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.

Oh my...not even in the same ballpark, conquest dash 10 all day long.

why, whats the reason.

Just ask for the numbers in Aus
Solitaire - are there any left
C441 - stacks with more coming

That should give a hint

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!! :8 it's a shame skippers don't take care of there's, dirty bloody things. Shame

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)

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?

Why would the regulators be interested?
There's still a couple on the Australian register, and have been numerous examples in the past!

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."

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.

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. :E:E

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... :p

Spoken like a true Cessna w a n k e r ! :p

They Cheyenne with the 5 blade props look seriously horny.

Google Image Result for http://www.mt-propellerusa.com/imgs/photos/stc/pa42.jpg

1400 hours Chieftain

200 hours C404

Guilty. :ok:

What's wrong with a G1000? :ok:
Not the avionics suite (for the Gen Y'ers)!:E

MU 2 Pilots Aircraft Conquest Accountants Aircraft

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.:ok:

Don't waste your time with these, buy a KingAir :ok: