MU-2 vs. Turbine Commander vs. Conquest II

[Garrik]

All three of these are TPE-331-10 powered twins from the early '80's. Performance and capability seems to be roughly in the same range.

Without starting a religious war, and without repeating the debate about the safety record of the MU-2; does anyone have thoughts about the relative strengths and weaknesses of these three planes?

For example, the MU-2 is not RVSM certified (and no STC exists as best I can tell), whereas the Commander and the Conquest are both RVSM capable...

[AdamFrisch]

Well, you might know that since the FAA mandated recurrent type training (it's not a TR), the accident statistics of the MU-2 has gone well below the other two models. In fact, I think it's one of the safest twin turboprops in the statistics now...

MU-2: Fully supported, built lick brick houses, rugged, good short field etc. Cheap to get into. Surely one could get it RSVM with the right avionics and protocol?

Commanders: Also fully supported and rugged. Normally the Dash 10 engines are what people want which will give about 300kts. They have a recurring 36 month spar inspection unless upgraded with an STC. Most turbines have had it done, but it's a cool $100K if one wants to do it. They have a recurring 5 year teardown and gear inspection. They have a one time aft pressure bulkhead inspection over a certain amount of hours and it's a pretty big deal. The later 695's have insane range and can do pretty much any continental US city non stop with over 2100nm range.

Don't know anything about Conquests.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Conquest: Fastest, highest flying (FL 350) and nicest handling of the three. Big cabin but a bit of a maintenance hog with expensive and recurring SID inspections

Commander: Very big difference between an early 690 and a late model 1000. In general small cabin not as fast and high maintenance especially the earlier models. A terrific climber and good short field performance.

MU2: Again lots of differences between an early short body F and a high serial number Marquis. Fast and good cabin size in the long cabin ones, but noisy inside, especially compared to the Conquest. Built like a tank and pretty maintenance friendly but not a particularly pleasant aircraft to fly.

Personally I would buy a King Air 200 or 350 :ok:

[500 above]

Go for the Conquest if you can't get a B200.

Personally I would buy a King Air 200 or 350

Agreed BPF!

[Garrik]

Guys, let's get real. A KA 200 is a $2-3MM US airplane, and burns 700 pounds per hour to deliver 280 knots or so. The TPE-331 powered planes cost between $500k and $1.5MM US, and burn around 540 pounds per hour to fly 300+ KTAS.

Agree that the KA is a much nicer airplane, especially if riding in the back - but for performance per unit dollar, the TPE-331 powered planes are much better bang for the buck. As an owner pilot, that is what I care about.

So back to the original question. Any operational advantages for one plane over the others that I might not discover with a few minutes worth of google searches?

Autopilot options? SID's or other MX items? etc.

[Pace]

G

I did a little right seat time on the 690B. It had an amazing climb was quick but the major downside was the noise inside. A bit like a machine gun going off in your head.
Regarding The Conquest its range was why they were so popular in the USA having coast to coast capability.
Maybe consider the smaller Conquest the Conguest 1 but with the Blackhawk modification? Delicious handling aircraft.

Pace

[M-ONGO]

http://www.controller.com/list/list.aspx?manu=BEECHCRAFT&mdltxt=KING+AIR+200

There are some really good Beechcraft deals around.

[AdamFrisch]

Yes, Garretts have higher TBO, burn less fuel, cost less to service and can be run on any fuel pretty much. Diesel? No problem - certified for it. Even Avgas/Mogas is OK once per 1000hrs or so (can't recall the exact number), if you're in a bind. So certainly a more versatile engine than the PT6 where none of this is possible. Drawbacks are that they're noisier, and because they have to spin up the whole gearbox before ignition, they're power hungry and more hot start prone. I've also heard they need a little more service compared to a PT6. Obviously, this is offset by a 5400hr TBO.

[mattman]

Having flown the KA 200 and the 690B, the differences are like chalk and cheese.
Maintenance wise the 200 will be pretty much anywhere but it can get costly when your not ready for it. The Pratts are pretty much bullet proof and can take a fair amount of punishment. The cabin noise is higher in 200 than 690 but bigger space but the panoramic window in the 690 I feel gives it a pleasant feel of space. Comfortably 5 pax in the 690 but nobody with a small bladder as the bog is right up behind the pilot.
The 690 can be a maintenance pig and if you get a facility that does not understand the rigging of the dash 10 you will have endless start and power problems. If you do manage to find the rare bird that is happy and no issues then the fun really starts. To fly the 690 is to fly a mustang, once those engines are up and running everybody on the airfield will be watching. Ears plugged with fingers and big wide eyes as those Garrett's happily noise pollute the apron.

The complexity of the systems gives a true aviation experience unparalleled. But once your airborne it handles like a fighter on rails and has performance to spare. The dash 10 are horsepower limited and you have switches to that effect if ever your really in the dwang just slap the switches and get a extra 300 horses a side. I was lucky enough to have an instructor show me a proper engine failure. After failing at 10000 we continued the climb to FL230 at a pretty sprightly pace.
Takeoff empty and you will be forgiven for feeling like riding Discovery to the space station, sitting so forward of the wings you get to feel like the tip of the missile.
It lands anywhere and I have taken it into pretty rough strips in Africa, but you have to be very wary of all the dangling bits underneath as it is a fine way to loose and antenna or two.
The downside is you look like a bit of a **** spinning props after shutdown to cool the shaft down. Energy management is essential as the KA just needs the power closed to slow down.
It has superb range, but you have to take your time refueling, there are 22 fuel cells and they feed by gravity. Seen quite a few refuelers with fuel coming back in there face after to much haste.
It is nice and fast and does not block levels as much as the KA and trust me there will be some radio calls to describe the type when you can keep up with them.

If your looking for a family car to to take you from A to B then the KA. It will be boring until you need to handle icing and with ice vanes extended and trying to maintain 140 in the climb you will wish for some direct drive engines.

The 690 will an experience every time and you will be allowed to walk up to it with your leather jacket and bars.

Sorry if I went of on a tangent but as turbo props go this is one aircraft that I loved to fly and still if given the chance would fly again. Bob Hoover passionately demonstrated the 500 series and proved what a great aircraft it was, they just added turbines to it.

[Dream Land]

I've operated B200's, C441's, MU2's and SWIII's, but no 690's, they all have there good and bad points.

For maintenance, the MU2 was the least expensive, Merlin the highest.

For handling, I don't know how you could beat the feel of a King Air 200, also, you can back up a full Chevy Suburban and load it with no problems.

If you were doing some long range stuff, the CE441 does great, but the handling was crap compared to others, great trailing link gear though.

If money wasn't a factor, I'd want a King Air 200, but as an owner operator operation, give me the MU-2 Solitaire, this aircraft was designed right to begin with, high wing loading for handling in turbulence, landing gear the strongest of all mentioned, adapted off the F-104, fabulous flap sytem utilizing 85% of the trailing edge with an operating roll rate of an F-4 when fully configured, never got boring!

The worst handling IMHO was the Conquest, yes it did climb, but I seem to remember a low (in comparison) Vmo and the nose kind of waggled around.

Cheers.

[AdamFrisch]

Here's a short body MU-2 with over 400hrs left on the engines and that appears to be in great shape for $249.000. A close to TBO Commander/King Air will be at least $100-200K more expensive, so a MU-2 is great value for money. There simply aren't any other turbine twins one can get in to for less. Sure, the initial mandatory training will run you about $5-8K, but then the recurring each year is much cheaper than that, maybe $1-2K.

1974 Mitsubishi MU-2 K Short Body in Aircraft | eBay Motors (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1974-Mitsubishi-MU-2-K-Short-Body-/330865486801?pt=Motors_Aircraft&hash=item4d091eabd1#ht_968wt_1167)

[Jamair]

a more versatile engine than the PT6 where none of this is possible Mate, dunno where you got your info but yer wrong. PT6 on the B200 can certainly run avgas and mogas up to 150hr total between HSI. The exact fuels are listed in the POH.

Bloody thing will run on cooking oil if you want to.

There are good, well equipped and long TTR mid-1980s SKAs (same vintage as the MU2 etc) to be had for $400-500K.

As for the original question, Conquest is prob the quickest from my limited RH seat time in one, Commander is undoubtedly the noisiest.

Have you considered the least expensive of the lot - the Cheyenne? A PA42-720 Cheyenne III or IIIA is a pretty good performer, load hauler, long range and would be the least expensive of all these to buy and run - expense being a relative term in kero-burners. Or if you REALLY wanna haul, the PA42-1000, with Garretts. Niiice.

[Dream Land]

I liked all the Cheyennes, nice crisp handling, the III operated @ 270KTS, never flew the IV, but the smaller ones were real contenders with the -20 STC.