Flying the MU2 - facts please.
 

Friend of mine has bought an MU2. He has been given advice that you should not retract the gear after take off until at least 200agl as the gear doors cause significant drag and if an engine should fail just as the gear comes up controllability and climb rate is a problem until the gear doors are closed. Sounds like a myth to me.

Another instructor said that if an engine failure occurs below 150 knots during the take off climb it is better to deliberately crash land ahead rather than risk loss of control below 150 knots on initial climb-out. Surely this must be another myth as the aircraft would not be certified under these speed conditions.

Any Pprune advice on a recommended website dealing with MU2 flight ops would be appreciated. There certainly seems to be no shortage of personal opinions on the operation of this type and it would be nice to read facts.

It has been my experience that aircraft that are "different" from the general herd are victims of a large number of myths (as you aptly put it), some of which are strange and some of which are dangerous.

Your friend's insurance company should have a list of training facilities and/or instructors that they are comfortable with. I would go that route and ignore all of the bar and Internet talk.

One piece of advice, advice that will save your friend's life and the lives of his passengers.

GET GOOD PROPER TRAINING! Find the best MU-2 school in the world and go to it and keep going to it for as long as he owns the the airplane.

The MU-2 is a killer of inexperienced pilots, actually it does a pretty good job of killing experienced pilots as well.

I have nearly 800 hours in MU-2s and count myself lucky. However, I did attend Flight Safety for initial and recurrency training.

Now, about gear retraction, yes the gear doors opening will add drag, however, using the wheel (remember the MU-2 has spoilers only for roll) to keep the wings level will add much more drag. Use rudder and aileron trim to keep the wings level.

It has been a long time, but I do believe that single engine climb speed is around 150kts. Now the MU-2 will come off the runway at around 110 kts. So if one loses an engine just after takeoff you will need to accelerate at least 40kts to 150 before you can start a climb. If you do not have the space to accelerate or you are coming off a hot/high airport,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well, good luck.

My best advice is to get rid of the blasted thing.

My recollection of the rice rocket was... after lift off get the speed up to 140 - 150 kts for single engine purposes. The gear comes up pretty quickly as I recall. But an initial shallow climb just after lift off to get the speed was most essential. The long coupled versions took just a bit more time to get to that magic single engine climb speed, but the extra length of the long fuselage gave better single engine stability. It's been almost 20 years since I've flown the saki super star.

MU-2 SFAR is Pending
 

Suggest you examine this link and take a good look at the FAA's MU2 SFAR NPRM that's about to become law in the States in early 2007.

The NPRM comments on the MU2's SFAR are illuminating.

Thanks Belique for the FAA link.
FAA Proposes SFAR for MU-2
The FAA is proposing a Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) applicable to the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane that would create new pilot training, experience and operating requirements. Following an increased accident and incident rate in the MU-2B series airplane, the FAA conducted a safety evaluation and found that changes in the training and operating requirements for that airplane are needed. These proposed regulations would mandate additional operating requirements and improve pilot training for the MU-2B series airplane. The proposed rule would also apply to persons who provide pilot training for the MU-2B.

I knew the Western Australian BASI investigator, Don, who paid for increasing the understanding about this plane with his life. RIP.

The FAA proposed rule mentions that:
But it doesn't make any comments about whether or not the MU-2 does meet the required OEI climb gradients in the modern FARs. It seems likely that it does, but does anyone know for sure? It would seem pretty crazy to fly a type that can't climb with an engine failure. Thats like flying a single engine airplane with twice the risk.

Thanks for the info so far. I have forwarded it to the MU2 owner. In other pertinent info on MU2 handling characteristics would be greatly appreciated.

donno about the MU2 my friend, but it is standard procedure on the airbus during wind shear not to change config including gear because gear doors have to open the bay then stow the wheels and close again. this whole process creates quite a bit of drag at a very critical segment of flight:)

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewt...&highlight=mu2

Rather long but a good read.

While this information is a little late seeing your friend has already purchased an MU-2, hopefully this will enforce my recommend of getting the best training available.

I have researched the NTSB data base for 2005 and 2006 for fatal accidents involving turbo-prop aircraft the same class as the MU-2.

So far this year, 2006, there have been seven (7) fatal accidents in the United States involving cabin-class turbo-prop aircraft.

One King Air 200, loss of control on landing.

One Swearinger SA 226, loss of control while IMC.

Two (2) Turbo Commanders.

A Turbo Commander disappeared from radar after departing Anchorage, Alaska. The aircraft disappeared from radar thirteen (13) miles west of Anchorage. No wreckage or bodies have been found. The aircraft is assumed crashed and all persons on board dead.

A Turbo Commander suffered and in-flight breakup while at cruise altitude of FL 28.0. This aircraft was being operated under an “Experimental Category” certificate. The aircraft was fitted with experimental five (5) bladed propellers and had slipper fuel tanks mounted to the underside of the wings. There were level three (3) thunderstorms in the area.

Three (3) MU-2s.

A MU-2 crashed after losing an engine after takeoff. Aircraft rolled inverted and crashed on the airport.

A MU-2 suffered an in-flight breakup on decent while in IMC. There was no convective weather activity in the area.

A MU-2 suffered an in-flight breakup while at cruise altitude. There were level five (5) and six (6) thunderstorms in the area.

In 2005 there were three (3) fatal accidents in the United States and Canada involving cabin-class turbo-prop aircraft. All three (3) were MU-2s.

A MU-2 suffered CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) short of the runway while on an ILS approach. Reported weather was light winds, visibility 2.5 miles with rain and mist, tower visibility was 4 miles, ceiling was variable between 600 to 1,200 feet with broken clouds.

A MU-2 suffered CFIT on a clear VMC night. The pilot was sixty two (62) miles from his departure airport when he requested to return to the departure airport. When asked by ATC he reported that he had no aircraft problems, however, he needed to return to “have something checked out”. After the aircraft was cleared for the visual approach the aircraft over flew the runway at a low altitude and low airspeed. After flying past the airport the aircraft impacted a 62,000 pound earthmover sitting in a flat level field.

A MU-2 crashed shortly after takeoff due to loss of control. Aircraft rolled inverted and impacted the ground just off the airport property.

In the last two years there have been ten (10) fatal accidents involving cabin-class turbo-prop aircraft in the United States and Canada, six (6) were MU-2s.

Rather sobering. Train, train and train some more and do not ever get behind the airplane.

Gearpins. Is that so? I think you will find that excess gear door drag is not the reason at all but more like the danger of the aircraft hitting the ground during a very low go-around so the gear is left down until you are no longer in windshear danger and the flaps are left down because retraction will cause loss of lift and the stalling speed goes up. Once the aircraft is out of critical windshear danger normal climb out procedures apply while the aircraft accelerates.

Your Cathay interview will confirm that the gear doors do indeed add extra drag... ;)

Surely this is aircraft type dependant? Retraction of the landing gear on the 737 series makes no discernable difference in drag. Certainly while reference to the B737 series FCOM, and QRH advises the landing gear and flap positions should not be changed until clear of windshear, there is no explanation that could be construed that landing gear retraction drag is a significant factor in the recommended procedure.

The Cathay interview process may indeed include that gear door position may add extra drag but I believe that the main danger in a low level windshear escape manoeuvre is that the wheels may hit the runway in the go-around because of low airspeed - hence the Boeing advice of don't pull the wheels up until clear of windshear.

Obviously a type with no "belly" gear doors will not add much drag. Either way, don't raise the gear.

Extreme P. Thanks again for the MU2 info you sent. Excellent material and passed on.

http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/ch...s/mu2_0206.xml

For what it's worth - I'm only a sawbones :(

Mac. Thanks for that - an aeroplane with an interesting background.

IMHO,
After 13 yrs of Ownership and 1200 Hrs PIC on the Mits, the aircraft has the potential to hurt you but which aircraft doesnt, I was taught to fly it like a jet by the numbers and not by feel, which was a hard transition after flying Ag for years, A mitsi does everything as advertised unlike some other twin turboprops and is a steady 300KT performer, that will get in and out of 2500ft at gross climb to FL 250 and fly 1000nm. I would pick the MU-2 over any legacy turbine twin - Kingair 90,100,200, Gulfstream AC 1000, Conquest I,II or Piper Cheyenne all adaptations of existing slower piston designs. I've flown most , loved the Kingair 200, and Cheyenne 400LS, but for value for the money one can't beat an MU-2 (short or long body).

The B/CA article highlights the rumours but uses alot of fact to debunk the B/S and armchair flying by pilots that have never set foot in a Mits. Some pilots have flown it and hated, everybody is entitled to their opinions, but i tell those that i have encountered that they have probably flown one that wasnt properly rigged. plus it takes up to 100hrs PIC to start to feel comfortable with the aircraft, well it took me that long ; A PROPERLY RIGGED MU-2 IS A DREAM TO FLY! ; in fact will fly an ILS single engine fully config'd handsoff - no autopilot set the trims and leave it alone all one needs to do is adjust the FF to stay on the glide; POORLY rigged and incorrectly trimmed ,it is a handfull and and has the potential to be downright vicious; the flaps and flight idle fuel flow MUST be set correctly; a 1 degree spilt in the flaps at 20 will cause all a pretty nasty roll during retraction from flaps 5 to 0 and WILL kill you if something goes wrong. As an A&P/IA, I always tripple check any work on the flaps & engines: some mechanics and pilots, dont want to take the time to correctly rig them as it can take up to 10hrs to set the flaps and flight idle properly. I have been scared sh--less in mitsis, mostly ferrying aircraft bought from other freight operators, ramp queens and the odd sales demo with a pilot new to the MU-2 whose standard multi technique resurfaced even after a indepth brief of the differences between the MU-2 and rest of GA Light twins.

I was lucky enough train with an operator that understood the need to have a proper training syallabus and brought Mr. Reece Howell of Howell Enterprises, Smyrna TN :-www.mu2b.com to supervise the ground school and provided a fair and frank picture of the aircraft. we were required to review all the accidents back to 1967, read the FAA Special Certificate Reviews on the MU-2's and watch the icing video and the clear picture is that the largest factor is the Pilot, which is true for many other aircraft. The Mits served me well honing my IFR skills , i went from the left seat of a mits to right seat of a 727 and subsequently transitioned to other large jets and have found the need for pitch awareness,proper use of trim (all axis)and the inclusion of the IVSI in visual approaches very simliar between most Jets and the Mu-2;( the A-320 family being the exception as the FPV & Autotrim makes it so easy its almost a no brainer) I still maintain currency in my short body and believe that to safely fly a mits,one must fly a min of 50hrs a year. I have flown most of the much maligned GA aircraft:- V-Tail Bonanzas, Aerostars 700s ,Mitsi's, and Lears 24,25 and loved them all and hold them in high regard. inspite of the names- Doctor Killer, Tokyo Whore, Twin Honda, FearJet and Lawn Dart.

I recently went to Simcom(prefered FlightSafety & Reece) and found it not out of line with my "airline routine" of sim, however the instructor started to annoy me by day two, as being an A&P, I was more verse with the systems than he was, and while i feel there is a need for proper formalized training, it however must also be tailored to the Candidates experience; never had this problem with Reece Howell, i guess it was a clash of personalities; i objected to an Engine out with a NTS failure on liftoff as it is an unrecoverable senario and a waste of precious sim time.

As for the need of headsets ALL GARRETTS idle at 76%, however the Garrett is a quieter engine than a PT-6 at operating speeds of 96-100% and during flyover, the PT-6 seems a marked difference to linemen and other pilots cause its turning at 56% at idle.

The Gear retraction takes 17 seconds and will in an engine out scenario cost about 200 FPM as it retracts.

Mitsubishi originally published Airline Style Performance charts with Engineout charts at flaps 5 and 20 as well as TORA/TODA charts, however the FAA made them remove it as it 1) didnt conform to the GAMA standard and 2) was not "approved data "only demonstrated data. Under certain conditions the aircraft will NOT climb on one engine but this it true for all Aircraft in the Category (KINGAIR,MERLIN & TURBOCOMMANDER) - types certified also under CAR 3

I Fly the Mits same as the A-320, with the autopilot engaged most of the time so it allows me the time to manage the aircraft. I hand fly for proficiency when weather and other factors permit. In 1200 hrs on the Mits, have had a FCU failure in cruise( DAY IMC), oil line failure(hairline crack) on prop governor which led to an engine overspeed (Night IMC, overwater) and a bunch of other eye openers yet i'm not ready to sell the blasted thing and actually still enjoy flying it.

Con-Pilot:
Very interesting info.

Aside from the MU-2, you reminded us of a (SW) Metro fatal accident. That might be the one described recently in Flying Magazine (?), whereby the solo pilot suffered a major, if not total electrical failure after takeoff. The switches to reset the generators etc could not be reached easily from the left seat, if at all. How was the plane certified for single-pilot operation? Could such a certificate be a nice, legitimate target for a lawsuit?

The company decide to then hire pilots for the right seat. Corporate leadership at its finest-only after the dead body (bodies) is recovered and buried.

Ag2A320, I'm not going to argue with you. As you stated "Some pilots have flown it and hated, everybody is entitled to their options". (I assume you mean opinion.)

Okay, I flew the MU-2 G, J, L and M series of MU-2s, all long bodies, for almost 800 hours. I am firmly in the 'hate it' category.

Now I'll admit the only other turbo-prop I have flown was King Air 200s, I have about the same amount of time in both. I read and understood your remarks concerning trimming and rigging of the MU-2, however, of all the problems I had with the MU-2 had nothing to do with rigging.

Now, a very short list of many of the problems I had with the MU-2.

Aft cabin electrical fire behind the baggage compartment bulkhead during cruise. Cause, improper wring at factory.

Cabin door frozen after landing, we were unable to exit the aircraft for over 45 minutes until the aircraft was put into a heated hanger and maintenance personnel worked with potable heaters. (You probably don't have that kind of problem in Florida :p )

Landing gear would not extend due to frozen micro-switches on gear doors. Was forced to extend the gear manually via the crank. (This happen more than once and it takes a lot of cranking to get the gear down.)

Tip tank fuel cap failure on rotation. The outer half was found on the runway and the bottom of the cap was at the bottom of the tip tank. Let me tell you something, that tank emptied fast, however, giving credit where credit is due, the airplane remained controllable for the 5 or 6 minutes it took me turn around a land in the opposite direction. Then again, it was only because I was in an MU-2 was I placed in that predicament.

Then there was what I call the case of the "auto throttle" malfunction. I'll bet you didn't know that at least one MU-2 had an auto throttle did you.? Now it was just one throttle that was 'somewhat' auto, the left one. To make a long story short I'll just tell the basic events.

The airplane involved was a brand spanking new MU-2 M (or N, whichever the long one was of that series). Total time on the airframe about a 100 hours. After takeoff one morning as I was cleaning up the flaps the airplane started yawing to the left. I looked down and the left throttle was dang near back to idle. Okay, I shove the throttle back up and tighten the friction knob. No problems, right? Next takeoff same problem with the friction knob so tight I can hardly move the engine control levers. After restoring power I climb out and start trouble shooting the problem. I discover that when I apply up trim with the wheel switch that the left throttle moved back. Nose down did not move the throttle foward. Problem was caused by the autopilot wiring bundle caught by the trim wheel and was wrapped around the left throttle cable. Problem only occurred when the autopilot head was in the up and locked position. I had a very interesting talk to factory about this little problem.

An engine failure in an L while at cruise, NTS worked, no problem, however, that was an engine problem not an airframe issue.

Now for all the problems I had in King Air 200s in the same amount of time.

Zero.

By the way, I agree with you 100% on the 'engine/NTS loss' on takeoff in the sim. A total waste of time. If that happens you are dead. I understand that one will have the same result in a Turbo Commander as well.

Be safe.

Con,
Opinions is right!, I have no objections, flew all the same models, worked for R. George Mall / International Business Aircraft in Tulsa,OK to gain experience on the mits before i bought mine as i had low- multi turbine time, my ag time didnt hold water with the insurance company, flew with his 135 freight company for a year in all sorts of wonderful midwest weather.

I have had the same issues with the gear micro switch but was taught to treat them with WD-40 before known encounters with icing/ preflight. yes its approx 183 strokes to extend the gear.

Lost a fuel cap too - In OKC at dusk, the line man locked the cap, before he replaced it and rested it back into position on the tank, my co-pilot did the walk around,didnt give it a second glance as it appeared flush in the dim light; it was just resting in place with the tab flush, took off lost the cap, Tower called said we're streaming fuel from the right tip, checked the dump valves they were closed - emptied 90 gals in about 30 sec. It takes a fair amount of spoiler to hold it straight with one tank empty and the other full, got turned around and vectored for the downwind, all trimmed up then remembered i could dump the other tank too! kicked 25 gals out of the left to get down to 65gal landing limit and landed cussin' for not checkin them myself!, the Feds were most gracious didnt fine us, had some words with the lineman and FBO supervisor.

Burnt the Series /Parallel relay on ground during a post MTC run, shudder to think what could happen in flight. Traced it back to a foreman robbing parts off my P model in the hanger, and not properly re-installing which after melting the relay started a nice fire in the baggage compartment. The Shop paid to replace all the wiring and all new relays in the back.

Heard about your incident from G.Cruz who was MAI's Avionics chief from 71 -85, Himself and George were a wealth of info on the Mits.

your comments are most welcome, after 800hrs you definately know how you feel about the Mits, I have had some of the same issues, but these were minor when compared to what i transitioned from - Agplanes which tried to kill me on more occasions that i can recall, i can remember all the times i stupidly tried to kill myself! :}

maybe we flew the same dogs? N54US -J model is one that was around forever - god awful choclate brown paint scheme, new owners changed the registration; had a list of 30-40 MU-2 s/n i flew ; some of the top of my head

679BK
349MA
113SD
707AF
390K
217SB- Bendix FCU Failure
303FN
770MA
3UN
61BA
710G - Lgd door motor failed man extension
725MA
755MA
121BA
738MA
361JA
500PS
211BE
375CA - ACM turbine failure in cruise, cooked cabin
703DM
298MA
291MB
4065D
64MD
261KW
1790M
175CA

I'll be darned, that very well could have been the J model I flew, didn't have that "N" number, but it sure had a god ugly chocolate brown paint job and it was around Oklahoma a long time.

The cabin fire I had was caused by the cigar lighters resistors mounted on the aft side of the baggage compartment bulkhead. The first sign I had that we had a problem is when one of the passengers came up and said that the cigar lighter was real hot. As I was looking for a CB to pull to kill the power the four passengers that were sitting in the cabin were trying to get into cockpit screaming "FIRE!". Being a clever little devil that I am (well not so little, I'm 6'5".) I had a crash ax in the cockpit, mainly because of other things that had happened to me other aircraft. Very, very fortunately the passenger riding in the co-pilot's seat was an ex-Air Force pilot. I gave him the airplane and was able to go back and take care of the fire.

The baggage compartment and headliner was not in very good condition by the time I got through I'll have to admit. But that was okay, the chief pilot chewed my arse out and said I should have had the passengers put the fire out. I had suspected that he was an idiot, now I had no doubt. :p

I wished I had a camera in the cockpit to take a picture of my face when I looked down and saw that throttle moving all by it's self! :ooh: It was mind boggling!

Now I did fly the last series of the short model with the big engines, just on a demo flight. It had a name, not a letter, I can't remember the name now (comes with getting old). I will admit that airplane was very impressive.

Con,

Its A Solitaire, yeah truly impressive 321kts max cruise, thinking of trading up into one, but with cuts pending at the dayjob and my other aviation ventures on the downturn, i'm not willing to put myself in the hole for an extra 15kts and quicker rate of climb.

I've been out of 135 game a long time, sold the business; lucked out got an airline slot and kept the airplane and have been managing to keep it because of my -135 Mu-2 contacts and my A&P/IA rating ; most years it cost me the same in expenses as the Turbo 310R we traded in for it, but if i get furloughed again it may very well have to go, it will be a very sad day for me but it will have been a fun ride while it lasted.

N54 Ugly Slut - memory serves me Chocolate brown with Orange & Tan accents - once joked with George Mall, when he said it was time to repaint it - Where are you going to get the same shade of Sh-t brown? at which point,he kicked me out of his office, it got repainted in what became the fleet colours : White with two blue cheat lines on the fuselage, tip tanks and vertical fin.

Intercontinental Jet of Tulsa bought the fleet of 35 Mu-2's after George's passing (Cancer); he had owned or brokered over 350 Mu-2s, some airframes like 54US, he bought 8 or 9 times over 30 years! Flew it after the repaint into area of level 4's on the TUL - DFW mail run, came out looking worse than Brown scheme, patches of paint missing everywhere.

MU-2 = Yamamoto's Revenge
 

LINE SERVICE (to pay for Law school, already had my Private) - LRD 1976.

I was the Last Man to see a transient pilot depart in his nice MU-2 for the Factory Svc. center at San Angelo... see Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc.

@ the Fed-Man interview I stated the truth: He was clearly somewhat tired (age: 30's, maybe early 40s) after a long day, but IMHO fit to fly, no booze or obvious intox., familiar with his MeXican-registered plane 1 million %, and one of THE FEW Careful Ones that actually checked my replacement of his fuel caps. In the dark. I always liked to see that - I'd never made a mistake so far, but I surely will someday. Only ppl. that do real preflights are students and Pros. He struck me as a Real Pro - and I even made fresh coffee for him.

He filed IFR. After the pleasure of watching him preflight, I took my ladder back and, it being late, went into the ofc. where I heard him talking to ARTCC. They cleared him along right smart to 3000, then up to 5 or 7- I forget. He acknowledged crisply. But then he was seen to cleanly bust his assigned alt and just keep on climbing, as if in ATTITUDE HOLD mode. Many many ATC and other-AC relayed-calls, no answers. Ever.

They watched him go up to the AC's svc. ceiling, flail along steadily up there for quite a while... and then ... when the kerosene was gone... dive vertically into Kansas. Quite a ride, toured a few extra States but never enjoyed them, like Payne Stewart did in his Lear. So we pretty much knew the HOW = heart attack, anoxia, some pilot disability... but never the WHY.

I love everything that flies, but that aircraft is a killer unless you have ALL the MOST 2008-2009 recent FAA Re-Cert, Re-Training Reqmt's nailed and re-nailed.

I can accept that- some ACs just aren't for part-timers. Like Ted Smith's Aerostars, etc. We had an orthodontist once that took ALL his ratings from my instructor one after the other in just a few Mo. - Private, Multi, Instrument... and we BEGGED him not to buy that fine Aerostar on our ramp "For Sale". BEGGED HIM! But what do WE know? He's a DOKTAH :mad: and we're just.. pilots. So WITHIN THREE WEEKS he wound up strewing it, himself, and his wife all over the approach path to One-Three in Corpus. Lucky! THEY LIVED! In Full-body casts for 8+ mo. after leaving the Hosp. (chuckle) but...they were alive.

I think the MU-2 is a Flying Prostitute unless you are a HEAVY-RATED PRO. Wing Area = to a C-172's at THAT power loading and gross? NO ailerons... but Spoilers? Funky flaps that operate like NO other? Gimme a break ....

Rotate at 110, but if you lose one, no Vmc until 150? Sure, I'm gonna hold that designed-wimpy (un-needed!) rudder all the way over and take a 5-degree bank into my operative engine, until I realize that I am SPOILING THE LIFT on my Last Good Side. And leaving my tire rubber on the far fence. Right-O! And do NOT forget all that fuel-weight waaay out on the wingtips that has its OWN ideas about Rolling Angular Momentum. :ooh:

Yes, LOTS of simulator-time and MUCHO extra PRO-LEVEL training CAN solve this. But it's not and WILL NEVER BE a Non-Professional's airplane. As they so murderously marketed it. :=

I'm still troubled by one accident report: MU-2 shortie pinkie-diamond whatever was observed by other traffic to be "falling vertically in the level flight attitude" while
gently nodding its nose about 30 deg. up & down...up and down...all the way in.

I saw ONE MU-2 that I would have flown in. It had TWO nice guys up front with crisp starched white shirts and epaulets: 1 had 3 Stripes and the left-seater had 4. :cool:

PS: Oh yeah, I'm THIS guy: YouTube - AMNESIA CRASHING

This comment was also made by a friend of mine that had a lot of time on MU-2 night freight ops.

He noted that a lot of the incidents were from pilots who were coming off piston twins and they were trying to fly the MU-2 like a 402.

Also when the tip tanks are half full minor pitch changes are amplified as all that fuel races from either end of the tip tanks , I did about 100 hrs in the right hand seat and it took me ages to work out what was going on. I was hand flying and got the aircraft all trimmed up and then it would pitch up, stabilise , trim and it would pitch down. It turned out the captain was just easing a bit of rudder on to initiate a minor pitch change and the fuel in the tip tanks would take over from there. When I worked out what he was doing I looked over and said "you bastard !" and he belly laughed for about 5 mins with tears coming out of his eyes. He said the look on my face when this was happening each time just cracked him up.

Centaurus, I know you're in Oz so I'll presume your friend is. Graham Murphy has thousands of hours in MU2s. Don't know where he is now but if he can be found he has a lot of useful knowledge. I did the the MU2 endorsement theory with him. Didn't have the $$$ or justification for the flying part (the bottle of good red he charged me for the ground work was within my budget though...)

It was years ago and it's all a bit vague now but there were traps with the aircraft. Forgotten most of what he taught me but it included things like applying full roll trim very soon after an engine failure. More or less straight after controlling the yaw with rudder. Fueling to full required a bit of to-ing & fro-ing between sides with the fuel hose to ensure each tank was filled. There was also something about the P1/P2 tubes or whatever those sensor tubes just inside the inlet are called

Don't forget Oz has (or had?) a special training requirement for the MU2 for flight into icing too.

Crashking, the problem being that you can buy all of this performance so gosh-darn cheap.
I don't have the change to own and operate one of these things, since as we all know, the ticket to get in is only the start of the account-draining ride.
Still, if I felt I could afford to own a mini airliner, the PA-42-720 is a good cheap turboprop and for those who want to go fast, the PA-42-1000 is a good cheap turboprop that goes fast.
The MU-2 always seemed like an aiplane one would want to own and fly. With age comes wisdom and an appreciation of one's limitations.

Con-Pilot said:

One piece of advice, advice that will save your friend's life and the lives of his passengers.

GET GOOD PROPER TRAINING! Find the best MU-2 school in the world and go to it and keep going to it for as long as he owns the the airplane.

The MU-2 is a killer of inexperienced pilots, actually it does a pretty good job of killing experienced pilots as well.

I have nearly 800 hours in MU-2s and count myself lucky. However, I did attend Flight Safety for initial and recurrency training.

Now, about gear retraction, yes the gear doors opening will add drag, however, using the wheel (remember the MU-2 has spoilers only for roll) to keep the wings level will add much more drag. Use rudder and aileron trim to keep the wings level.

It has been a long time, but I do believe that single engine climb speed is around 150kts. Now the MU-2 will come off the runway at around 110 kts. So if one loses an engine just after takeoff you will need to accelerate at least 40kts to 150 before you can start a climb. If you do not have the space to accelerate or you are coming off a hot/high airport,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,well, good luck.

My best advice is to get rid of the blasted thing.








Even though this post was some time ago I feel the need to respond to this poster total ignorance of the aircraft he says he has over 800 hours in. My first thought on reading his remark is that he must have been asleep for the whole 800 hours and his passengers are very lucky to have survived his inept knowledge and attitude.

It is no wonder that so many pilots like this one have been killed by the myths and lack of standardized training for this very unique aircraft. No need to go into an total defense of his misleading statements and the SFAR will either education such idiots or weed them out before they kill someone.

I will say however that the MU2 climbs very well on one engine flaps 20 and 125 knots. The 151 knot speed this poster mentions is clean and like a jet you do not go to flaps 0 until clear of terrain and ready for en route climb.

Bluefishbeagle, I have approximately 1200 hours in the Rice Rocket, sounds like Con-pilot has a lot of time in some of the older models that were pretty weak on power, like the L or G models, the autothrottle problem I assume is the Bendix FC unit problem, I had some on the J I started on in Albuquerque, they would idle at various speeds and would occasionally quit.

Once we changed to the Woodward units, life was much better, as others have mentioned, it's not the kind of airplane you get checked out by taking a spin around the pattern, I received proper flight and ground training courtesy of the nice folks at Houston Hobby FSI.

I enjoyed the airplane tremendously, the weak points back then was the Bendix Auto pilot, plastic and the plastic wind screen, although it was originally suspected that icing was a problem for the MU2, I operated the aircraft in some of the worst winter conditions a person could imagine without a problem.

I was lucky enough to fly some updated machines in recent years like the Marquise and Solitaire, the latter being my choice as a personal dream aircraft, the short models having some different takeoff and landing techniques, but I have heard some of this problem can be fixed by moving the batteries to the other end.

I would say a person needs to update the A/P if it isn't working well, but it's a great airplane, miss it a lot.

Nice posts by Ag2A320. :ok:

Dream Land,

Ah,the dreaded Bendix FCU: let see typical faults were: Couldn't select reverse unless you pushed up the C/L to 100%; had to remember to connect the P2 ref line heater or the engine would surge in Low Temps or not respond to the power lever as reference pressure line blocked.

Had a J Model, pull that trick one winter on a TUL - ORD run, takeoff & climb was fine, about 1 hr into cruise @ FL 210 ATC asked me to slow for in-trail spacing ( @ 340Kt G/S was overtaking an RJ) pulled the power back to slow 20Kts and after being cleared to resume normal speed, pushed up the P/L with no response, It wouldn't accelerate or go to FI just held a steady 60% TQ. Request to go direct to TUL and began a descent to 12,000 ft in the hope that warmer air below might unfreeze the line. Solid IMC till about 30 NM out of tulsa ;( low ceilings precluded landing at the nearest airport) combined with the fact that the other engine was a bendix too, it kept the "frozen engine" running till breaking out in CAVOK conditions, then shut it down and flew a vis app to 36R.

To this day if anybody asks me to fly any Garrett with @ Bendix FCU, the first thing i do is open the cowling and verify the P2 Heaters work.

The only Woodward product to give the odd problem was the prop sync ( early on/off models), and then it either worked or popped the C/B.

Regards,

Ag2A320

Well. A couple of things come to mind reading that mindless, insulting, arrogant and juvenile post.

First one can disagree without being so insulting. Obviously your super inflated opinion of yourself as a hero pilot transcends such things as common courtesy. Just how rare is the air on that lofty pedestal you have placed yourself on anyway?

As for luck, there is no pilot alive that has not been lucky on occasion, well with the exception of you of course, you being so superior to we common mortal souls that dare to fly an aircraft while lacking your God like skills and talents. I, being a mortal soul, will admit that there were a few occasions in my career that luck played a part of accomplishing the following:

A career of being a professional pilot lasting over forty (40) years, accumulating a total of over 21,000 hours of flying time, being type rated in eight aircraft, seven jet aircraft and one piston, operated extensively internationally, flown around the world and have achieved all of the above without scratching a single aircraft or a single passenger. None of the preceding could have been accomplished by luck alone.

I stand by my comments regarding the MU-2, all of them no matter the series. The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact.

Not only is that statement completely misleading, it is dangerous. Try that in any stretched MU-2 at MGTOW, with any OAT plus ISA and you will be killed, along with every other poor soul that was stupid enough to be riding with you. Obviously your reading skills, retention ability and your capability of comprehending the written word is as poor as your ego is super inflated.

I clearly stated in previous posts that the MU-2 can be flown safely. However, only with excellent initial training and constant retraining on a regular basis by an organization such as Flight Safety. Also the maintenance must be kept at a top notch level.

Pilots with your super inflated opinion of yourself are the most dangerous things in aviation. I know this because I have been to a lot of their funerals.

Now, one last point.

They are still building Kingairs, they are not still building MU-2s, there's a damn good reason for that fact.

The bigest problem with the "rice rocket" is that they are now cheap , so folks who shouldnt fly anything faster than a 172 are buying them {lawyers, doctors, and others with a few bucks} the aircraft is in fact the airframe of choice for some of our medivac outfits, what else can plonk into 2500ft of gravel and the keep up with the traffic into New York? One FAA type said to me that they have replaced the V tail Bonanza as the "Fork Tailed Doctor Killer" It is an aircraft that requires much training on and a sound grasp of its workings, niether of which many owners seem to want to do.The only thing I really dont like is refueling the thing from a single hose bowser,back and forth with the ladder to keep it from sagging to one side.

"I stand by my comments regarding the MU-2, all of them no matter the series. The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact."

Not sure where you get your data, or what aircraft you consider in the MU-2 class, but for the period 2001-2005, the MU had a lower fatal accident rate than the Merlin, Dash 6, 7 and 8, Cessna 406, Piper Meridian and Malibu Jetprop.

Source: Robert E. Breiling and Associates

I said in the same class as the MU-2. Not airliners like the Dash 6, 7 and 8 (theDash 7 is a four engine aircraft) nor such as single engine aircraft such as the Meridian and the Malibu. Compare the accident rate of the MU-2 verus the Kingair, Turbo Commander and the Merlin and see what results you arrive at.

On a personal note, I really don't care that much for any trubo-prop aircraft. I'm not saying I'd never fly one if I came out of retirment nor refuse to ride in a turbo-prop aircraft, I just don't care for them.

Funny enough I've never flown a Turbo Commander in spite of being based in Oklahoma City for all these years. I flew every other type Aero Commander ever built including the Jet Commander, but never a Turbo Commander.

Perhaps that is what you meant, but it is not what you said.

You said; "The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact."

"Class" would be multi engine" "Multi" means more than one, as in 2, 3, and yes, 4.

However the point of your latest post is taken. And as for the -6 being an "airliner" :rolleyes:

Okay, err just how many Dash 6s (Twin Otters) are/were operated by private companies or private individuals?

Also using your definition of class,

would include everything from the B-52 to a Twin Comanche. :p

To be specific as not to cause any further misunderstanding, my research only included twin engine, turbo-prop, cabin class, pressurized aircraft that were specifically designed to be primarily a corporate owned business aircraft. Thus this precluded any such aircraft as the Dash series or single engine aircraft.

In other words, I compared apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

You were quite specific in your original post.

"The MU-2 has the highest accident rate, highest fatal accident rate of any other type of turbo-prop in its class. That's a fact."


Not sure, but I don't think there are any turboprop twin comanches, or B-52s.:)

If a -6 is an airliner, then I reckon so is the MU-2 and King Air series.:rolleyes:

I'm just scratching my head here, but what is NOT obvious about the "MU-2 and its class"? Obviously, the MU2 belongs with the King Air, Turbo Commander, Cheyenne, Conquest group of planes--not Meridians, -6,-7,-8 or Beech 1900s.

Factoid--2 in Japanese sound likes "nee", hence MU2 is Moo-ney, the original importer and partner. They should have stuck with the small planes--would have saved a lot of investigators, a lot of time.

GF

Oh, ferrydude, something I failed to mention is that I am a certified NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigator. Therefore I do have/had access to some pretty good statical information.

The NTSB has volumes and volumes of negative information concerning the MU-2. In fact the NTSB actually called for the MU-2 airworthiness certificate to be revoked. The FAA, for reasons only known to themselves, disagreed.

The NTSB does not call for the revocation of an airworthiness certificate until after an extreme amount of research and studies. Nor does it do so lightly.

If the NTSB considers the MU-2 to be a dangerous aircraft that should not be allowed to fly in the skies of the United States, whom am I to argue.