Problem is, it's these types of generalizations that are intuitive enough but sometimes don't sync up with reality.

There are a lot of knobs (variables), and when they are all factored in some stuff happens that even true geniuses would not have predicted.

So bringing to the table some empirical data would go a long way toward making a convincing argument.

We were posting at the same time. My comments are at the bottom of the post immediately preceding Mike's last post. Believe what you want. My opinion (and that is all it is, an opinion) is that some of what you state is dead on correct, some of it is flat out wrong, but the beauty of it is neither matters to me.

Others can draw their own conclusions. What I would offer to those interested in the MU-2 is:
- do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
- talk to a number of different people. There are some incredibly knowledgeable folks in the MU-2 community who are that community's equivalent of Tom Clements in the King Air world. I've put several folks from this list in touch with some of them.
- Every model of MU-2 has advantages and disadvantages (just like any other plane). What is best for one person is not necessarily best for another. The beauty of out world is that we have choices!
- if you're interested, I'd suggest you join the MU-2 forum/mailing list (http://www.mu-2aopa.com). It is not as big of a list as Beechtalk, but I would submit it is the single best place on the planet today to learn about the MU-2.

Well said. There are major variations of airplane speeds and performance even amongst all the Marquise models (MU-2 I am the most familiar with). Of course these planes are now all 25-30 years old. They all have different weights. Different time engines in different condition putting out different amounts of power. Blade angles may not all be set the same. They have different antennas on them. I know of one Marquise that consistently flies 15 knots faster than mine. Why is the result of a number of different issues. I think why is:
- He has a G600, I have analog gauges (less weight).
- My plane has two relief tubes, his has none (less drag).
- My plane was equipped for transatlantic operations and has an HF wire antenna running from the wing to the vertical stabilizer (more drag).
- He has relatively low time engines. I have a mid-time engine and a high time engine (mine are almost certainly putting out less power).

Should all of that account for the 15 kt difference when flying at the same altitude on the same route of flight on the same day? The answer is "we're not sure". His plane has been tweaked and all rigging verified. Mine is going to be looked at again next month. Additionally, my plane may have mis-adjusted temp compensators (meaning that when I think I'm at 650C SRL EGT, I'm actually at 630 or 640 C and actually am running at a reduced power level.

Given all of those variables, the only numbers I think we can use to compare are the published book numbers and performance table numbers. We all know that those are optimal numbers but they at least had a basis in fact. EVERY published document out there says the Solitaire has at least 139NM greater maximum range than any other MU-2 (short or long body). I can't believe that there isn't some basis in those numbers...but what the heck do I know. I'm just a dumb Navy guy who (like everyone else on Beechtalk) is blessed to be a pilot and have the opportunity to fly a plane. Good enough for me!

For any Beechtalk member who would like to see (and maybe fly in an MU-2) I'm happy to show you mine. I'm based at KHEF (Manassas, VA near Washington DC). Plane is at KSDL (Scottsdale, AZ right now) but I'm flying out Monday to pick up the plane and bring it back East. If you aren't near the DC area but would like to be linked up with someone, drop me a note with your location. Odds are their is a Mits driver near you who would be happy to show you his/her plane!

Mike, I was seriously considering a Marquise before I finally bought a Solitaire, so when I studied the POH the first time around it was for the Marquise. Subsequently, I studied the POH for the Solitaire. I also seriously considered N450FS, an M model, so I studied that POH as well. All of the data on Reece's sheet jive exactly with the data supplied by the manufacturer.

Your -10 M model is undoubtedly faster than the one I flew because it can make power in thinner air; the -6 powered M I flew was seriously running out of compressor in the teens and didn't want to go much higher than FL230. That said, both the Solitaire and the M model have max gross weights of 10,520lbs, so the only appreciable difference in performance I see is that the Solitaire holds 37 gallons more fuel (so it can go 150NM farther if both are at 305true) while the M can go a little extra distance because of the little extra speed (you claim 5-8 KTAS, so call it an extra 7NM per hour; that's 28NM in four hours cruise). That equates to 122NM using your assertions, not 75NM.

BTW- if you don't want to OH your props every seven years (AMOC), don't. AD or no, I sure as hell would and will. Different strokes I suppose. For me that AD is a non-event because I would have done that anyhow. Every throw a prop blade? Me neither. I'm not going to take chances.

The MU-2 was fine for me but all my passengers read about the plane and concluded that they fall out of the sky. After a friend of mine pancaked his with his family I got tired of telling them it was safe and sold it. The good news was that for a little extra money after the sale the MU-2 became a Lear Jet. The costs clearly moved up but after 6 years of Lear Jet ownership I can say that the Lear Jet is only 1.23X the MU-2. Not bad for another 150 knots.

The "for only 25% more..." escalator just never ends, does it?

Without seeing the planes, I would say "no". 15 knots is a very large difference that isn't usually explained by the items you mentioned.

I would say the most likely cause is a difference in engine health and/or power. Put both airplanes at the same altitude and compare engine numbers. It could be your engines are just not producing power to the same degree. If he can go higher before temp limiting or get higher torque when limited, he will win on speed.

There are possible gross rigging or other problems that could explain it, but these are rare in an airplane that otherwise handles well.


I think the Solitaire can fly about 75 nm further than I can. We both have -10 engines, same max weight, same altitude, so the difference comes from the extra fuel the Solitaire has and the better prop efficiency I have.


There is some basis, it just isn't equal for all the airplanes listed. Unequal assumptions results in misleading outcomes. If we give every airplane the same assumptions, then we get data that can be meaningfully compared.

Mike C.

They did it differently for the M:

M empty: 6892
M useful load: 3423

Adds up to 10,315

Actual M max ramp weight is 10,520.

205 pounds went missing in the chart for the M. Where did they go?

Solitaire empty: 7010
Solitaire useful: 3510

Adds up to 10,520

No missing pounds.

Looks like someone deducted the pilot (and 5 more pounds?) from the M useful load, but not for the Solitaire. Someone looking at the chart goes "Hey, the Solitaire has more useful load than an M".

Wrong.

How many examples of unequal treatment do I have to present before you question the value of this chart? It is riddled with errors like the above.

Mike C.

So I dug out the original sales literature published by Mitsubishi. Here are the advertised ranges:

F model: max range FL230 with 45 min reserve: 1560 sm (1356 nm)

K model: max range FL250 with 45 min reserve: 1600 sm (1390 nm)

M model: max range FL280 with 45 min reserve: 1600 sm (1390 nm)

P model: max range FL280 with 45 min reserve: 1600 sm (1390 nm)

Solitaire: max range FL310 with 45 min reserve: 1840 sm (1600 nm)

I have no idea where Reece got his numbers, but they don't match what Mitsubishi advertised.

Although K, M, P are all listed with the same range, the M is just a K that can fly higher, which improves range, and the P is just an M with a less efficient prop, which reduces range.

The Solitaire can't be flown at FL310 any more, well, at least not here in the US. The extra range came from FL310, the extra fuel, and the extra efficiency of the -10 engine.

Mike C.

Do you have links to the literature? Would love to see it....

With respect to the ranges you are pulling, they appear to be with reserves...different numbers than the maximum endurance ranges on the sheet. The ranges with reserves are not listed (says NA) on the sheet for the M and P models. The F and K models do match for reserve number. 1600 is not the reserve numbe for a Solitaire - it's the max endurance number., with reserves it should be 1455. If anything appears to be off, it would be that number in your ref. Can we see it? You're quoting numbers without showing us the ref. I've shown/shared links to three refs which all are consistent. You say those numbers are wrong and now say you have a ref which shows different numbers. I'd like to see them so I can judge for myself...

Not online, scanned PDFs from 1 to 11 MB, too big to attach to forum post. Ideas?

Mike C.

Sure. You can post links the the file and put them on a server. Save in smaller format. Put them in drop box with links to them. All kinds of ways. If you want, I can give you access to my FYI server and you can upload there, then link to them.

Send me email with means and I will upload.

Mike C.

Can't fly without reserves, so that's reasonable. Numbers to dry tanks are not published for obvious reasons.


They say "With 4 Passengers, MBNN, VRR, Reserves, ISA, Zero Wind, Max Recommended Cruise Power".

Do you know what MBNN or VRR mean? Without knowing that, no way to properly interpret that line as to what it means.


The F and K sales number (which is long range cruise) appears on the "MBNN" line (which says max cruise power). The Solitaire sales number appears on the "max" line. The M and P sales number don't appear anywhere.

Once again, the sheet is inconsistent.

Mike C.

Gentlemen,

IMHO, the inconsistencies in sales literature numbers is because they are just that, "sales or marketing numbers". Not FAA approved data and not approved for flight planning purposes. Not required to be completely accurate. They are for "information purposes" only. How many times do we read or hear that disclaimer? Nowadays, thanks to lawyers, it is on most every non-FAA approved aircraft document.

Perhaps, if you are somewhat OCD, like me, you would think the marketing department would want their sales info to be consistent and completely accurate. Obviously, they were held to a lower standard than everyone else at Mitsubishi. Which somewhat surprises me.

Bright side is, gives us something to rant about.