BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 16:50

Username Protected wrote:

You are comparing a swept wing multi position leading edge transport wing to a MU-2!

Nobody said that. Who are you arguing with?

Light jets, like a 500/525 series Citation, can be straight wing, no leading edge devices, and yet they leave flaps DOWN when an engine fails.

Quote:

Interesting flight profile from the SFAR. "Engine failure on take off climb not possible".

There are extreme conditions where any twin turboprop won't climb after takeoff. We train for it. Apparently, you do not.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:09

Username Protected wrote:

I thought that luxury was reserved for the "fat wallet/skinny logbook crowd"? Not the guy with the Commercial ticket..

Which is it?

Jason,
When I used to ride with my buddy flying checks in an Mu-2 back in the 1990's, there was an unwritten rule that every freight dog knew. If any plane made it to it's destination that night, no matter what the weather, and you didn't, you wouldn't have a job the next morning. This is totally different from an aircraft owner deciding when he wants to take his pleasure flights.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:17

Quote:

.Light jets, like a 500/525 series Citation, can be straight wing, no leading edge devices, and yet they leave flaps DOWN when an engine fails.

And that is a advantage over taking off slower with no flaps? How is that a good thing.

Quote:

. There are extreme conditions where any twin turboprop won't climb after takeoff. We train for it. Apparently, you do not.

That's different than descending after Take off. Thats what differentiates.

We all train for single engine take offs. It involves flying away not aborting while you are airborne.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:20

Username Protected wrote:

I
Actually yes. A significant aspect to certification is the plane must behave in an expected fashion. So you can take a 182 pilot and put them in a Columbia 400 and vice versa and the pilot will be able to fly the plane.
Tim

So the MU2 has a design flaw.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:23

Username Protected wrote:

So the MU2 has a design flaw.

Yeah, it flies like a jet.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:23

Username Protected wrote:

pleasure flights.

What's a "pleasure flight"?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:26

Username Protected wrote:

I
Actually yes. A significant aspect to certification is the plane must behave in an expected fashion. So you can take a 182 pilot and put them in a Columbia 400 and vice versa and the pilot will be able to fly the plane.
Tim

So the MU2 has a design flaw.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:29

Username Protected wrote:

That's not accurate. The only difference is the use of flaps on take off and the procedure to NOT retract them when you lose an engine on take off. The aircraft was designed that way for a reason. High speed cruise, but ability to slow down enough to land short field. It does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. What it does NOT do is climb on one engine after takeoff after a newly minted ME pilot retracts the flaps like he was taught in the weekend class to get his ME rating.

A minor difference is also using the roll trim to level wings rather than bank into the dead engine.
Pretty easy items to learn with proper training.

I believe you guys. I do think the the MU2 got a raw deal but I also think there's nobody to blame but the manufacturer. I wonder why they didn't put together a better training program from the get go?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:34

Username Protected wrote:

That's not accurate. The only difference is the use of flaps on take off and the procedure to NOT retract them when you lose an engine on take off. The aircraft was designed that way for a reason. High speed cruise, but ability to slow down enough to land short field. It does EXACTLY what it was designed to do. What it does NOT do is climb on one engine after takeoff after a newly minted ME pilot retracts the flaps like he was taught in the weekend class to get his ME rating.

A minor difference is also using the roll trim to level wings rather than bank into the dead engine.
Pretty easy items to learn with proper training.

I believe you guys. I do think the the MU2 got a raw deal but I also think there's nobody to blame but the manufacturer. I wonder why they didn't put together a better training program from the get go?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 17:37

Username Protected wrote:

People wanted to believe that you could get a check out flight and go from a Baron or Seneca and safely fly a 300 knot pressurized 5 ton twin. Sounded good on paper but...not so much.

I just read the last few pages of Pascals thread. The latest info Mike C posted seems to indicate an engine failure in IMC. 2 trained MU2 pilots up front. If it was indeed an engine failure.........

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 18:11

That dang Aubie has done it again! viewtopic.php?f=4&t=122779

:bugeye:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 18:48

Username Protected wrote:

I do think the the MU2 got a raw deal but I also think there's nobody to blame but the manufacturer.

Lot of truth to that, but perhaps not in the way you might have intended.

In the early days, they did whatever they could do to sell the MU2, including pushing it for low time ME piston pilots. I don't think Mooney/Mitsubishi really understood what it meant for salesmen to operate on commission and it is very easy to convince a pilot they are good enough for an MU2.

If you were lucky, you got a check out with a factory pilot, some didn't even get that. Further, the manuals had procedures in them we would consider dangerous, such as liftoff at Vmc to get short field performance. Remember, this was all in the days before simulator training and real type training. There was no "initial" or "recurrent".

Predictably, the accidents started. It was bad.

In the mid 1980s, the manual was overhauled with more sane procedures, and simulator and true type training started. But by this time, the low cost and highly useful MU2 got picked up by the freight dogs, and the painfully inexperienced newbies didn't get trained either, and the accidents didn't stop. The type training owner operators were doing okay with insurance mandated training, but everyone else wasn't.

In 2006, SFAR training started. Freight usage dropped. Newbies had to get training. Been a different story since then.

Rewind history and give the MU2 a type rating from the outset, and the whole story changes. Manual procedures get review and sanity. Pilots get training. Accident rate would be very low.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 20:12

This thread is growing so fast I can't waste time fast enough to keep up!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 03 May 2016, 20:35

Username Protected wrote:

People wanted to believe that you could get a check out flight and go from a Baron or Seneca and safely fly a 300 knot pressurized 5 ton twin. Sounded good on paper but...not so much.

I just read the last few pages of Pascals thread. The latest info Mike C posted seems to indicate an engine failure in IMC. 2 trained MU2 pilots up front. If it was indeed an engine failure.........

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 May 2016, 16:08

Username Protected wrote:

This thread is growing so fast I can't waste time fast enough to keep up!

Nothing of substance has been posted in the last 80 pages or so.

Cirrus SF50