I am commenting on a subject where I know very little about, but my guess in most King Airs would be flown with 2 pilots, ,more so than a Mu2 and thus have that extra safety margin which is not directly from the plane design.

I do have a friend who owns and flys a Mu 2 solo.

I think that's a huge assumption.

Look, anytime people start comparing airplanes the first thing I've always done is hop on http://www.flightaware.com and "search flights by type". It's 100% consistent. The planes flying the most are KA200, PC12, SR22, 172, Caravan. Always. Never fails and it's been this way as long as I've been flying since 2007.

There are almost no MU2's left. I would imagine before the SFAR, folks just quit flying them. That and "they don't build them anymore". It only stands to reason more and more end up in the junk yard every year.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. I'd love to see where a Beech Starship fits into the analysis over the last 10 years. I bet they haven't had 1 crash. My god!! It's the safest plane in the whole wide world!!!

I think this is the query Jason was referring to:

http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/

-Pascal

Jason,

I agree with you on a lot of things, but in this case you're wrong:

- the ONLY way to compare apples to apples is with normalized mishap per flight hour data. Anything else is invalid because it doesn't normalize for risk exposure (flight hours). The flight stats that say the MU-2 is the safest twin turboprop since implementation of the SFAR are based on normalized data. Read the Flying magazine article I reference in an earlier post.

- There is no question that the King Air Fleet is bigger than the MU-2 fleet, but looking at flight aware is not necessarily an accurate measure. 704 MU-2s were produced (all models). 313 are still active (as of the most recent data I got from MHIA). So almost 50% of the fleet is still flying 30 years after production stopped. A lot of those still flying are in private hands or not flown in the United States. If you look almost any evening on Flight Aware, you'll see MU-2's flying for Thunderbay airlines (Canadian operator). Additionally another 27 (I think that count is accurate) are under contract to the Air Force for target services on the Eglin Range down in Florida. You will almost never see those planes on an IFR flight plan or flight aware unless they are being ferried to Aiken, SC for maintenance. Note I am absolutely NOT disagreeing with your statement that there are more King Airs in the fleet and flying at any given time than MU-2s, but more MU-2s are flying than you think...you just don't see them. With almost 10% of the fleet (and probably 20% of the US-based fleet) doing military work and never showing up, it's not unexpected that flightaware data will be lower than normal.
By way of comparison, more than 6,600 King Airs (all models) were produced. I don't have access to current fleet data, but my guess would be that probably somewhere around 4,500-5,000 of them are still flying somewhere (number might even be higher). Even if we assume 50% of them are in the rest of the world, that would leave somewhere between 2,250 and 2,500 in the US almost 8 times as many planes as MU-2s. With that as a given, wouldn't you be surprised if you didn't see 8 King Airs for every MU-2 on Flight Aware?

Be that as it may, results speak for themselves. On a normalized per flight hour basis, since the SFAR, the MU-2 is the safest twin turboprop in the world, period. In my case, I didn't buy an MU-2 because I was in love with the airplane model. I bought one because there isn't a twin turboprop that goes as fast as an MU-2 goes for under a million dollars purchase cost...period.

Obviously we can all choose to interpret safety data however we choose, but anyone in the insurance or risk management business will tell you that, for aircraft, the only way to compare is the mishap rate per flight hour metric (and everyone knows that isn't perfectly accurate because the flight hour data isn't totally accurate...but it is the best data that exists across all fleets).

David,

Speaking of Twin Turboprops under $1M....

Cabin's a bit smaller than the Marquise , but the performance numbers are insane (but mostly based on RVSM, a $100K addition):

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 310753.htm

http://www.cheyenneairservice.com/sites ... C_PERF.pdf

That being said, not sure I'd be all over it versus the Marquise. Something about insanely expensive props and factory support for the Piper Twin Turboprops is, how should I say it politely as the owner of a Piper Service Center.... somewhat limited.

The Merlin IIIBs range is awesome, but I would fear M7 Aerospace's airline-oriented support and pricing.

Then there's the Conquest II. Smaller cabin, insane range... but lackluster support from the manufacturer.

The King Air B100 with Dash 10 engines is the sleeper of the King Air fleet, but they were produced in tiny numbers for a King Air (parts are an issue) and are up to 40 knots slower than a Marquise. Heavy maintenance program like any King Air compared to the MU-2.

-Pascal

I think you just did...

Show me the data for this accusation.

Yes, in the accident and chute pull stats.

It took a lot of courage to fly almost 3 hours will a clear indication of impending engine failure and do nothing about it.


You aren't too good at stating my argument, so perhaps you should only state yours.


Most safety devices increase the UTILITY of the airplane by allowing increased risk for the mission. So they don't, in the end, lower accident rates. Everybody flies to their accepted level of risk. If a safety device overpromises, then a pilot finds himself flying PAST his risk tolerance.

This is why general aviation history is full of supposedly "safer" airplanes whose accident history is mundane or worse than comparable aircraft. Ercoupes, Skymasters, Cirrus chute, the history is repeated with each supposed "advancement" in safety.

Mike C.

I fly both the MU-2 and a Cirrus SR22... and my trusty chute-less P210.

Risk-wise, without a doubt my P210 is the most dangerous. I would fly the SR22 in some scenarios that I would avoid with the P210 (IMC at night above the Rockies for example).

The MU-2 ? Was extremely intimated at first, but hey it's just an airplane to be flown by the numbers and needs a lot of trim like the P210 does, only in more axes. The lack of any audio feedback on power changes was the biggest thing to get used to as I lacked any measurable turbine experience.

All light turboprop twins do have fundamental limitations as to what they are able to do on a single engine. The second engine is a nice thing to have, but I would choose a SETP over a Piston Twin given the choice. The second engine on the MU-2, as Mike C has stated, basically is a zero cost item compared to single large PT6A.

-Pascal

I think this is an entirely valid and logical conclusion. It doesn't remove the utility, and usefulness, of the device in the appropriate time and place.

This is fundamentally an issue of a) training and b) judgement. The appropriate manner of use is a training issue and I think those concerned are working very hard to improve it - and that work is having its desired result.

The judgement issue on the other hand is a difficult, if not impossible to solve conundrum. The proximate cause of most dead pilots and their passengers is poor pilot judgement. This is true regardless of aircraft type.

If the chute is crack to the junky that's too bad and certainly an unintended consequence.

Normalizing the hours does not completely even the stats as Jason suggested. Legs pick a nice non controversial plane in a hypothetical situation. Like the SF50

In my hypothetical world, they actually deliver one. Only one in a year. Crappiest pilot in the world manages to fly it 10 whole hours the first year. Gets lucky, doesn't crash or pull the chute. We normalize it out to compare out to other twin jets and SETP, no singles to compare to because everyone knows only idiots produce a unicorn plane. But, guess what? Safest damn plane ever! Zero crashes or fatalities.

Point being if the sample sizes are not commensurate of each other the data comparison will be flawed.

If the plane requires extra training to make it safe compared to other planes in its category, something in it is flawed. Not necessarily in the design either. Yes the cirrus has some flaws. Design? No. It's flawed from the marketing department. Even the autopilot has a dumb ass " oh %#$@" button. It has had a number of VFR only pilots fly into IFR and crash. Systems do build overconfidence. Being in MN I know some factory instructors. They do spend to of time on systems and auto pilot training.

The MU2 has different handling tendencies from other twin turboprops. Design flaw? Not sure id call it a flaw, but none the less contributes to the accident rate, until it was realized and brought to the attention of the pilots. Same on Robbinsons.

TBM? Torque rolls.
PC12? Ummmmmm. Just kind of ugly. But ugly planes live forever.

Pascal, did you just say you feel more comfortable over the Rockies in the Cirrus? I'm guessing you've never hiked around on them. That's some inhospitable and often remote terrain. Even if the chute placed you gently on the surface as if it was the gentle hand of God without a scratch on the bird, you're still likely going to die unless you've got the tools, the training, and the will to live- not to mention a lot of luck.

Water and mountains are not made safer in any appreciable way by a chute in my opinion. FWIW, another motor isn't going to help you in that case unless you know the terrain and your second engine can singlehandedly carry you above it.

Craig,

If you get down safely in a chute, rescue resources will get there reasonable quickly (assuming you are using flight following or IFR). Unless you are flying in conditions where you should not fly, there is not a lot of survival skills needed.
The hardest part of the rescue is normally finding the plane, with the big bright colored chute and the crew alive, plus the emergency beacons working due to a gentle landing. Rescue occurs significantly faster.

Tim

Tim, what you're saying just isn't reflective of good survival skills, nor is it compatible with survival. I learned a few things in the Marine Corps, and among many other things I learned that it's important to never rely upon someone else to ensure your safety if you can help it and how to survive in nature.

I'm pretty sure technology getting better has cut down on the planes that are lost forever, and I'd also venture a guess that a big, brightly colored parachute would help as well, but there's a lot of places in those mountains that rescuers wouldn't find you in time and you'd freeze to death, run out of water, man vs. animal, etc...

It's dangerous terrain, and better men than you and me have succumbed. If you think you're even afforded the slightest modicum of safety, you're misinformed in my opinion, especially in the winter months, which for those elevations range from September to May if I'm not mistaken.

Mountain people, if I'm wrong, please set me straight.

One of my annual trips is PVR=>SAT. Any of you ever fly across the canyons that are NE of PV and Tepic? If you lose power, I think a "pull" would definitely seal your fate. IMO you are better off gliding under control than floating into a network of 2000' walled canyons. I would try to put it down on top of the plateaus where it is flat. You might not be lucky enought to thump down there with a chute...