Originally Posted by
pr00ne
Good question. The most likely reason is the MU-2 provides near jet performance (almost 300kt, 30,000 ceiling) with turboprop operating costs and handling (75 kt stall). This performance is partially responsible for it's chequered history (over 300 fatalities since introduction) where some handling characteristics were either not taught well, or not understood well by pilots used to piston engine performance. The full span flaps coupled with spoilers for roll control require specific techniques in slow speed or single engine recoveries. The FAA addressed the high accident rate by issuing a Special Federal Air Regulation (SFAR) requiring all MU-2 pilots to receive type-specific initial training and recurrent training. That significantly reduced the accident rates. In the case of Tyndall, the company with the contract (Air 1st) has over 30 years experience operating and maintaining an MU-2 fleet the US, so they obviously manged to convince a DOD Contracting Officer it was the right plane for the job, and won the bid.