Garmin just officially Shot Down the Mu2 from the List for future G600 Autopilot work.

Too bad, but I understand the ROI rationale.

TJ

Those would have been the happiest dollars I would have ever spent

Would have been a new lease on life for that plane. Can't even imagine how nice that would have been.

Our M4D always worked pretty good if you gave it a little nudge, and a hug and were patient if (when) it was scared.

T

While the Bendix M4 autopilots are old, they are repairable and you can get parts. With the right add ons (Sandel SN3500 in my plane) they can do roll steering too. I can turn mine on in climb and then only have to touch it to level off, then descend, and then when it intercepts the glideslope. Setting a pitch attitude to get a desired climb or descent rate isn't that hard, and with roll steering I never touch it enroute, it simply flies to where the GPS is programmed to go. I am told the servos should be cleaned every 500 hours or so. Program the GPS properly and push the right buttons at the right times and it flies the airplane pretty well. Once we got it working properly it has been stable and reliable for 300 hours now. Yeah, a new autopilot would be nice, but I am not sure it would be worth the expense to me to install it in my 50 year old plane.

Jeff Axel
N228WP

I agree with Jeff, mine has been fine. And good automation.

Yikes.
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.

Love that panel Neema.

Agree on the OEI stuff.

The MU2 AFM appears to have been modified by lawyers. My current MU2, a solitaire, was produced in 1979 but has revisions dated 2006 for single engine climb performance. The landing distance chart was “reissued” in 1986. I’m sure all of this was to dumb the plane down by publishing reduced performance data. Mitsubishi wasn’t selling new planes and had no incentive to advertise all the available performance. No matter what the actual capability of the plane, there will be less accidents if the runways are longer. As has been pointed out,BT contributor Jon Carlson was based at an airport with a runway the revised charts show he couldn’t possibly land at

For sure. The 1.5vs0 flaps 40 thing makes 40* mostly unusable if you are following the book.

I haven't done it but I bet a flaps 40 minimum speed approach could get you into a postage stamp. Getting back out is certainly not in the books either.

When we had our M-model I just dedicated myself to flying the plane by the book all the time and that always worked.

For sure. The 1.5vs0 flaps 40 thing makes 40* mostly unusable if you are following the book.

I haven't done it but I bet a flaps 40 minimum speed approach could get you into a postage stamp. Getting back out is certainly not in the books either.

When we had our M-model I just dedicated myself to flying the plane by the book all the time and that always worked.

Well... in fairness, the runway performance charts issued were only for distances over a 50' obstacle, there were no ground roll charts for example (either takeoff or landing). And no acc/stop or acc/go, either, at least published with the new techniques and speeds.

Since I sold mine, there are now only 2 MU-2s based at KSQL.

But yes, in general the distances in the charts were pessimistic relative to what the airplane would do. On landing rwy 30, if I wanted to use the brakes, I could make it off on Twy E for those inclined to look it up. That's with a couple people and an hour's worth of fuel on landing.

It was before my time here, but in the 1980s (I think) there was an air ambulance service based out of KSQL that flew MU-2 long bodies.

I love the flying qualities of the Piaggio, but the Mits was a lot better at short field.