Good Post!

What about the commanders??

You know Nate, you love the Cirrus. Look at that; you own a Cirrus! Dave and I love our Mits. Look at that, we own Mits! When you're a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail I suppose. I think there are probably operational advantages for both aircraft. Other than over water or other hostile terrain, if you only need to carry two people and a bag you're probably in good shape in either ship, and I bet your bird is less spendy to operate.

Still, Dave and I are cooler than you. Don't you forget it.

Merry Christmas, lol.

I evaluated the 400 before I bought the Mits. Costs a LOT more to run that thing. Like twice as much. Also, it's time limited airframe and parts issues are just too much; that's the opinion of a few operators I spoke with, not my own. I love that damn thing, and I've already had a IA and a IIXL, so it would have been perfect, but to put it in perspective, my GMP is 42.75/side/hour, the 400 is just north of 200!

The Commander is not stout enough in my opinion. No way am I flying that around. I know that a lot of people don't agree, and that's fine. Just not going to work for me.

Conquest is a Cessna legacy. I don't think Cessna plays fairly. Pass for me. Great airplane though, until the manufacturer makes you cut it up.

The Merlin IIIA was my first choice. It's a bad ass, I just couldn't find one that was reasonably priced. Love love love those Merlins, I don't know why they weren't more popular.

Craig - you own an MU-2 AND and A*. Your coolness is only surpassed by a Starship.

It's funny - around non-pilots, my Cirrus is cooler than my Bonanza was. Around pilots, it's the Bonanza; no contest. For me, it was the Bonanza, too. I hope to have another some day.

Don't even get me started on what non-airplane people think of airplanes, lol. I had someone tell me the other day that the Mits looks safer than the A* because the wing is "on the top, where it can't ever hit anything", lol.

You can't make this stuff up.

I looked at the cheyannes but found the cabin tight and I really did not like the spar protruding upwards from the floor behind the cockpit.

I could park a cirrus and a mits in the shade of my merlin

Cheers all!

Ps I have yet to see an airplane I don't like. Flying is cool

I wonder if you can articulate what those different handling tendencies are, or if this is superficially repeated without first hand experience or in depth knowledge.

I find MU2 handling is conventional in almost all respects.

The plane is more trim intensive. Not really a surprise for something with that small a wing that goes that fast with that much power. Just the nature of the beast.

The spoilers, often a focus of the "it flies different" mantra, actually cause very little differences for the pilot. The only slight thing is to trim the spoilers on engine failure to improve your climb rate slightly (~50 FPM). This is natural to do, of course.

On the plus side, the spoilers provide positive roll control all the way into a deep stall and won't cause a dropped wing on roll input. They also give coordinated turns.

Other airplanes have spoiler roll control, for example BeechJet 400 and even many of the big airliners. It isn't that special, that weird, or that different. A pilot not told the roll is spoilers probably would not notice.

Otherwise, everything is super conventional. I had 10 hours in a Seminole before flying the MU2. Control differences were never an issue.


That's not really an accurate statement on the SFAR.

MU2 pilots were not crashing due to "different handling tendencies". I don't know of any accident attributed to trim or spoilers, for example. If you have an example case, let's discuss it.

Mike C.

You can precisely compute the confidence you can get with a given sample size.

Your example of 1 sample size is a problem, yes, but you don't have to get to very large numbers before the probability a bias is happening is very, very small. Somewhere around 20-25 airplanes is enough.

For example, 260+ EA500s can be compared to 5000 King Airs with astonishingly high confidence.

Depending on what you normalize to, hours, miles, passenger miles, etc, a rate is a rate and can be compared fleet to fleet as long as the fleet size is above, say, 25 airplanes.

Mike C.

Wow, learned something. Didn't know other airplanes used roll spoilers. Now when I look out the wing of the Citation X I've been flying the last 9 years I know what they are for. In my post I don't think I mentioned spoilers being some crazy design flaw anywhere. But thanks for assuming I'm an idiot and stating my opinions for me. As you said to someone else stick to stating your own. There are people on this board with a whole lot more experience than you when it comes to flying. Compared to a lot of them I'm just a low time newby.

Yes I have some time in the MU2. But truthfully very little. I have a lot more in King Air series. 90,200 and more 1900 than I want. They do handle differently. Not saying that is bad but there are differences. Jump in a King air after flying a baron or other light twin, most of the procedures you know will transfer almost exactly. Try doing that in a higher wing loading aircraft and in some circumstances you are dead. Flaps are useful in a King air. But necessary in a MU2. Speeds and configuration changes are more critical. IMHO stepping into a MU2 from a piston twin is more in line with the step up to a swept wing jet. Not to a straight wing turboprop. Since it didn't require a type rating pilots weren't getting the training differences needed. My personal ride, a Lancair IV-P is a perfectly safe airplane. With a terrible safety record. Fly it like a Bonanza or Arrow, and you're dead. The Lancair also has a very high wing loading. 32#/sf. It's accident rate has been decreased for those that DO get in type training. It would have a better record if it was required.

Maybe I should have said different handling techniques instead of tendencies. Would that have made you feel better?
Did I articulate the differences sufficiently? Or just some OWT?

What I find funny is how much you defend the mitts as perfectly safe and there is nothing different about it. If that was the case it would just be another king air. It's differences are what make it standout. Faster and more efficient. But that comes at a trade off of certain handling aspects. And all that takes is a little training to learn. My Lancair is the same. And I have no problem admitting it is a dangerous airplane in the wrong untrained hands. But if it just had a parachute it would be as safe as a piper cub. And so is the X I fly. Flies great fast, a sloppy pig when bumpy and slow. Throw someone in a Sim for a straight wing Citation, Hawker, Falcon who has some jet time, and give a V1 cut with X-wind. First time probably no big deal. Do that in the X with out a little training and more often than not get the red screen of death. Scrape a wingtip.

Agreed. Performance comes at a price in terms of training.


So is a Piper Cub. It can just barely kill you.

Mike C.

Flaps in a King Air are useful but not necessary. No flap takeoffs are not going to kill you. When people talk about loving how a beech flies, what it means it's it is predictable. A 1900 flies like a heavy 90 which flies like a queen air, which feels like a heavy baron. The whole line has handling tendencies and feel that is as close to the same as possible in that big of a range of airframe sizes. The 1900 airline MEL allows for 3 day deferral on flaps. So run around for 30 legs or so. So they are not even a big deal to the commuters. Not saying precise flying and speed control is optional, but not as big of a deal in King Airs. The flaps do not increase the wing area enough to make a difference. Mainly for drag.

Trim in either plane won't kill you either. If it's out of trim control pressures can keep the plane coordinated. Lots of work and would suck, but not deadly. Now in planes with a much wider speed range it can kill you. Most t tail jets trim is moving the whole stab. So in the case of not keeping it trimmed it is possible to run out of control authority if you fly out of its trim speed.

The King Air is like the piper cub of turbo prop twins, you have to try to kill your self. The MU2 isn't so. It's like my lancair. Safe, but if you are not talking its language it will kill you. Most swept wing jets are the same. Some planes just require more training and vigilance to be flown safe. That's how it is.

I'm guessing your dissertation before on spoilers is because that's the answer most people give for it being unsafe. Probably because they haven't flown it and are just spouting what they have heard, or have heard about the type of pilot that might fly one. Making assumptions with little or no first hand knowledge.

I thought I was going to X school but it didn't pan out. I'd like to know more about x-wind landings in that swept wing low rider.

This is fairly true when you are comparing mechanical/life related matters. Unfortunately, as you, and I think all of us, acknowledge, the most critical factor in all of this is the pilot. That isn't normalized, and or represented when comparing a small pool to a much larger one.

While generalizing somewhat, I think there are 3 or 4 types of owner/turbine pilots. The first type, which I think I fall into, is that you look for the best value on aircraft/performance/cost. This means you look at airplanes that some don't, either because of age, parts, prestige, etc. The MU-2, Cheyenne (although parts are becoming a pain), commander, and Cessna turboprops clearly fall into this category. These pilots are willing to spend the thousands of dollars it takes to be trained properly, and stay current (and they generally have insurance on their planes). The second type are the cheap guys/gals that want a turboprop airplane and want the cheapest plane they can fly. They generally skimp on maintenance, pencil whip whatever is possible, and do the minimal amount of training to satisfy either the feds or the insurance company. We all know this type, even if we can't properly describe it - you just can pick them out. I see them flying a lot of Cheyennes and early king airs. The price is right. These guys can't get away with this as much in the MU-2 - and candidly, we should apply that SFAR or a 61.58 to anything with a turboprop engine. (IMHO).

The third guy/gal is the person that wants a new airplane (I consider the last 10-15 years as new). Generally this person is going to do the right training or have a Co-pilot because they aren't being as budget conscious. A lot of this is corporate activity.

It's the second type of operator that hurts us. The first should know the limitations and you will get some accidents, poor choices, etc. The second one started off making the poor choice in the first place and the accident chain has already begun. Certainly there are accidents with the third type (recent TBM/PC-12/Phenom) but they are much fewer than the others.

I'm not sure you can really compare without taking into account the pilot ratings, training, and how they operate.

Oh - and as for the spoilers, the Beechjet has spoilers too.

Todd, Us MU2 flyers are a little sensitive when it comes to safety statements.
Hell, I heard it for years from the hangar flies. "The most dangerous airplane in the world".

Having flown many different jet types and piston twins, I agree that it is akin to flying a swept wing as far as the attention required to fly it by its numbers. That is one of the things that makes me like this airplane.

Yes, all of these "which airplane is more dangerous or safe?" discussions are, in fact, "which set of pilots are more dangerous or safe?".

But regardless, the point was made that you can't compare, say, MU2s with King Airs just due to the fleet size. That is just wrong, you can compare them. Or more accurately, there are enough examples flying of each type that you can make statistically valid conclusions on which group of pilots is doing better.


I've noticed an up tick in King Air crashes lately, specifically more owner flown King Airs. Did the King Air get more dangerous? No, of course not, the pilot mix got more dangerous.


I agree. Getting type specific training for anything turbine is clearly the best safety investment you can make. Nothing else comes close.

I hope the MU2 SFAR serves as a stimulus to consider requiring type training for all turbines, be they turboprop, jet, single, or twin. The insured owner operator already has to do this by insurance requirement so let's make everyone do it and cleanse the bottom of the pilot gene pool of the scum that causes most of the accidents.


Stats reflect pilot, purpose, and plane. The plane is the least significant factor.

Mike C.