Gee, missed that in the manual. Where does it say that?

For some reason, my plane and the Simcom simulator don't fly that way. Must be something wrong with my plane, I guess.


Only after completing an initial climb and leveling off at a safe altitude. They do NOT retract flaps WHEN the engine fails. They don't even VERIFY the engine failure until 400 ft AGL!


A Baron takes about ten things when an engine fails and not four (like an MU2) or next to nothing (in a Boeing). Realize the MU2 has drag reduction (NTS) on engine failure and the Baron does not, so the MU2 can tolerate some delay and the Baron not so much.

Baron:
Mixtures - Full Forward
Propellers - Full Increase
Throttles - Full Forward
Flaps - Up
Landing Gear - Up
Airspeed - 100 KIAS
Inoperative Engine - Identify
Throttle (INOP Engine) - Close/Verify
Propeller (INOP Engine) - Feather

MU2:
Landing gear - Up
Airspeed - Vxse minimum for flap configuration
Condition lever - Emergency stop
Power lever - Takeoff

Boeing:
Gear- Up
Airspeed - As briefed

Mike C.

I do continue to be impressed with the way some MU-2 owners defend their aircraft in threads which have nothing to do with MU-2s.
You ask people here about King Air 90s and you hear about what cr*p they are and how you need to buy an MU-2 instead. You ask for some info from operators of Turbo Commanders and you end up with pages of an MU-2 owner telling you what a great machine they are and they are not at all more complicated or unsafe than Turbo Commanders.
This despite the hard numbers, which clearly show that over half of the fleet is no longer flying globally (due to having crashed), a figure out of line with the peer group. All those pilots were just unlucky, poorly trained and the plane is a %#$@# cat.
http://flightlevelsonline.com/2015/summ ... imperfect/
I have done my research, I understand that the MU-2 is a stoutly constructed airframe, randomly still supported by a Japanese producer which is strangely less willing to screw over legacy airframe owners than other companies, it is fast and somewhat unconventional and jet-like with the small wing and lift generating flaps... I get it. But I did start this thread to find out about the Turbo Commanders, I already know plenty about MU-2s, I have considered them but I don't think they are for me.

Begins with someone posting misinformation about MU2s.


And here is an example of that misinformation.

Mike C.

There is so many things wrong here. We must be talking about two different things!

How did the Baron get airborne without the first four steps? Or are you saying the MU2 starts flying when you reach for the gear handle?

Hi Tony,

I think the sooner the better for the Bahamas based on the little I've gathered. I'm thinking others on BT may have a feel what would be beneficial but I haven't seen much posted. A couple folks on the field here have made multiple runs with tarps, water and medical supplies to a church in San Salvador and relayed the appreciation of the locals and bringing photos of the destruction there. The emergency may be under control now; I just don't know. It would be nice to give a something back to the people who always welcome us to enjoy their islands.

The complete "lineage" has taken me about 30 years to figure out given all the models from pistons to the 1000 , but the viable models are 690 and later planes. Simple, supportable systems in general. It's late now so I should probably hit the hay. I can summarize key considerations anytime with you if you'd like to discuss: my cell is 309-397-2525

Best, Bruce

Bruce is of course right about the 690 and upwards, that's when they came into their stride. That said, I would not entirely discard the earlier 681 models if you're on a tight budget. Bill Leff, whom many of you might know from the airshow circuit, has always maintained it's the best model for an owner operator who pays his own bills. No gear overhauls and runs fuel efficient -1 engines (54gal/hr for about 240-250kts).

Bizarrely, there's a very rare "Super One", or "Super Dave" model for sale in Canada right now. It has a hybrid engine: the -6 compression stage mated with the -1 turbine stage via a STC. Very few of these mods were made. This combination makes it produce 840hp all the way up high, and with the lighter 681 frame, you get great performance. On par or exceeding a 690 in speed and climb. Obviously the shorter wing and the lower pressure differential is still limiting factors - wing kinda runs out of poop at FL230… But if you want to go fast for less money, this is a good mod.

They guy was asking way too much for when I checked last year, but he's had almost no interest on it said broker, so I'm sure he'd take a much lower deal. I would probably offer myself, if I hadn't bought mine already.

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetail/aircraft-for-sale/COMMANDER-681/1971-COMMANDER-681/1326755.htm

The "Super One" can't make 840 HP under any circumstances.

It will still make 575 HP takeoff, 500 hp continuous on the 681, it just won't reach temp limit for about 3K more altitude. It has the net effect of making the engine feel like the air is colder, but that doesn't give you more maximum power, just extends the altitudes and temperatures over which you can get maximum power.

Mike C.

Is the F Model dangerous then?

I had wrongly assumed the OEI performance of a -10 MU2 would be similar to a Commander. While its not a deal killer, it definitely takes the smell off the rose.

I have to assume a -1 F would be a step back (for MY mission) from my piston ride on a hot day (also known as every day where I live).

More than other MU2s. It doesn't take an unusual day for it to have lackluster OEI climb.

The G model, a long body with -1 engines, was scary. No more of those flying now, thankfully.

There is no absolute standard for "dangerous" and "safe" as is implied by your question. I think it is far more safe to be in an F model than in any single engine airplane. The one engine out climb performance of an F model is way better than, say, a TBM.

That all said, if your primary requirement is OEI climb performance, hard to beat the Commanders.

Mike C.

Similar engines, no. A -10 MU2 won't climb OEI like a -10 Commander. A -10 MU2 will climb as well if not better than a -1 Commander, though, apples to oranges.


Realize that climbing less is not the same as not climbing at all. The Commanders are VERY good at OEI climb, but the MU2 manages quite well.


Yes, a -1 airplane (MU2 or Commander) in the desert SW is not a good fit. Minimum would be -5/-6, and -10 highly preferred, IMO.

For your locale, I'd also favor a plane with freon air for both the precool on the ground and for the less engine power it robs on climb out. MU2s are generally not available with freon air, Commanders much more so from what I can see.

Mike C.

The standard for dangerous for the purpose of this discussion would be situations on takeoff in which if an engine failed you'd likely not be able to safely fly away.

I disagree with Mike there. Here is a video of me hitching a ride in my friends 681. We had almost full fuel, 3 person onboard, hot day at KMYF in the 90's. As you can see we're airborne at first intersection. That's 2100ft when measured. And my friend doesn't even go to max 575 degrees, he just uses the continuous 545 degree setting for T/O. At full power he could probably shave another 200ft off. Cruise climb 1600ft/min at 170kts, so close to 3000ft is totally doable at Vy, is my guess.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/dWgEPvx8p6g[/youtube]

Another benefit of -1 Commanders is the temps mentioned above. MU-2's with same engine run them close to 650 degrees as I understand. This means when it comes to hot sections, the Commanders will have less damage and cost less to do.

Now fail an engine, in Phoenix, at 40C surface temps.

Not fun with -1.


This does not compute.

First off, the -1 on an MU-2 F model doesn't run 650 C EGT. The 5 minute takeoff limit is 572 C which is actually lower than the 681 limit of 576 C. Both have a 550 C continuous limit.

Second, the EGT temperature limit is all about keeping the peak temperature under control. The actual number doesn't mean much, it is calibrated for the sensor location, aircraft setup, etc. The only thing that matters is that you are under the limit. This is why the 5 minute takeoff limit is slightly different between the 681 and MU-2F, the 681 has a longer tail pipe which raises EGT indications for the same max temp at turbine inlet.

Third, the 650 C number comes from the installations that have SRL computers. It is a fake number, the EGT isn't actually 650 C but more around 560 C. The extra 90 C indication is added by the SRL computer. If you fly a Commander with SRL, I believe the temp red line is also 650 C indication. If the SRL computer fails or is turned off, then the EGT gauge reads real EGT and the pilot has to look up a temp limit on a table (which is what -1 pilots do normally, and what my -10AV engine does as well).

Mike C.