Username Protected wrote:
I have considered the MU2 but didn't know what the maintenance would cost per year flying 100 hrs a year
I have 6 years of records. I will post them at some point showing my costs. The MU2 has been very economical to maintain and doesn't break down hardly at all.
Quote:
as well as would that be enough hours to stay proficient in the MU2.
It isn't quantity of hours that matter most, it is quality of hours. You can stay proficient at 100 hours/year. Hand fly approaches as often as you can. Take good training. Get sim time.
Quote:
What is the TBO on the engines
5000 to 9000 hours depending on situation. Most part 91 guys are on one of these two plans:
1800: hot section
3600: hot section, gear box
5400: overhaul
Or
2500: hot section
5000: overhaul
I'm on the latter plan (which works only for -10 engines).
If you are on an engine program (power by the hour), they extend to 3500/7000 hours.
The costs are much lower and the intervals much longer than PT6. The fuel efficiency is also much higher such that the fuel the TPE331 saves pays for the overhaul as compared to a PT6.
Quote:
I want something to fly 1200-1500 more hrs in next 12-15 years and throw it away as it will be 45+ years old, not looking for return on investment.
Well, there are inexpensive MU2s with those kinds of engine times, if you are truly looking for a disposable aircraft.
But, in 45 years, the MU2 will still be viable. My plane is 39 years old now and it has LOTS of life left. A friend's F model is 46 years old and flying fine. The MU2 is way overbuilt, so the usual issues of fatigue and corrosion are not afflicting the fleet to any great extent.
Quote:
I understand the now training has basically eliminated the accident issues from early on
Since SFAR training, 2 fatal accidents. In the equivalent time period prior to SFAR training, 20 fatal accidents. A 90% drop in accident rate.
The two fatals were a misconfigured stall in low IMC, and a pilot induced (probably) engine out that was mishandled by a pilot on his very first solo.
Quote:
For the past 26 years I have ONLY owned Beechcraft products
Mitsubishi and Beech are more related than you might know. Beech had a contract to support the MU2 back in the 1990s sometime (before Turbine Air got involved), and the Mitsubishi Diamond Jet became the Beech 400 jet.
Mike C.