BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 15:08

Username Protected wrote:

You want to see my spreadsheet on how an F or a K model is only a 50% increase in cost for me over my C55? :lol:

Ha! You must do accounting for government programs.

:D

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 15:09

Username Protected wrote:

I've spent a disturbing amount of time trying to make that airplane make sense for me... :D

Think of it as two engines and some avionics in a nice carrying case they throw in for free.

In the end, it is an F model, and they just aren't worth that much on the market, which is why this has been for sale for a long time. Still, a nice example.

The other factor is looming hot sections and the major 7500 hour inspection coming soon.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 15:13

Username Protected wrote:

I've spent a disturbing amount of time trying to make that airplane make sense for me...

Think of it as two engines and some avionics in a nice carrying case they throw in for free.

In the end, it is an F model, and they just aren't worth that much on the market, which is why this has been for sale for a long time. Still, a nice example.

The other factor is looming hot sections and the major 7500 hour inspection coming soon.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 15:13

Username Protected wrote:

Is there any plausible scenario where an MU-2 is less safe than a 58P (or C340/C414/C421) for an owner-flown, ~20K nm/yr use case?

(I'm less interested in whether 20K nm/year is enough to be safe in a 58P or MU2 in an absolute sense, but rather in a relative sense.)

Safety is generally improved by a factor of 5X Jim.

At least that's what I'm going to tell my wife...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 15:51

You guys aren't the only ones who have watched that plane closely.

Its illiquid though. I think if you go MU2, you better go -10s with good times.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 16:02

F models priced right should be plenty liquid. This isn't an issue of an A55 with engines at TBO. It's just a seller willing to wait for the right buyer.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 16:15

I dunno. I feel a lot better about my chance to move a -K or -M with -10 engines.

If you buy this -F, you're buying it to fly a very long time, IMO...

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 16:28

Username Protected wrote:

I dunno. I feel a lot better about my chance to move a -K or -M with -10 engines.

If you buy this -F, you're buying it to fly a very long time, IMO...

Are you referring to having to do the HSIs soon Jim? What's the verdict on the AMU count for those?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 17:41

Forgot to take some pictures of the baggage compartment, but Mike C. had some pictures he posted. The -6's don't do bad in a K model either. Here are some picts. from a Christmas trip to Kapa in cruise (not meant to tempt you are anything:)). We averaged around 75gal. an hour. the legs were about 925nm each way. We cruised starting out at about 275ktas and once we burned off some fuel ended up around 285ktas. We were at gross weight at takeoff.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 17:59

damn it!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP DOING THAT!!!! :drool:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 19:21

Yeah!

I have MU2 lust so bad, it's terrible.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 19:25

Where's that pic of the black MU-2 with 5 bladed props? It's just awesome looking!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 19:34

Username Protected wrote:

Yeah!

I have MU2 lust so bad, it's terrible.

You and me both. If I already had my strip paved, I don't think I'd be able to resist.

Every time I seriously consider the MU2 I kind of feel silly because I'm only putting about 100 hours per year on my Baron and it has proven to be cheap and easy to maintain. It's no speed demon, but it's fast enough, easy on gas, hauls a lot, and like a cheap date, it's always ready to go.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 19:35

Username Protected · **Posted:** 22 Jan 2015, 19:36

That's it! Great looking plane. :thumbup:

Mitsubishi for first twin