked out what he was doing I looked over and said "you bastard !" and he belly laughed for about 5 mins with tears coming out of his eyes. He said the look on my face when this was happening each time just cracked him up.

[Tinstaafl]

Centaurus, I know you're in Oz so I'll presume your friend is. Graham Murphy has thousands of hours in MU2s. Don't know where he is now but if he can be found he has a lot of useful knowledge. I did the the MU2 endorsement theory with him. Didn't have the $$$ or justification for the flying part (the bottle of good red he charged me for the ground work was within my budget though...)

It was years ago and it's all a bit vague now but there were traps with the aircraft. Forgotten most of what he taught me but it included things like applying full roll trim very soon after an engine failure. More or less straight after controlling the yaw with rudder. Fueling to full required a bit of to-ing & fro-ing between sides with the fuel hose to ensure each tank was filled. There was also something about the P1/P2 tubes or whatever those sensor tubes just inside the inlet are called

Don't forget Oz has (or had?) a special training requirement for the MU2 for flight into icing too.

[fdcg27]

Crashking, the problem being that you can buy all of this performance so gosh-darn cheap.
I don't have the change to own and operate one of these things, since as we all know, the ticket to get in is only the start of the account-draining ride.
Still, if I felt I could afford to own a mini airliner, the PA-42-720 is a good cheap turboprop and for those who want to go fast, the PA-42-1000 is a good cheap turboprop that goes fast.
The MU-2 always seemed like an aiplane one would want to own and fly. With age comes wisdom and an appreciation of one's limitations.

[bluefishbeagle]

Con-Pilot said:

One piece of advice, advice that will save your friend's life and the lives of his passengers.

GET GOOD PROPER TRAINING! Find the best MU-2 school in the world and go to it and keep going to it for as long as he owns the the airplane.

The MU-2 is a killer of inexperienced pilots, actually it does a pretty good job of killing experienced pilots as well.

I have nearly 800 hours in MU-2s and count myself lucky. However, I did attend Flight Safety for initial and recurrency training.

Now, about gear retraction, yes the gear doors opening will add drag, however, using the wheel (remember the MU-2 has spoilers only for roll) to keep the wings level will add much more drag. Use rudder and aileron trim to keep the wings level.

It has been a long time, but I do believe that single engine climb speed is around 150kts. Now the MU-2 will come off the runway at around 110 kts. So if one loses an engine just after takeoff you will need to accelerate at least 40kts to 150 before you can start a climb. If you do not have the space to accelerate or you are coming off a hot/high airport,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well, good luck.

My best advice is to get rid of the blasted thing.








Even though this post was some time ago I feel the need to respond to this poster total ignorance of the aircraft he says he has over 800 hours in. My first thought on reading his remark is that he must have been asleep for the whole 800 hours and his passengers are very lucky to have survived his inept knowledge and attitude.

It is no wonder that so many pilots like this one have been killed by the myths and lack of standardized training for this very unique aircraft. No need to go into an total defense of his misleading statements and the SFAR will either education such idiots or weed them out before they kill someone.

I will say however that the MU2 climbs very well on one engine flaps 20 and 125 knots. The 151 knot speed this poster mentions is clean and like a jet you do not go to flaps 0 until clear of terrain and ready for en route climb.

[Dream Land]

Bluefishbeagle, I have approximately 1200 hours in the Rice Rocket, sounds like Con-pilot has a lot of time in some of the older models that were pretty weak on power, like the L or G models, the autothrottle problem I assume is the Bendix FC unit problem, I had some on the J I started on in Albuquerque, they would idle at various speeds and would occasionally quit.

Once we changed to the Woodward units, life was much better, as others have mentioned, it's not the kind of airplane you get checked out by taking a spin around the pattern, I received proper flight and ground training courtesy of the nice folks at Houston Hobby FSI.

I enjoyed the airplane tremendously, the weak points back then was the Bendix Auto pilot, plastic and the plastic wind screen, although it was originally suspected that icing was a problem for the MU2, I operated the aircraft in some of the worst winter conditions a person could imagine without a problem.

I was lucky enough to fly some updated machines in recent years like the Marquise and Solitaire, the latter being my choice as a personal dream aircraft, the short models having some different takeoff and landing techniques, but I have heard some of this problem can be fixed by moving the batteries to the other end.

I would say a person needs to update the A/P if it isn't working well, but it's a great airplane, miss it a lot.

Nice posts by Ag2A320. :ok:

[Ag2A320]

Dream Land,

Ah,the dreaded Bendix FCU: let see typical faults were: Couldn't select reverse unless you pushed up the C/L to 100%; had to remember to connect the P2 ref line heater or the engine would surge in Low Temps or not respond to the power lever as reference pressure line blocked.

Had a J Model, pull that trick one winter on a TUL - ORD run, takeoff & climb was fine, about 1 hr into cruise @ FL 210 ATC asked me to slow for in-trail spacing ( @ 340Kt G/S was overtaking an RJ) pulled the power back to slow 20Kts and after being cleared to resume normal speed, pushed up the P/L with no response, It wouldn't accelerate or go to FI just held a steady 60% TQ. Request to go direct to TUL and began a descent to 12,000 ft in the hope that warmer air below might unfreeze the line. Solid IMC till about 30 NM out of tulsa ;( low ceilings precluded landing at the nearest airport) combined with the fact that the other engine was a bendix too, it kept the "frozen engine" running till breaking out in CAVOK conditions, then shut it down and flew a vis app to 36R.

To this day if anybody asks me to fly any Garrett with @ Bendix FCU, the first thing i do is open the cowling and verify the P2 Heaters work.

The only Woodward product to give the odd problem was the prop sync ( early on/off models), and then it either worked or popped the C/B.

Regards,

Ag2A320

[con-pilot]

Even though this post was some time ago I feel the need to respond to this poster total ignorance of the aircraft he says he has over 800 hours in. My first thought on reading his remark is that he must have been asleep for the whole 800 hours and his passengers are very lucky to have survived his inept knowledge and attitude.


Well. A couple of things come to mind reading that mindless, insulting, arrogant and juvenile post.

First one can disagree without being so insulting. Obviously your super inflated opinion of yourself as a hero pilot transcends such things as common courtesy. Just how rare is the air on that lofty pedestal you have placed yourself on anyway?

As for luck, there is no pilot alive that has not been lucky on occasion, well with the exception of you of course, you being so superior to we common mortal souls that dare to fly an aircraft while lacking your God like skills and talents. I, being a mortal soul, will admit that there were a few occasions in my career that luck played a part of accomplishing the following:

A career of being a professional pilot lasting over forty (40) years, accumulating a total of over 21,000 hours of flying time, being type rated in eight aircraft, seven jet aircraft and one piston, operated extensively internationally, flown around the world and have achieved all of the above without scratching a single aircraft or a single passenger. None of the preceding could have been accomplished by luck alone.

I stand by my comments regarding the MU-2, all of them no matter the series. The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact.

I will say however that the MU2 climbs very well on one engine flaps 20 and 125 knots.

Not only is that statement completely misleading, it is dangerous. Try that in any stretched MU-2 at MGTOW, with any OAT plus ISA and you will be killed, along with every other poor soul that was stupid enough to be riding with you. Obviously your reading skills, retention ability and your capability of comprehending the written word is as poor as your ego is super inflated.

I clearly stated in previous posts that the MU-2 can be flown safely. However, only with excellent initial training and constant retraining on a regular basis by an organization such as Flight Safety. Also the maintenance must be kept at a top notch level.

Pilots with your super inflated opinion of yourself are the most dangerous things in aviation. I know this because I have been to a lot of their funerals.

Now, one last point.

They are still building Kingairs, they are not still building MU-2s, there's a damn good reason for that fact.

[clunckdriver]

The bigest problem with the "rice rocket" is that they are now cheap , so folks who shouldnt fly anything faster than a 172 are buying them {lawyers, doctors, and others with a few bucks} the aircraft is in fact the airframe of choice for some of our medivac outfits, what else can plonk into 2500ft of gravel and the keep up with the traffic into New York? One FAA type said to me that they have replaced the V tail Bonanza as the "Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" It is an aircraft that requires much training on and a sound grasp of its workings, niether of which many owners seem to want to do.The only thing I really dont like is refueling the thing from a single hose bowser,back and forth with the ladder to keep it from sagging to one side.

[ferrydude]

"I stand by my comments regarding the MU-2, all of them no matter the series. The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact."

Not sure where you get your data, or what aircraft you consider in the MU-2 class, but for the period 2001-2005, the MU had a lower fatal accident rate than the Merlin, Dash 6, 7 and 8, Cessna 406, Piper Meridian and Malibu Jetprop.

Source: Robert E. Breiling and Associates

[con-pilot]

Not sure where you get your data, or what aircraft you consider in the MU-2 class, but for the period 2001-2005, the MU had a lower fatal accident rate than the Merlin, Dash 6, 7 and 8, Cessna 406, Piper Meridian and Malibu Jetprop

I said in the same class as the MU-2. Not airliners like the Dash 6, 7 and 8 (theDash 7 is a four engine aircraft) nor such as single engine aircraft such as the Meridian and the Malibu. Compare the accident rate of the MU-2 verus the Kingair, Turbo Commander and the Merlin and see what results you arrive at.

On a personal note, I really don't care that much for any trubo-prop aircraft. I'm not saying I'd never fly one if I came out of retirment nor refuse to ride in a turbo-prop aircraft, I just don't care for them.

Funny enough I've never flown a Turbo Commander in spite of being based in Oklahoma City for all these years. I flew every other type Aero Commander ever built including the Jet Commander, but never a Turbo Commander.

[ferrydude]

Perhaps that is what you meant, but it is not what you said.

You said; "The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact."

"Class" would be multi engine" "Multi" means more than one, as in 2, 3, and yes, 4.

However the point of your latest post is taken. And as for the -6 being an "airliner" :rolleyes:

[con-pilot]

However the point of your latest post is taken. And as for the -6 being an "airliner"

Okay, err just how many Dash 6s (Twin Otters) are/were operated by private companies or private individuals?

Also using your definition of class,

"Class" would be multi engine" "Multi" means more than one, as in 2, 3, and yes, 4.

would include everything from the B-52 to a Twin Comanche. :p

To be specific as not to cause any further misunderstanding, my research only included twin engine, turbo-prop, cabin class, pressurized aircraft that were specifically designed to be primarily a corporate owned business aircraft. Thus this precluded any such aircraft as the Dash series or single engine aircraft.

In other words, I compared apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

[ferrydude]

You were quite specific in your original post.

"The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact."


Not sure, but I don't think there are any turboprop twin comanches, or B-52s.:)

If a -6 is an airliner, then I reckon so is the MU-2 and King Air series.:rolleyes:

[galaxy flyer]

I'm just scratching my head here, but what is NOT obvious about the "MU-2 and its class"? Obviously, the MU2 belongs with the King Air, Turbo Commander, Cheyenne, Conquest group of planes--not Meridians, -6,-7,-8 or Beech 1900s.

Factoid--2 in Japanese sound likes "nee", hence MU2 is Moo-ney, the original importer and partner. They should have stuck with the small planes--would have saved a lot of investigators, a lot of time.

GF

[con-pilot]

Oh, ferrydude, something I failed to mention is that I am a certified NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigator. Therefore I do have/had access to some pretty good statical information.

The NTSB has volumes and volumes of negative information concerning the MU-2. In fact the NTSB actually called for the MU-2 airworthiness certificate to be revoked. The FAA, for reasons only known to themselves, disagreed.

The NTSB does not call for the revocation of an airworthiness certificate until after an extreme amount of research and studies. Nor does it do so lightly.

If the NTSB considers the MU-2 to be a dangerous aircraft that should not be allowed to fly in the skies of the United States, whom am I to argue.

[ferrydude]

Are you suggesting that you have access to data/info not available to the general public?

[con-pilot]

Are you suggesting that you have access to data/info not available to the general public?

Most generally all findings and investigations by the NTSB is public domain at the conclusion of any given investigation. What is not readily available are the notes, written comments and other such types of details that is used to determine the final/probably cause of any given accident. However, even this type of information can be be accessed by the public if correct procedures are followed.

Only in certain accidents involving US military aircraft will finding sometimes be held from the public. Such as a midair between a military aircraft and a civil aircraft. Also it might interest you to know that accidents involving US government aircraft, such as the FAA, FBI, Forestry Service and US Marshal Service are not available for public view.

So in answer to your question, no.

None of which changes the fact that the NTSB called for the permanent grounding of all MU-2s.

[ferrydude]

What year did NTSB do that?

[con-pilot]

Here, rather than going back and forth, please read this.

http://www.mu-2aircraft.com/upload/news/MU2News_52.pdf

Thank you.

[ferrydude]

I'm looking for something that substantiates your "fact" that NTSB called for grounding the MU-2. The document you posted doesn't reference that "fact".

Perhaps you could draw on your NTSB certification status and post a document where NTSB calls for grounding the MU-2, or revoking the airworthiness certification.

[john_tullamarine]

We're now well off the previous trail and fast getting into tit for tat land.

May I suggest that we have a coffee or two, take ten deep breaths, and worry less about point scoring and more about the underlying technical concerns of the Type ? There is no (and has not been for many years) question that the Type is a little controversial and the basic thread is useful for discussing that point.

My regards to Graham Murphy if anyone speaks with him .. haven't seen him in years since he was with InterAir.

[galaxy flyer]

Might add, if Frank Borman thinks it is a "solid, honest" plane and you can fly as good as he can, maybe it is the plane for you. If you are a 24 yr-old check runner with 1600 hours in a C172 or a 45 yr-old doctor with 500 hours in a Arrow looking for an ego boost--maybe NOT!

GF

PS: I thought the NAA F-100 was a solid, honest plane, it could just barely kill me! 2200 built, less than 300 survived. A friend lost a quarter of his class in accidents---IN ONE WEEK!

GF

[con-pilot]

We're now well off the previous trail and fast getting into tit for tat land.

May I suggest that we have a coffee or two, take ten deep breaths, and worry less about point scoring and more about the underlying technical concerns of the Type ? There is no (and has not been for many years) question that the Type is a little controversial and the basic thread is useful for discussing that point.


Capital idea! :ok:

I'll buy the first round if we should ever meet kind Sir.



(Besides that, I retired so I wouldn't have to be constantly looking up facts and stuff, I'm getting too old for that sh!t. :p)

[ferrydude]

Here are the facts;

NTSB never requested, or otherwise suggested that the MU-2 be grounded.


NTSB is on record as stating that the majority of MU-2 fatal accidents were as a result of pilot error.

FAA validated the original MU-2 certification during a special certification review. No issues.

[bearfoil]

In 2008, the FAA issued SFAR in addition to the type rating. Specifically, special waivers were required after satisfying training two potentially fatal flaws in the a/c's performance. Engine out, flaps are required to stay out, with a lowering of the nose. Additionally, an Auto-pilot was required for single pilot ops. Landings requirement for currency must be performed in the MUMU, no other type.

I couldn't find NTSB's recs. but would assume they had identified the weak spots, and suggested the a/c not fly w/o upgrades to training, and equipment. NTSB is a board, and submits advisories only. FAA for rules or ticket lifting.

bear

[ferrydude]

There is no type rating. Assuming again? The weak spots are in the training, not the aircraft.

NTSB Recommendation that led to a review of the original type certification.

(The one that validated no design "weak spots")

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1986/A86_132_134.pdf

[bearfoil]

I think it's notable that the landings for currency must be done in the specific a/c. Likewise, It is unique to the MU to leave t/o flaps out OEI, and immediate full roll trim into the running engine. The a/p upgrade is merely an upgrade, though a needed one.

Short body or Long? needs some familiarity as well. I have always liked this a/c, it's a good lookin' all round hot rod. Haven't flown it. How do you like it?

[ferrydude]

I'm fond of it, as are most who can sort through the BS.

Aero-TV: Learning The Truth About The MU-2 SFAR on Yahoo! Video (http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3703509/10187634)

[john_tullamarine]

I have to declare a vested philosophical interest.

Two aircraft I have not been endorsed on are the DC9 and MU-2 (but played with some engineering on both) .. and both are in first place as the most desirable aircraft I have ever laid eyes on ...

I'll go back into my dark little corner now ...

[411A]

..and both are in first place as the most desirable aircraft I have ever laid eyes on ...


Even ahead of the (gasp)...Lockheed Electra?:ooh:

[bearfoil]

Which one? (The MU2 has Landing gear licensed from Lockheed, so....)

Lockheed rules.

[Dream Land]

The MU2 has Landing gear licensed from Lockheed, so....)
Adapted off the F-104 I believe.

[Spooky 2]

Okay, this is finally getting interesting. More info please.

[john_tullamarine]

Even ahead of the (gasp)...Lockheed Electra?

Loved the L188. Five years or so on freighter ops on the wee beastie.

I guess the DC9/MU2 thing is a bit like the typical young chap's slavering desire for an unattainably desirable woman of elegant ambience.

[ferrydude]

Haven't you heard? One of these desirable women is dangerous, will kill you and should be prohibited from consorting with males.:)

[vapilot2004]

NTSB is on record as stating that the majority of MU-2 fatal accidents were as a result of pilot error.

The NTSB has this huge placard on the wall. It reads:
When in doubt, blame the pilot(s).

[ferrydude]

if the shoe fits---------------

[vapilot2004]

...and if it doesn't, they have industrial-sized shoe horns and a tub of lard.

[galaxy flyer]

Well, right there's your problem, the landing gear is off the F-104! No wonder they crash so much, it's in the DNA.

GF

Old joke: an optimist is a Luftwaffe '104 pilot who quit smoking!

[GlueBall]

[QUOTE]we were required to review all the accidents back to 1967,/QUOTE]

I'm not a Mitsu jock, but that's the best piece of advice I've read in a long time. It should be included in initial training for all type ratings. :ok:

[Avenger]

They don't call this piece of XXXX the "Widow Maker" for nothing, Having spent 2 years flying this thing in the past, I would advise your mate to sell it, or set fire to it.

[con-pilot]

or set fire to it.

We seized a MU-2 when I was with the Marshal Service and place it in service. After a campaign by myself and two other pilots that had flown MU-2s to get rid of the damn thing before it crashed it was returned to the GSA.

For some reason, only known to them, the US Navy picked up the MU-2. The MU-2 was based at Edwards AFB. Sure enough about two months it did crash*. Very fortunately all on board escaped with minor injury. Then guess what happened to the MU-2?

They made a target out of it and sure enough it did end up being destroyed by fire. :p




* The Navy never told us what caused the accident.

[lynn789]

does the MU2 have a higher wing loading than other similar planes?

[galaxy flyer]

Not compared to a bumble bee!! There are no similar other planes, which is the problem. :}

GF

[Stratobus]

"pilot error" yes I think it was error to get in thing in first place, forget it and have big lunch break.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[By George]

I lost a friend many years ago in a 'G' model of the Mu2. The radar trace had it climbing normally out of Sydney until it reached 17,000ft and then not one track mile to the point of loss of radar return. To go straight down like that is unusual and ice seems to be one theory. I have never heard the reason or even if they found one. I know nothing about the aeroplane, having never flown one, but when I see one I always wonder if the 'orrible little thing has a dark secret somewhere. 'Tojo's Revenge' is what they call them in Aus.

[TRF4EVR]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, yes. But "The NTSB wanted its Airworthiness revoked" isn't an opinion, and I can't find anything to suggest that it's true. 1400 hours PIC in the Mitsi, about 800 in the KA, and I'll take the Mitsi every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Just an opinion. Here's another one: If flying a well maintained MU-2 scares you, become a gardener.

PS. Yes, the wing loading is higher than comparable aircraft, although not outrageously so. I believe it's in the neighborhood of that on a KA350. Easily the best airplane I've flown in ice, including the KA series.

[vapilot2004]

For some reason, only known to them, the US Navy picked up the MU-2. The MU-2 was based at Edwards AFB. Sure enough about two months it did crash*. Very fortunately all on board escaped with minor injury. Then guess what happened to the MU-2?

They made a target out of it and sure enough it did end up being destroyed by fire.

* The Navy never told us what caused the accident.

The official report from the military AIB is off-limits and the NTSB report was sealed, but I can tell you this Con:

The aircraft was among 3 used by a private company but flown by military pilots. The private operators failed to properly placard a flaky DME which led the PIC upon discovery of his incorrectly reported position on approach at Edwards to make a turn, placing him in the path of a fighter, I believe it was an F-16. The wake turbulence caused them to lose control of the aircraft and crash.

The USN PIC died and an Airman, while several other people were injured, but survived. This accident occurred in the early 1990's.

[con-pilot]

The USN PIC died and an Airman, while several other people were injured, but survived. This accident occurred in the early 1990's.


Okay, that would be the correct time period. We were told that no one was seriously injured. However, by the time the information reached us it was third hand at best.

Thank you.

[vapilot2004]

You are welcome sir. :ok:

Okay, that would be the correct time period. We were told that no one was seriously injured. However, by the time the information reached us it was third hand at best.

Perhaps they meant no civilian was seriously injured. The whole affair was pretty hush hush.

Aside from training issues, is the key to the MU-2's checkered past the ultra-high wing loading?

[TRF4EVR]

High wing loading is part of it. It's also largely because the things are so cheap for the capability. Not sure what the rules are in Yurop, but over here if the plane is under 12.5, a private pilot with a multi rating can get out of a seminole and fly off in an MU-2. Not the best idea.

Other factors: It uses spoilers for roll control rather than ailerons, which necessitates different engine out procedures. The gear is draggy during retraction, especially on the long bodies. The plane uses extremely effective full span flaps to make up for the high wing loading...an engine going out at low altitude and low speed with flaps 40, for example, means you'd better land straight ahead or you're rolling over and going in.

When the aircraft was put out of production, it was rapidly apprehended by low-cost cargo ops that it was a steal in terms of speed and price. At that point you have low time pilots in challenging conditions in a plane that flies a lot like a light jet who have probably upgraded from a Baron or similar and did all their training "in-house". If the guys doing the training know their stuff, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but if they don't...trouble.

All that said, the thing is built like a brick outhouse, flies like a dream (if a little heavy in the roll), can land on a dime, and is ridiculously efficient vs. the (slower) competition. Properly respected, it's not just a good airplane, it's an excellent one. MHO, etc. Again, having flown a comparable KA model, I'd much, much rather be in a Mitsi. The best advice I ever got from my crusty old highly experienced boss was "Don't go below 120 until you've got the field made and get to 120 just as fast as you possibly can on T/O". Follow that and it's a pussycat.

PS. If ag2a320 is still reading four years on, a lot of those tail numbers look real familiar. I flew the Mitsi for the successor to George's old outfit. I heard some extremely entertaining stories about George. Quite the character, by all accounts.

[vapilot2004]

Thanks for that Mr. TRF4EVR. :ok:

You seem to have a good understanding of the -2 and your calling for better training goes right along with what CP was saying.

I've spent a nearly two decades on the Super King Air and I have found it to be a sturdy, reliable turboprop with good manners and graceful degradation when things start going wobbly - not unlike my current jet type.

The MU-2 is in the same ballpark performance-wise as a B100, with improvements in climb, service ceiling and cruise, yet does it on 35% less wing area. Some magic exists there!

[Ag2A320]

TRF4EVER,

Still here, have the same P model George sold us, did you fly with Beau and have Chuck B as Chief Pilot ?.

Chuck seemed to have all the more interesting flights, he was co-pilot on the J model N770MA that tossed a blade near Corsicana, TX .Lucky for them the vibration set up from the 18" of blade loss broke the FCU from the mounts and shut the engine down within microseconds of the blade letting go.

George would always point to the Large hangar complex he built on the northside of TUL and say that MU-2 S/n 9 on a the pole near Sparks Aviation, tried to kill him so many times he had it mounted, the engineering into the mount cost him $36,000 in 1977 dollars alone.

He'd have a few and swear he was gonna cut it down the next time somebody for the "farside" of the ramp as he called it, "Hi George" him. He built all of that complex off US Military contract fuel sales and loss it all in the Oklahoma Oil bust of the Mid 80's.

He freely admitted losing 22 million dollars of his money in the bust, and added " i can't even tell you how much of my wife's money i lost". ( I believe she was a heir to one of the wealthy Tulsa Oil clans. He started working for her father flying the Co's B-26, Lodestar & Howard 500)

He was a character and a half, i'm sure you heard the one about a certain F/O Stinky and his visit to Matarmoros, MX or the brawl over the 4 crew cars at DFW and OKC.

[TRF4EVR]

Glad to be of assistance. Good training is definitely a must-have for the Mitsi, but it's not (IMHO) the death-trap people make it out to be. I trained with a guy who had under 2000 hours and came out of an Aztec and he's still flying them single pilot a few years later...hasn't even scratched the paint (granted he was a freight dog prior, and had the necessary weather/decision making/PIC skills).

I will quibble with you about the relative performance of a B100...I don't know what the books say, but in my experience, even a ratted out old J or L model will crawl past a 100, and a dirty, cargo-hatched Marquise will blow the doors off of one. A cargo Marquise vs. a clean, late model, exec type B200 is a toss-up, with maybe a slight edge to the Mitsi if the engines aren't due for overhaul (which they probably are).

To be fair, my experience with the KA series was for a company which (through no fault of their own) had to contract the maintenance out (due to distance from HQ), and that maintenance may have been lacking. Whereas the company I flew the Mitsi for is owned by the same gentleman who owns one of the very few remaining world-class Mitsi specialist shops (edit: The Tusla based company mentioned in the article linked below), so I always knew that the guys turning the wrenches were experts on the aircraft...this likely changed my experiences to a significant degree.

Here's a highly favorable article (on the Mitsubishi's site, surprise), but it gels with my experience:

http://www.mu-2aircraft.com/upload/news/MU2News_73.pdf

But this article is pretty much the final word, AFAIC, gives both sides, such as they are.

Mitsubishi MU-2 Part 2 (What''s Wrong With the MU-2?) - Windows Live (http://sleetapawang.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!BD09644C5F6E196D!731.entry)

PS. I will argue that not ALL check haulers have bad training...I learned from a guy I'd rather fly with in a kite than most pilots in an armor plated King Air.

This isn't to say that those who don't like the plane are incapable or stupid...con-pilot has a lot more time than I do. I suspect that his experiences were a product of a certain time, place, and standard of maintenance, but there are two sides to every story...Take it for what it's worth, etc etc.

[TRF4EVR]

Still here, have the same P model George sold us, did you fly with Beau and have Chuck B as Chief Pilot ?.

I just missed Beau on the way out...I got hired just about the time he went West to fly 350s...but he was the guy I pestered for information on the company. Great guy, by all accounts, met him briefly during initial training. And yes, Chuck B. was the CP when I was there...what a great guy. I always thought I smoked a lot until I went on break time with Chuck...

Chuck seemed to have all the more interesting flights, he was co-pilot on the J model N770MA that tossed a blade near Corsicana, TX .Lucky for them the vibration set up from the 18" of blade loss broke the FCU from the mounts and shut the engine down within microseconds of the blade letting go.

Haha. Yeah that was one of many stories he told us that had me wondering what I'd gotten myself in to. Luckily, I never had any "great stories" to tell like he did. If the Zombie Apocalypse ever strikes, I'm staying the heck away from Tulsa, because that guy is unkillable.

George would always point to the Large hangar complex he built on the northside of TUL and say that MU-2 on a the pole near Sparks Aviation, tried to kill him so many times he had it mounted, the engineering into the mount cost him $36,000 in 1977 dollars alone.

He have a few and swear he was gonna cut it down the next time somebody for the "farside" of the ramp as he called it. "Hi George'd" him. He built all of that complex off US Military contract fuel sales and loss it all in the Oklahoma Oil bust of the Mid 80's.

He freely admitted losing 22 million dollars of his money in the bust, and added " i can't even tell you how much of my wife's money i lost". ( I believe she was a heir to one of the wealthy Tulsa Oil clans. He started working for her father flying the Co's B-26, Lodestar & Howard 500)

He was a character and a half, i'm sure you heard the one about a certain F/O Stinky and his visit to Matarmoros, MX or the brawl over the 4 crew cars at DFW and OKC.

Heh, no I think I missed that one, but I heard plenty of others. Something about a Mitsi going through a thunderstorm and getting a few lights busted out, taxiing in, and being pulled in to a hangar so he could bust out all of the rest of the lights with his cane because he had all the spares and knew the insurance company would be buying them from him. Of course that's all second hand... ;) Sounds like great times, sorry I missed them (but I'll bet I've saved money on new underwear). They don't make em like that anymore! Thanks for chiming in and if you have any stories not fit for public consumption, feel free to PM ;)

[Ag2A320]

TRF4EVR,

George had 2 very large qounset huts near Spartan A&P school, full of spares he bought up from San Angelo when the factory shut down, and had enough new major components to complete 10 airframes.

It was a vast complex that was spilt between Air 1St and I-jet on his death.

I don't remember that, I recall we hit a flock of mallards on descent into DFW took out Comm 1 Antenna, the L/h Gear Pod fairing, R/H tip light, both landing lights and a bird through the L/H engine. He came out and said Harley Davidson finance Corp. & the insurance co were gonna love his bill for the repairs. He might have depending on how full his red dixie cup was.

All spares owned by Sidney #1 Corp. (his cat) and sold to IBA. So the usual route was out the hangar loading bay a short trip across the road to the warehouse and since the warehouse was technically not a part of the shop. The mechanic just issued a 8130 for the new part he pulled out of storage and walked it across the road into service. He bought, sold and brokered by the parts manager's count 340 Mu-2 over the years.

I can remember sitting in his office, listening to him haggling with a seller about an airplane, finally he said " look you SOB i have owned that airplane about 8 times now and i'm not going to offer you more than X for it, you can keep it cause it needs a major inspection and i got all the parts here, all the other service centers are going to have to call me for the parts so its either sell it to me or take it to Dodson's or White's and part it out either way, I'll still own pieces of it in the end"

He reopened IBA in 1992 as living the retired life in Destin, Fl was getting to him and real estate wasn't his thing ( they developed condos on 200 acres of beachfront, his wife had a lovely little place on the beach with a 2000 sq ft master bedroom suite with elevator, he always down played it and the few of us that saw the place,he swore us to never mention it at work, and that was the least he could do after the fortune he had lost in the bankruptcy) He ended up going from 2 airplanes to 38 by his death in 2002.

Chuck was just as bad with sunflower seeds, man could he make a mess of a cockpit in just one night. i remember the cussing we got bringing a ship into MTC and the seat tracks where jammed full of seeds courtesy of Chuck ( he ate them in lue of his 2 1/2 pack a day cigarette habit).

Stinky flew us through an area of level 4 & 5's and stripped the paint off the nose & leading edges.

[TRF4EVR]

First of all, you're breaking my heart with all the good George stories. Call me an eternal child, but I really would have liked to have been around for that stuff. I might even have been willing to be threatened with termination every night (so I'm told) just to see the Bad Old Days when Men were Men, etc etc.

Chuck was just as bad with sunflower seeds, man could he make a mess of a cockpit in just one night. i remember the cussing we got bringing a ship into MTC and the seat tracks where jammed full of seeds courtesy of Chuck ( he ate them in lue of his 2 1/2 pack a day cigarette habit).

Aahahhaa. Yeah, Chuck chewed a few sunflower seeds while he was watching over my dumb posterior the first few times I flew the route. But just between you, me, and the rest of the world, there was a guy who flew with me while they were making sure I wouldn't kill myself who made no apologies about lighting up once he knew I was a fellow cancer-addict. Think he's flying DC-10s now. Definitely had the attitude of "if you don't scare me, you're cool". D.R. are the initials, did you know him? I'll just say that those beautiful little 70s ashtrays in the mitsi were not unused...

Stinky flew us through an area of level 4 & 5's and stripped the paint off the nose & leading edges.

You could always tell how recently one of the RUF birds had been painted by how much of it had peeled off the nose/leading edge/etc. Never lasted long! Now, really, I think you owe us all an in depth explanation of the crew car brawl...and Stinky, too!

[TRF4EVR]

BTW, since we're talking all freightdoggy here and we're liable to start telling "there I was" lies ;) . I had a fireloop go bad on an MU-2 once. Shut it down per checklist (engine was fine), flew where I was headed, landed without event. Easiest plane to fly on one engine ever invented, even for a relatively low time guy who is just this side of pooping his Pampers.

[Ag2A320]

TRF4EVR

PM sent:ok:

[Dream Land]

Taken off with condition levers in LOW (before SRL), de-iced the airframe by flying it around the patch, changed speed switches (located in the upper wing) while one engine running, operated in icing conditions with snow and ice protruding forward of prop spinners over one foot in length.:eek:

[NZ X man]

bit like the typical young chap's slavering desire for an unattainably desirable woman of elegant ambiance.

Well I do not think that is limited to the young chaps, on any given day!

Always wanted to fly one of those birds, still do, maybe it's all those years of high altitude, and high bar stools, thinking about desirable woman , even if the were not elegant at the moment.

[johns7022]

Well I almost flew an Mu2.....in a previous life I was tasked with finding a tprop to move up to...at that time I figured the boss was on a limited budget...so I looked at every $300k turboprop I could find...the MU2 kept coming up as an option...they didn't fly very high, but a solitaire will do 300kt...and they had the highest accident rate for PILOT ERROR, but the lowest accident rate for MECHANICAL ERROR...I did my homework, talked to guys that actually managed and flew them...the only gotcha seemed to be ice...just fly them fast 160kts+....to keep the ice off..

I later moved up into corporate jets....Ultras and Encores that I flew single pilot.....and honestly...they weren't fast enough for me...

I really do think one of the biggest limiting factors to improved aircraft designs are the lack of pilot abilities...people liking slow docile King Airs to little hot rods...that actualy get you there in a reasonable time vs some lumbering whale, banging around in the 20s through all the weather...

When they design a super sonic single pilot corporate jet, that the pilot can retract the wings back to go fast...the debutantes will really scream....

So my hat's off to the pilots that fly all the 'dangerous' planes...

Oh, yeah...positive rate....then gear up....right?? Always amazed me to see some guys throw the gear up right after the nose came up...now that's dangerous...a little time to make sure the plane is going up, never hurt anyone before putting the gear up.....

[Dream Land]

the only gotcha seemed to be ice...just fly them fast 160kts+....to keep the ice off..Sorry to flame you, but it doesn't really sound like you know what you're talking about.

Please explain how it's the only gotcha, I have several years experience on all models in serious winter conditions, it's no more of a gotcha on this aircraft than any other, I have had ice formations extending forward on the spinners over two feet long.

The airplane was very typical for something equipped with pneumatic boots, if you try inflating too soon, your going to scr*w yourself. Fly fast, you mean like using this on final? I hope you're kidding.

The MU2 is very straight forward, it worked quite well in heavy winter conditions in Montana and Colorado, the only gotcha was making sure the ignitions were on when descending into the warm air, like so many other Garrett powered aircraft.

[dmark1]

I love this con air guy, first a 40 year pilot, then work for the Marshal service then he's a NTSB investigator with :hmm:inside information.

Did you fly the shuttle too?

I have owned a MU2 for 3 years and done several turns of training. The airplane climbs beautifully at 125 knots flaps 5 (800 or so fpm full gross K model).

Oh, yes I am an AA pilot. So I guess I belong along side you "aviator extraordinaire" :ok:

[con-pilot]

I love this con air guy, first a 40 year pilot, then work for the Marshal service then he's a NTSB investigator with inside information.



Hmm, from Texas I see, figures. :rolleyes:

Oh, yes I am an AA pilot.

I'm very happy for you.

However, it was just a foorball game, you need to get over it.

Cheers. :ok:


Oh, and you forgot to criticize the 21,000 hours I have. Do try harder next time. :E


And one more time, let's hear it folks.........

MU-2s are POS.

[Dream Land]

And one more time, let's hear it folks.........MU2's are POS Well I don't mean to disrespect your opinion Con, but from my recollection of corporate and charter operations in almost all the turbo-props in it's class, the MU-2 had a lot of bang for the buck, easy on maintenance, easy on batteries, easy on fuel, and fast.

One of the weakest parts of the MU2 was the Bendix A/P's that were installed, but hand flying it is enjoyable, my only other complaints were on the early models that were a bit weak on power and fuel controllers (Bendix again) were dodgy.

Out of all the other aircraft in the same class, like BE200, Cheyenne, CE441 and SWIII, the Solataire is my favorite, if I was a rich AA pilot, it would be my dream to own one! 

[galaxy flyer]

Strikes me that this "AA pilot" is the return of SSG 1.0 thru 9.0, including johns7022. Attitude is the same.

Just saying'

GF

[con-pilot]

Dream Land, no problem at all, I realize that some pilots like the MU-2 and to be honest, the later short models did have very good single engine performance for a turbo-prop. The early long bodied series I few were underpowered and had very poor performance (G, J and N). Along with a number of other problems, which I listed in an earlier post in this thread.

Never the less, there is a reason that MU-2 are not being built anymore and Kingair 200s still are. The last MU-2 was built in 1986. I never had a problem with the physical act of flying MU-2s, but I was already flying Jet Commanders and Lear 24/25s before I flew a MU-2. Also I did go to Flight Safety initial in Houston before flying a MU-2. Then there was no simulator, only a cockpit mock-up. We did all the flight training in the actual aircraft flying out of the Galveston, Texas (GLS) airport.

As I posted above I have 99% of my experience in the long series of the MU-2 and very limited in the short ones.

My favorite joke about the MU-2; every time you turn the auto-pilot on in an MU-2, it heads for Pearl Harbour. :p

[Dream Land]

con-pilot, Yes I fully understand, I initially started flying the "J" sn549, not as weak as the G, I think the N was just a four bladed version of the J, anyway, you probably had Clem Kegler as your ground instructor as I did, I think FSI at Hobby did a great job.

A person like you would of really been able to appreciate the newer models with mods like 5 degree flap settings, glass windshields and 1000hp engines.

I think they were given a bad rap and if you look at the data, the BE200 has a pretty bad safety record in recent years, not sure why though.

Cheers, D.L.

[aerobat77]

"Oh, and you forgot to criticize the 21,000 hours I have. Do try harder next time. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif"

i personally must say i had only rarely the opportunity to meet verified +20000 hours pilots sitting now leftseat in widebodies shortly before retirement. and none of them would join every day an open aviation forum spending hours for hours in argueing for aviation questions. no- in freetime they want to hear nothing about the damn aviation, they look for their family being mostly a grandfather...

in regard to the topic... without any experience on the MU2 i can only say something general- when you fly for a company which uses the mitsubishi you just go for it. every aircraft has it advantages and disadvantages and asks for following some procedures. when you own such a plane private and have just little experience its questionable and dangerous in any case to handle a twin engine turboprop alone. thats valid for a king air, a cheyenne and the MU2 .

[con-pilot]

i personally must say i had only rarely the opportunity to meet verified +20000 hours pilots sitting now leftseat in widebodies shortly before retirement. and none of them would join every day an open aviation forum spending hours for hours in argueing for aviation questions. no- in freetime they want to hear nothing about the damn aviation, they look for their family being mostly a grandfather...



I'm retired. I do not argue unless attacked personally, which you are doing.

You doubt my career, fine, I could care less, as don't care what you think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dream Land

I think they were given a bad rap and if you look at the data, the BE200 has a pretty bad safety record in recent years, not sure why though.



Quite correct on the BE-200 safety records, in fact there are none of the more 'traditional' turbo-props that have what one could consider a really good safety record. By traditional I mean the MU-2, Turbo Commander, Merlin II and the BE-200. Go to the NTSB website and you'll see what I mean.

[mutt]

and none of them would join every day an open aviation forum spending hours for hours in argueing for aviation questions You obviously haven't met many Ppruners :eek::eek:.....

I remember C_P from his pre-retirement days, he has nothing to prove :D:D

Mutt

[aerobat77]

"You doubt my career, fine, I could care less, as don't care what you think."

noooo, what are you thinking about ? i just said i never met an +20000 hour pilot who has nothing better to do than spending hours and hours every day discussing aviation- like a fan, not more.

i think a friend of the topic starter has done the decision to buy a turboprop on more than discussing it at a forum, and i think he will follow more than forum opinions from multiple nicks which are to create in two minutes how to operate it in real life and not a forum.

i am just an general aviation guy who locks here from time to time and i am just stunned what experciended, multiple nick pilots are writing here. this discussion reminds me on an interesting thread some time ago -from a banned user you surely know.

in the meantime please keep us updated about the widowmaker MU2 .

[stilton]

You are remarkably out of touch a77.



I know plenty of Airline Pilots (with well over 20000 hours) that still, happily will discuss all aspects of Aviation at great length, yes sometimes for hours, in person or on line.



It is one of our great passions and many of us live, breath and eat Aviation no matter how long we have been doing it.



I know because I am one !



I certainly have always enjoyed Con Pilots posts and this Professional Pilot looks forward to hearing more about his long and interesting professional career.

[Dream Land]

in the meantime please keep us updated about the widowmaker MU2 .

Yes, I agree with stilton, I was flying the widow maker in 1979, now with over 20,000 hours and retirement still a long way away. :cool:

[kanetoads]

PPRUNE is the 7th level of hell for aviation posers and wannabes.

There are more people that I have caught on their bull**** here then I care to admit. If you want to keep your sanity, simply don't take what people say seriously here.

[Brian Abraham]

Mmmmm. Has SSG returned? :sad:

[con-pilot]

Thanks for the support Mutt and OK465. Kind of embarrassing, but I do appreciate your posts.

Cheers. :ok:

--------------------------------O-----------------------------------------

In my short time with the USMS, I never got less than 800 hours per year.


I averaged over a 1,000 hours a year while I was with the USMS and I was the second higest for a few of those years. To be honest, I cannot remember how many months I flew over a hundred hours.

The funny thing is that with the company I left to go fly for the USMS, I flew less in the one year than I did in the third month with the USMS. With my former company I flew 112 hours the year previous and in the third month with the USMS I flew 118 hours. I think they were trying to kill me. :p

Here is a list of the aircraft I flew with the USMS; B-727, Sabre 80, Westwind I/II, Sabre 40/60, Lear 25/28, Kingair 200 and a Cessna 310.

The Lear 25/28*, Kingair 200** and the Cessna 310 were seized assets, the Westwinds and the Sabreliners were leased. The 727s we owned along with the Sabre 80s, which were ex-flight inspection aircraft we inherited from the FAA.


* The Lear 28 was returned to the drug dealer it was seized from, after we overhauled the engines, repainted and installed a new interior.

** The Kingair was stolen, yes really stolen, from us when it was parked at a small airport in Miami, Florida. The CIA finally found it a couple of years later in Colombia. They asked if we wanted it back, we replied not only no, but hell no. I was very happy that we did not want it back, as I most likely would have been the poor guy that would have been sent down there to bring it back. :uhoh:


Okay, I must be getting old and forgetful. I forgot the damn 731 JetStar. It was serial number three. Started life as a -6, then was converted to a -8, the only -6 that was I think, then into a 731 when the FAA owned it. We got it from the FAA and it was a maintenance nightmare. I never finished anything longer than a one day mission with that aircraft. If it was a standard four or five day mission, it wasn't a question if it would breakdown, but where. I had two rapid de-compressions in 48 hour time period in that aircraft. First one was early Tuesday morning, returned to a maintenance base, it was fixed and then Thursday night had the second. Two different causes. The Attorney General of the United States was on board with the second rapid de-compression. He was not amused.

[dmark1]

I don't think that your post is a useful contribution - JT

[kanetoads]

Dmark1 -

Thank You.

[Brian Abraham]

SSG=kanetoads=dmark1

You've pulled that one before SSG, posting under different aliases and agreeing with yourself.

[kanetoads]

I can assure you Mark is not me...maybe the word is getting out...others are catching on....have you figured out why the blades turn left or right yet?

[Brian Abraham]

Warning - thread drift

have you figured out why the blades turn left or right yet

Your sciolistic post in the relevant thread was

The advancing blade on the main rotor creates more lift then the retreating blade in forward flight. The pilot sits on the side of the advancing blade to counteract the roll tendancy at higher speeds.

I'm sure the plank drivers reading your statement will not take long to educate themselves on helo aerodynamics, and drop to the floor convulsing in mirth, as did the helo pilots.

For your information con-pilot is a highly experienced aviator, as a little research on your part would soon prove. His opinion is highly regarded by legitimate members, your personal diatribe against him is misplaced, but it's what we've come to expect from you.

[aerobat77]

such threads seem always to drift, in fact at an anonymus forum like here you can claim yourself to be neil armstrong and nobody can prove for sure you are or you are not.

you can have multiple accounts so one nick can confirm the "realness" of another nick being one person...

well- aviation has many fans !

i have wrote earlier that i personally know very few +20000 hours pilots, none of them would spend hours for hours in a public anonymous forum and i know nobody with such a variety of aircraft flown .

simply because the market works not that way when you think about it. scoring that amount of hours means flying at an airline for decades. that also means that you are fixed to one or very few types of aircraft and do there your everyday business. so no way or time to switch between that amount of pistons, turboprops, GA jets, airliner jets etc etc.

but nevertheless its a great forum !

[Brian Abraham]

so no way or time to switch between that amount of pistons, turboprops, GA jets, airliner jets etc etc.20,000 hours for a professional aviator can be had without even trying hard aerobat. The highest time gal, Evelyn Johnson, gave it up after 57,635.4 hours, Max Conrad had 52,929, and the record holder, Ed Long passed away with in excess of 65,000.

i personally know very few +20000 hours pilots, none of them would spend hours for hours in a public anonymous forum

I can confirm there are posters here with 20,000, and not all of them are anonymous. They just don't have a life. ;)

[con-pilot]

Possibly some of the more aggressive, confrontational posters have traveled on USMS aircraft??

One may have a point.

Personally, I'm not even going to reply to the idiot/s. :p






Actually I think 'calling one out' on an anonymous website quite amusing. :D

[aerobat77]

"20,000 hours for a professional aviator can be had without even trying hard"

brian, i currently fly general aviation and we do about 400 hours a year airborne time. the rest is not free- they put you often in standby, real offtime is sometimes limited to minimum required - but its not flying hours.

previously i worked for an airline in scheduled operation and we scored in aviation boom times up to 800 hours a year , mostly in short and medium range missions and multiple legs. with the turnaround ground time between the legs , which in short legs was not much shorter than the flight by itself and the briefing before and paperwork after the day you had 11hours on duty which resulted in about 5 hours airborne time. to make 800-900 hours in a year you did this schedule ever day with rest at minimum what the law dictates.

i can really tell you that 900 hours in a year airborne time results in very little private life and everybody earning his money with flying an airplane for a company can confirm this.

beyond that many of the aircrafts mentioned as real experience here require a type rating, so for the training and rechecks of all this different types the day must really have more than 24 hours it seems.

but ok... so what ? we have here the honour to talk in this thread with aviators which in regards to total flying time and amount of aircraft flown clearly outperforms pilots like sullenberger or the polish 767 wheel up landing captain wrona ?

a google search says sullenberger had massive 19000hours scored in 30 years !!! at US airways and as a former military pilot he had a total of 40 years pilot time- which results in an average of 475 hours / year over his career. due to the fact that after military service he joined instantly airline operations he has of course no experience on lear jets, mu2, king airs etc.

wrona has 20 years 767 experience, and over 30 years total flying time resulting in impressive 13000 hours or an average of 433 hours/ year over his entire career. he of course joining LOT early also cannot say anything about learjets , kingairs and other ga aircraft since he like said spend his last 20 years to fly just one aircraft type ( 767) .

and i assume neither sullenberger nor wrona spends countless hours infront a computer writng thousands of postings in an open aviation forum.

think a minute about it brian...

[vapilot2004]

Over the past few years the PPRuNe safe harbor has been surreptitiously invaded by an unwelcome influx of malodorous flotsam. While there have always been a few odd ducks and bullheaded barnacles among us, this relatively recent tide has carried with it some real stinkers that have befouled our communal waters.

What is a besieged community to do? Weigh anchor, fan out, and sail into singular oblivion? Pray to King Neptune for a cleansing typhoon? Woe is us...

Wait, I think I may have a solution! A humble request of our wise and benevolent PPRuNe harbormaster to dredge out a new cove (in a predominantly windward location we beseech thee) and thereupon these sunny new waters laden with many fine and sturdy berths we can thusly endeavor to establish a private, members-only club in the classic tradition.*

Founding members should be limited to a group of those PPRuNers of mandatory minimum PPRuNe vintage. For added vessel variety and dockside spice, newer, charter member-sponsored candidates will be granted probationary access to be followed by rigorous review for possible semi-permanent inclusion.

*Classic Tradition: We shall not discriminate against race, color, religious creed, socio-economic standing, or questionable political affiliations, however we do reserve the right to refuse any new member showing signs of limited wit (of the humorous variety - rare bona fide boffins excepted), persons overly-sensitive to ridicule, those with a predisposition towards humorless rabble-rousing, and of course, any person or persons from the government claiming to be here to help.

Now on to the important stuff - what design shall we adopt for our fore pole burgees, finely embroidered pocket crests and drink-chip faces? Will the boiling of sprouts be permitted in the clubhouse galley? In which direction should the bagpiper face during the evening blow?

[galaxy flyer]

Aerobat77

Con-pilot and I, among many others here have spent more time between the OM and the TDZ than you have airborne.

I work with two guys who have a completely authenticated 20,000 + hours; I know pipeline and check hauling pilots who have been logging 30+ hours a week since Carter was president. I flew 900+ hours a years for six years and know its not easy, but that is routine. The USMS is known throughout the USG for high flight hours; I flew a 1,000+ during Desert Storm and have guys knocking out 800 or more in the last ten years in C-5s. A pilot in my squadron finished his career with 13,000 hours of AF time, which is strictly take-off to touchdown, not block-to-block. There are literally thousands of pilots in the US who fly 800-1,000 hard hours a year.

GF

[Brian Abraham]

Loved it vapilot

spends countless hours infront a computer writng thousands of postings in an open aviation forumYou obviously missed the pleasure (though not everyone agreed) reading the posts of our recently departed 411A. Had an airline career spanning DC-7, Constellation, and passed away recently still captaining a wide body. A prolific poster, do a search for the number.

[Junkflyer]

Also for those that spend a lot of time in hotels, a few minutes here and there posting on the internet is really nothing in terms of time.

[TRF4EVR]

Wow, I just read a years worth of posts by "20,000+" hour pilots and it made me dumber.

[galaxy flyer]

Junk flyer

At the 8th day of sitting in a hotel in a Gulf state during Ramadan, having rearranged the computer files for the third time, waiting for the bar to reopen on Thursday, posting on Pprune is a marked relief. OTOH, four days in Palau not having Internet, getting back is also a pleasure. Only so much Pacific paradise.

GF

[nomorecatering]

Getting back to the topic.

About the solitair. Some questions.

What are they like landing in crosswind, from what I can gather, they only have a 15 kt x wind limit.

One website lists the max cruise alt as FL330. Do they regularly go that high or more comming in the high 20's. Is there any benefit going above FL330.

[john_tullamarine]

Wait, I think I may have a solution!

A vexed question, I fear.

(a) if we were to eliminate those whom we might think to be inferior, the forum would become unashamedly elitist.

Would that be a useful end ?

(b) if we turned our backs (hypothetically, as the owners would not permit that to occur) anarchy would ensue.

Definitely not useful.

(c) what we endeavour to do is

(i) keep the absolute ratbags at bay, having given them time to demonstrate their extremism

(ii) keep overt nastiness at bay, per the generic Rules of Engagement

(iii) try to keep threads on a reasonably even keel without exercising moderator bias or being precious

Do we succeed ? Not too sure. But that's about as good as we can do, I guess.

Safe aviating.

[TRF4EVR]

They can be "interesting" in a crosswind. Power on the downwind engine seems to help. I don't have enough time in shortbodies to comment intelligently, but the longbodies aren't any worse than any other airplane, once you get used to them.

I'd be surprised if anyone went to the trouble to RVSM a Mitsi...they're not a particularly high-flying airplane. Happiest in the low to mid 20s, in my experience.

[Dream Land]

Yep, have to agree, hate the way the nose gear doesn't have a simple system to remain straight for landing. :cool:

[vapilot2004]

Do we succeed ? Not too sure. But that's about as good as we can do, I guess.

You gents run a fine establishment. :ok:

I was thinking more of a small salon in the back reserved for gentlemen (and ladies) of a certain PPRuNe age that would serve as a peaceful retreat from the bing-bong din of the main hall.


Apologies for any disruption of this otherwise fine saMUrai-2 discussion.

[usaf2009]

The very question you are asking is why the SFAR was created .... the procedure is to maintain wings level - feather the engine - retract the gear - leave the flaps alone .... any deviations will kill. 727 is correct get the best you can ... init 13K rec 3-6k GS-20hrs Flt 6-10hrs: checkride is to ATP-AMEL-IFR you will have to fly all the approaches both 2 eng and 1 eng and then keep current --- OH! you can't keep current unless its specifically in a MU2. Mandatory recurrent training is part of the SFAR.

The MU2 is a great aircraft " :ok: " like 727 stated but its a tight bird and will bite hard if you get her out of her envelop. Fly her by the book and DO NOT IMPREVISE you will survive .. if not ... they read about ya.

Retired Air Force Major
A10. F16, F4, KC135 ... oh ya MU2.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I flew the MU2J (long) about 30 years ago or so. I did go to Flight Safety for initial training.

.One thing to remember is the difference between Vyse and Vxse. It does take time to get to single engine best rate of climb speed. but you are pretty close to single engine ANGLE of climb speed shortly after takeoff.

I operated out of a 2500 foot strip and every takeoff was a critical one. And in this case I would call for gear up as soon as we had positive rate of climb. You can't cover yourself everywhere in this plane...its not like a transport with V2 and all numbers making sense.

Do respect this plane at all times. I found it disharmonious in pitch and roll...so get use to it.

The FAA wants special attention with this plane and your friend probably bought it cheap for a reason.

The pilot who mentioned rigging is very , very RIGHT. So be sure this thing is well maintained.

Be sure to understand the fuel dippers/engine limiters/temp/torque.

Flight Safety trained us to do the ILS , both engines, with only half flap...I didn't like it that way as they encouraged us to land with half flap....but that was A LONG time ago.

My plane did not have anti skid brakes...I wish it did ! So be careful.


I had a flameout in one engine shortly after starting it on the ground...always felt it was due to an odd angle of crosswind and engine inlet. Started it again and no problems (no fuel pump problems or anything wrong).

I did have a fuel pump failure inflight...at that time the flight safety folks said to land ASAP as the pump could break apart and make alll fuel unusable....thought we landed safely.

The plexiglass windscreen can offer less than satisfactory visiblity especially at night.

I would always do stableized approaches based on weight/vref and a single engine go around at some points to a short field would be very difficult, so comit to landing at some point if an engine fails during approach.

I would say this type is one of the most demanding planes I've ever flown...true transports like the DC9 and 737 are much more enjoyable to fly.

The garrett engine is preferable to the pratt and whitney in terms of immediate response.

Rumor had it that the MU2 was going to be a pure jet at some time with no major changes except the engines.

Remember refueling is demanding and the thing can look one wing low, so fill a tip tank half way, go to the other and fill it all the way and then come back and fill the first tank up. And watch the spray as air pressure is used to move fuel from tips to main.

It will either kill you or make you a better pilot! good luck.

[sevenstrokeroll]

earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the DC9 ...I flew it for more than 10 years and I loved it. The best plane I have or will ever fly.

When I got hired at my airline (at the time the largest DC930 operator in the world) our vice president of flying came in and said he was a rocket man and didn't care for the boeing. He then went on to say they called the DC9 the rocket.

I was dissapointed at first being assigned to the DC9 while others got the 737.

BUT after flying both the 737 and the DC9 there is no comparison. The DC9 was and is called THE LAST PILOT'S AIRLINER and whoever said that was right on.

I could write about the DC9 for hours...but it is a wonderful flying plane. I had many more maintenance issues in the 737. The DC9 flew like a fighter according to one F15 driver that flew with me.

IF I HAD as much money as that kid with facebook, I would buy the rights from boeing and start buidling them again...I wouldn't lose money on em !!!

[bubbers44]

ssr, i agree, the MU2 was a handful. Just lowering the gear or adding flaps made it so you had to regain control on approach. I was happy to go back to the Lear Jet because it was easy to fly, the MU2 wasn't.

[bubbers44]

Later the 737, DC9 and 757 and 767 made life uneventful.

[sevenstrokeroll]

right on bubbers

I always somehow resented flying a plane built by those wonderful folks who gave us the Zero!

Flying the Douglas and Boeing made up for it on that level too.

[misd-agin]

The DC-9 flew like a fighter? Wires moving controls tabs??? LOL. Maybe similar to a P-47 experiencing Mach tuck.

[kwtxpilot]

I have over 4000 hrs in every model of the MU2 commercially sold. An absolute tank of an airplane. Bigger cabin than a KingAir 200, faster and burns less fuel. But ...

they do HAVE to be flown like a jet. Everybody talks about 40-50 KIAS difference between rotation and best single engine climb, but it's every bit of that and sometimes more in a DC-9/MD-80 and B-737. You just have to climb to a safe terrain clearance altitude below best climb speed, then level off and start accelerating, retracting the flaps (drag) on schedule.

It's a HIGH wing load airplane, like the T-38s and F-4s that I used to fly. The spoilers give it exceptional roll capability at very low airspeeds.

You need to be trained, you need to stay proficient and you need to have your head on straight (which you should do on every airplane you fly). If you do that, the MU-2 is unbeatable especially from a value perspective.

[sevenstrokeroll]

misd

you have a problem with cables moving tabs?

another good thing about the MU2...if you land gear up, the mains are sticking out a tiny bit and you won't do too much damage

yuck yuck...don't attempt on purpose