Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Flying the MU2 - facts please.

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Flying the MU2 - facts please.

Old 10th Nov 2011, 02:20
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wilmington
Age: 43
Posts: 133
They can be "interesting" in a crosswind. Power on the downwind engine seems to help. I don't have enough time in shortbodies to comment intelligently, but the longbodies aren't any worse than any other airplane, once you get used to them.

I'd be surprised if anyone went to the trouble to RVSM a Mitsi...they're not a particularly high-flying airplane. Happiest in the low to mid 20s, in my experience.
TRF4EVR is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2011, 05:59
  #122 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,679
Yep, have to agree, hate the way the nose gear doesn't have a simple system to remain straight for landing.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2011, 01:57
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 51
Posts: 1,687
Exclusive? I suppose.

Do we succeed ? Not too sure. But that's about as good as we can do, I guess.

You gents run a fine establishment.

I was thinking more of a small salon in the back reserved for gentlemen (and ladies) of a certain PPRuNe age that would serve as a peaceful retreat from the bing-bong din of the main hall.


Apologies for any disruption of this otherwise fine saMUrai-2 discussion.
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 17th May 2012, 03:59
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: kict
Posts: 1
Thumbs up MU2 procedure

The very question you are asking is why the SFAR was created .... the procedure is to maintain wings level - feather the engine - retract the gear - leave the flaps alone .... any deviations will kill. 727 is correct get the best you can ... init 13K rec 3-6k GS-20hrs Flt 6-10hrs: checkride is to ATP-AMEL-IFR you will have to fly all the approaches both 2 eng and 1 eng and then keep current --- OH! you can't keep current unless its specifically in a MU2. Mandatory recurrent training is part of the SFAR.

The MU2 is a great aircraft " " like 727 stated but its a tight bird and will bite hard if you get her out of her envelop. Fly her by the book and DO NOT IMPREVISE you will survive .. if not ... they read about ya.

Retired Air Force Major
A10. F16, F4, KC135 ... oh ya MU2.
usaf2009 is offline  
Old 19th May 2012, 21:54
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
I flew the MU2J (long) about 30 years ago or so. I did go to Flight Safety for initial training.

.One thing to remember is the difference between Vyse and Vxse. It does take time to get to single engine best rate of climb speed. but you are pretty close to single engine ANGLE of climb speed shortly after takeoff.

I operated out of a 2500 foot strip and every takeoff was a critical one. And in this case I would call for gear up as soon as we had positive rate of climb. You can't cover yourself everywhere in this plane...its not like a transport with V2 and all numbers making sense.

Do respect this plane at all times. I found it disharmonious in pitch and roll...so get use to it.

The FAA wants special attention with this plane and your friend probably bought it cheap for a reason.

The pilot who mentioned rigging is very , very RIGHT. So be sure this thing is well maintained.

Be sure to understand the fuel dippers/engine limiters/temp/torque.

Flight Safety trained us to do the ILS , both engines, with only half flap...I didn't like it that way as they encouraged us to land with half flap....but that was A LONG time ago.

My plane did not have anti skid brakes...I wish it did ! So be careful.


I had a flameout in one engine shortly after starting it on the ground...always felt it was due to an odd angle of crosswind and engine inlet. Started it again and no problems (no fuel pump problems or anything wrong).

I did have a fuel pump failure inflight...at that time the flight safety folks said to land ASAP as the pump could break apart and make alll fuel unusable....thought we landed safely.

The plexiglass windscreen can offer less than satisfactory visiblity especially at night.

I would always do stableized approaches based on weight/vref and a single engine go around at some points to a short field would be very difficult, so comit to landing at some point if an engine fails during approach.

I would say this type is one of the most demanding planes I've ever flown...true transports like the DC9 and 737 are much more enjoyable to fly.

The garrett engine is preferable to the pratt and whitney in terms of immediate response.

Rumor had it that the MU2 was going to be a pure jet at some time with no major changes except the engines.

Remember refueling is demanding and the thing can look one wing low, so fill a tip tank half way, go to the other and fill it all the way and then come back and fill the first tank up. And watch the spray as air pressure is used to move fuel from tips to main.

It will either kill you or make you a better pilot! good luck.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 19th May 2012, 22:09
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
DC9

earlier in the thread, someone mentioned the DC9 ...I flew it for more than 10 years and I loved it. The best plane I have or will ever fly.

When I got hired at my airline (at the time the largest DC930 operator in the world) our vice president of flying came in and said he was a rocket man and didn't care for the boeing. He then went on to say they called the DC9 the rocket.

I was dissapointed at first being assigned to the DC9 while others got the 737.

BUT after flying both the 737 and the DC9 there is no comparison. The DC9 was and is called THE LAST PILOT'S AIRLINER and whoever said that was right on.

I could write about the DC9 for hours...but it is a wonderful flying plane. I had many more maintenance issues in the 737. The DC9 flew like a fighter according to one F15 driver that flew with me.

IF I HAD as much money as that kid with facebook, I would buy the rights from boeing and start buidling them again...I wouldn't lose money on em !!!
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 02:03
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
ssr, i agree, the MU2 was a handful. Just lowering the gear or adding flaps made it so you had to regain control on approach. I was happy to go back to the Lear Jet because it was easy to fly, the MU2 wasn't.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 02:07
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Later the 737, DC9 and 757 and 767 made life uneventful.
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 20th May 2012, 02:31
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
right on bubbers

I always somehow resented flying a plane built by those wonderful folks who gave us the Zero!

Flying the Douglas and Boeing made up for it on that level too.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 21st May 2012, 06:18
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,016
The DC-9 flew like a fighter? Wires moving controls tabs??? LOL. Maybe similar to a P-47 experiencing Mach tuck.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 23rd May 2012, 22:39
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 2
I have over 4000 hrs in every model of the MU2 commercially sold. An absolute tank of an airplane. Bigger cabin than a KingAir 200, faster and burns less fuel. But ...

they do HAVE to be flown like a jet. Everybody talks about 40-50 KIAS difference between rotation and best single engine climb, but it's every bit of that and sometimes more in a DC-9/MD-80 and B-737. You just have to climb to a safe terrain clearance altitude below best climb speed, then level off and start accelerating, retracting the flaps (drag) on schedule.

It's a HIGH wing load airplane, like the T-38s and F-4s that I used to fly. The spoilers give it exceptional roll capability at very low airspeeds.

You need to be trained, you need to stay proficient and you need to have your head on straight (which you should do on every airplane you fly). If you do that, the MU-2 is unbeatable especially from a value perspective.

Last edited by kwtxpilot; 29th May 2012 at 02:39.
kwtxpilot is offline  
Old 24th May 2012, 00:41
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
misd

you have a problem with cables moving tabs?

another good thing about the MU2...if you land gear up, the mains are sticking out a tiny bit and you won't do too much damage

yuck yuck...don't attempt on purpose
sevenstrokeroll is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.