http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N184 ... /KSDL/MMUN

No way an MU2 can do that, 2450 lbs is dry tanks. You got to be real sure you can make it once you head out over the gulf so I'd want a good reserve (and 700 lbs qualifies).

Round trip, it took you 3 legs, a stop on the return in winter headwinds, the MU2 would require 4, one extra on the outbound.


I'd be surprised if speed doesn't back off about 5-10 knots at FL350. Even so, sparkling efficiency, particularly with -10N engines.

The 441 is easier to fuel than an MU2, just two ports instead of six.

Mike C.

Yes, Cessna screwed up the tail on the first ones. I give them credit for grounding the fleet and coming up with a valid solution and retrofit. The irony is that now the tail is maybe the strongest part of the airframe . Good enough for an MU-2 maybe I also like the way Cessna got the tail out of the prop-wash: canted the elevators at an up angle. It seems a much simpler solution than going to a T-tail (but less impressive looking). They also did the same to the 425.

I forgot to mention that another feature I like with the 441 is a relatively high Vne of 245 KIAS. At the higher flight levels the indicated at 300 true is around 200, so it allows just pushing the nose over during descent and use a higher descent airspeed to balance out the slower climb airspeed. Typical climbs are maybe 1500 to 2000 ft/min, and I try to get descents at 1000 ft/min and closer to Vne, so more time is spent at higher descent speeds.... I see some larger engine STC's on certain planes makes the cruise speeds within a few knots of their Vne..

Coming back from Cancun we were 10 people in the plane and we stopped in Houston to drop off 4 people for a flight back to Europe. But yes, facing the headwinds the flight into Scottsdale would be marginal, 400 lb reserve. I had another trip to Cancun in December and we tried to make SDL nonstop but fuel reserves showed 400 lbs, and expecting some vectoring we stopped in El Paso. With RVSM it should be no problem, about a 1000 lb reserve to Scottsdale.

I did the flight plan for tomorrow, and unless FL350, it is still not doBle with decent reserves:

The tail is still in the prop wash. The canted horizontal adds stability, which can be lacking in thinner air. It has basically the same effect as dihedral on the wing.


King Air 90 is 234, MU2 is 250.

The weird part about this is that in Canada, if you can go 250 knots or more, you need a type rating, so the MU2 has a type rating in Canada, King Air 90 and 441 don't. The difference 1 knot makes.


I typically go up 2000 FPM, go down 2000-3000 FPM, the goal to spend as much time in thin air as possible which improves range.


I can't use 100% power in level flight, it will take me over Vne of 250 KIAS.

Mike C.

It will be when winter weather patterns subside. I figure you can do it roughly 40% of the time you try.

The killer thing will be if FL340 has more headwind than FL280, and it typically does.

Also, can you climb unabated at MTOGW to FL340/350? I figure with -10N you can, but it won't be too vigorous at the end, so some time is spent crawling up to altitude before you can settle in cruise.

Mike C.

You realize that it was the FAA who grounded the fleet, and that it took Cessna TWO tries at a tail fix before getting it right. It cost Cessna a LOT of money between the engineering, repairs, lawsuits, and paying for replacement travel.

Mike C.

The tail is still in the prop wash. The canted horizontal adds stability, which can be lacking in thinner air. It has basically the same effect as dihedral on the wing
Mike C.

Max,

That is a heck of a nice setup.

Tim

Cool setup, beautiful!

I love the way you can see the airplanes on ramp through the sun visors.

Could be an AD for Rosen!

Good Lord is that a gorgeous cockpit. Paired with a Conquest, how could you want for more?

That is a very good question Don!

I sat in the cockpit of a neighbors Conquest II yesterday for quite a while discussing the plane with him. We both use a gentleman to fly for us who has about 5,000 KA hours flying for the FAA prior to retiring who raves about the Conquest. He loves it! I've only flown in it once but what little stick time I had it seemed to fly ok to me for an AP flown airplane (how's that for sophisticated analysis?).

What I noted was that the cockpit is much more comfortable (for me) than the TBM. Its easier to get into than a KA. The visibility is terrific. The passenger seats are very comfortable and while not as roomy as a KA 200 perhaps there was a lot more room than in my Cirrus, or a TBM for that matter.

It's fast! It burns a miserly amount of fuel to do it - 48 to 63 GPH depending on altitude. It carries a big load. Has tremendous range.

Yes, it costs more than some of the other turbines of it's era to purchase which drives up the carrying cost. On the other hand it doesn't depreciate as fast as something like a TBM does.

So, I think your question is well stated!

I agree with you, but, as a friend used to say, "props are for boats"

Everything is a tradeoff.

Mike,
The TBM as a vne of 266 IAS, it needs a type rating in Canada but its a one time type rating so you do it once and it does not have to be renewed ever.
I got mine done at Simcom during my initial.
I would say the Conquest would be the same but not 100%.

The reason they command a higher price? Vanity.

I've said it before: low wing. As simple as that. Lower winged airplanes bring out desires that high wings can't match. You go through every comparable aircraft type and you will see that the low wing competitor will always demand a premium.

Malibu gets more than a P210
King Airs and Conquests more than MU-2's and Commanders.
etc, etc.

Appearances matter.