Glenn,

Would be happy to share the decision calculus I went through with you via email to avoid clogging up the BT list (unless these kind of discussions are encouraged here). Like you, my mission profile is very different from Ken's. I fly about 100 hours/year and mostly longer trips (but not full seats). I also looked at the twin commander but a big factor for me was cabin size/comfort. With wife, two teenagers and a large dog, space was important. Additionally, the wife mandated a plane that (a) she could get up and move around in and (b) had a bathroom. While the long-bodies are a bit slower than the short bodies, that drove me out of Twin Commander or short body MU-2 territory firmly into MU-2 long body, King Air 200 (90 might work) or a Cessna Conquest. Once I was in that zone, it really became a financial issue and the Mits gave me the biggest bang (and in some cases better performance) at 1/2 the cost.

Drop me a PM with your email address and I'd be happy to share the other stuff that went into my calculus as well as the financials...

Dave

Dave,

Thank you for your earlier post and please allow me to encourage you to post anything you can, and which you don't consider sensitive or proprietary, about your ownership experience. There are many of us here who plan to move to a turbine aircraft and want to learn as much as we can.

Thanks!

Dave,

As Tony said, these discussion are most certainly encouraged here!

We fly Red Deer(CYQF) to Kitchener(CYKF) or Burlington(CZBA) (basically Calgary-Toronto ~1,450NM) several times a year for business and take the kids with us. We often go on to Saint John (CYSJ) from there.

The kids are still young (7&9) but growing quickly. My wife (Anne) and I are not large, 300 pounds combined. We moved up from an older short body Mooney so I don't get any complaints about cabin size. Anne is very happy with the amount of "stuff" that we can fit/carry in the Aerostar.

I got a ride in an F-model MU-2 (for other BTers-entry level short body MU-2 with "smaller" engines) at PROP. Honestly, it wasn't enough of a step up from the Aerostar to make the change. So if I go MU-2, it will likely be a long body with -10 engines.

Range is a big factor. The ability to go 1,450NM non-stop (ideally in both directions) would be a huge plus. From my inquires at PROP, long range fuel options for the MU-2 exist but are not readily available.

Glenn

1450 NM is not really within the range for the MU2. Sometimes with a tailwind, but not consistently. Probably never into the wind.

The long body airplanes have a mod which can add some fuel into a tank in the landing gear pods. No idea whether it is easily available today, IJSC or TAS folks would probably know. From memory, I think it adds 20 gal per side, which is maybe 150-200 NM. That might just get you the 1450 a little more consistently downwind, probably still not enough upwind, but you should run the numbers to check.

If that range is really required, you may need to look at Turbo Commanders or the 441 Conquest. Fair amount more dollars to buy plus operate.

Happy to share some thoughts and my purchase process when I stepped up to a turbine. Like many, I'd flown a lot of different planes but the only other plane I ever owned was a Mooney M-20K (the turbocharged Mooney). I had time in a variety of larger planes and (in the GA category) had flown King Air 90s and 200s, Cessna Conquests, 421s and Beech Dukes.

Some would argue that is pretty much the entire gamut of twin cabin-size plane airplanes on the piston side. While i like the 421 (and have no concerns about the GTSIO engines -- if you take care of those engines and fly them correctly, they will last, the reality is that both the 421 and the Duke are in pretty ugly shape if you lose an engine, especially right after takeoff. Note I am NOT saying that they are unsafe, but that they don't have a whole lot of power to begin with and the loss of an engine is a demanding situation. I was also sick of the constant maintenance headaches of a piston plane. When I owned the Mooney it seemed that every month I had a minor maintenance issue, was always chasing leaks (oil, exhaust, etc.) and all the other issues associated with flying 1930's era technology.

I had a lot of experience with jet engines/gas turbines in my Navy days and I know what everyone else here knows...a jet engine is damn near bullet proof with basically one moving part. You also have gobs of excess power, are far better able to deal with icing and have a lot better engine reliability. The downside is the increased cost (both in acquisition and in maintenance (especially hot sections and overhauls).

For financial reasons I was not able to even consider a plane in the million dollar plus range, so that took any newer turbo props as well as the conquests. In fact if I went King Air it was really likely going to be a C90. I did a lot of research into the various "baby King Airs" including looking at a plane with the Walter engine conversion. I was also fortunate to have a good friend who traded in his three year old B200 for a brand new B200 in 2009. I visited the Beech factory with him, got to see the assembly line and everything you get for your money. There is no question that the King Airs are great airplanes and easy to fly. The PT-6 is a great engine and a modern King Air 200 is a great airplane. My problem was a 200 wasn't in the cards, and the older King Airs that were in the cards were really old, not that much faster than the Mooney I had been flying. In addition (and this is just my opinion and not meant to "bash" Beechcraft), I felt (and still feel) that anything coming out of Beech is expensive to maintain be it a Bonanza, Baron or King Air. Everything in aviation is expensive, but I just think Beech charges a premium for parts and service. I'm also less than thrilled with their support. From my perception, you get GREAT support if you are buying a brand new airplane. After that, well, it is purely economics with them and they could seem to care less about those buying/flying 1970's/80's or even earlier era planes...

I was still undecided when I started researching the MU-2 (which I new little about other than all the stories about the plane being a deathtrap, difficult to fly, etc.). I did my research (including a great Aviation Consumer story on them) and came to the conclusion that the plane wasn't unsafe, it was the unsafe pilots who had been causing the problems and created that reputation. I had also come from flying a Mooney which had a reputation for being (a) difficult to land and (b) burn up cylinder heads in the TSIO-260-GB engine I had (the one without the intercooler or automatic wastegate). I knew that the Mooney was a GREAT plane to fly if you managed your speed correctly when coming in to land. I also knew the engine was a GREAT engine if you flew it like a Turbocharged engine and not like the damn near bulletproof IO-360 engine the J model had. John Deakin has some great articles on turbocharged engine management in his Pelican's Perch series, I had installed Gamijectors, believed in LOP operations, etc. So I came to the conclusion that the MU-2 had a bad reputation for reasons not having to do with the airplane and decided to do more research.

Unlike King Airs, MU-2s are relatively hard to find, but they have a great email list and forum which I joined. Both are much smaller than the Beechtalk list because the community is so much smaller, but it is also a great community with great support...including active participation from Mitsubishi, the service centers, etc. I was amazed at how quickly detailed technical questions were answered by those with credibility and what I was reading about the plane. I also made some calls and talked to a number of people including Greg Mink (who is the Premier driver on this list...he previously owned both a long and short body MU-2), several other owners, the folks at Mitsubishi, Turbine Aircraft Services, a guy named Mike Laver (who operates a big fleet of MU-2s and recently did the round-the-world trip documented by AOPA), anda guy named Reece Howell (who I believe has more time in MU-2s than anyone alive..he stopped counting at 22,000 hours in the plane).

I ultimately flew to Nashville for the day to visit Reece, see some MU-2s and see part of what the SFAR training was all about (more on that later). What I found was that the plane was a joy to fly and very docile in all flight regimes (including able to climb quite well on one engine as well as being very stable in slow flight). We did things in that MU-2 that, to be honest, I would not do in a King Air. I came away convinced that I would like to own an MU-2 if I could make the dollars work and if the insurance part of the calculus didn't significantly change the equation. I also came away convinced that the long body MU-2 was right for us although it was about 10-15 knots slower than the short body, the larger cabin, private flushing potty and general comfort were really great.

WRT cabin, by way of comparison to a KA200, the MU-2 long body actually has a bigger cabin. the main seating area (aft of the cockpit dividers and forward of the aft "potty" divider is 141" in a MU-2 long body compared to 128" in a KA200. The interior of an MU-2 is wider than the EXTERIOR fuselage width of a KA200...in fact the MU-2 interior is 4" wider than a KA200. By comparison, the airplane itself is SMALLER than a KA200. The Mits has a 39'2" wingspan compared to the KA200's 54'7" wingspan, the plane is 30'5" long (tip of nose to back of tail compared to the KA200's 43'9". It also burns about 12% less fuel and is about 10 knots faster than the older KA200's (obviously the new ones are faster but they are also out of my price range and burn a lot more fuel).

Now the folks on this list know all about PT-6s (and it is a great and incredibly successful engine) so let me just tell you a little bit about the Garret TPE-331 engine in the Mits. Unlike the PT-6, it is direct drive so the propeller is directly connected to the turbine's shaft...when one turns they both turn (this is why Garretts shut down with the engines on the locks (flat pitch) vice feathered). That direct drive means the engine is a bit more responsive than a PT-6 (meaning how quickly you get a difference in thrust after you move the throttles). They don't have autofeather but have a Negative Torque System (NTS) which drives the propellers to feather when negative torque is sensed making loss of an engine fairly easy to deal with (much like an autofeather PT-6). As a matter of fact loss of an engine in the MU-2 is MUCH easier than in a Seneca, Twinstar, Baron, 421 or Aerostar. TBO on the engine is a choice...you can overhaul at 5400 hours with two hots before the overhaul or you can put yourself on a 5000 hour overhaul schedule with just a single hot required at 2500 hours. Most engines are now on that schedule because you save the cost of a hot with just the cost of 400 hours on the overhaul. Interestingly enough, the Ag operators flying Garretts don't do the overhaul until 9000 hours with hots every 2500 hours... So the engine maintenance costs are cheaper than a PT-6....and a TPE-331 Dash 10 (what the later MU-2s have) burns LESS gas per hour than a PT-6 putting out similar power. The one thing people complain about Garrets is the noise because on the ground they idle at 77% RPM (much higher than a PT6) and are thus much noisier. Interestingly enough, inside the plane it is actually quieter than most King Airs. In cruise they are definitely quieter than all but the newest King Airs...

I got back from Nashville and called AOPA just to do an "apples to apples" insurance/insurability quote. I was expecting to pay more for the MU-2, the question was "how much more". I asked them to quote me an MU-2 Marquise and a King Air C90, both with a 500,000 hull value. What was quoted stunned me...the prices were within $100 dollars of each other! When I asked why, I was told it was because of the MU-2s safety record (the SFAR had been around a few years and at that point they had gone 4 years without a single fatal accident).

So I knew I wanted an MU-2 if I could make it work. I knew I wanted a long Body. I knew I wanted a Marquise (the last of the long bodies) if I could make it work. Much like a King Air, if you want to know what's wrong with your plane, just look at the next model and see what they changed/fixed/improved! Just like any airplane purchase it was now a matter of looking and finding the right plane.

The community is so small that when I put the word out on the list I was looking, several owners contacted me. I also spoke to the four major MU-2 dealers and all knew what I was looking for. I ended up talking to one of them (Mike Laver mentioned above) who told me he had been dropping a plane off at the Green Bay service center the previous week and had run into an owner who mentioned he was thinking of selling his plane. Mike offered to put us in touch and said if it worked out, I didn't owe him anything (that is just the kind of guy he is). That was the plane I ended up buying...

With the MU-2 you HAVE to to initial and recurrent training, not because the insurance company says so but because the SFAR says so. The initial training is basically four days of ground school and then the flying. You can either do your training at Simcom in Orlando (they have two MU-2 simulators) or in your own plane with several training providers around the country. I spoke to my insurance broker who informed me that if I did my initial training with Reece Howell, there would be NO limitations on my flying once signed off and no requirement for mentor pilot in the right seat. Basically the training is so good and he won't sign you off until you are ready, so the insurance company consider that to be more than enough. I was sold.

Went back to Reece and planned on five days (was told it should be around that if all went well but warned it might be longer and that if things weren't going good in the plane in the first two days, he would let me know so I could plan accordingly...some number (I don't know how many) have to either extend or go away and come back when they have more time and complete the training and get signed off. The training was similar to what you will get at Flight Safety or Simcom when getting a type rating. Superbly detailed systems training and a light of maneuvers you have to successfully demonstrate mastery of by flying them to commercial PTS standards, even if you just have a private rating.

I would add that there are some fundamental differences between flying an MU-2 and flying a King Air. To be honest, you can fly a King Air the same way you fly a Piper Seneca or Beech Duke or Beech Queen Air except for engine management. You CANNOT fly an MU-2 the way you fly any other GA plane you have been trained in. The key to the MU-2's incredible performance is the wing. With flaps up, you have a wing that is only 4 sq. ft. larger than that of a Cessna 172. With flaps 20 you almost double the wing area which is what lowers that stall speed so much. You raise and lower flaps on a speed schedule, just like a jet. You handle an engine out on departure just like a jet as well (meaning you don't bank into the turn with the yoke). That keeps the spoilers from extending and costing you airspeed at that critical moment. If you fly the plane the way it is SUPPOSED to be flown, it is the safest twin turboprop in the world (and the mishap rate since the SFAR was enacted bears that out). If you fly it the way you would a King Air or most conventional propeller twins (turboprop or piston) you will be in serious trouble very quickly. To be honest, the SFAR recurrent training (which I just finished up for the second time several weeks ago) is not that big of a deal...two days of ground school and flying...including all the maneuvers again to commercial PTS standards. It is a great refresher to knock the rust off and ensure you are up to speed on what to do when bad things happen....you spend most of it flying around on one engine and just grinning at what the plane can do on one engine (including the single engine go around). I don't believe the MU-2 is inherently safer/better than a King Air, but believe the SFAR training has made it a safer plane. If the FAA mandated the same level of training for all King Airs, I suspect we'd see a similar improvement in the mishap rate... All of that just validates what we already know...focused, demanding recurrent training WORKS. It is why the airlines and the military are able to achieve great safety records, even with low time pilots flying very complex airplanes. Its why PT91 aviation (even in turboprops) has a worse mishap rate than commercial/corporate flying in the same airplanes. Its why (at least for now) the MU-2 has such an enviable safety record and the low insurance premiums to match.

Bottom line is I have found the plane to be everything I expected it to be. My fuel costs have actually been a bit lower than what I planned (I average around 90 gallons the first hour and 75 gph after that). I've now been through two annuals/100 hour inspections (you also do the 200 hour inspection annually and one of mine needed the 300 and 600 hour inspections). Both inspections ended up being similar in cost to what I paid in the Mooney. I've had three items fail between inspections that required intermediate maintenance -- (1) I had a beta switch go bad. Got one shipped to me and my mechanic was able to swap it out (the service center sent him all the maintenance procedures), (2) I had to replace a red wing light lens when I was replacing the bulb and dropped the lens (those things SHATTER when they hit a hangar floor!), and (3) the oleo I mentioned in my earlier post. Item (2) was my fault, item (1) happened about 8 weeks after I bought the plane and item (3) happened last August.

My hourly cost for fuel averaged out at $416/hour. What did surprise me a bit is that my hourly fuel costs are not that much worse than what I would have paid had I purchased a Cessna 421 or Beech Duke. Obviously Jet-A is cheaper (much cheaper with the various fuel programs...especially CAA), but also you just fly so much faster that you end up burning about the same amount of fuel over a given distance as a piston twin...you burn more per hour but the increased speed/decrease flight time makes that balance out. A review of the published MU-2 profiles on fltplan.com compared to a C421 or Duke will bear that out (I haven't run the Aerostar comparison).

So I have nothing bad to say about King Airs...they are great airplanes and the fact they keep being made today speaks to the greatness of the design. In my case, I felt (and still feel) I got a LOT more bang for the buck (from both performance as well as space) with an MU-2 compared to a King Air. The jump to a turbine has been a change, and there is no doubt it is more expensive financially...but it really is not THAT much more expensive on a day-to-day operating basis compared to a cabin class piston plane...

This post has gone on way too long but hopefully it will be of use to any Beechtalk members looking at upgrading to a turbine (King Air, Twin Commander or MU-2). Of course, all the opinions stated here are just my opinions and they are worth exactly what the reader paid for them...

I'm based in Manassas, VA (KHEF) and am happy to link up with any BT members in the DC area who would like to see an MU-2 in person.

all the best,
Dave

Great information! Thanks.

Wish they could restart production of the MU-2. Competition would also be beneficial to Beechcraft.

Agreed. There are those at Mitsubishi who have discussed doing it but right now the economics don't justify starting up the production line again. Instead they have focused on the "platinum edition" MU-2s (which are basically a new airplane the way they tear down and rebuild everything) and the Mitsubishi Regional Jet which apparently is aimed squarely at the Chinese regional jet market where the CRJs and ERJs have yet to take hold. They seem to be comfortable with the approach they are taking and (as long as they keep supporting the legacy fleet) I really have nothing to complain about.

1450 NM is not really within the range for the MU2. Sometimes with a tailwind, but not consistently. Probably never into the wind.

The long body airplanes have a mod which can add some fuel into a tank in the landing gear pods. No idea whether it is easily available today, IJSC or TAS folks would probably know. From memory, I think it adds 20 gal per side, which is maybe 150-200 NM. That might just get you the 1450 a little more consistently downwind, probably still not enough upwind, but you should run the numbers to check.

If that range is really required, you may need to look at Turbo Commanders or the 441 Conquest. Fair amount more dollars to buy plus operate.

Yes, good point.

Dave, that is the best post I have ever read on BT. You and Jon Carlson have made me do a complete 180 on my opinion of the MU-2. I'm going to have my brother read your posts - he's got an Atlantic Aero F33A based at Stafford, VA but keeps talking about moving up to a TBM. If he wants to start burning Jet A, I am sold the MU-2 is the way to go.

I don't NEED the range. My Aerostar is great for my current mission. However, if I am going to step up (and I WANT to), it's hard to justify without the range.

I explored the Merlins when John Atkins listed his for sale a few months ago. The advantage for a twin commander for me is that they run a fleet of them on my field so experienced maintenance/parts are right across the taxiway from my hangar.

I'm still trying to quantify how much more maintenance intensive a twin commander is vs. an MU-2. I understand that the is a lot of variation in the twin commander fleet. So assuming I purchased a good twin commander, would this cost be negated by having to fly several hours each way for maintenance. Both run TPE331's so alternatively, how hard would it be to get my local guys to speed on maintaining an MU-2.

Glenn
P.S. Dave, thanks for the great post.

Glenn, you have a good point.

If your mechanics are experienced on Commanders that would be a safe bet, make sure it has the -10 engines. I worked on a Commander 500 for years and it never failed the operator. All of the Commanders are work horses.

The MU-2 is a hot rod, but the systems are a little difficult to work on, the spoiler flight controls and landing gear can be interesting to figure out. You need to have some working knowledge of the Mitsubishi systems.

Glen,

If they can maintain a Turbo Commander, the MU-2 is a lot more user friendly from the maintenance side, no hydraulics for the gear and steering on MU-2, engine a lot easier to remove on MU-2. also no fuel bladders to change. The MU-2 Electric Landing Gear is a lot simpler than the headache of seals in hydraulic system of the Turbo Commander.

I helped maintain the JDF's 1000 Commander and its systems were far more time consuming ( maintenance man-hours to remove and access components) than the Mu-2's. The modular construction of the MU-2 makes working on the aircraft a breeze compared to the AC.

We managed to operate our Mu-2, 695 nm from the nearest service center and with not much in way of special equipment other than building an engine stand and modifying our engine hoist so that we could pull the engines with and without the prop.

Once you have Mark James, Randy or Jack Barbee or Mike Laver numbers in cell phone ;they will walk you through any MU-2 maintenance issue.

Nigel

In my limited experience, it is just the opposite. The Mits has been pretty easy to work on. Most stuff that would require special knowledge is taken care of during inspections, which are scheduled so can be taken to a specialist.

Nigel,

Thanks for the info. Difficult question, but having worked on both, how much more expensive is a Commander to maintain vs. an MU-2? Any possibility you can quantify this a bit?

Glenn
P.S. My parents were born in Jamaica. I flew my Mooney into MKJP in 2010, next time I do so, I hope to do it in a turbine.