What you need are three guys in on an MU2 or 421, a respectable A36, and a Cub. $500k ish all in and operating costs $500ish per hour, per man. That math almost computes.

Tom,

Based on your estimate, I was figuring about 100% more cost with 50% more performance. Ya gotta pay to play!

Jesse,

It cost $600 hr for us with our shop doing most of the work after year 5. We chartered at 2.90 a mile / $880 per hour in 2002, in 2012 with higher fuel prices and the new calendar req for props was closer to $1200 per hour. For the first 4 years we flew to Tulsa, OK for the annual /100/200 hr inspections after that did the rest in house except for the replacement of the windshields and HSI/ Prop overhauls.

Insurance on 500k hull with 2 mill coverage ran us 30,000 usd out of London as we weren't able to access the us insurance pool after we switched from N reg.

Engine reserve was $150 per hour with prop at 50 per hour ( replaced with New Hubs and Blades in 1998)

HSI / Prop overhauls, Windshield replacements, with a new interior ran 90K in 1998. With new windshields running 25k for both.

In the later years, we surprised ourselves and overhauled the Air cycle machine for 4000 vs 12000 to send it out. Pulled the outer wings and replaced leaking 15 gal slipper tanks.

The wonderful thing about MU-2 maintenance is that the airplane was built in modular sections and shipped from Nagoya to San Angelo and is fairly easy to work on with regular shop tools and a overhanging engine hoist.

The manual and a little help in the maintenance tricks from Jack Barbee and Mark James via phone is usually all one needs to pull major components.

Somewhere, I have a photo of our Mits in its hangar with both engines on stands and the outer wings and tip tanks off, with a picture one week later with it all reassembled and ready for test flight.

If you go and look at one at Reece or I-jet please ask them to show you one all opened up, you'll be taken aback at the quality of work and ease of access. Also, time how long it takes to pull and engine if it isn't in the free, clear and hanging off the engine hoist within 20 mins something is very wrong.

Nigel

I have only owned my 421 since Nov. 2012, so I don't have solid numbers yet, but I don't think a good MU-2 will be excessively more money to operate. I have added a few mods and have been working out all of the little annoying bugs. Dispatch has been 100% so far, but that is only about 25 hrs. Any airplane that ends up in unexpected mx very often is going to eat your wallet alive. It looks like, 421 or MU-2, you have to find a good one.

But, I do want to go as fast as I can as economically and comfortably as possible. Without burning Jet-A, I think I have the most airplane I can get. It appears that the MU-2 is the ticket if I upgrade to jet fuel.

From what I've seen of MU2 and 421's (not having owned either) the MU2 ownership costs are generally a lot more predictable. You don't have an unexpected 2-3X normal maintenance year like you can in a twin Cessna. Cost/nm is probably close enough that a 75th percentile 421 year probably equals a 50th percentile MU2 year.

well, There was this little "unexpected' item but it didn't surprise me. I knew it had 7600 hours.

Thats a $25k ACM Cooling turbine locked up sideways.

And then on a routine SOAP sample Honeywell detected this and it was fixed along with some other upgrades and inspections for anothe $25k


They can deliver disappointment in grand scale.

I think the "unexpected" increase in maintenance expenses in any particular year are only "unexpected" by a naive owner. Many owners seem to go to the last step they can afford, and then are tremendously disappointed when the big bills roll in.

I heard once that the CEO of Cessna made a comment that everyone in GA should take one step backward. I think this is a simple, and accurate analysis. Folks will cheap out, cut corners, NOT FLY as often, etc. to save money when if they only stepped down one size, the money part would be easy and they could fly all they wanted.

As tempting as turbo-prop and jet prices are right now, I have to keep reminding myself of the above....

Note taken...especially the last part!!

How is the airplane fom the pax point of view? Noise levels reasonable inside?

That is a strong point with the 421. They cruise with very low noise levels once the props are pulled back to 1700-1800 rpm.

The MU2 are OK inside, especially in the pax seats. 4 blades a bit quieter than 3 blades. Noise reduction insulation STC available which actually reduces (yes, reduces) empty weight by about 80 lbs. They are not amazingly quiet but yet are fine.

They are a shrieking SOB at ground idle outside the airplane though (ground noise isn't particularly noticeable inside). Worst aspect of the airplane. Not bad once on takeoff roll or flyover noise, just ground idle.

Jon is correct. I didn't understand this for a long time. Issue with the MU2 is the direct drive TPE-331 engine. The prop is bolted to the engine just like in a piston, so ground idle has to be enough to keep the prop on speed - hence a relatively louder power setting. The PT6, by contrast, has the fluid coupling between hot section and prop. At idle, the engine only has to keep itself turning and the prop can be slow (or stopped) without consequence. PT6 idles at a much quieter, lower power setting. At flight power, the two engines produce similar amounts of noise.

Jon is correct. I didn't understand this for a long time. Issue with the MU2 is the direct drive TPE-331 engine. The prop is bolted to the engine just like in a piston, so ground idle has to be enough to keep the prop on speed - hence a relatively louder power setting. The PT6, by contrast, has the fluid coupling between hot section and prop. At idle, the engine only has to keep itself turning and the prop can be slow (or stopped) without consequence. PT6 idles at a much quieter, lower power setting. At flight power, the two engines produce similar amounts of noise.

Can a conversation at normal speaking volume be had between pax if they were sitting together in club seating.

I'll fess up, I looked at 3 different MU2's this winter and went for a flight in a very nice Marquise (4 blade and newer sound insulation). I thought that the Marquise was noisier than my 414 in the back. A full set of ANR headsets would be required for PAX comfort. In the 414 the PAX wear ANR's 50% of time at most. The MU2 would be considerably noisier than your 421, but has many other advantages.
To directly answer you question - no.

Is there a Mitsubishi forum? I can't locate one.