Mu2 Solitaire Vs Conquest 2 -Dash10
Thread Starter
Mu2 Solitaire Vs Conquest 2 -Dash10
Much has been said on here about the Mitsu, but what about the Conquest.
On Controller.com com you can pick up a Solitair for about 700K. There's an 85 Conquest, all the mods and only 3500hrs TT, no price but i can imagine it being around 1.7m.
Is the Conquest an easier aircraft to fly.
What will one do in cruise, some reviews say about 280 kts.
Interesting flaps they have too, true fowler type. But do they have a real effect on the stall speed like the Mitsu?
Any difference in system complexity.
On Controller.com com you can pick up a Solitair for about 700K. There's an 85 Conquest, all the mods and only 3500hrs TT, no price but i can imagine it being around 1.7m.
Is the Conquest an easier aircraft to fly.
What will one do in cruise, some reviews say about 280 kts.
Interesting flaps they have too, true fowler type. But do they have a real effect on the stall speed like the Mitsu?
Any difference in system complexity.
Just ask for the numbers in Aus
Solitaire - are there any left
C441 - stacks with more coming
That should give a hint
Solitaire - are there any left
C441 - stacks with more coming
That should give a hint
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My office is sometimes a conquest 2 with dash 10's. Great plane, easy plane from start to shut down. Simple Cessna systems. It will do 280 tas every time and burn 520 pounds an hour between FL220-FL250 always. Fast,cheap to run for a twin turbine, look great if they are taken care of.....and loud!! 
it's a shame skippers don't take care of there's, dirty bloody things. Shame
it's a shame skippers don't take care of there's, dirty bloody things. Shame
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of MU-2's, this audio link on YouTube makes for interesting listening. I'd be looking for my blanky around 2:20...
MU2 Emergency severe icing ATC Part 2 - YouTube
(Sorry, didn't mean to take your thread off on a tangent but I'd just been listening to that before coming across this thread)
MU2 Emergency severe icing ATC Part 2 - YouTube
(Sorry, didn't mean to take your thread off on a tangent but I'd just been listening to that before coming across this thread)
Last edited by Steve Zissou; 23rd Aug 2012 at 09:16.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have heard a rumour about an operator purchasing an MU2 for charter - just happened..... I wonder whether the regulators would get involved?
Are there any MU2's operating in OZ in charter?
Are there any MU2's operating in OZ in charter?
I may have heard a rumour about an operator purchasing an MU2 for charter.... wonder whether the regulators would get involved?
There's still a couple on the Australian register, and have been numerous examples in the past!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may have answered the question yourself inadvertently...
What happened to the rest ??? 
Two left in OZ, one hasn't flown for years and I don't know about the other one.
Wait and see what happens when one of the most *dangerous* aircraft in the world end up on a charter AOC.
As a mate who has over 500 hours on them said to me a while back, they are a "great freight aircraft."
There's still a couple on the Australian register
Two left in OZ, one hasn't flown for years and I don't know about the other one.
Wait and see what happens when one of the most *dangerous* aircraft in the world end up on a charter AOC.
The Mitsubishi MU-2 is one of post-war Japan's most successful aircraft. There have been 330 fatalities from MU-2 crashes. 704 were built.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 23rd Aug 2012 at 13:01.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company operates MU-2s on medivacs.
Quick and cheap machines. Parts can be hard to come by, but they are dirt cheap in the states. Cheaper to buy a whole plane than the replacement part from Mitsibushi now.
Based in Canada, so icing isn't as bad as what is pictured in that link. That was a severe icing encounter while flying at night into unforecast weather. Was also the last plane in the fleet to have some modification installed that would have saved them a whole world of problems.
MU-2's have a bad rep as a doctor killer as they are as cheap as $250,000. Turbine hot rod can be appealing at those prices.
Have no idea about C441's.
Quick and cheap machines. Parts can be hard to come by, but they are dirt cheap in the states. Cheaper to buy a whole plane than the replacement part from Mitsibushi now.
Based in Canada, so icing isn't as bad as what is pictured in that link. That was a severe icing encounter while flying at night into unforecast weather. Was also the last plane in the fleet to have some modification installed that would have saved them a whole world of problems.
MU-2's have a bad rep as a doctor killer as they are as cheap as $250,000. Turbine hot rod can be appealing at those prices.
Have no idea about C441's.
If you are seriously thinking of buying an aircraft there are Pros and cons for both these types but a low airframe and engine time C-441 would probably be a better choice for a long list of reasons including some already mentioned here.
There is a big Mu-2 thread that was getting a lot of attention a few mo ago.
It would depend on if you wanted to operate PVT or do CHTR as to how hard some hoops might be to jump through on the MU-2, regarding insurance and pilot exp/ training rqmts, especially on CHTR.
Another type to possibly consider along the same lines as a C-441:
If I had the means to buy my own twin t/prop ( PVT or maybe CHTR use) I might seriously consider a low time PA-42 Cheyenne 400.
Refurbished as necessary inside and out.
5 bladed prop option.
There is 1 on Aust register, VH-BUR.
Welcome to BurlAir; Fast, Quiet, Comfortable
A pilots report here-
http://www.mullers.net/mike/cheyenne/
A few avail on different websites on the net.
IF, parts, operating costs, insurance, maint, training etc were very similar to a C441 that would be a possible viable option.
350KTAS and jet like climb performance.
The TPE331 DASH 14 engines are massively flat rated,( even more so than the Dash 10s) to 1000SHP and can maintain that power to 20-22,000 ft in ISA!!! Thermodynamic rating is close to 1700SHP.
A few pilots I spoke to had good things to say about them.
Not many have seen them let alone flown them as they only made 43 of this subtype Cheyenne. Most now in USA and Europe.
I would love to find out for myself.
There is a big Mu-2 thread that was getting a lot of attention a few mo ago.
It would depend on if you wanted to operate PVT or do CHTR as to how hard some hoops might be to jump through on the MU-2, regarding insurance and pilot exp/ training rqmts, especially on CHTR.
Another type to possibly consider along the same lines as a C-441:
If I had the means to buy my own twin t/prop ( PVT or maybe CHTR use) I might seriously consider a low time PA-42 Cheyenne 400.
Refurbished as necessary inside and out.
5 bladed prop option.
There is 1 on Aust register, VH-BUR.
Welcome to BurlAir; Fast, Quiet, Comfortable
A pilots report here-
http://www.mullers.net/mike/cheyenne/
A few avail on different websites on the net.
IF, parts, operating costs, insurance, maint, training etc were very similar to a C441 that would be a possible viable option.
350KTAS and jet like climb performance.
The TPE331 DASH 14 engines are massively flat rated,( even more so than the Dash 10s) to 1000SHP and can maintain that power to 20-22,000 ft in ISA!!! Thermodynamic rating is close to 1700SHP.
A few pilots I spoke to had good things to say about them.
Not many have seen them let alone flown them as they only made 43 of this subtype Cheyenne. Most now in USA and Europe.
I would love to find out for myself.
Last edited by aussie027; 24th Aug 2012 at 09:40.
Cheyenne is just another POS Chieftain, with dearer engines.
The Conker is an improvement over the Titan, and a Titan beats a Chieftain any day...
The Conker is an improvement over the Titan, and a Titan beats a Chieftain any day...
They Cheyenne with the 5 blade props look seriously horny.
Google Image Result for http://www.mt-propellerusa.com/imgs/photos/stc/pa42.jpg
Google Image Result for http://www.mt-propellerusa.com/imgs/photos/stc/pa42.jpg
Last edited by nomorecatering; 24th Aug 2012 at 10:51.
Spoken like a true Cessna w a n k e r !
200 hours C404
Guilty.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What's wrong with a G1000?
Not the avionics suite (for the Gen Y'ers)!
Not the avionics suite (for the Gen Y'ers)!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well HL, to be honest, anything just about flew better than the poor old chieftain, including the queen air, baron, commander series and others. But with 4000 odd hours, the old chiefy never let me down and carried some fearful loads. At a profit. Can't beat that these days.
