225 gallons, 20.8 GPH, 184 KTAS is 1,990 nm to dry tanks. But that all presupposes cruise conditions.

2000 nm is not possible in still air once you allocate fuel for start, taxi, takeoff, climb (at lower GS, too), and reserves. Maybe 1700 nm realistically after all that is taken into account.

Is all of the 225 gallons usable? Figures I see are 210 gallons usable for Aerostar with aux tank.


That sounds like an epitaph.

Mike C.

Mike,

I question on your range numbers for the various MU-2 models. You keep saying that the 3 blade planes have a longer range than the four blade (specifically Solitaire and Marquise) models which have the larger fuel tanks. That doesn't make sense to me. The Spec sheets show that the Marquise and the Solitaire have the longest range (both cruse power and maximum range). Now I know you suggested that was at FL310 (which no one can do anymore in the US due to RVSM issues), but I don't see that. In my POH (Marquise), the max endurance profile correctly shows max endurance at FL310, but the loss of time from 310 to 280 is 12 minutes and you gain 1 knot (274 kts to 275). If I go max endurance at FL310, I get a range of 1452.2 nm (274 kts x 5.3 hours) - by the way at 310 Max endurance and max power setting are the same. If I go max endurance at FL280, I get a range of 1402.5 (275kts x 5.1 hours). Interestingly enough, if I go max power at FL280, I get a range of 1381.8 nm (282 kts x 4.9 hours) - so at FLT 280 I only gain 21 miles by going max endurance vice max power supporting the discussions in this and other threads about turbo props that increased altitude does more for fuel economy than pulling the power back).

The only long body that shows a range close to that is the G model -- J, L and N show over 100nm less. I agree that those are "theoretical numbers" based on the assumptions made, but those assumptions are true across all models. Based on what do you conclude that other models of plane have a greater range than a Solitaire (short bodies) or Marquise (long bodies)? I've provided a screen capture of the max-endurance chart for my plane. What does yours (or any other MU-2's) show that would lead you to conclude any 3 blader has a longer range than the Solitaire/Marquise (short to short, long to long and obviously not counting the planes that have the aux tanks installed). You said but the spec sheets say the shortest range short body is an M model with a max range of 1330NM compared to the P model max range of 1461 miles. Based on what documents or data do you say the P model range is shorter than the M model?
-------------------------------------------------------------
As for those who are saying the MU-2 only has a 1,000 nm range, that's simply not true. Now we all know that headwinds or tailwinds can adjust that, so the only way to compare or generate numbers is to go with a no-wind scenario and articulate if reserves are included -- and if so what reserves. At least one MU-2 owner recently flew non-stop from Phoenix to Florida (yes, with a tail wind). I have flown non-stop from Washington DC to Tulsa (KHEF-KTUL) which is a 1,000nm great circle distance and completed the flight DESPITE A HEADWIND THAT WAS MAX 150 KTS AND AT LOWEST ABOUT 30 KTS. Look at my flightaware track. At times I had groundspeeds around 130kts. I spent the first half of the flight fighting brutal headwinds as I made my way past a front which was supposed to have continued moving east at a good clip but stalled out. I worked different altitudes as I looked for what was really going on and if going lower dropped the headwinds enough to make it worthwhile. It wasn't until I was 90 minutes out of Tulsa that I got past the front, the headwinds dropped significantly (meaning to about 30-40kt headwinds) and I was assured of making Tulsa...but that was a very unusual day (and the same jet stream fluctuation that enabled the BA 747 to make it from JFK to LHR in just over 6 hours on December 24th)... By way of comparison, here is a fltplan.com winds aloft matrix if I was to make that same flight tonight. I'm looking at landing with between 540 and 648 lbs of fuel in the tanks based on what altitude I fly, but that is a very comfortable reserve unless the weather is really ugly at the destination....

There is simply no question that 1,000 is easily within the MU-2's range on anything but the worst days...

Dave

I agree. This was over 1100 miles actually flown into a headwind. I don't recall what the headwind component was that day. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N321 ... /KCGF/KGKY

Here's my description of what I read lately on Beechtalk:

-Somebody says something about a Cirrus. Or a MU2. Or first a Cirrus and then an MU2, same thread.

-Subsequently, there is a conversation at about the same maturity level as a "yo mama is so fat" rank out contest about parachutes on planes, twins vs. singles, or how many engines a jet must have.

-At this point, Mike C. demonstrates a mathematical proof of why, in fact, your mom is fat and Mike's mom isn't. Even more maddening, Mike is generally right.

-Tim Spear argues the point against all logic. Tim is proven wrong. This doesn't hinder Tim at all. Ever.

-Adam says something off the wall. I lose more faith in Europe.

-I explain why I love my airplane. As an encore, I explain that while I love my airplane, I won't fly it in too much ice, establishing my yellow streak. Lastly, I remember why I don't keep arguing my point; there is no winning on Beechtalk other then to take the good ideas out of the repetitive melee and find an application from them; to that end, I've got another 40gallons of fuel in the works.

-If someone mentions a Pilatus, Crandall shows up and makes circular arguments about why Pilatus makes the best.

I love it here. Seriously, this is the most entertaining site on the web, lol.

Hey Jeffs, can I double like this?

Ha, pretty funny Craig.
Got a smile reading that analysis.

LMAO

I think we should all reply to all future posts from Mike C with "your mamma so fat"
that's priceless !

Great post Craig. I'm just glad you are loving your Solitaire and not silently (or not so silently) saying "Klain fed me a line of BS...man did I make a mistake..."!

No way Dave, on the contrary. You turned me on to the best airplane I've owned for serious travel. It's in the same category as the Aerostar for me, the category of, "stuff I'll never sell unless I go broke". Your analysis of its operations and limitations is spot on.

What I said:

"The extra 37 gallons adds a bit to range, but the 4 blade props take a bit away, so the net impact is not overly significant, maybe about 75 nm."

The Solitaire has about 75 nm more range from having 37 more gallons usable fuel.


M and P have almost the same fuel (P has 2 gallons less usable, 364). P has slower 4 blade props and is heavier, both make it a bit slower. Therefore the M goes a bit further given it has the same engine core and same altitude capability.

Reece's spec sheets are not sane, BTW, many entries fail sanity check, including range and empty weights.

Mike C.

You pretty well summed it up Craig!

Mike -- I got it from Mitsubishi's own numbers. See this Specification Sheet. Yes, all those numbers are from Mitsubishi's own performance charts and are thus "optimal" but they all came from Mitsubishi. Do your performance numbers in your POH/AFM not align with these numbers?

I have a Marquise Flight Planning Handbook (scanned) which is the pub they stopped publishing in around 1980 or 81 but is very useful because it is also the only document ever published which has accelerate/stop distance tables for the Marquise. Don't have any of the short body stuff since I focused on a long body pretty early on in my search. The numbers (range, speed, etc.) from that flight planning handbook are obviously more detailed than the spec sheet above, but are the same for the max range, max endurance range, max speed, etc. And those numbers are also the same as the performance tables in my POH/AFM...

Dave

That a sheet Reece put together. Says "Howell Enterprises" on it.


With obviously DIFFERENT assumptions for each model.

For example, the sheet says the K range is 1461 nm and M is 1330 nm. Same engines, same fuel, and the M can fly 3,000 ft higher. Fails sanity check, the same conditions were not given for both aircraft.

If you look through that sheet, there are all sorts of errors and bad math.

K model doesn't fly as slow as an F.

M model doesn't weigh 542 lbs heavier than a K.

Solitaire empty weight plus useful load exceeds ramp weight by 200 pounds.

So don't put too much faith in that sheet.


The AFM doesn't state range as a number. You have to provide a scenario to compute that.

Mike C.

Ok, then....can you please post what YOUR POH shows for max endurance/power speed/time chart (same I showed). I'm sure Craig can post what his Solitaire charts show. I'm not saying that the spec sheet is perfect, but in fact that sheet actually came from a PROP many years ago...the numbers came from TAS (or so Pat Cannon told me and I'm certainly not going to debate the point with him - I wasn't there and neither were you). I'm also not saying it is perfect, but absent something else, that's what I had. BTW, that chart is the same chart Mike Laver used to have on his website so the numbers came from somewhere (you can find the short body page he had posted here). I certainly don't think they were pulled out of someone's #ss...

My problem with your comments is you are making statements without showing any actual performance tables or DATA to back them up. You are a much smarter guy than I am but you keep making statements like that... I just posted actual tables from my POM. Do you deny that those are accurate? They certainly appear to demonstrate that the loss I have from 310 or 280 is minimal and that the Marquise is still the longest range long body....and the numbers align with the spec sheet for the Marquise. I am assuming (and yes, that is an assumption since I don't have a Solitaire POH), that the same holds true for the Solitaire data.

At the end of the day, it is a pedantic argument. As Craig said, you are convinced your M model is the greatest MU-2 ever built. Others disagree with you. Personally, I think they are all good planes but there are other brand planes that are also damn good airplanes.

Hopefully the DATA I showed is useful to someone in this thread who is trying to understand the MU-2 and make a judgement as to if they want to buy it or not....

I can't speak to if an K model is heavier than an M model or not. Is there something published that counteracts what is on this? The rest of your statements appear to be contradictory to what the sheet shows. Specifically: The sheet shows a F model max crusie of 296, K of 317. How is that saying the K flys as slow as an F? Only place the numbers are the same are for "typical cruise" which is probably a setting thing or marketing number...
Which number are you referring to? Ramp weight, takeoff weight and landing weights are performance numbers (max weights). This does not mean the M is 542 heavier than a K. ZFW on both is listed as 9700 lbs with same fuel capacity 366 gal. The approximate empty weights show a difference of 542 lbs but that is presumably based on approximate empty weights on the planes when built. Was there a difference between the airframes as shipped (although I agree 500 lbs seems like a lot). Perhaps soundproofing and interior differences? I do know that an M model is rated for 6.0 cabin PSID, the K model for 5.0. Also, the M model has a higher certified Max Gross Weight than the K (as the spec sheet I referred to shows the M is certified to 10,520 lbs compared to 9,920 lbs for the K) . Is the ACM different (heavier)? Maybe the fuselage is heavier or beefed up in some way? My Marquise has two outflow valves (as does the Solitaire). Does the M model? How about the K model? I could easily imagine a case where a beefed up fuselage/windows for higher psid PLUS two outflow valves (vice one) PLUS a more robust ACM PLUS more soundproofing material PLUS differences in avionics (maybe different model radar, different stuff in the OEM panel) might equal 542 lbs difference... Again, I am not an expert on either the M or the K model. I do know that there are differences between them and that one is rated for a 5 psid cabin and the other for 6. Presumably there are physical differences between them that could account for this. You do realize you are reading different numbers right? The Solitaire Operating empty weight listed (7210 lbs) includes a 200lb pilot. The approximate empty weight (7010 lbs) plus 3510 useful payload equals 10,520 -- exactly the max ramp weight listed on the table....

Again, you are making statements which contradict the sheet and published data I have available. If it is wrong, show something that proves it vice making statements which are themselves wrong and don't match the data you are referring to.

There is no chart like that in my AFM.


If you think that chart is right, then I await a logical explanation of why a K and P model fly so much farther than an M.

You can prefer a wrong document over sane logic and observation, but I don't. I've flown all short body models of MU2s, from F to Solitaire, including the -10 conversions. My comments relate to direct observation of how they performed. You don't have to believe me if you don't want.

All of my observations make logical sense. More powerful the engine, the faster you go. The 4 blade prop is less aerodynamically efficient than the 3. Flying higher improves range. More fuel improves range. It's all basic stuff and the actual results track.

Mike C.