Like all airplanes of all shapes and sizes, landing performance requires reasonable speed control. Being Vref +10 or +20 is going to cause some anxious moments of heavy braking. But landing isn't that big an issue due to availability of prop reverse. Takeoff performance is of course dependent on ambient conditions, wind and aircraft loading. I have found it perfectly acceptable. I flew a 340 for several years, it is no worse than that certainly. Better in many cases.


Totally depends on the traffic. Mostly it's fine. Once in a while you get behind a Cherokee doing training that feels the need to fly the entire pattern at 60 kts and then use the entire length of the runway. It is hard to be behind those guys in pretty much anything. But the Mits will slow down reasonably well (120 KIAS is a very reasonable pattern speed), so it's not that bad in the pattern.


Larry's current Citation is a CJ4. It uses surprisingly little runway on departure. Wish I could have one.

Ran in to bad news on the commander. I can't get a hangar big enough to hold one at MTJ. I was pretty sold on everything I learned but I don't think I'll get through this problem.

Not sure what I'll start dreaming about next. MU2, TBM, Conquest, Meridian...

Hmmm

TBM is cool but its a single and a C2 is 1.7MM
Meridian won't carry enough weight and I'm 6' 5" (not much headroom)
MU2 is interesting. I think I'll go read-up on operating costs.
Conquest is pretty nice but its a Cessna and the Blackhawks are probably out of reach

Thoughts??

Build a hanger. Prolly the only purchase in aviation that will appreciate!!

They do. It's a really big Ag plane!!

The -10 powered Conquest is nice too. Nearly as fast but with
better manners than the Solitare -- which is a fine plane that can
do 310 kt at FL 310.

BH

The MU2 uses the same Garrett engines. Very fuel efficient and fast.

Okay I'll be the first to say it. They don't call the Mu2 a widow maker for nothing. I know that if you've owned one for a long time you will defend it until the er end. Can we at least agree that it is a less forgiving aircraft to fly than others in its class?

(Here we go)

John,

In which dimension does it not fit?

Tim

Tim,

Wing and tail height. MTJ has very limited hangar space. I waited 2 years to rent the T hangar that I keep the baron in but this won't work for any of the planes I'm considering. There is a 50X60 hangar for sale but it has a 48' door 15' high.

I think an MU2 will fit in your T

Okay I'll be the first to say it. They don't call the Mu2 a widow maker for nothing. I know that if you've owned one for a long time you will defend it until the er end. Can we at least agree that it is a less forgiving aircraft to fly than others in its class?

(Here we go)

I think an Aerostar, MU2, Lancair Evolution are the ones off the top of my head that may fit.

Tim

You say that very authoritatively. Have you flown them?

In the past 5 or so years since the SFAR has been in effect, it has made less widows than, say, King Airs. And yes that is accounting for how many more King Airs exist. Like ANY high performance twin turboprop one must get proper training. But it flies like an airplane, shockingly enough.

There are many myths about spoilers that turn out not to be particularly true. One thing that is different than most twins is that on engine out is that due to lack of dihedral it is important to fly it level, not banked into the good engine. And yes, on engine out it is also important to trim out roll control to keep the spoiler down in that situation. But other than that, I find it pretty conventional.

The hardest thing about my transition to the MU2 from the 340 was just how much more ahead of the airplane I need to be on departure because of the significantly increased performance. Climbing out at 2000 fpm at 180 KIAS you find altitudes, headings and frequencies can come fairly quick. But that is true of many airplanes in this class.

I agree. But you need excellent training to fly any high performance aircraft. Especially piston twins, I insisted on good training in my 340 too.


Have you flown one?

It'll hold level with some spoiler deployed, but when you are trying to maximize climb on single engine you do need to trim away the roll. This is done via trim ailerons that are attached to the trailing edge of the flaps (which are full span).



The main wheels are behind the CG, like all airplanes that do not rest on their tails while on the ground. But yes they are a bit further back. This does cause landings to tend to come down a little hard on the nose after touchdown. Good technique and practice helps, but I still come down on the nose sometimes. But it is built real stout so it is mostly a pilot pride and passenger comfort issue.


No, all you need is to be in compliance with the training requirements specified in SFAR 108. No letters. The training requirements are not much different than most insurers mandate for a private owner operator of a high performance pressurized twin anyway, the SFAR was largely out in place so that the cargo guys could not dodge the training.


Exactly like any twin turboprop!

The MU2 short body models have a wingspan just a hair under 40', length roughly 34' and tail height of about 13'. They are pretty compact. But the limiting dimension of most T hangars is the distance from the back of the tip tank to the front of the nose, I.e. the depth of the wing box area of the T. This needs 20'.

A typical T has half the total depth given to the wing box, so a 38' deep hangar is likely not to fit the MU2 in the wing box area. I have seen hangars with a cutout into the rear wall of the wing box to accommodate the back of the tip tank, but it requires cooperative hangar neighbors and airport management!

Jon,

When I dreamed of the MU2 I talked to a few pilots. I thought they told me on engine out you trim out the yaw via rudder trim only and do not touch the yoke. They were rather specific to not use the flap/ailerons. Did they tell me wrong or did I just not recall correctly?

Tim