Mu-2 Info

[Stationair8]

A question for any Mu-2 pilots on pprune.

With the Mu-2, from a pilots point of view is the Marquis a better proposition than the Solitaire?

Has anyone any experince doing a MU-2 type rating in the US?

Regards
S8

[tinhorse]

Don't know if he is still doing MU2 conversions - but Reece Howell at Smyrna Tennessee did mine some time ago. He was just brilliant, and at that time had over 12000 hours in MU2 type. The last takeopff we did he said " Boy I am going to make you do a flapless takeoff - just so you never do one"

[T28D]

The Mu 2 probably the best aircraft I have flown, just wonderful as long as you learn't the numbers, read the check lists and fly the aircraft as it was intended by the designer/manufacturer.

Flight Safety in the U.S. does FAA sanctioned Type Approval Training and recurrency checks.

The longer body airframes are nicer to fly, some are retro fitted with -10 engines and are great with the proviso that you really understand the upper end of the flight envelope.

asan IFR platform they are unbeatable, great roll control slow from the spoilers. and they come down hill as if they are on rails.

The previouscomment re: take off flaps is just so true, but obey the manual and it is a dream.

Avoid Icing !!!!

[VH-XXX]

Does it have to be in the US? I know of a couple of pilots in Melbourne that are qualified to endorse you.

There's an MU2 for sale at Essendon due to medical reasons. Quite resonably priced I hear.

[Frank Arouet]

Yes, The Rice Rocket.

From a corporate angle, I wouldn't have anybody flying me around in a Mitsubishi unless they are current with Flight safety US. Not that I am a corporate Guru, but they do have some peculiar habits that demand recency plus competency above all. And yes I have flown right seat in a Marquis.

My only concern from a non professional perspective was on bankrunner black kero burn marks on the horizontal stabiliser on the short fuselage model. Just didn't look right. You know, heat on metal fatigue etc. Could have been pilot technique?

But I like the aeroplane bercause it just looks right.

[troppo]

just wonderful as long as you learn't the numbers,
hate to be a grammar nazi but on this subject and the MU2, learn't = learn not
Often used to think someone should have run one out of NZTG to NZWN as an alternative to NZ Link via Auckland for business travelers...but you need deep pockets to compete with Air NZ

[cac_sabre]

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/sabrejet/page%202/IMG_7181-1.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/sabrejet/page%202/IMG_7172-1.jpg

[aussie027]

Wiki entry gives a good summation on Safety issues.

The sentence I bolded and underlined is significant because it sums up the situation that became a cause and effect circle.

After a number of initial accidents occurred with the type and then continued to occur over time, some operators began selling off the aircraft due to its bad reputation and this led to a large number of the type on the market at increasingly cheaper prices.
The chance to acquire a high performance aircraft at a cheap price tempted many, especially cashed up individuals who saw it as a great chance to upgrade their aircraft type but many lacked the required general experience and supervision to operate an aircraft with these special design features and operating requirements and so the accident rates increased and so the reputation got worse and prices fell further so more people bought them and so on.
Eventually as stated below the authorities acted to require specific type training and pilot experience requirements etc.

Several US MU-2 pilots I spoke to loved the aircraft and were overall very happy with it and wouldnt trade it for anything else in its class.

WIKI---

Safety Concerns

Concerns have been raised about safety; there have been 330 fatalities from MU-2 crashes.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_MU-2#cite_note-CNBCFeb2007-5) As of October 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aviation_Administration) (FAA) has begun a safety evaluation of the aircraft and decided that the aircraft has met its certification requirements - it is safe when operated by properly trained pilots who operate properly maintained aircraft. The FAA is in the process of mandating training (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_training) specific to the MU-2 as it has in the past for other aircraft. When such mandated training was required outside of the U.S. the MU-2 accident record was vastly improved.


Because the MU-2 offers very high performance at a relatively low cost, some of its operators lack sufficient training and experience for such an advanced aircraft.

A design feature of the MU-2 is its high cruise speed while having a low landing speed. This is accomplished by using full-span, double-slotted flaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_%28aircraft%29) on the trailing edge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailing_edge) of the wing. These flaps give the MU-2 a wing area comparable to a Beech King Air in landing configuration while having a wing area comparable to a light jet while in cruise mode. The full-span flaps meant that over-wing spoilers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_%28aeronautics%29) were employed instead of conventional ailerons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileron). These spoilers are highly effective, even when the MU-2 wing is stalled. Some fatal accidents have occurred because normal engine-out procedures for light twin aircraft are not effective when flying the MU-2. The commonly taught procedure of reducing flap following an engine failure on take off leads to a critical reduction in lift in the MU-2 due to the highly effective double-slotted flaps. When pilots were taught to retain take-off flap and to reduce climb rate in the event of an engine failure, MU-2 accident rates reduced to almost nil.


From an FAA press release:
The FAA began an aggressive safety evaluation in July 2005. The evaluation is performing a detailed review of accidents, incidents, airworthiness directives, service difficulty reports, safety recommendations and safety reports. It also is examining pilot training requirements, the history of the aircraft's commercial operators and possible engine problems. The goal is to identify the root causes of MU-2 accidents and incidents and determine what, if any, additional safety actions are needed. In early 2008, the FAA issued a Special Federal Air Regulation (SFAR) directed at MU-2B operations. Pilots flying this aircraft after that date (current MU-2 pilots would have a year to come into compliance) were required to receive type-specific initial training, as well as recurrent training. It also required that a fully functional autopilot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopilot) be available for single-pilot operations, and that FAA-approved checklists and operating manuals be on board at all times. Also unusual for this SFAR, pilot experience in other aircraft types cannot be used to comply with MU-2 operational requirements - for instance, the requirement to perform landings within the preceding 90 calendar days before carrying passengers is altered by this SFAR to require those landings be made in the MU-2.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_MU-2#cite_note-6)

>>>>>>This article is a very good read<<<<<<<

Mitsubishi MU-2 Part 2 (What”s Wrong With the MU-2?) « I n f o r m a t i o n 2 S h a r e (http://information2share.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/mitsubishi-mu-2-part-2-whats-wrong-with-the-mu-2/)
:ok::ok::ok:

[dogcharlietree]

troppo said hate to be a grammar nazi but on this subject and the ....

Something about people that live in glass houses;

Each new sentence should start with a capital letter. ;)

[donpizmeov]

Stationair,

I am jealous mate. I always wanted to have a go of a MU 2.

The Don

[T28D]

donpizmeov (http://www.pprune.org/members/31968-donpizmeov) Great Handle, they grammarpolice have already piz me off

[VH-MLE]

In my opinion, steer well clear of it - from all accounts, the the MU-2 bites and bites VERY hard when either not flown "correctly" or in an unsuitable environment i.e icing conditions.

I remember hearing pilots going on about this machine & how great it was back in the 80's - unfortunately, a couple of very nasty (icing related) accidents changed that thinking and to my mind not a lot has changed...

Just my opinion...

VH-MLE

[dogcharlietree]

Most of this thread has already been covered previously here;
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/97605-mitsubishi-mu2.html

[AdamFrisch]

Since the FAA demanded type specific recurrent training yearly on them, the accident rate has dropped to one of the lowest for any turbine airplane. They're built like brick houses and still fully supported by Mitsubishi USA, so parts are easy to get.

Still the cheapest twin turboprop there is with bulletproof engines. If I had the money I'd get one before everyone catches on to them.

[60 & below]

The longer models are a lot more stable and nicer to fly.
I was fortunate enough to operate various MU-2 models including the longer N models on bank runs and general freight on the east coast of Aus in the late 80’s.Wow what fun we used to have.
You could take off from a short strip and outperform most jets on descent to the circuit area.
I was once asked at an interview for a foreign carrier what were the issues with the aircraft.
Firstly fly it like a fighter don’t let it get slow and low as its sink rate could develop very quickly.
Also your liftoff speed is usually about 100kts but your single engine rate of climb was about 150kts.
Your options at MTOW below 500ft, become a test pilot or above 500ft lower the nose convert your height to airspeed. Secondly icing, crew were trying to out climb the icing layer, all they were doing by lowering their airspeed to increase their climb rate was presenting more belly area for the ice to form which added a lot of extra weight. We added an extra 20kts to our climb speed during icing conditions and usually got above the layer where others didn’t. Also during my endorsement it was suggested that if a spin developed and you had heaps of altitude it might be worth feathering both props to present a clean airflow to the very short wing to recover. The MU2 could take several revolutions and several thousand feet to recover. I knew the Bathurst pilot and some months before his accident he taught me another lesson on how the MU2 can bite. He shutdown on the tarmac area in Sydney and came over to say hello all white and very flustered. He told me he was on descent when the aircraft suddenly yawed to one side, he thought he had suffered an engine failure but after checking his instruments he discovered everything was working correctly, after checking outside he discovered that the top engine cowl was standing upright causing large amount of drag, he commented that the aircraft required a lot of piloting to get it back on the ground.

In short Great Aircraft but don’t let it fly you be proactive and aware of your surroundings. :ok: