Mitsubishi MU 2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitsubishi MU 2
Hello all, I would like to receive as much information as possible about the mitsubishi MU 2 (all variants), like fuel consumption, range, personal experiencies on the type or any technical data.
Thank you very much for your help you all provide to all aviation lovers in the world.
Thank you very much for your help you all provide to all aviation lovers in the world.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1049, try this: http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%...hi%20MU-2.htm. Cheers, HD.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have around four years on various MU-2's, I enjoyed the machine a lot, the last airplane was the Marquise, it will cruise at 300 kts and burn 100 gallons / hr, the long models are a little slower and easier to land and takeoff, the machine is built like a tank, the MU-2 developed a bad reputation in the 70's and had to go through icing recertification, I personally have operated in heavy conditions without any problem, some of the Bendix fuel controllers were dodgey but otherwise a very dependable aircraft.
D.L.
D.L.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Connie:
Great airplane and it will make you a far better pilot when you come off it and on to other advanced types in the future.
The "Moo Too" has a poor reputation in some circles because it is demanding of good handling and strong instrument flying skills. The majority of those who bad-mouth the airplane have never flown it or been trained on it.
Almost all of the crashed airframes were flown by pilots who did not have proper training on the type and got behind the airframe. Like many other aircraft types, there is a number of accidents where people just do dumb things regardless of the name of the manufacturer on the data plate or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time....the "Fate is the Hunter" syndrome.
The acccident history has depressed the value of the airplane and as a result the type has ended up in the hands of some commercial operators and private pilots who fail to maintain it properly or fail to devote the time required to stay highly current on type.
One other thing to never ever take lightly is the Negative Torque Sensing (NTS) System. It puts the prop on the "Dead" engine into partial feather so the airplane will be controllable while you do the SE drill and do the cleanup drill. Don't EVER fly the airplane with the NTS system U/S and maintenance test flights on the system can be very "exciting" if it isn't rigged correctly. A faulty NTS can kill you and I don't care if you are the best stick handler in the world.
The "typical" MU2 accident is landing short of the runway in a very high sink rate with power retarded. I was lucky enough to fly the airplane for an operator who was very big on training and went to Flight Safety International on a regular basis for 8 years and learned a lot from the sim instructors. At the time, FSI was the only company authorized by Mits to provide type training.
In my inital airplane checkout after sim, during night approaches the training pilot had me pull the power back at the FAF and told me to look outside at the runway for about 30 seconds then look back inside at the VSI ... it was pinned at 4,000 FPM down and felt as solid as if the plane was sitting on the ramp with the chocks in place. That was an eye-opener.
The plane has some peculiarities worth noting. The high idling Garretts have next to zero perceptable sound change with power changes thoughout their power range, and due to the high wing loading the plane feels solid all the time. If you are coming off a light piston twin you'll find it to be a very different animal than you are used to.
All trims and control inputs interact with one another ... sort of like a helicopter. Changing anything causes it to change something else You'll be trimming, trimming, trimming and then trimming some more whenever you make the slightest power change. Noel Springer, Chief Pilot of the FSI MU2 program at the time said "If you even so much as change your mind, you'll have to retrim."
The MU2 will fly you around for the first 300 hours and you'll feel really behind what's happening .... then you'll start to fly the plane rather than the other way around.
One of the times I was in Houston at FSI, an MU2 had crashed near Dallas the night before. We were speculating as to the possible cause and one of the senior instructors said the pilot had died of "Hub Disease" ... I asked what the heck that was and he said "HUB stood for Head Up Butt."
Let me encourage you in advance ... after the first couple of flights or sim training, you'll come out of the airplane feeling so low you'll think you can crawl under the crack of a closed door. all my FSI classmates felt the same way, so don't worry ... its normal and everything will fall into place for you.
It is built very strongly and has a lot of performance wrapped up in a small package. Take the attitude you are being checked out in a small corporate jet and you'll do just fine. Think of it as being something like a King Air and you'll be in trouble from the first flight.
Hope that you find this helpful and that you enjoy the airplane as much as I did.
Regards,
The Old Fog Ducker
Great airplane and it will make you a far better pilot when you come off it and on to other advanced types in the future.
The "Moo Too" has a poor reputation in some circles because it is demanding of good handling and strong instrument flying skills. The majority of those who bad-mouth the airplane have never flown it or been trained on it.
Almost all of the crashed airframes were flown by pilots who did not have proper training on the type and got behind the airframe. Like many other aircraft types, there is a number of accidents where people just do dumb things regardless of the name of the manufacturer on the data plate or are just in the wrong place at the wrong time....the "Fate is the Hunter" syndrome.
The acccident history has depressed the value of the airplane and as a result the type has ended up in the hands of some commercial operators and private pilots who fail to maintain it properly or fail to devote the time required to stay highly current on type.
One other thing to never ever take lightly is the Negative Torque Sensing (NTS) System. It puts the prop on the "Dead" engine into partial feather so the airplane will be controllable while you do the SE drill and do the cleanup drill. Don't EVER fly the airplane with the NTS system U/S and maintenance test flights on the system can be very "exciting" if it isn't rigged correctly. A faulty NTS can kill you and I don't care if you are the best stick handler in the world.
The "typical" MU2 accident is landing short of the runway in a very high sink rate with power retarded. I was lucky enough to fly the airplane for an operator who was very big on training and went to Flight Safety International on a regular basis for 8 years and learned a lot from the sim instructors. At the time, FSI was the only company authorized by Mits to provide type training.
In my inital airplane checkout after sim, during night approaches the training pilot had me pull the power back at the FAF and told me to look outside at the runway for about 30 seconds then look back inside at the VSI ... it was pinned at 4,000 FPM down and felt as solid as if the plane was sitting on the ramp with the chocks in place. That was an eye-opener.
The plane has some peculiarities worth noting. The high idling Garretts have next to zero perceptable sound change with power changes thoughout their power range, and due to the high wing loading the plane feels solid all the time. If you are coming off a light piston twin you'll find it to be a very different animal than you are used to.
All trims and control inputs interact with one another ... sort of like a helicopter. Changing anything causes it to change something else You'll be trimming, trimming, trimming and then trimming some more whenever you make the slightest power change. Noel Springer, Chief Pilot of the FSI MU2 program at the time said "If you even so much as change your mind, you'll have to retrim."
The MU2 will fly you around for the first 300 hours and you'll feel really behind what's happening .... then you'll start to fly the plane rather than the other way around.
One of the times I was in Houston at FSI, an MU2 had crashed near Dallas the night before. We were speculating as to the possible cause and one of the senior instructors said the pilot had died of "Hub Disease" ... I asked what the heck that was and he said "HUB stood for Head Up Butt."
Let me encourage you in advance ... after the first couple of flights or sim training, you'll come out of the airplane feeling so low you'll think you can crawl under the crack of a closed door. all my FSI classmates felt the same way, so don't worry ... its normal and everything will fall into place for you.
It is built very strongly and has a lot of performance wrapped up in a small package. Take the attitude you are being checked out in a small corporate jet and you'll do just fine. Think of it as being something like a King Air and you'll be in trouble from the first flight.
Hope that you find this helpful and that you enjoy the airplane as much as I did.
Regards,
The Old Fog Ducker
Last edited by The Old Fogducker; 22nd Oct 2005 at 03:47.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, but I must disagree with Old Fog Ducker (I love that handle though).
I have around 700 hours in MU-2s and I hate the blasted things. Yeah the newer models are fast and don’t burn a bunch of fuel but they still pieces of crap. They are the cheapest turbo-prop airplanes on the market today and there is a good reason for that fact, they have the highest accident rate of any civilian aircraft by a large margin. The MU-2 is a very dangerous airplane when flown by any low time pilot or a pilot with low high- performance aircraft experience.
Old Fog Ducker is very correct on one point, the NTS. Under no circumstances what so ever should anyone even think about flying an MU-2 with the NTS not working. When I attended MU-2 Flight Safety School in Houston an instructor told a story about a training flight that he was on. They were at 15,000 feet and on this flight part of the training was to shut down an engine and restart it by using the CRS (Crank-Run-Stop) switch. During the after start check on the ground they did not get a good check on the NTS check on the right engine, the instructor decided that it was just probably a bad test and that the NTS was okay, bad decision. He said that he forgot about the bad test and when it was time to shut down an engine he shut down the right engine, another bad decision.
He stated that no sooner than he placed the CRS switch to Off the aircraft rolled inverted to the right and started a tight spiral to the right heading nearly straight down pegging the VSI. He immediately feathered the engine and started the recovery. After pulling heavy Gs they recovered at 2,000 feet. This demonstration was usually performed at 10,000 feet, however for some reason he had climbed to 15,000 feet that day. He said that he was positive that if he had been at 10,000 feet they would not have survived.
In the 700 some odd hours I have in MU-2s I have had the following problems.
Electrical fire behind the bulkhead in the baggage compartment in a stretched model due to bad wiring. What made this incident rather interesting was that I had to kill the electrical system which, one caused the aircraft to depressurize and secondly disabled the auto-pilot; the latter is significant due to the fact that it was a single pilot operation. I was very fortunate to have a former Air Force pilot in the right seat that day and he flew the aircraft while went to the back of the cabin into the baggage area to extinguish the fire.
Fuel cap structural failure on the right tip tank. The top half was found on the runway and the bottom half was in the fuel tank. As this happened on liftoff and if one remembers that the fuel tank is pressurized one can under stand the control problem I had with a full tip tank on the left wing and a nearly empty tip tank on the right wing. I managed to get the thing back on the ground landing on a taxiway, believe it or not the left tip tank didn’t hit the ground when I landed, it didn’t miss the ground by much though.
Door seal would not deflate after landing because it was frozen shut. (This happen to me three times.)
On two occasions I had to crank the landing gear down due to frozen gear door prox switches. (After the second time we started covering the switches with grease when operating on contaminated runways.)
While checking out another company pilot for his three takeoffs and landings he inadvertently retracted the flaps from full down to the first setting. (This was on a J model; later models had a different style switch which prevented this problem.) We were on a 2 mile final when he retracted the flaps, only by putting the flaps back to the full down position and applying full power was I able to keep us from crashing short of the runway in the approach lighting. That thing started to drop out of the sky like a brick when those flaps started retracting.
The strangest thing I have ever had happen to me on ANY airplane I have flown was in a brand new MU-2. The cockpit in the MU-2 is rather cramped for space, therefore the auto-pilot control head folds down under the throttle quadrant to ease access to the pilot’s seats. After getting into the seat you pull up the control head and it locks into place. Very simple, right? Fool proof, right? One would think so, but alas the answer is no. As Old Fog Ducker stated one is always trimming the MU-2 and right after takeoff during flap retraction one is trimming away like a crazed maniac. On this takeoff as the flaps where retracting and as I was trimming nose up the aircraft started to yaw to the left. Uh-oh I think the left engine is quitting, however as look down at the throttles I see that the left throttle (or thrust lever if you must) is about half way back to idle. I figure that it must have vibrated back so I just shove it back where it belongs and tighten the friction lock tighter. (I was wrong.) A couple of takeoffs later the same thing happens, however this time I just happened to be looking at the throttle as I was trimming nose up and realized that when I trimmed the nose up the left throttle would retract. (And no trimming nose down would not move the throttle back up, I tried that.) I thought that this was very interesting, dangerous but interesting. I mean the last thing anyone needs on an MU-2 is loss of power while the flaps are retracting after takeoff. I decided that the trip I was on wasn’t that important in the overall scheme of life and I turned around and landed.
If one has been paying attention one will recall what I wrote at the start of the last paragraph about the auto-pilot control head. Please remember this little fact. As we were trouble shooting this perplexing problem in the hangar I could not get the throttle to move a bit on its own no matter what I did. I trimmed nose up, I trimmed nose down, hell I even ran the trim ailerons for the wings and the rudder trim, nothing! So I am wandering around mumbling to myself while the maintenance people where standing in a tight little group casting dirty looks at me muttering things such as ‘dumb ass pilot’ and ‘sh!t for brains.’ Suddenly it hit me, the auto-pilot control head! I had lowered the head down after I landed and it was still in the stowed position. I jumped back into the cockpit put the head back into up position and ran the trim, sure enough the left throttle moved back as I trimmed nose up. What had happened was that the wiring bundle for the auto pilot wrapped around the cables from the manual trim wheel and the bottom of the left throttle when the control head was locked into the up position, when the trim wheel turned the cable would drag the left throttle back. That was a very interesting call to the factory I can tell you. Mitsubishi issued an AD note to correct the problem.
There were many more problems that I had with the MU-2s but enough is enough.
Anyway I have wasted enough of Danny web space for now. Just remember that these MU-2s I flew were for corporate operations and were well maintained. I had more problems with MU-2s in my career than all the other aircraft I have flown in my 21,000 some odd hours combined.
).I have around 700 hours in MU-2s and I hate the blasted things. Yeah the newer models are fast and don’t burn a bunch of fuel but they still pieces of crap. They are the cheapest turbo-prop airplanes on the market today and there is a good reason for that fact, they have the highest accident rate of any civilian aircraft by a large margin. The MU-2 is a very dangerous airplane when flown by any low time pilot or a pilot with low high- performance aircraft experience.
Old Fog Ducker is very correct on one point, the NTS. Under no circumstances what so ever should anyone even think about flying an MU-2 with the NTS not working. When I attended MU-2 Flight Safety School in Houston an instructor told a story about a training flight that he was on. They were at 15,000 feet and on this flight part of the training was to shut down an engine and restart it by using the CRS (Crank-Run-Stop) switch. During the after start check on the ground they did not get a good check on the NTS check on the right engine, the instructor decided that it was just probably a bad test and that the NTS was okay, bad decision. He said that he forgot about the bad test and when it was time to shut down an engine he shut down the right engine, another bad decision.
He stated that no sooner than he placed the CRS switch to Off the aircraft rolled inverted to the right and started a tight spiral to the right heading nearly straight down pegging the VSI. He immediately feathered the engine and started the recovery. After pulling heavy Gs they recovered at 2,000 feet. This demonstration was usually performed at 10,000 feet, however for some reason he had climbed to 15,000 feet that day. He said that he was positive that if he had been at 10,000 feet they would not have survived.
In the 700 some odd hours I have in MU-2s I have had the following problems.
Electrical fire behind the bulkhead in the baggage compartment in a stretched model due to bad wiring. What made this incident rather interesting was that I had to kill the electrical system which, one caused the aircraft to depressurize and secondly disabled the auto-pilot; the latter is significant due to the fact that it was a single pilot operation. I was very fortunate to have a former Air Force pilot in the right seat that day and he flew the aircraft while went to the back of the cabin into the baggage area to extinguish the fire.
Fuel cap structural failure on the right tip tank. The top half was found on the runway and the bottom half was in the fuel tank. As this happened on liftoff and if one remembers that the fuel tank is pressurized one can under stand the control problem I had with a full tip tank on the left wing and a nearly empty tip tank on the right wing. I managed to get the thing back on the ground landing on a taxiway, believe it or not the left tip tank didn’t hit the ground when I landed, it didn’t miss the ground by much though.
Door seal would not deflate after landing because it was frozen shut. (This happen to me three times.)
On two occasions I had to crank the landing gear down due to frozen gear door prox switches. (After the second time we started covering the switches with grease when operating on contaminated runways.)
While checking out another company pilot for his three takeoffs and landings he inadvertently retracted the flaps from full down to the first setting. (This was on a J model; later models had a different style switch which prevented this problem.) We were on a 2 mile final when he retracted the flaps, only by putting the flaps back to the full down position and applying full power was I able to keep us from crashing short of the runway in the approach lighting. That thing started to drop out of the sky like a brick when those flaps started retracting.
The strangest thing I have ever had happen to me on ANY airplane I have flown was in a brand new MU-2. The cockpit in the MU-2 is rather cramped for space, therefore the auto-pilot control head folds down under the throttle quadrant to ease access to the pilot’s seats. After getting into the seat you pull up the control head and it locks into place. Very simple, right? Fool proof, right? One would think so, but alas the answer is no. As Old Fog Ducker stated one is always trimming the MU-2 and right after takeoff during flap retraction one is trimming away like a crazed maniac. On this takeoff as the flaps where retracting and as I was trimming nose up the aircraft started to yaw to the left. Uh-oh I think the left engine is quitting, however as look down at the throttles I see that the left throttle (or thrust lever if you must) is about half way back to idle. I figure that it must have vibrated back so I just shove it back where it belongs and tighten the friction lock tighter. (I was wrong.) A couple of takeoffs later the same thing happens, however this time I just happened to be looking at the throttle as I was trimming nose up and realized that when I trimmed the nose up the left throttle would retract. (And no trimming nose down would not move the throttle back up, I tried that.) I thought that this was very interesting, dangerous but interesting. I mean the last thing anyone needs on an MU-2 is loss of power while the flaps are retracting after takeoff. I decided that the trip I was on wasn’t that important in the overall scheme of life and I turned around and landed.
If one has been paying attention one will recall what I wrote at the start of the last paragraph about the auto-pilot control head. Please remember this little fact. As we were trouble shooting this perplexing problem in the hangar I could not get the throttle to move a bit on its own no matter what I did. I trimmed nose up, I trimmed nose down, hell I even ran the trim ailerons for the wings and the rudder trim, nothing! So I am wandering around mumbling to myself while the maintenance people where standing in a tight little group casting dirty looks at me muttering things such as ‘dumb ass pilot’ and ‘sh!t for brains.’ Suddenly it hit me, the auto-pilot control head! I had lowered the head down after I landed and it was still in the stowed position. I jumped back into the cockpit put the head back into up position and ran the trim, sure enough the left throttle moved back as I trimmed nose up. What had happened was that the wiring bundle for the auto pilot wrapped around the cables from the manual trim wheel and the bottom of the left throttle when the control head was locked into the up position, when the trim wheel turned the cable would drag the left throttle back. That was a very interesting call to the factory I can tell you. Mitsubishi issued an AD note to correct the problem.
There were many more problems that I had with the MU-2s but enough is enough.
Anyway I have wasted enough of Danny web space for now. Just remember that these MU-2s I flew were for corporate operations and were well maintained. I had more problems with MU-2s in my career than all the other aircraft I have flown in my 21,000 some odd hours combined.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that the MU-2 won't likely make history as one of the finest aircraft of all time. I have 900 hours in MU-2Fs and had more trouble in those than any of my other 16,000 hours.
Door seals not deflating, gear needing to be cranked down - yup, as mentioned earlier, had that happen too.
Also the tip tanks had an electrical valve that would occasionally freeze up preventing 90 gallons per side (as I recall) from getting to the mains and therefore the engines. A later fix from Mitsubishi installed a heater.
Also the Garretts are hard on batteries, and those nicads were prone to thermal runaway if you weren't careful, and didn't use ground power units frequently. With the aft battery sitting over the control cables for the tail surfaces, this was definitely not a good thing as at least one MU-2 operator discovered.
The main gear doors opening during the retraction cycle acted like clam-shell buckets and could make a take-off from the likes of Denver rather interesting.
Having said all that, the aircraft is very strong, stops great on a short, slippery Canadian runway and offers excellent training for jet transports. Just treat it VERY carefully and get good training.
Door seals not deflating, gear needing to be cranked down - yup, as mentioned earlier, had that happen too.
Also the tip tanks had an electrical valve that would occasionally freeze up preventing 90 gallons per side (as I recall) from getting to the mains and therefore the engines. A later fix from Mitsubishi installed a heater.
Also the Garretts are hard on batteries, and those nicads were prone to thermal runaway if you weren't careful, and didn't use ground power units frequently. With the aft battery sitting over the control cables for the tail surfaces, this was definitely not a good thing as at least one MU-2 operator discovered.
The main gear doors opening during the retraction cycle acted like clam-shell buckets and could make a take-off from the likes of Denver rather interesting.
Having said all that, the aircraft is very strong, stops great on a short, slippery Canadian runway and offers excellent training for jet transports. Just treat it VERY carefully and get good training.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Con-pilot,
With all due respect the numbers don't support your claim about being dangerous, in recent years the BE-200 has had more problems than the MU-2. Like any airplane, maintenance and training play a big role, properly maintained it is a very low cost turbo prop to operate (compared to the BE-200 and SWIII), the NTS system is not an MU-2 system it is a Garrett / Air Reasearch system, the P&W counter part has the Auto-Feather system, equally important.
D.L.
With all due respect the numbers don't support your claim about being dangerous, in recent years the BE-200 has had more problems than the MU-2. Like any airplane, maintenance and training play a big role, properly maintained it is a very low cost turbo prop to operate (compared to the BE-200 and SWIII), the NTS system is not an MU-2 system it is a Garrett / Air Reasearch system, the P&W counter part has the Auto-Feather system, equally important.
D.L.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys do you know the fuel consumption of the C 90 and Cheyenne III??? as you said MU 2 is 100gal/hr.
Aniway i think the MU 2 is a great performance aircraft and I´m sure that with a good training on the type and knowing what are u flying won´t be any problem that you can´t have in any other aircraft.
Cheers
Aniway i think the MU 2 is a great performance aircraft and I´m sure that with a good training on the type and knowing what are u flying won´t be any problem that you can´t have in any other aircraft.
Cheers
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC:
Not sure what you want the information for but I will give you some of my best guesses, first of all, the BE-90 is not even closely related to the Cheyenne III, the Cheyenne is twice the airplane of the small King Air, the Cheyenne can cruise in the mid thirties (9 PAX) at probably 270 KTS +, the small King Air is a 220 KT aircraft at best, mid twenties at best (250 for MU2), fuel consumption is 100 / hr on the Piper and the BE-90 probably burns 75?
I have no time on the Piper but some of the draw bracks would be the narrow cabin and spar cap in the isle, cockpit a little cramped too, the King Air is not great for long trips(SLOW), low wingloading and small cabin. Feel free to send me a message letting me know what type of mission you will use the aircraft for, I have many years operating this size a/c for charter / air ambulance and night frieght, is RVSM going to be required?
D.L.
Not sure what you want the information for but I will give you some of my best guesses, first of all, the BE-90 is not even closely related to the Cheyenne III, the Cheyenne is twice the airplane of the small King Air, the Cheyenne can cruise in the mid thirties (9 PAX) at probably 270 KTS +, the small King Air is a 220 KT aircraft at best, mid twenties at best (250 for MU2), fuel consumption is 100 / hr on the Piper and the BE-90 probably burns 75?
I have no time on the Piper but some of the draw bracks would be the narrow cabin and spar cap in the isle, cockpit a little cramped too, the King Air is not great for long trips(SLOW), low wingloading and small cabin. Feel free to send me a message letting me know what type of mission you will use the aircraft for, I have many years operating this size a/c for charter / air ambulance and night frieght, is RVSM going to be required?
D.L.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Land I was speaking from my own personal experience regarding the MU-2. True the King Air 200 and the Turbo commander had some pretty serious wing failure problems, however those problem were address by the manufacture and fixed. Nothing can be done to fix the problem of the MU-2 because it is the basic design that is at fault. There is just not enough wing on the airframe; the short airframe is a little better but not much.
I have never flown the Turbo Commander so I cannot remark about that aircraft. I have, however, about 600 hours in the King Air 200, in that time I had only one problem on that airplane, that was the landing gear indicating system.
I cannot really agree with you on comparing the Auto-feathering system of the PT-6 to the NTS of the Garret engines. The King Air 200s I flew did not have the Auto-feathering system installed; remember the Auto-feathering system is/was an option as was the rudder boost. Yes the NTS is supplied by the engine manufacture, however when the PT-6 has a unscheduled shut down the propeller blades aerodynamically start toward the feather position whereas the Garret TPE propellers quickly go to a flat pitch position that will guarantee the loss of control of the aircraft unless the NTS works.
Connie, you might want to look at the Piper Cheyenne IV (the one with the really big engines). I’ve never flown one except on a brief demo flight, but it has a lot of performance and climbs really fast for a turbo-prop. I also believe it also burns around 100 gallons and hour.
I have never flown the Turbo Commander so I cannot remark about that aircraft. I have, however, about 600 hours in the King Air 200, in that time I had only one problem on that airplane, that was the landing gear indicating system.
I cannot really agree with you on comparing the Auto-feathering system of the PT-6 to the NTS of the Garret engines. The King Air 200s I flew did not have the Auto-feathering system installed; remember the Auto-feathering system is/was an option as was the rudder boost. Yes the NTS is supplied by the engine manufacture, however when the PT-6 has a unscheduled shut down the propeller blades aerodynamically start toward the feather position whereas the Garret TPE propellers quickly go to a flat pitch position that will guarantee the loss of control of the aircraft unless the NTS works.
Connie, you might want to look at the Piper Cheyenne IV (the one with the really big engines). I’ve never flown one except on a brief demo flight, but it has a lot of performance and climbs really fast for a turbo-prop. I also believe it also burns around 100 gallons and hour.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I´m asking for those type of aircrafts because we want to buy a 5 to 9 pax turboprop for private use and in the future for taxi. We liked the MU 2 due to the high performance and relatively low cost, I think we will get the cheyenne III as final option because we had a nice offer for the C90 but is too small for the requirements we need. We all have experience on Cessna 414 and we want to pass to the turbo prop.
Thank you very much.
Superconstellation
Thank you very much.
Superconstellation
Flies into Tall Buildings
To echo the comments on solid construction, one MU-2 crew flying into Edmonton Municipal got the approach wrong and flew the a/c into a hospital several stories up.
Amazingly the crew survived -- but it was a while before they left the hospital.
Amazingly the crew survived -- but it was a while before they left the hospital.
