banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 05:59 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 19:06 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 07/29/12
Posts: 66
Post Likes: +29
Aircraft: GV IV 680 LRJET 690A
I had my mind made up recently that I was going to get a Commander 840 with Dash 10s. After getting quotes for insurance and only receiving one, for $20125 for 1MM hull, 1MM/100K with $25K deductibles and it prompted me to dive back into the Mitsubishi. This policy was $12K a year or so ago.

I am very fond of the OEI capabilities of the Commander. The second segment climb on the Subi makes me nervous. Additionally it seems like the actual real world TAS on the Commander -10 is slower than the folklore on the internet, and the same goes for the MU2. So what are real world cruising altitudes, fuel burns, KTAS and ISA temps you guys are seeing? Is the MU2 Dash 10 happy at 280? or do you find yourself flying around at 220 to see any real speed, and what's the fuel burn difference and speed difference? Same question for the Commander.

I am also curious about resale, it seems there is a long line of people who want to buy a good 840 but there are always a couple nice optioned MU2's for sale on the market.

Ironically, I am hearing that there are 3 or 4 companies writing policies today on the MU2, and as stated above I only am seeing 1 for the Commander.

Maintenance costs seem to be punitive on the Commander if you talk to MU2 guys, but no one denies that the MU2 is built very well and the maintenance costs and dispatch ability of the MU2 is excellent.

After having my first plane for less than a year, 77 C421C, and constant baby sitting and anxiety building pre trip if the plane is gonna squawk out or not is really exhausting. I have not found the cost to be unmanageable for me personally but they are high and the time to manage the plane is high.

Thanks. Its been a few years since this topic has been discussed and after reading every substantive thread several times I wanted to get more accurate updated information.

Many thanks!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 19:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 12798
Post Likes: +5224
Location: Jackson, MS (KHKS)
Aircraft: 1961 Cessna 172
Username Protected wrote:
The second segment climb on the Subi makes me nervous.


Subi?

Of all the ways part 91 owners come to grief in twins ... it's rarely CFIT due to inadequate second segment climb gradient. How often do you need to fly hot, high, or heavy around major obstacles?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 19:34 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/30/15
Posts: 1697
Post Likes: +1712
Location: Charlotte
Aircraft: Avanti-Citabria
Ryan,

I loved me Aerostar but always kinda felt the same way before a trip.

There is a 2003 Avanti to be had at probably near Commander price.

Whole nuther category.

Over a year now a grin is still here.

_________________
I wanna go phastR.....and slowR


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 19:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6232
Post Likes: +3735
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
So what are real world cruising altitudes, fuel burns, KTAS and ISA temps you guys are seeing? Is the MU2 Dash 10 happy at 280? or do you find yourself flying around at 220 to see any real speed, and what's the fuel burn difference and speed difference?

I have a Solitaire (-10 engines). If I’m going far enough to climb (trips over an hour or so), I will climb to 270 or 280. At 270 I will easily true at 300 KTAS in ISA conditions (rare for me!) unless heavy, burning about 500 lbs/hr. At 280 I will be a hair under 300 KTAS burning about 470 lbs/hr. If heavy, at FL280 it’ll be about 285 KTAS at the more typical ISA+10 and gain speed as the fuel burns off.

I basically get the book numbers for speed and fuel burn but I run the props at about 98% in cruise instead of the book 96% and about 10 deg less on EGT than book.

Quote:
… no one denies that the MU2 is built very well and the maintenance costs and dispatch ability of the MU2 is excellent.

These things are true. I have enjoyed the robustness and reliability. And economical maintenance costs (as turbines go).

Quote:
After having my first plane for less than a year, 77 C421C, and constant baby sitting and anxiety building pre trip if the plane is gonna squawk out or not is really exhausting. I have not found the cost to be unmanageable for me personally but they are high and the time to manage the plane is high.

I found this with my 340 also. After many flights I’d have to spend a couple hours in the hangar cleaning plugs or lubing waste gates or oil changes or generally tweaking with something. If it didn’t require a shop visit.

The Mits is a qualitatively better experience in that regard. Much more jump in and go from inspection to inspection.

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 20:19 
Offline



 Profile




Joined: 05/05/09
Posts: 4946
Post Likes: +4785
Aircraft: G44, C501, C55, R66
Skip both, a Citation is the way to go


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 22:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/22/14
Posts: 103
Post Likes: +65
Location: KMYF/ Kamiah, ID
Aircraft: C525, AC90
Attachment:
IMG_20220222_1011099.jpg
Lots to like about the Commander, especially the ability to get the modern STEC 3100 A/P in the panel along with the full Garmin setup, which is probably the most prominent separator. Not sure if MU2 has many A/P options.

The other differences have been discussed before but both dash 10 aircraft are great traveling machines. No offense to Mr. klingonjet but the turboprops sometimes win out.

Which underwriter?
I’m with London Advisors/Starstone with better coverage and it’s about half of that. . .10k. My renewal was last November.

Dash 10 should get you 300kts TAS most of the time in the Commander all normal cruise altitudes.
Some speed variables with different commander airframes and weights, and clamshell gear doors may save 3 kts. I don’t have the clamshell doors.
Byerly would have specifics. Unless you need more than 1000 miles range a good 690B could be a contender for consideration.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.

_________________
MEL, Comm. Instr. C525(S) type


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2022, 22:38 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 330
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
My numbers are similar to what Jon posted. Because I have a 3 blade prop, I might go a bit faster, but am louder and can’t fly quite as far (smaller fuel tanks). I’ve seen as low as 289 up high when very hot and very heavy, and I’ve seen as fast as 330 when light and very cold. I saw 310 TAS yesterday at -5ISA on a 2.5 hr flight at FL260. I use FltPlan.com to “tell me” what altitude to pick and FL280 does’t come up as the best choice very often, but the plane does “ok” up there. With it’s longer wing, I’m sure the Commander would have to do better.
Coming from a couple Aerostars, I completely agree on the maintenance issue. Lots of people claim to have very high dispatch reliability with their complex pressurized piston twins, but when you “dig a bit deeper” they are visiting the plane prior to trips to insure all is well, tweaking this and that and basically doing maintenance all the time. That’s how it was for me too. Fabulous flying planes (and the Commanders were designed by Ted too, so they probably fly really nice as well). On the Mits, I am a very bored mechanic and in 5.5 years and 1200 hrs I’ve still not had to call a mechanic to the hangar for unscheduled matters.
I looked at the “numbers” when I was trying to pick a turboprop 6 years ago and I really liked the range of the Commanders, but the maintenance costs appeared to be quite a bit higher than the Mits. Also, the Mits is very compact for fitting in hangars and it seems to be built like a tank. Just this past week, I once again had to taxi through snow drifts and land on unplowed runways; for that kind of environment, I like the “toughness” of the Mits. The Aerostar had a very fragile front end, but I assume Ted designed the Commanders a lot tougher up there. Both are excellent planes and both are easy to get into. Yesterday’s flight was to take my 82yo mom back home to Tahoe after knee replacement; for some people the air stair on other turboprops is cool looking with great ramp appeal, but for others (like older and/or injured folks) it’s just dangerous. I really liked the range of the Merlin IIIC’s but they were too big for what I needed and support was lacking. Citations absolutely are a very functional and safe choice with docile manners and great (albeit expensive) support, but for me with lots of 100 to 300 mile legs in for work, it didn’t make sense, and the snow drift/unplowed runway thing with sheet ice didn’t really pull me toward the jets either. I don’t think you will be unhappy with either compared to a 421…other than the noise. I think the 421 is the quietest prop plane I’ve ever flown in (but I haven’t been in flying pickle yet)!

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2022, 00:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/05/09
Posts: 286
Post Likes: +130
Location: Portland, Oregon
Aircraft: MU-2F
If you want to save some money, try to find an F model MU2, the economy champ of twin turbines. I fly it at FL240 and 250 on all long trips in winter, get 260KTAS on 56-58gph total mid cruise. Might only make FL230 or 220 in the summer on really hot days and heavy though at similar speeds. Same reliability and construction as the newer planes, just with less powerful engines and you have only the Bendix M4C autopilot. That autopilot works just fine and it is still repairable when needed, just doesn't do as much automatically as the newer stuff. Mine has GPSS and will shoot precision approaches and fly holds and arcs with the best of them. I went for my plane over the 421 and haven't regretted it. No cancelled trips for maintenance issues since the initial updates were worked out and no unscheduled shop visits either, just inspections. I know it is subjective, but my wife and I feel better with two turbine engines that we did with 2 piston engines, plus we go faster and climb faster as well. Find a well-maintained F model and you will be a happy owner with money in your pocket to buy fuel.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2022, 00:59 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5522
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
I think you go Turbo Commander for range, OEI capabilities/benign flying characteristic, high altitude/hot/high and resale value. And much easier to refuel - you'll spend 20 mins less doing it. You also don't have to spend $8K for mandatory training, so that might even out your insurance quotes a bit.

If none of that is important, then it seems the MU-2 is a formidable candidate that might anecdotally cost a little less to maintain.

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2022, 10:43 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3553
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Don’t base it off that year old Mu quote. It will likely be similar to the Commander now.

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2022, 11:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/20/15
Posts: 183
Post Likes: +66
Location: AZ
Aircraft: MU-2 Solitaire
Username Protected wrote:
Don’t base it off that year old Mu quote. It will likely be similar to the Commander now.


Yikes TJ...Has there been any softening of rate hikes or has it been crazy expensive in all markets with no end in sight?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2022, 11:33 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3553
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Username Protected wrote:
Don’t base it off that year old Mu quote. It will likely be similar to the Commander now.


Yikes TJ...Has there been any softening of rate hikes or has it been crazy expensive in all markets with no end in sight?

Some areas improving. The power is shifting back to us as brokers just a teency little bit and I've been able to move some larger jet accounts to other underwriters to get what clients need (and maybe send a lil message to "harder" markets")

But the off-brand stuff like Mu2, Commander, Aerostar, etc will always be a painful market. Especially with a whole new breed of younger underwriters moving up recently. They aren't willing to risk their "book" with things that will get them fired in an audit.

That won't change I'm sorry to say.
There is some merit to the 4th post above.
Tj
_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 27 Feb 2022, 12:18 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/31/17
Posts: 1589
Post Likes: +623
Aircraft: C180
4th from the top or 4th from the bottom?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2022, 10:10 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 03/23/08
Posts: 6908
Post Likes: +3553
Company: AssuredPartners Aerospace Phx.
Location: KDVT, 46U
Aircraft: IAR823, LrJet, 240Z
Username Protected wrote:
4th from the top or 4th from the bottom?

Sorry, I meant to just agree with Tarver’s post.

_________________
Tom Johnson-Az/Wy
AssuredPartners Aerospace Insurance
Tj.Johnson@AssuredPartners.com
C: 602-628-2701


Top

 Post subject: Re: Turbo Commander vs Mitsubishi MU2
PostPosted: 28 Feb 2022, 14:25 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/16/12
Posts: 77
Post Likes: +65
Location: KHEF & KCPS
Aircraft: C501SP
Here's my 2 cents:

We bought a Commander 980 last summer after flying a Piper Meridian for a year. If I'd looked into out of production turbines during my initial search, I'd probably be flying a -10 MU-2. But we went with the Meridian and quickly moved up to a Commander 980 to solve a lot of the well known shortcomings of the Meridian. Here are the pros:

- Predictable MX schedule. If you fly 150 hours a year, you have one inspection (a 150 hour and an annual). Pricier than an MU-2, but cheaper than a King Air is the rough guide.

- Range. This plane will go very far which means lots of flexibility and the ability to tanker fuel.

- The cabin. The bench seat is fantastic for passenger comfort and sleeping, and the picture windows are one-of-a-kind. We like have a standalone potty and since it's friends and family flying in the plane, it's private enough.

- The luggage space is massive. Every time I load baggage, I'm blown away by how big the cargo hold is.

- The entry door. Low entry is great for mobility impaired passengers, and I LOVE not having to climb over pax to open the door. It allows for very efficient loading and unloading and lends some real plane feel to it.

- The plane has very docile handling techniques and is a good "STOL" turbine platform. Landings can be a bit stiff, but that's likely an operator issue.

- I like the Commander eco system. High quality service centers across the country that are passionate about the platform (2 are <1 hour flight from my new home), easily accessible training, and a responsive factory support service. When I looked at MU-2s, there were a lot of graybeard instructors, out of date websites, etc. Having said that, I recognize that they have excellent factory support.

- I think the major brokers for Commanders do a great job of managing the resale market. The planes tend to hold their value, and I rarely see examples sitting on the market for a long time.

Negatives

- It's a big plane which makes hangar space difficult to find. I'm moving cities and that's my current headache.

- The big wing also means a stiff ride in turbulence. Way better than the Meridian, but not as a good as the MU-2, or so I've heard.

- It's a bit of a pig in crosswinds, and I haven't really nailed down the rudder to NWS transition on landings. Neither of these should be disqualifiers.

Either plane is going to be great, and will likely be an insurance headache until the market adjusts. The short body MU-2s are definitely economical rocket ships, but I wouldn't want to give up the standalone potty or mid-cabin entry. Regardless of which plane you get, I highly recommend the MT 5-blades. Absolute game changer, and worth the TAS penalty. Also my training was ~7k, so not far off from the MU-2 SFAR required training. FWIW, I also wouldn't put stock in the OWTs regarding MU-2 safety.

EDIT:

Forgot the performance stuff. Shorter flights I go FL200-220 ~280-285KTAS at about 85GPH. Longer flights I go FL260-280 at 280KTAS at about 65GPH. My plane is a bit slower than the brochure, but that may be a result of my newness at flying the aircraft coupled with 5-bladed propellers.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  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

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