banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 07:55 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 23:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/08
Posts: 1008
Post Likes: +204
Aircraft: Aerostar 601p/700
I think that many MU2s can be upgraded to the -10 engine. The f model cannot have this upgrade. I do think there is a super1 conversion that essentially makes the -1 a -6. Most say this is not worth it.

I am only repeating what I have read. I have no experience with the MU2 but can always dream.


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 13 Oct 2015, 23:50 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I think that many MU2s can be upgraded to the -10 engine. The f model cannot have this upgrade. I do think there is a super1 conversion that essentially makes the -1 a -6. Most say this is not worth it.

Mostly correct.

All MU2s with a -5 or -6 engine can be upgraded to a -10. In the case of a -5 engine, this upgrade retains the same -5 compressor and gearbox but installs a new combustor and turbine section resulting in a TPE331-10T engine. For the -6, similarly retains the -6 compressor and gearbox and makes the engine a TPE331-10AV (that is what I have).

The Super One conversion is a -6 compressor section on a -1 hot section (combustor and turbine), so vice versa from the -10 upgrade. It definitely does NOT make the -1 into a -6, but it does improve performance quite a bit, about half way to a -6.

The later model MU2s, Solitaires and Marquise, came with -10 from the factory.

Some very old MU2s had engines that predate the -1, TPE331-25AA, they have no upgrade options and I don't believe very many are flying any more. Only 2 are on the US registry and show no activity on flightaware.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 00:57 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/08
Posts: 1008
Post Likes: +204
Aircraft: Aerostar 601p/700
I knew I was close but Mike obviously has the correct info. I am curious if there is a difference between the -5 to -10 conversion versus the -6 to -10 conversion? Versus a straight -10.

My understanding is the major advantage to the upgraded engines is being able to keep more horsepower up high.

Also is the three bladed -10 faster than a four bladed -10?

I want to learn more about the mu2 and get to fly one. Maybe someday buy one.


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 03:57 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Three blade aircraft are slightly faster than four blade all else being equal.

http://mu-2aircraft.com/

Check out the dates for the biennial prop convention coming up next year. It's a great chance to meet a lot of Mitsubishi operators


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 07:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/03/08
Posts: 16179
Post Likes: +8782
Location: 2W5
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
Three blade aircraft are slightly faster than four blade all else being equal.


I was told that they are not subject to the prop AD.


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:07 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/29/13
Posts: 705
Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
Username Protected wrote:
Three blade aircraft are slightly faster than four blade all else being equal.


I was told that they are not subject to the prop AD.


The four blade models take a +-$20,000 hit every 4 years due to the AD. There is an AMOC to extend the inspections times.

Vince

Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:17 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/10
Posts: 2528
Post Likes: +2187
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
Username Protected wrote:
Flown in Monday morning, flies out Friday afternoon. That is IJSC schedule. They do whatever it takes to make that schedule, if possible.


Ok, potentially dumb question: would you fly the airplane there on Monday, airline home, then airline back the following Friday or Monday to pick it up?

I'm spoiled in that my shop is on the field so they just tow the plane from my hangar to their and fix whatever's broke then put it back. My 210 was maintained remotely and that worked but it was a bit of a pain to move the airplane whenever it needed something...

Robert


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:19 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I am curious if there is a difference between the -5 to -10 conversion versus the -6 to -10 conversion? Versus a straight -10.

TPE331-10 (straight -10) came from the factory as a -10 engine, turns 1591 RPM, installed on 1979 and later MU2s. Has SRL (single red line) temperature system (max temp electronically corrected for conditions).

TPE331-6, TPE331-5 are converted engines that change out the hot section to the -10 design, and they become TPE331-10T and TPE331-10AV models. -5 is 1591 RPM, -6 is 2000 RPM, otherwise pretty much identical. The original -5, -6 used an ITT temperature system with one fixed max temperature. The -10T, -10AV versions now use a direct reading EGT temperature system and the pilot has to look up the allowed max temp based on RPM and OAT. No SRL computer and no ITT harness (which usually fails HSI and is expensive to replace).

Oddly enough, the -1 engines had basically the same EGT look up table system. Sometimes the old fashioned ways are best. The temperature look up is not difficult or onerous. If your SRL fails on the -10 engine, then you have to revert to the lookup table, too, so why not just use one system?

Quote:
My understanding is the major advantage to the upgraded engines is being able to keep more horsepower up high.

Yes. The engine is much more powerful so you can hold 100% power to a much higher altitude. Typically, FL180-200 for me. -1 starts losing power at sea level, -5, -6 can hold 100% to about 12,000 ft.

Quote:
Also is the three bladed -10 faster than a four bladed -10?

Yes, about 5-10 knots. The larger slower turning 4 blade has such high blade angle that is starts to lose thrust over the faster 3 blade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugvWNAXgswE

Quote:
I want to learn more about the mu2 and get to fly one. Maybe someday buy one.

Attend PROP. Held every 2 years. Free.

http://mu-2aircraft.com/content.asp?id=107

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:25 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
The four blade models take a +-$20,000 hit every 4 years due to the AD. There is an AMOC to extend the inspections times.

The 4 blade prop AD is every 5 years or 3000 hours. Owner operators hit the 5 year limit, obviously.

Costs vary all over the map. One case was nearly $80K as most blades were rejected. Base pricing tends to be around $15K.

There is an AMOC to extend compliance time from 5 to 7 years.

3 blade props are not subject to the AD and may be overhauled on condition for part 91 (part 135 depends on your op spec).

There is an STC for 5 blade MT props for both the 2000 RPM and 1591 RPM engines. No AD. Some do that instead of the AD. Cost is about $100K. Improves climb, appears not to hurt cruise speed more than a knot or two, reduces noise, slight reduction in weight, looks awesome.

http://air1st.com/mu-2-service-center.html

The 4 blade prop is a major reason the later airplanes cost more to operate than the 3 blade. There is a continual debate among MU2 owners which is better. 4 blade quieter, 3 blade faster, cheaper.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Last edited on 14 Oct 2015, 13:00, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
Three blade aircraft are slightly faster than four blade all else being equal.


I was told that they are not subject to the prop AD.


Correct - the 4 blade AD was due to a reactionless vibration mode unique to 4 blade propellers. Some details at http://flightsafety.org/ap/ap_apr94.pdf

The AD requires an inspection every 5 years with a new AMOC lengthening it to 7. The big AD problem was Hartzell would only overhaul the blades and not IRAN them. After several grinding cycles, the blades are unairworthy. New blades are $10K each and you either
1) replace them all (even if a couple blades don't meet spec)
2) grind the new ones to match your barely usable old ones guaranteeing they'll fail next time.

Lotta people bought $80K of prop blades. The timing of the AD and overhaul cycle means the fleet has mostly scrapped the first set of new prop blades and buying in now you have the chance to inspect (and inspect only) every 7 years rather than overhaul every 5.

Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 09:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/18/08
Posts: 1008
Post Likes: +204
Aircraft: Aerostar 601p/700
Very good information. Always good information on here. Almost any question from cars to MU2 engines can be answered by someone on here.

I need to get a ride in an MU2 and see how it flies. Heck even a much cheaper F model can be had for aerostar prices or even less and still does 260kts.

Realistically my aerostar run at 65% in high teens gets 225 or so. To go up to FL250 and push to 75% power will give 261KTS based on the POH but your CHTs will be well above 400F. Too hot. Even 65% power at FL250 will see CHTs 380-400F which I think is too hot to do too often.


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 10:12 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/15/13
Posts: 753
Post Likes: +297
Location: Florida-Missouri
Aircraft: V35B
Username Protected wrote:
Very good information. Always good information on here. Almost any question from cars to MU2 engines can be answered by someone on here.

I need to get a ride in an MU2 and see how it flies. Heck even a much cheaper F model can be had for aerostar prices or even less and still does 260kts.

Realistically my aerostar run at 65% in high teens gets 225 or so. To go up to FL250 and push to 75% power will give 261KTS based on the POH but your CHTs will be well above 400F. Too hot. Even 65% power at FL250 will see CHTs 380-400F which I think is too hot to do too often.


....and mirrors my experience when running my A* U2A's several years ago. So, lower and slower made more sense to me.

Plus +1 on the next PROP event for me as well. Eric, I'm right there w/ you.

Mike C and other MU-2 contributors: keep the good info coming. You guys are winning the hearts and minds of those of us fence-sitting :popcorn: about entering Turboprop land.

Seems to me to be quite possibly the best personal use kerosene burner. Why not?

_________________
__________________________


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 10:35 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/18/13
Posts: 1152
Post Likes: +767
Aircraft: 737
I agree with what you guys are saying about the A*. Will it go 265? Sure. Is that a good idea? Not to me. I'm usually just under class A airspace doing 230 at 65%.

You two need to find your way to the East Coast and fly my MU2 for a few hours. It'll blow your mind.


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 10:54 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/15/13
Posts: 753
Post Likes: +297
Location: Florida-Missouri
Aircraft: V35B
Username Protected wrote:
I agree with what you guys are saying about the A*. Will it go 265? Sure. Is that a good idea? Not to me. I'm usually just under class A airspace doing 230 at 65%.

You two need to find your way to the East Coast and fly my MU2 for a few hours. It'll blow your mind.


Thanks, Craig. I'm down for that. Will PM you in near future. :cheers:

Best regards,

_________________
__________________________


Top

 Post subject: Re: MU2-N inspection costs
PostPosted: 14 Oct 2015, 12:59 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23615
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I need to get a ride in an MU2 and see how it flies.

A great option for this is the sims at SimCom Orlando. It isn't the "real" airplane (and the sim deviates from reality in a few places, the real airplane is a LOT easier to fly), but you get to experience the full range of behaviors.

I went to the sim to test my ability to fly an MU2. Afterward, my MU2 thinking went from "well, maybe, someday" to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2O7rZTBs7w

"I gotta get me one of these!"

I am pretty sure you can call SimCom and arrange a few hours in the sim with an instructor for a familiarization flight.

Where are you located? I might know an MU2 operator near you.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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

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