The Commanders interest me for two reasons: more range and higher ceiling (for the RVSM equipped ones). This would be one of the later models.

The downsides are higher purchase price, seemingly more expensive airframes issues with cracks, spars, corrosion, worse ride in turbulence, needing a much larger hangar, and a touch slower than my current ride.

The shops I have spoken with which do meaningful amounts of maintenance of both MU2s and Turbine Commanders say the Commanders are more expensive to maintain by quite a bit. They are a piston design converted to turbine, and some of the piston heritage isn't as robust as an airplane that started turbine to begin with. The MU2 uses lots of military grade stuff (Mitsubishi carried over F-104 stuff to the design), so it is really robust and beefy. Merlin is a downsized airliner, with systems to match.

Still, having a reliable 1700 nm range and FL350 would be nice, that makes the west coast reachable in one hop assuming lack of winter headwinds, and certainly coming home is one hop any time. The fact they have TPE331 is a big plus in my book.

Mike C.

Without RVSM range is still an easy 1500nm with 474 gallons.

The support from Mistubishi is hard to beat but your concerns about maintenance can be mitigated. As it can in all airplanes by choosing wisely when purchasing. The later models from the 840 and up don't have some of the items that concern you

Some other high points for the commander.

Single engine performance is superior to Most all other TP.

Large exterior baggage compartment.

The ability to upgrade avionics, modern autopilot and G1000 type cockpit!


Great common features with MU-2

Easy entry access

High wing

Great engines

Fast

Love them both! The longer range and single engine performance of the later commanders were big selling points for me.

How is it on grass?

What are the tire pressures?

I fly my MU2 into grass fields occasionally. Mains are 65 PSI, nose 57 PSI, which a relatively low pressures for a 10,470 lbs airplane, thus suitable for turf that doesn't have to be full hard.

Mike C.

How is it on grass?

What are the tire pressures?

I fly my MU2 into grass fields occasionally. Mains are 65 PSI, nose 57 PSI, which a relatively low pressures for a 10,470 lbs airplane, thus suitable for turf that doesn't have to be full hard.

Mike C.

Mike, what are your thoughts on the Marquise?

I don't need a plane that big, but if you do, it is a nice choice. Very ruggedly built. Airliner feel. Lands nicer than short bodies.

My personal preference for a long body MU2 would be an L model (MU-2B-36) with -10 engines. Rare to find, though. The extra cost and weight of the 4 blade props are not worth it, and they are somewhat less efficient than the 3 blade.

Mike C.

The MU-2's are like flying safes. One just have to look at one up close to see just how solid they are. No oil canning panels there.

The Commanders had a rough patch a few years ago, but both the wing spar replacement AD and the pressure bulkhead AD are now behind them with solid fixes that have been in place for years. Perhaps not fully as sturdy as the MU-2's, they're still beefy frames.

Bruce - there seems to be a general consensus that the penultimate models, the 900 and 980's are the very best they did? They still have the most reliable air cycle machine as well as wet wings. Do you agree?

Why? A new King Air 350 is roughly $7.5 million with a pair of PT6's. I cant see a new MU2 with Allisons costing over $5million

Allison's are worth a bunch more than TP7's. Always have been.

The MU2 airframe is very expensive to build.

It has milled wing skins, not typically done until you reach mid sized jets or higher.

It has a lot of forged, cast, machined parts.

It has a lot of military heritage parts and systems.

It was built similarly to an F-104. Not cheap.

Mike C.

The gear and props at 5 years are the big ones. Cost is about 15k each for inspection plus any parts if needed.

The inspection that gets everybody's attention is the spar. Needed normally around every 3 years cost is around 15k.

The spar inspection only applies to the 690s and can be avoided by purchasing one that has had the spar permenetly repaired. Not hard to fine one that has had it done and increases price by maybe 50k

Many of the 690 with the -10 s have had the spar AD eliminated.

The 840 and up models have a completely different wing sitting on top of a very similar fuselage to the 690s. The new wing has no spar AD nor tons of bladders and its longer in length.

Thanks Steve. What about hourly inspections? Is it just an annual, or is it a phase program like the King Airs?

I would need real world range of 1,500 or so. I'm guessing the 840 would be the lowest one that would meet that need? From what I can gather, the 680/690 don't have the range even with the -10s.

Robert

Robert - the 690A/B's don't have from factory, but you can add 100gal aux slipper tanks. That will bring the fuel capacity up to 474gal, just like the later 840/900/980/1000 models. The later models have a longer wing, so they fitted it all in there.

840 is probably the cheapest way into the Jetprop series if you want to be able to do 2000nm.

Here's a 690 fitted with aux tanks:

Adam, do you know any operators who do 2000 mm trips in these aircraft?

The thing that has worried me about Commanders is that they seem subject to fatigue and corrosion problems.

Consider these ADs:

2003-07-03: 690D, 695A, 695B

Inspect and modify, then recurring inspections, of wing and fuselage fatigue locations. FAA estimates worst case cost to comply $233K.

2009-25-02: 690, 690A, 690B

Inspect under wings skins for engine mount beam corrosion. FAA estimate $35K. I've heard this can cost much more in reality.

2006-15-01: 690, 690A, 690B

Inspect for aileron hinge cracks. FAA estimate worst case $17K.

95-12-23: 690C, 695

Inspect repetitively for wing cracks.

94-04-14: 680, 681, 685, 690

More wing crack inspections.

I stopped looking at this point. I don't claim to understand the severity of these ADs, but the number and pattern of occurrence is a bit daunting. It would take some research to fully understand the economic impact of these ADs and assess the potential for future ones.

Perhaps most importantly, a prospective owner needs to model the behavior of the TC holder, TCAC, to see how they treat owners when it comes to imposing inspection requirements and ADs (for example, like Cessna did with SIDs).

Mike C.