Username Protected wrote:
Just curious if a MU-2 can land at KGDY, Grundy, VA?
The MU2 can land in very short distances. Flaps 40 approach over the fence at 90 knots, touch down at 80 knots, immediate full reverse, brakes, will yield well under 1000 ft, maybe 700 ft. Landing is never the problem in an MU2, you can always land shorter than you can takeoff.
On takeoff, you can get the plane into the air very quickly. A high percentage, about 45%, of the MU2 wing is behind the prop so while the plane might be going 80 knots, the part of the wing behind the prop is going 150 knots or so. So you have a "blown flap" situation generating lift. What this means is a dead engine is also a great loss of lift.
The absolute shortest takeoff is a procedure that is against the teachings of the SFAR. It goes like this for my airplane:
Use reverse to back up at the very start of the runway.
Set flaps 20.
Holding brakes, run engines up to 110%, if the brakes can't hold, quickly go to 110% as soon as you start to move.
As you accelerate, back off engine power to maintain 110%.
At 70 knots, select flaps 40, reduce engine power to 100%.
Rotate at 80 knots.
If obstacles are no issue, fly in ground effect to build speed while sucking up gear.
At 110 knots, flaps 20.
Establish climb, accelerate to 150, flaps 5, climb out.
This can get you off the ground in about 1300 ft give or take.
If an engine quits, you will be in very bad shape. Best hope is chop both and land straight ahead on whatever. Best not to get too high until speed builds as you will lose LOTS of lift if an engine quits. Successfully flying out of an engine failure while flaps 40 or under 120 KIAS is unlikely. That is the risk you take. This period of risk lasts for maybe 30 seconds from when you could stop on the runway to when you can fly away on one engine.
There are stories, from sources I trust, of MU2s operating out of par 5 holes at golf courses (~1700 ft, usually with trees).
Weight is the biggest factor in runway usage. Being lighter makes everything work better. Thus the early short bodies are the best for short field work. If you are light enough, say 8,000 pounds, you MAY be able to fly away on one engine after you break ground.
The performance charts in the AFM have been pessimized. They do not reflect reality. A substantial safety factor was built into them, plus they use a very flat initial profile (2/3rds the energy goes into accelerating versus climb after liftoff, so the 50 ft distances are distorted by that). No modern charts give you ground roll.
The old manuals have decidedly more aggressive numbers. The sales literature originally said (for my M model):
Landing distance over 50 ft obstacle: 1,600 ft
Landing ground roll: 960 ft
(flaps 40, 1.2 Vso, 8,338 lbs)
Take off distance over 50 ft obstacle: 1,800 ft
Take off ground roll: 1,476 ft
(rotate and climb out at 93 KIAS, 10,470 lbs)
93 KIAS is Vmc in the takeoff configuration.
Mike C.
. Only once in 22 years had we ever needed to use it. But I'm almost sure we traded posts about it. 
