When you look at the MU2's on the market there aren't that many. Roughly half on the market have some version of modern avionics (G600, GTN 750/650, etc.). Anybody have a feel for the price delta between those with upgraded panels and those with legacy? (Of course their is a high per cent age of difficult sellers who insist you call to determine what they want for the airplane ).

What does it cost to upgrade one of these planes with single or dual G600's and a GTN or two?

I think you will find the 3 blade airplanes are 5-8 knots faster than the 4 blade ones given comparable conditions. The slower 4 blade props are not quite as efficient in cruise due to high advance angle.


Not available and very likely never will be. Only the Solitaire and Marquise were certified above FL280, and only to FL310, and the Marquise can't really use that altitude anyway. It would be a lot of money for those 3,000 ft. The MU2 wing is just too small to fly very high, but it is very good in the mid 20s.


That works out to an empty weight of 6,810 lbs (10,520 max ramp weight minus 2700 fuel minus 1010 cabin load).

I call shenanigans. Your plane is not that light. If the W&B says that, it is wrong (which is common) and you need to get it weighed so you know truly that your are operating within limits, both weight and CG. I predict you are roughly 300 pounds heavier than you think.

Mike C.

Yes, the supply is quite low of what I would call "quality" airplanes.


About $60K, or the cost of doing the upgrade to G600 plus GTN.

Worst case scenario is a plane with halfway good avionics but you still want the new stuff. The seller wants that value paid for, the buyer is going to remove it so doesn't want to pay.

Mike C.

Question for the MU2 drivers out there...

What's your feeling on the MU2 market from a resale standpoint? Assuming you price your bird 'fairly', how long does a FMV-priced MU2 stay on the market before it moves? My guess is that this is a relatively small market without a great deal of activity. It appears that many are not that well informed on the MU2 and the stigma over the previous safety concerns (invalid today) and the SFAR barrier to entry I would guess would turn away a lot of potential buyers.

This is the the other important factor in my mind for a/c selection, which is how fast and at what cost can one expect to sell the MU2 once you're ready to move on?

Certainly, one would expect that the sales process would take longer than a nice A36 or Baron. However, how would time on the market compare to say a typical C421?

Different models have different metrics. A high quality Solitaire/Marquise will move fairly quick. My airplane is towards the upper end in value. It was not on the market a month. After I signed the purchase agreement, the seller was offered an additional $50k to back out of my deal.

The real nice ones that have been completely refurbed have sold for $1MM +.

Again, I will say the SFAR should not be a financial concern. With my 421, I was going to school every year. With my MU2, I go to school every year. The training cost difference is marginal in the grand scheme.

You had better not handle an engine failure in an Mu-2 just like a Baron.

Piston pilots are taught to verify the failed engine by retarding the throttle/power lever.

This is NOT done in a Garrett powered turboprop.

If the NTS system fails or malfunctions your only back up is the Beta Follow Up, which start to drain oil out of the propellor hub and keep the blades from going flat. Beta follow up only works with the power lever fully forward.

Having trained pilots who are simultaneously flying piston and Garrett powered twins I have seen this come up in the simulator.

It's important that pilots don't revert to piston; identify, verify, feather procedures.

Another critical procedure is, don't start raising flaps until you have verified safe airspeed for retraction. That will get you into trouble more-so than the King Air due to the small wing on the MU2.

I'm not familiar with the SFAR training, but I'm assuming it uses the segments for FAR 25 category aircraft for profiles or something similar?

I understand the additional cost of the 4 bladed prop newer planes. In exchange for that costs you get a better AP, increased pressurization and 30 minutes more fuel.

Is that accurate?

I'm not familiar with the SFAR training, but I'm assuming it uses the segments for FAR 25 category aircraft for profiles or something similar?

No.

Better autopilot (cheaper to maintain at least) is only very late models, not all 4 blades

I think some 3 blades may have the 6.0 psi diff

The 4 blades are slightly slower so the extra fuel doesn't translate into extra range so much.

I personally know of 6 people looking for the right MU2 right now. There is demand.

The supply of quality airplanes is low.

If you have a quality airplane, and price it properly, it will sell in a few months.

If you don't, it will stay unsold for a long time, and most of the listings are in this class as one would expect over time.

In this class airplane, with operating expenses being what they are, saving $50K on the purchase price is not as compelling as getting the features you want. So buyers move carefully and tend to not go for the low cost airplanes so much. The mid to upper end is where the action is.


The real quality airframes never hit the web. My "call me before you sell" list is 4 people presently for my airplane.


In the information age, this has not been a problem. Any halfway diligent buyer can find out all they want, like reading this thread. The informed buyer has revolutionized the MU2 market.

The SFAR was expected to be almost a death penalty for the MU2, but it has been curiously good for the MU2 market. We have pilots who are seemingly attracted to the MU2 because of the SFAR. I personally enjoy training, but I didn't think that was a common view.


Depends on what you bought, what condition it is in, and what time is on the engines.

Things start to get really slow when you have less than 1000 hours left before overhaul. The market perception of value drops non linearly and rapidly as you approach that. The first 1000 hours of engine costs you almost nothing in market value, the last 1000 can cost almost everything.

Mike C.

Welcome to BT Mike ;)

:clap:

The details:

Autopilots:

Starting in 1980, MU2s came with the SPZ500 autopilot (commonly found in early Citations). The autopilot is nicer in that it had additional modes (altitude preselect, vertical speed select, indicated airspeed select). It also requires less maintenance. But when it does need maintenance, it is expensive. It has a lot of big boxes with lots of wires running to them, usually in the nose.

Since Solitaires and Marquise were introduced in 1979, there are some with the older M4D autopilot. The M4D was introduced in 1973. It is a good autopilot, but the servos have powder clutches that wear out every 1000 hours or so and are expensive to overhaul. I've managed to not do that by buying used servos off Ebay and other places. The M4D works nice when it works.

1972 and prior was the M4C. Even less features. Lacked flight director capability, for example. Same servo issues as M4D.

A new autopilot for the MU2 would be a welcomed thing. I may get involved in a project to do that at some point.

Increased Pressurization:

1974 and prior was 5 PSI cabin (8,000 ft cabin at FL250). 1975 and later was 6 PSI cabin (8,000 ft cabin at FL280). My plane, M model, is 1975 with 6 PSI cabin and FL280 ceiling, so you don't need to get 4 blade to get 6 PSI, but there aren't that many planes like that.

More Fuel:

1978 and earlier had 366 gallons usable fuel. 1979 and later had 403 gallons. The extra 37 gallons adds a bit to range, but the 4 blade props take a bit away, so the net impact is not overly significant, maybe about 75 nm.

The P model with 4 blades but 366 gallons, is the shortest range. P models are notorious for being sold and resold. New MU2 buyers think they are "almost" Solitaires, but they really aren't. So they often upgrade to a real Solitaire (more fuel, -10 engines), or they go earlier and get a plane that performs better for less money and fuel.

The fastest MU2 is a -10 upgraded K model. This is due to it being the lightest, smallest -10 capable MU2. My plane is a touch heavier, so a tiny bit slower, maybe 2 knots, but I get FL280 ceiling, 6 PSI cabin, and 500 pounds higher gross, all of which the K model lacks.

Mike C.

No need to be that way, Craig. I don't just pluck dream figures out of thin air. Look at this video I took with my old engines and you'll see my fuel burn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EED8HXr1cAU

You do the math. With an 'overfilled' aux tank on the Aerostar (225gal), and pulled back to greater economy (20,8gph doing 184kts at FL250 per POH) 2000nm is very possible. Add a little tailwind to that and you even have a margin.