banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 13:30 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 12:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/08/12
Posts: 1458
Post Likes: +937
I know there are quite a few MU-2 operators on here and would like to get their thoughts and opinions on this airplane. It seems to be about the most economical turbo-prop twin out there in terms of aquisition and operating costs, as well as the best support. And since the SFAR was enacted, it looks like it now has one of the best safety records in the turbo-prop market.

I love my 421, but I flew jets for most of my flying career, so I [want] need to fly higher and faster and I am already used to using a Vfs spped. The MU-2 is really catching my eye as the best combination of cost, speed and altitude (with a 6.0 psi model).

Do you Mitsubishi folks agree with my observations? And what about long body vs. short body. Other than the landing, are the flying charactoristics the same? Better stability with the long body? I am thinking I will need a long body for the extra room. With the 421, I get low on seats, useful load and it is a stretch for my 700-850 nm trips. The MU-2 would knock nearly 1.5 hrs off a 850nm trip.

Since the MU-300 became the BE-400A, I figure the MU-2 should be acceptable to talk about on a Beech forum. :cross:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 12:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/16/10
Posts: 8885
Post Likes: +1954
I don't know the plane, but those I have met who do own and fly them, love the plane.
Myself, the turbo commanders keep catching my eye. they look very capable.

_________________
If you think nobody cares about you. Try not paying your income tax.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 13:25 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/11
Posts: 2124
Post Likes: +565
Location: Shelbyville, TN (KSYI)
Aircraft: 1975 Baron B55
You may want to contact Reece Howell at KMQY(Reece Howell enterprises). He is the most knowligible. FAA examiner, designated MU-2m trainer, recently inducted into the aviation Hall of fame and more MU-2 time than anybody. He fly's almost daily giving required annual training, check outs etc. Nicest guy you will ever meet!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 14:15 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/29/09
Posts: 4181
Post Likes: +2974
Company: Craft Air Services, LLC
Location: Hertford, NC
Aircraft: D50A
Username Protected wrote:
You may want to contact Reece Howell at KMQY(Reece Howell enterprises). He is the most knowligible. FAA examiner, designated MU-2m trainer, recently inducted into the aviation Hall of fame and more MU-2 time than anybody. He fly's almost daily giving required annual training, check outs etc. Nicest guy you will ever meet!


Hey David, does he give the required initial in his plane, or must you have your own? I have been thinking that going though the initial might be a good way to get acquainted with the plane and decide if it is worth buying before shelling out the big bucks.

_________________
Who is John Galt?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 14:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/19/09
Posts: 375
Post Likes: +161
Location: Montego Bay, Jamaica W.I. (MKJS)
Aircraft: Baron B55/Cessna 140
Thomas,

Beech also supported the MU-2 from 1986- 1998 or so, part of the conditions of taking over the type certificate for the Diamond. I have flown both models but the short body is the best of the two.

The MU-2 reminds me most of the early Lears and 727's a lot of ex airline pilots like the way MU-2 flies as it handles in many respects like a jet. Bill Bloekhe (ex AA Miami 777 fleet manager) has owned 3 and still raves about the handling. It an aircraft that one constantly has to monitor the IVSI and pitch on a visual approach but that allows you to climb at 200kts/ 2000 fpm or descend at 250kts / 5000 fpm with ease.

Reece trains in your airplane and has aircraft you can demo in.

Regards,

Nigel


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 14:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/08/12
Posts: 1458
Post Likes: +937
Username Protected wrote:

I have flown both models but the short body is the best of the two.

Nigel


Nigel,

I know the short body is a touch faster, but what else about it do you prefer over the long body.

Thank you,

Tom


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 15:08 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6230
Post Likes: +3730
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
I know there are quite a few MU-2 operators on here and would like to get their thoughts and opinions on this airplane.

I own and fly a 1980 MU-2 Solitaire (short body). I bought it in 2009, stepped up from a Cessna 340 which I flew for 7 years.

The MU-2 is a great airplane. It doesn't have peculiar flight characteristics, it is all predictable. It has multiple wings depending on which flap setting (5, 20 and 40° full span fowler flaps). Can actually fly pretty slow if you want. Two things to watch in flight, generally true to most airplanes - it needs power, especially with no flaps (small wing area), so if you pull the power and let it get behind the power curve it can slow rapidly. And it is trim sensitive in all three axes, so you need to use trim after configuration changes.

The long body will be slightly more stable in flight than the short, just due to the length of the arm to the tail fin and h-stab. But they both ride very solid in turbulence. Long body doesn't tend to come down as hard on the nose during landing, because on the short body the CG is in front of the main gear, so it is a little tricky to get it not to come down on the nose.

Both are built like tanks. Seriously, it's the best quality of the airplane from an owner's standpoint, they have very high quality components and build quality. This is the airplane's downside too, because it is on the heavy side (my empty wt is 7077 lbs, 10520 gross, long bodies run roughly 6-700 lbs heavier empty and 11,500 gross).

4 blade prop models turn "backwards". Left turning instead of right turning p-factor. Totally minor issue, of course. 4 blade models have a prop AD that requires a 5 year inspection that comes close to the scope of an overhaul, though an AMOC has started to be issued that takes it to 7 years. Some owners like the 3 blade models better because of this (it is a significant calendar reserve expense). 3 blade models are a bit noisier inside. Not a ton by some accounts. Depends who you ask, whether they've had a soundproofing mod and good headsets. 3 blade models with -10 engines are a hair faster than 4 blade models in cruise, but also require manual ITT/EGT limiting, 4 blade models have SRL that adjusts gauge to show a single EGT redline for all conditions.

-10 engine variants are preferred if possible, the tradeoff is up front cost versus ongoing cost. Power is better at altitude but also operating expense is somewhat lower.

The real owner's delight is the factory support, though. Mitsubishi has a heckuva commitment to providing support. The factory service center - Intercontinental Jet Service Center in Tulsa - bends over backwards to give help and advice to field maintenance if required, and is not expensive in the class of aircraft if you can take it there. There are other service centers as well, but IJSC is owned by Mitsubishi and sort of is the mother ship. In addition, paperwork and customer support is done through Turbine Air Services in Dallas, they arrange and host the PROP seminars every two years (free to anyone interested in the MU2).

Things I don't like as well about the airplane are mostly related to ground handling. Fueling needs to be done right (filling the tips improperly can tip the plane over), and many FBOs don't know it that well. Since it's a high wing with 6 separate filling points a single hose truck can take a little while, 15-20 minutes maybe. Airplane generally needs a towbar and it's a dual wheel nose which means a fairly wide towbar, sometimes scarce at smaller fields, though a portable towbar is available that can be carried around in the luggage compartment for use in a pinch. I have used mine several times.

800nm trip would be a great distance for the MU2, no problem. Should be able to carry plenty of payload that far. My airplane, with at least an hour's reserve, would be able to do that far and have roughly 11-1200 lbs of payload. Long bodies should be somewhat better on payload.

Short body models can have seating configurations for up to 9 in theory, though it'd be ridiculously stuffed, mine has 7 seats and that would be comfortable if the 7th was small (a kid) since the rear bench seat is like the back of a car, comfortable for 2 but a little snug for 3. Do able. Comfortable for up to 6. Long body airplanes have much more room (MUCH MORE), seat configurations up to 11 I think, and I would think 8-9 would be legitimately comfortable. They are slightly slower (~280 ktas vs ~300 ktas) and burn slightly more fuel.

SFAR basically made training that you would be required to do by your insurance company legally required even if you don't have insurance or are flying late night cargo, which was the real bugaboo. Simcom in Orlando has simulator training available. Some of the initial must be done in the airplane, and a BFR in aircraft is required.

Ask for specifics if you have more questions.

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 15:18 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/19/09
Posts: 375
Post Likes: +161
Location: Montego Bay, Jamaica W.I. (MKJS)
Aircraft: Baron B55/Cessna 140
Thomas,

The short bodies, fit into most hangars with ease, the tip tank clearance in t-hangars being an issue. Easier to jack in smaller hangars. No need to extend 5 flaps during emergency gear extension on the short Bodies. Cruise 10-20kts faster. Other than that the long bodies land and take off better no abrupt rotation and can hold the nose off in the flare.

Nigel


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 15:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6230
Post Likes: +3730
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
The short bodies, fit into most hangars with ease, the tip tank clearance in t-hangars being an issue.

Yes, one thing to watch is hangar clearance in a T hangar: need 20' deep wing box for a short body, and I think it's 24' for a long body. That tends to be the limiting dimension for them.

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 16:24 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/13/07
Posts: 19825
Post Likes: +9520
Location: Seeley Lake, MT (23S)
Aircraft: 1964 Bonanza S35
Username Protected wrote:
Long body doesn't tend to come down as hard on the nose during landing, because on the short body the CG is in front of the main gear,


If the CG was behind the main gear it would never sit on it's nose.

_________________
Want to go here?:
https://tinyurl.com/FlyMT1

tinyurl.com/35som8p


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 16:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 6088
Post Likes: +3381
Location: Oklahoma City, OK (KPWA)
Aircraft: planeless
Username Protected wrote:
Long body doesn't tend to come down as hard on the nose during landing, because on the short body the CG is in front of the main gear,


If the CG was behind the main gear it would never sit on it's nose.


I was wondering if anyone else was going to pick up on that.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 17:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/18/11
Posts: 7681
Post Likes: +3685
Location: Lakeland , Ga
Aircraft: H35, T-41B, Aircoupe
Occasionally a nice MerlinIIB
Comes along. They may be the best value overall.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 19:47 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/11
Posts: 2124
Post Likes: +565
Location: Shelbyville, TN (KSYI)
Aircraft: 1975 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
You may want to contact Reece Howell at KMQY(Reece Howell enterprises). He is the most knowligible. FAA examiner, designated MU-2m trainer, recently inducted into the aviation Hall of fame and more MU-2 time than anybody. He fly's almost daily giving required annual training, check outs etc. Nicest guy you will ever meet!


Hey David, does he give the required initial in his plane, or must you have your own? I have been thinking that going though the initial might be a good way to get acquainted with the plane and decide if it is worth buying before shelling out the big bucks.

Sorry but I cannot answer that but you can call and ask him. HM 615-459-4491 office 800 332 8822 , 615459 6001

Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 19:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
There are 3 providers for MU2 initial.

SIMCOM - Orlando, has a sim
http://www.mu2training.com/ Shaun McConnell - Salina, Kansas. Has his own F model (early short body, -1 engines) that you can rent for an initial
http://mu2b.com/ Reece Howell & associates - Smyrna, TN - Reece generally has something around you can rent. A couple years back he had a long body available.

I think all of these guys would offer a good way to get to know the airplane by doing the initial. Another bonus of that is that the SFAR doesn't allow anyone to manipulate the controls of an MU2 before passing initial. After SFAR, you can right seat in anybodys MU2 and log the time. Not possible beforhand.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 06 Apr 2013, 20:04 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12797
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Long body airplanes have much more room (MUCH MORE), seat configurations up to 11 I think, and I would think 8-9 would be legitimately comfortable. They are slightly slower (~280 ktas vs ~300 ktas) and burn slightly more fuel.



MUCH MORE is correct. The difference between fuselages is huge. If you wanna see both go visit Reese Howell, he usually has several sitting around. Short body airplane kinda remind me of my malibu - airstair door opens between a very nice club seating arrangement (generally 2 bucket amidships & 3 bench rear). You then step past the bucket seats into the cockpit.

The long body, you go in the door, turn and walk past the back seats, walk past a couch, walk some more, walk past the refreshment center, and finally end up in the front. IT IS BIG.

I'd consider carefully whether you really need the long body because at a given altitude it is notable slower than a short body and given it has the same wing/engines, it will climb slower and is generally cruised a little lower than a short body. So you really get a big efficiency hit all around - going to have notably higher fuel burn and hours flying the same missions with a long body.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 25  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.Marsh.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.AAI.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.