Someone please correct me if I'm incorrect... but it is my understanding that for turbines there is no option where you can use the MFD as a replacement for engine gauges, the way you can in the piston versions of the G500TXI and G600TXI.

As several other people evidently also have, I've just read this thread front to back. I don't know whether to thank all of you or be really, REALLY angry! All I can think about now is getting into a Mits.

Always have loved the way these planes look, and for the "trade-offs" I value, they're pretty spot on (useful load, range, redundancy, room, "economy," overbuilt...). I'm a couple years away, most likely, but this has been great reading.

Flying now with a terrific club (a couple TN Bo's - also great platforms) and loving it, but I have a bad habit (at least from my CFO's perspective) of looking down-range. The planes that always catch my eye/brain are the MU-2, PC-12 and 441. I know, very different birds, but that's the nice thing about looking downrange - you can lust over more planes than you can when you get closer to actually buying one!

The Mits is pretty much at the top of my list atm, so thanks for all the info - and keep it coming!

M

Lust is free and can be mildly enjoyable.

Consumation is expensive and can be anything from ecstatic to frustrating.

Wait, are we talking about airplanes?

Mike C.

I believe the G600txi requires a field approval and some additional expense as well. There is no option at this time to use the txi to display engine gauges in the MU2. That would be nice though.

Garmin told me the TBM will be the first cert for TXI EIS. Very soon I hear. Others will follow

Reading about James’s NTS system testing “good” on the ground even though it failed in flight is eye opening. Based on what folks were saying about basically not having a good outcome if the NTS system wasn’t working when you’re low and slower (takeoff and early climb), that means a person could be 1-failure away (engine quits) from dying in an MU-2 after takeoff. Or any Garrett engine with this NTS system test design flaw. The only reason I could see justifying flying an MU-2 or garett powered plane is if the ground check of the NTS system was 100% accurate. Given it can show as “good” and not be, then that means you have to assume the NTS is not working on every takeoff, which means you are accepting a zero-fault tolerant design during the takeoff/initial climb phase and a failure of an engine kills you basically without amazing piloting skill. Thoughts?
-Bobby

Yet bunches of King Airs are face planting off the side of runways with odd asymmetrical power issues and nobody seems even marginally interested in knowing why, let alone fixing it. Unfortunately there will be another.

I’ve done hundreds of TPE NTS tests and it always worked, a bunch of inflight tests which worked, and one inflight engine failure in which it worked just fine.

Yes, a takeoff power loss can be a problem. I think the “SFAR” profiles, if honored, minimize this.
Tj

When it fails, it's a fun ride. I had one fail the NTS flight test on a Metroliner II once. The propeller pitch would cycle violently between flat pitch and I'm guessing around around 50% feathered. I felt like I was on an exercise machine by the time the flight was done, especially after a couple test on multiple test flights..

It's the 350's that seem to have issues, that big powerful engine that far out on the wing, and the AP servo based rudder boost, some combination of items is causing a bad recipe

It's worth noting that the 200 and 90 fleet hasn't had issues that you describe

The MU2 in NTS is nothing like that. Just a gentle cycling. You can feel it, but just a gentle yawing.

Must have been something not quite setup properly for that engine, like the torque sensing was messed up somehow requiring heavy negative torque to trip the NTS.

Mike C.

The MU2 in NTS is nothing like that. Just a gentle cycling. You can feel it, but just a gentle yawing.

Must have been something not quite setup properly for that engine, like the torque sensing was messed up somehow requiring heavy negative torque to trip the NTS.

Mike C.

Which suggest an engine issue, misrigged or faulty in some way.

I've experienced NTS in at least 3 MU2s and it was reasonably gentle. You have this happen when doing in flight NTS test.

Mike C.

It's the 350's that seem to have issues, that big powerful engine that far out on the wing, and the AP servo based rudder boost, some combination of items is causing a bad recipe

It's worth noting that the 200 and 90 fleet hasn't had issues that you describe

To further show this, consider the very narrow parameters of takeoff, crashing within 6000 ft of takeoff start, not getting 200 ft AGL, and crashing sideways off the runway.

Has happened at least 7 times in King Airs in the last 10 years or so (Hayward, Long Beach, Tucson, Oahu, Wichita, Addison, Melbourne). Some others have said there are other cases as well, and I haven't updated this list on a few years.

I don't think it has happened once for an MU2 for its entire history.

Something it really wrong in King Air land with so many accidents fitting such a narrow profile.

Mike C.

I was in Tulsa yesterday and poked my head in a bunch of MU2s. Still the best bang for the buck in turbine aviation and with the safety record in the last decade or so, I think it's a better option than a KA.

Seems like the Garmin AP for them is a definite go now as is the EIS engine panel. That makes it a very compelling airframe to own long term. I would wager a large sum of money that in 50 years, there will still be a lot of MU2s flying around - it is stunning how heavy duty it looks opened up in the hangar next to a KA or Citation.