Mitsubishi MU-2 Marquise
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thrust clb,
Instead of doing five trips a week, why not find a cheap DHC-5 Buffalo and just do the one trip on a Friday? Will be able to carry everything you could dream of plus more.
Speeds may be a little slower than desired but you'll have no problem getting into that 800m strip, or even just land on the beach.
And if you need a pilot to fly it, feel free to give me a call
Cheers,
Tiger.
Instead of doing five trips a week, why not find a cheap DHC-5 Buffalo and just do the one trip on a Friday? Will be able to carry everything you could dream of plus more.
Speeds may be a little slower than desired but you'll have no problem getting into that 800m strip, or even just land on the beach.
And if you need a pilot to fly it, feel free to give me a call
Cheers,
Tiger.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......hey Tiger 77 just out of curiosity what would the purchase price be of one said DHC-5 ?....................sounds plausable enough but me thinks that $500K (the allowed budget) might buy a spare prop for same but that's about all.............sadly a lot of island countries like Fiji are dead flat broke for Eg. & couldn't afford the 'ideal' plane anyway.
Capt wally
Capt wally
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would have thought this was a better option than the MU:
WHO IS GOING TO STEAL this plane?... Last chance, spent over $200,000 for improvements, fresh hot, $439,000!! Make an offer now, must go before end of the year!! 1970 King Air 100, S/N B25, 13,350-TT, SMOH/LE 3350, SHS 0, SMOH/RE 3950, SHS 0. Part 91, 18 seat skydiving configuration, fresh landing gear inspections. Bank approved new loan. Will trade for Caravan. As is, where is. HI/(808) 371-0663.
WHO IS GOING TO STEAL this plane?... Last chance, spent over $200,000 for improvements, fresh hot, $439,000!! Make an offer now, must go before end of the year!! 1970 King Air 100, S/N B25, 13,350-TT, SMOH/LE 3350, SHS 0, SMOH/RE 3950, SHS 0. Part 91, 18 seat skydiving configuration, fresh landing gear inspections. Bank approved new loan. Will trade for Caravan. As is, where is. HI/(808) 371-0663.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
......hey Tiger 77 just out of curiosity what would the purchase price be of one said DHC-5 ?....................sounds plausable enough but me thinks that $500K (the allowed budget) might buy a spare prop for same but that's about all.............sadly a lot of island countries like Fiji are dead flat broke for Eg. & couldn't afford the 'ideal' plane anyway.
Ok so its over Thrust clb's budget but only by a little. Its a tough aircraft so just find a cheap one and give it a polish. It'll keep flying for decades...
Cheers,
Tiger
so predictable and I could have won money on you. 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiz of aus
Don't think so, Shorts 330s (and 360s) don't store fuel in the wings... it lives in tanks on top of the fuselage...
to much drama refueling them. if you fill the tip tanks before the inboards, they fall over. you have to half fill one side, them go around and fill the other side, then go back and top off the first side if you want to avoid bent wings and amusing photographs.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thrust clb
Mate take a Bex with a nice cup of tea and go have a lie down until the feeling goes away.
I notice your location as being 3rd world, all I can say is let the third world pilots fly whatever they want. There is more work out there in the first and second world than you can shake a stick at, if you can hack it go there. Otherwise dont plan on living a long and fulfilling life.
Mate take a Bex with a nice cup of tea and go have a lie down until the feeling goes away.
I notice your location as being 3rd world, all I can say is let the third world pilots fly whatever they want. There is more work out there in the first and second world than you can shake a stick at, if you can hack it go there. Otherwise dont plan on living a long and fulfilling life.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust Clb
500K only buys you a maintenance nightmare, but you may get a C441 at around 750 -1M now.
If the Philipines aren't worrying about SIDS then this would give you an option and the difference would be saved in operating costs.
If the Philipines aren't worrying about SIDS then this would give you an option and the difference would be saved in operating costs.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tranquility Base
Age: 68
Posts: 53
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MU-2 seems to have a poor safety record. Any thoughts on why? Is it the high wing loading or its complex systems? (And yes, I do realize this is an old thread.)
I assume you have already done a search here on pprune and digested all the positive and negative war stories!
So rather than ask here, and have the same old crap bought up again....!
Why not go and do some research for yourself.
Type MU-2 into Google and just follow the leads! There is a wealth of accurate and well informed information out there. Especially the US sites.
I certainly get tired of statements...The [insert aircraft type here] seems to have a poor safety record. Who and what defines that?
And yes. It is an old (and tired) thread!
So rather than ask here, and have the same old crap bought up again....!
Why not go and do some research for yourself.
Type MU-2 into Google and just follow the leads! There is a wealth of accurate and well informed information out there. Especially the US sites.
I certainly get tired of statements...The [insert aircraft type here] seems to have a poor safety record. Who and what defines that?
And yes. It is an old (and tired) thread!
A PA-31T should be able to do what you are after, they can be picked up for as low as 300k.
They should have no problems operating routes like MNL-MPH and operating out of Caticlan (810m) with 1000 kg.
They should have no problems operating routes like MNL-MPH and operating out of Caticlan (810m) with 1000 kg.
wiz of aus
Quote:
to much drama refueling them. if you fill the tip tanks before the inboards, they fall over. you have to half fill one side, them go around and fill the other side, then go back and top off the first side if you want to avoid bent wings and amusing photographs.
Quote:
to much drama refueling them. if you fill the tip tanks before the inboards, they fall over. you have to half fill one side, them go around and fill the other side, then go back and top off the first side if you want to avoid bent wings and amusing photographs.
Don't think so, Shorts 330s (and 360s) don't store fuel in the wings... it lives in tanks on top of the fuselage...
e! In the end I refused to refuel them as I never felt safe up the ladder. DF.
Lazerdog,
The aircraft requires some special operating considerations as described in para From Wiki below.
As accidents occurred in the early days due to a lack of training specific to the type and a bad rep started to form the prices of the 2nd hand acft started to fall and so more people with the money looking to move up to turboprops but not necessarily the needed background and experience got into them and the accidents continued and so prices fell, rep got worse and so on.
There was a large fleet of them here in Perth in the mid-late 80s but after 2 fatal accidents, one at xmas1988 from memory that killed 10-11 people the company involved started getting rid of them. CASA mandated min pilot exp and training but the damage had already been done and the company closed some yrs later.
Safety Concerns
Like all aircraft, the safety record of the MU-2 has been examined by government agencies and found to be acceptable when compared to other aircraft in its class; it was involved in 11 accidents with a total of 12 fatalities in a single 18-month period. Also, as reported by CNBC, there have been a total of 330 fatalities from MU-2 crashes.[6] However, there have been years where the MU-2 had no accidents at all. As of October 2005, the 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 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 on the 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 were employed instead of conventional ailerons. 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 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]
The aircraft requires some special operating considerations as described in para From Wiki below.
As accidents occurred in the early days due to a lack of training specific to the type and a bad rep started to form the prices of the 2nd hand acft started to fall and so more people with the money looking to move up to turboprops but not necessarily the needed background and experience got into them and the accidents continued and so prices fell, rep got worse and so on.
There was a large fleet of them here in Perth in the mid-late 80s but after 2 fatal accidents, one at xmas1988 from memory that killed 10-11 people the company involved started getting rid of them. CASA mandated min pilot exp and training but the damage had already been done and the company closed some yrs later.
Safety Concerns
Like all aircraft, the safety record of the MU-2 has been examined by government agencies and found to be acceptable when compared to other aircraft in its class; it was involved in 11 accidents with a total of 12 fatalities in a single 18-month period. Also, as reported by CNBC, there have been a total of 330 fatalities from MU-2 crashes.[6] However, there have been years where the MU-2 had no accidents at all. As of October 2005, the 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 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 on the 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 were employed instead of conventional ailerons. 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 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]
