Runway 14 would have been longer, more into the wind, and had lower approach minimums.

But it wasn't available. It was closed.

Mike C.

The approach was stable from basically the FAF to MDA at a speed of 135 KIAS. Configured, on lateral path, on glideslope, on speed, constant power, constant descent.

At MDA, going missed at 135 KIAS is easy and provide ample speed margins should an engine fail. 135 KIAS is roughly Vyse in landing configuration which gives you the most go around performance should an engine fail.

At MDA, landing is easy, slow down to cross runway threshold at intended speed. The props give you very good and quick control of drag to do that.

I know jets are flown differently than this. Their characteristics favor Vref speeds on the approach because they don't slow down easily and can handle engine failures at slow speeds better.

Mike C.

I've never personally checked it, maintenance does that.

Operates from a cup of oil and uses wicks to carry that to the bearings. Seems to work.


A few MU2s have vapor cycle, nice to use for cabin precool. There is a weight penalty. Not very common.


Neat idea in concept, all electric pressurization and cooling. It would be interesting to see how it works in real life, what the cost/weight penalties are.

Mike C.

The approach was stable from basically the FAF to MDA at a speed of 135 KIAS. Configured, on lateral path, on glideslope, on speed, constant power, constant descent.

At MDA, going missed at 135 KIAS is easy and provide ample speed margins should an engine fail. 135 KIAS is roughly Vyse in landing configuration which gives you the most go around performance should an engine fail.

At MDA, landing is easy, slow down to cross runway threshold at intended speed. The props give you very good and quick control of drag to do that.

I know jets are flown differently than this. Their characteristics favor Vref speeds on the approach because they don't slow down easily and can handle engine failures at slow speeds better.

Mike C.

Ah, yes, forgot about that. Basically, a pneumatic motor driving a compressor.

Pretty clever.

One reason it uses so much less bleed air is that it isn't going through an ACM. If all I wanted was pressurization, not cooling, my plane would use a lot less bleed air as well, but it needs the energy i the bleed air to do the cooling cycle.

My friend has an F model MU2 with a vapor cycle, and his use of bleed air for pressurization is far less than mine. He doesn't have a turbocharger thingy like the Schiff unit.


Only a factor when you are temp limited. So it would help me at high altitudes a little bit.

Turning off my bleeds makes a pretty small difference. Maybe 2-3 knots. It's something, but it isn't night and day.


Bleed air is fresh. It is nothing more than compressed outside air.

Whatever ailments the bleed air could have, the Schiff turbocharger can also have. They are just both air compressors.

Mike C.

Vxse is to clear obstacles, maximum height gain in least distance. On takeoff, accelerating to Vyse creates a lower altitude profile than staying at Vxse until clear of obstacles.

On approach, there is no penalty for keeping speed up, so Vyse. If you go missed, you can always convert the extra speed above Vxse into climb and operate at Vxse if you have obstacle concerns.

It is all about whether to put the energy into speed or altitude.

Mike C.

Ah, yes, forgot about that. Basically, a pneumatic motor driving a compressor.

Pretty clever.

One reason it uses so much less bleed air is that it isn't going through an ACM. If all I wanted was pressurization, not cooling, my plane would use a lot less bleed air as well, but it needs the energy i the bleed air to do the cooling cycle.

My friend has an F model MU2 with a vapor cycle, and his use of bleed air for pressurization is far less than mine. He doesn't have a turbocharger thingy like the Schiff unit.


Only a factor when you are temp limited. So it would help me at high altitudes a little bit.

Turning off my bleeds makes a pretty small difference. Maybe 2-3 knots. It's something, but it isn't night and day.


Bleed air is fresh. It is nothing more than compressed outside air.

Whatever ailments the bleed air could have, the Schiff turbocharger can also have. They are just both air compressors.

Mike C.

The cool thing (if you pardon the pun) with the Schiff unit is that you can also cool the cabin on the ground without having a GPU - just plug in 110V cord and it does it.

He also has an ingenious glycol/water AC system for the King Air that I don't think many people have installed. It really works a lot better than the factory system, but for some reason it's not well known and widely installed.

The approach was stable from basically the FAF to MDA at a speed of 135 KIAS. Configured, on lateral path, on glideslope, on speed, constant power, constant descent.

At MDA, going missed at 135 KIAS is easy and provide ample speed margins should an engine fail. 135 KIAS is roughly Vyse in landing configuration which gives you the most go around performance should an engine fail.

At MDA, landing is easy, slow down to cross runway threshold at intended speed. The props give you very good and quick control of drag to do that.

I know jets are flown differently than this. Their characteristics favor Vref speeds on the approach because they don't slow down easily and can handle engine failures at slow speeds better.

Mike C.

Yet every other airplane uses (blue line) VYSE or better on departure, unless of course there are obstacles.

In fact the MU-2 POH recommended using VYSE for many years. It was only changed after the implementation of the SFAR aimed at MU-2s.

Your SOP of going slow on take off and fast on approach seems backwards.

Except the Schiff unit for the commanders have a backup pressurization source if the turbo fails.

It is easy to get a ACM to work at 100% the problem is when you are on the ground.

The best way to get a ACM to cool on the ground is by having an APU.

Without that you are hot until takeoff if OAT is hot.

Nice flying, Mike. Stayed ahead of the airplane, good stuff.

Yet every other airplane uses (blue line) VYSE or better on departure, unless of course there are obstacles.

In fact the MU-2 POH recommended using VYSE for many years. It was only changed after the implementation of the SFAR aimed at MU-2s.

Your SOP of going slow on take off and fast on approach seems backwards.

I’m glad Mike posted the video.

But now the thesis’s are flinging around.

Should we debate which way you stir your coffee?


Murray