banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 17:21 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 25  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 22:46 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
Slow turning props (4 blade) turn tighter on the ground to the left, fast turning prop planes (3 blade) turn better to the right. I have found the ground handling numbers in the POH to be close to correct for my '74 -10K. But the plane backs very well, so if you are in a tight spot, you can easily do a 3-point turn.
As many have said, the takeoff distance performance numbers are very pessimistic.
The flaps 40 landing distances are artificially exaggerated because after the SFAR, it seems one of the main goals was to get people to stop using 40 degrees. It has worked to some extent and it's less popular. But if you look at the original performance numbers for the Mits, 40 gives you much lower energy at touchdown, and it has some good uses if landing on a contaminated runway with ice for example. You do feel the pitch instability as you slow with 40 degrees, but it is easy to manage, just watch your airspeed. If you are much above 90 kts when you arrive at the threshold, you will float a lot, especially if you leave about 15%-18% torque to allow a normal let-down on the nose gear after the mains touch. Some of my best (and certainly my shortest) landings are at 40deg flaps with a bit of power targeting 90kts across the numbers...and even then, she floats a bit. That said, 2/3 of my landings are still made at 20deg flaps because I won't use 40 if it is gusty with wind shear. The plane is a tank and has great utility with powerful spoilers and a big rudder...I've landed in 52kt winds at 45 deg to the runway and while I had to "plant it" rather firmly, it did just fine and tracked straight. One weird thing about the short bodies that took some getting used to is that they "weather-vane" off the wind, not into the wind after touchdown like most planes due to the aft placement of their main tires.
In the mid FL's mine is typically 300 to 315 kts TAS burning 75-80gph. Burns less up high but still around 70-72 unless you pull the power back to 60% for better range...that drops your speed quite a bit to around 265, but I've flown at reduced power from Wyoming to Delaware and landed with 100g (with some tailwind) so power reduction can work well if the wind is in your favor.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 23:12 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
Fwiw, landing on 30 at KSQL it has been a long time (years) since I did not make the turnoff at taxiway C which is where my hangar row is. Usually have to roll to it. If motivated I can make D. And occasionally with some headwind have made E, though it is not something passengers appreciate as much as pilots. You can use ForeFlight’s safetaxi diagram to measure the distances to those taxiways. ;)


2,077 ft
1,590 ft
1,236 ft

:thumbup: :thumbup:

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 23:43 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
the MU-2 only has inches to spare if you need to do a 180 on a 75 foot runway, and you have to do it to the left!

Turn radius can be reduced by differential thrust and some inside wheel braking.

Overall, ground handling of the MU2 is not stellar. Large turn radius, heavy nose wheel steering (particularly on the short models), etc. You can back up, but comes with more risk of FOD.

My Citation turns much more nimbly on the ground.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 10 Mar 2023, 23:46 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I see 2800 fpm around +12 ISA

That's nowhere near 30 C at KSAF which is ISA + 28. And was that at full gross? You can't use typical results for this rather extreme case.

Quote:
I routinely get to FL280 in 14 minutes - maybe 13 in the winter, 15 in the summer. I do have a 6,500 ft head start, but that's a reliable time to climb.

My -10 M model would be similar, an average of 1500 fpm to FL280 given a 6500 ft head start.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 00:12 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/13/20
Posts: 194
Post Likes: +111
Location: KLOU/KJVY
I start at 500' elevation and get to FL200 in 10 min. It's fun!

_________________
-MU-2
-C501


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 01:15 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
At a best OEI climb of 150 kts, that's 120 ft/nm. Not only does it not meet TERPS standards, it is less than the actual gradient in most directions to the north of the airport.

It is max gross, ISA + 28, one engine out, 6400 ft elevation. That's high, hot, and heavy.

Quote:
It possible that an MU-2 leaving SAF to the north in the summer could do everything correctly during an engine failure and still not clear terrain.

The terrain off runway 2 rises at about 1% gradient and the climb above is 2%, so you have some margin, slim as it is. You can then gradually turn to go down terrain.

Again, max weight. Depart with less and things improve dramatically. I was almost never at max weight on my M model since full fuel left 1200 lbs cabin load capacity.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 01:22 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
My recollection on the flaps 40 landing distance is approach speed is based on Vs*1.5 in lieu of traditional *1.3. I think the rationale was don’t be slow with those draggy flaps should you lose an engine.

Maybe. The "official" reason is some weird instability most of us never detect so that may be a cover story.

Flaps 40 landings provide no operational advantage. You can do them and it will land shorter. But if you want to ever depart that airport, you always need more runway for takeoff than landing flaps 20. So flaps 40 never provides access to any additional airports.

I only did flaps 40 landings as an exercise, flaps 20 was normal for both landing and takeoff. Some old time MU2 pilots always used flaps 40. It is personal taste.

The flaps are pretty cool. I think the MU2 is the smallest airplane by a wide margin that has double slotted fowler flaps.

The flap lever is labeled 0, 5, 20, and 40. In reality, it should be labeled "Lear jet", "King Air", "Baron", and "182". You have 4 airplanes in one.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 02:08 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
So what numbers in the MU-2 manuals *are* real? This makes it quite tough to make a decision.

Yes, it does.

The runway length numbers are the most manipulated.

Much of the rest is reasonably close.

My -10 M was flown much of the time at FL270/280, 96% RPM, doing 290 KTAS and 65 GPH. If I wanted to go fast, then FL210/220, 100% RPM, doing 315 KTAS and 85 GPH.

My top speed ever achieved was 324 KTAS on a cold day at FL240.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 11:30 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Turning radius, takeoff length, landing length, max altitude for airport ops...they're all fiction, apparently.

I've never seen a plane that has so many claims of "You must fly it by the numbers" paired with "the numbers are fiction."

I'll have to fly one for myself to decide. Who wants to dry lease their idle Mu-2 for a 20-25 hour block?

_________________
Be Nice


Last edited on 11 Mar 2023, 14:11, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 11:38 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 11/30/12
Posts: 4006
Post Likes: +4410
Location: Santa Fe, NM (KSAF)
Aircraft: B200, 500B
Username Protected wrote:
Flaps 40 landings provide no operational advantage. You can do them and it will land shorter. But if you want to ever depart that airport, you always need more runway for takeoff than landing flaps 20. So flaps 40 never provides access to any additional airports.

Sure it does.

I know EXACTLY where my takeoff will start. I have all the time in the world to line up at the runway end. It requires no real skill.

It takes excellent piloting to land with the same precision (+/- 1 foot of intended touchdown spot.) So if my safe takeoff procedure uses 2500 feet, I should use a landing technique that expects considerably less than 2500 feet if I want to use a 2500 foot airport - otherwise I've thrown away all my safety margin.

_________________
Be Nice


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 12:05 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I know EXACTLY where my takeoff will start. I have all the time in the world to line up at the runway end. It requires no real skill.

Takeoff requires hitting the proper rotate speed and achieving a speed at 50 ft to get "the numbers". At least, theoretically if the numbers are based on physics. The takeoff numbers are to 50 ft, so have some margin, and a LOT of that is in the air since V50 is 10 to 14 knots faster than Vr so a lot of energy is put into accelerating rather than climbing, which lengthens the numbers.

Quote:
It takes excellent piloting to land with the same precision (+/- 1 foot of intended touchdown spot.)

The landing numbers are based on 50 ft threshold crossing height and using NO REVERSE, just ground idle. About 1000 ft of this is in the air from threshold to touch down.

A pilot can put the plane down closer to the numbers and use reverse and beat the landing numbers easily, so there is lots of margin in those numbers.

In my experience, flaps 40 will reduce your touchdown speed by about 10 knots. Once you hit reverse, those 10 knots will be gone in 1 to 2 seconds. The deceleration of reverse right after touch down is dramatic.

Flaps 40 does not open up any new airports you can use unless this is a one way trip to a junk yard. Available runways are limited solely by takeoff distances. Flaps 20 landings are sufficient for any runway you can later fly out of.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 13:35 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/19/09
Posts: 329
Post Likes: +269
Company: Premier Bone and Joint
Location: Wyoming
Aircraft: BE90,HUSK,MU-2
I guess I’m not really seeing the benefit of using exclusively partial flaps (20) on the Mits or really on any aircraft. The whole idea of having flaps on a plane is to allow it to fly slower with greater lift so that you can minimize energy at touchdown. You could land with flaps 5 or even a clean wing too, but why would you do that?
I don’t see it as “opening up runways” as much as allowing you to minimize energy at touchdown. Better on tires, better If runway is icy, and helps minimize need for brakes or reverse. Is it “necessary?” Well, no, but an argument could be made that flaps in general aren’t necessary, the Mits, like most planes, can land and takeoff without flaps but it’s not a great way to fly it.

_________________
Thomas


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 13:57 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23613
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
I guess I’m not really seeing the benefit of using exclusively partial flaps (20) on the Mits or really on any aircraft.

MU2 has full span flaps. So "partial flaps" on an MU2 is like full flaps on anything else.

At flaps 40, the go around and single engine performance is not great. This is one reason the charts are 1.5 Vso for that configuration.

The landing distance is really not much longer at flaps 20 even if you use 1.3 Vso flaps 40.

I never really liked the way it felt at flaps 40, flaps 20 seemed much nicer. Also, Vfe for flaps 40 was 120 knots, and my approaches were often faster than that so it required an extra slow down maneuver to get to flaps 40.

There are definitely MU2 pilots who advocate flaps 40. The flaps 20/40 debate is a never ending one.

People do use flaps 5 for landing when single engine. That makes it much nicer, IMO. You aren't going to chose a tiny little runway when you have an engine out.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 11 Mar 2023, 15:45 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/08/12
Posts: 6230
Post Likes: +3733
Location: San Carlos, CA - KHWD
Aircraft: Piaggio Avanti
Username Protected wrote:
I never really liked the way it felt at flaps 40, flaps 20 seemed much nicer.

I like the less nose high attitude of landing flaps 40. And the slower touchdown speed. But flaps 20 can be a little smoother. I use both depending on situation.

_________________
-Jon C.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Mitsubishi MU-2
PostPosted: 26 Mar 2023, 21:12 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 12/30/20
Posts: 1
Location: KCCR
Aircraft: B36TC
I have been reading a lot about the MU-2 and kind of getting obsessed with it. Two questions I had in mind:

1) Anyone out there who owns an MU-2 in a two-three way partnership. Is it workable with such a plane? I have been in two partnerships with very positive experiences. Not only due to fixed cost savings, but also because there is help to deal with maintaining the plane.

2) I'm in the SF Bay Area and haven't seen an MU-2 live. Is there an MU-2 community around here? I found two members on BT, Jon Carlson (who is obviously very active on this thread) and Christian Bailey. Would be curious to learn more about specifics of MU-2 ownership in Norcal (i.e. where do you do maintenance, which airports have MU-2s, any noise issues, typical missions from the area, etc?)


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 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

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