Is that really true? Avidyne used to have significantly more capabilities than Garmin. It was a more fully featured FMS.

Is that really true? Avidyne used to have significantly more capabilities than Garmin. It was a more fully featured FMS.

It just depends on your preference and how your brain works.

I prefer the Avidyne logic over Garmin personally.
I find myself thinking "why is that here" on garmin a lot.
Same with GP, I just don't find it very intuitive, others say the opposite.
I prefer my old GNS480 to the new garmin stuff as far as logic goes.

I can't even figure out how to do flight planning on Garmin Pilot; I do like the way it presents the in flight moving map and Smart charts.

Going with a GTN instead of an IFD was more driven by systems integration with the other stuff going in at the same time, and the fact that Garmin seems to be "winning" so other airplanes I fly (or future airplanes) are statistically more likely to be Garmin and I'll have more "reps". We'll see how that works out...

This question applies to both Mu-2 owners and Turbine Commander owners: how do you deal with 100 hour (or 150 hour) inspections if you are not based at or near a service center? I am in Fort Worth, Mits are serviced in Tulsa and Commanders are serviced in OKC. Both aren't far, but dropping an airplane there once a year for a week seems like a pain in the rear.

Do you fly it in and a commercial airline home? Do you get a contract pilot to do it (the world does not seem to be overflowing with current Mits and Commander pilots)? Does the service center pick it up? None of the options seem cheap or time efficient.

I have a local mechanic that can do the 100 hour, but not the 1 year, in my hangar. This is because hee is a Canadian AME and cannot sign off on the 1 year, thus it only works if I fly more than 100 hours in a calendar year.

For the regular 100/200/600 and 1 year inspection I fly it to Tulsa or Green Bay, drop it off and fly back commercially. It is a pain if you are used to maintenance on the field, however taking a Mits to a service centre (Tulsa, Green Bay WI or Aiken SC) is worth the hassle as they will do it right the first time.

Hilgard

I go to the service centers. If I were smart I would plan an activity to do when the plane was being worked on. I’m not smart so I just hang around

My MU2 was serviced 2.5 hours away by car. They had a beater car I could borrow, or often I had friends who could fly me over/back if need be.

The MU2 is not a good airplane to train your local mechanic on, you want someone who deals with them regularly, so that means finding the shops that know them, and there aren't many of those.


That's true.

In my switch to a Citation, I have saved a bunch of time, money, and complexity because I have it maintained at my home base now and because it has far long inspection intervals. In basic terms, my MU2 had an inspection every 100 hours or 12 months, and I had to fly it there and leave it for 1-2 weeks generally. My Citation is every 3 years or 450 hours, and it is at my home base. The time saved is huge.

Some MU2 owners fly huge distances, like CA to OK or TN, to get service.

In my mind, the number one consideration for choosing a type to own is access to service.

Mike C.

You're better off than most. Both OKC and TUL are easy hops for you and there are tons of direct flights from TUL and OKC to either KDFW or KDAL.

Ok, I love these threads. It’s fun to see watch what drives decisions. I am finally on the search for an F model MU2. How often do these come to market? I don’t seem to ever see them.

From a capex perspective -5 short body models seem to also be available and don’t have as much of a premium as the -10 models. What is the drawback of the -5/-6 models versus -1 or -10 ongoing? I’m specifically looking to skip the pressurized piston twin and go from piston twin to turbine.

Tommy

The -1, -5, -6 engines operate on OH schedule of 5400 hours:

1800 - first hot section
3600 - second hot section and gear box inspection
5400 - overhaul

The -10 has an optional (but nearly everyone chooses it) schedule:

2500 - hot section
5000 - overhaul

Overall that is less cost per hour, less down time.

Additionally, the hot sections on the -1, -5, -6 tend to be expensive, $100-150K a side is not that unusual. The -10 hot section tends to be much less, under $50K typically, the hot section is more robust and the first wheel has segments that can be replaced instead of the whole blisk.

Beyond the engine schedule, the -10 is more efficient, more power, and you fly faster. This saves money by reducing hours on airframe and provides more value for being faster.

I bought a -10 converted M model. I am convinced it saved me money despite the extra capex over the -6 original. Fastest I ever flew in level flight was 324 KTAS, my typically "economy" cruise was 290 KTAS at FL280, 65 GPH.

In simple terms, the premium for the -10 is worth it if you can swing the capex.


I did and didn't regret it. The MU2 can be operated close to the cost per mile of a pressurized cabin class twin and is a far superior airplane.

Mike C.

I've heard stories about Honeywell increasing the cost of these wheels from $40K to almost $400K over the last 10 years. Is that accurate?

Tommy,
From memory, I believe there are only 13 F models left on the registry. They don’t come up for sale often.
I would caution anyone against aiming for an ultra-cheap MU-2, as I did. It might work out well, or, as in the case of the first F model I described, you might need to spend another $150k to get it into shape, which will significantly distort the capital outlay.

It has been stated often on the pages of BT: buy the best example of what you can afford. I completely agree and usually tell others looking at MU-2s that realistically, a good MU-2 will cost around $500–$600k for earlier models and about $700–$800k for a -10 model. The Solitaire and Marquise will add another $100k–$200k for a decent example. If an MU-2 is listed for less than that, the odds are high that you’ll need to spend that amount in the first few years of ownership to bring it up to standard. Now, If you can stomach the above, AND are committed to training, AND will be flying at least 100 hours a year, I cannot recommend an MU-2 highly enough. The annually operating cost is absolutely comparable to a pressurized piston twin. BUT you gain way better reliability and SPEED.

Mike has explained the main drawback of the -5/6 models well: the hot section is much more expensive, the same holds true for the -1 engine in the F. Furthermore, there is a decrease in performance. Roughly speaking, I would say the F model with the -1 engines is 30–40 knots slower than a -10 model, with the -5/6 models in between that.

I would not steer away from a -5/6 model with good engine times, though. They still offer excellent value and performance—275–280 knots is nothing to sneer at. Even if you have to do a hot section on one of those at $150,000, it’s still comparable to an engine overhaul on a Cessna 421, which can easily exceed $100,000 in today’s environment.

After about 350 hours between an F model and a -10, I still cannot say enough good things about the MU-2. It is, without a doubt, the most solid plane I have ever owned. I always said that the 421 was like having a child wearing diapers, it constantly needs changing as something cr@pped out. The MU2 on the other hand is like a well behaved teenager that makes you proud.

Tommy,
From memory, I believe there are only 13 F models left on the registry. They don’t come up for sale often.
I would caution anyone against aiming for an ultra-cheap MU-2, as I did. It might work out well, or, as in the case of the first F model I described, you might need to spend another $150k to get it into shape, which will significantly distort the capital outlay.

It has been stated often on the pages of BT: buy the best example of what you can afford. I completely agree and usually tell others looking at MU-2s that realistically, a good MU-2 will cost around $500–$600k for earlier models and about $700–$800k for a -10 model. The Solitaire and Marquise will add another $100k–$200k for a decent example. If an MU-2 is listed for less than that, the odds are high that you’ll need to spend that amount in the first few years of ownership to bring it up to standard. Now, If you can stomach the above, AND are committed to training, AND will be flying at least 100 hours a year, I cannot recommend an MU-2 highly enough. The annually operating cost is absolutely comparable to a pressurized piston twin. BUT you gain way better reliability and SPEED.

Mike has explained the main drawback of the -5/6 models well: the hot section is much more expensive, the same holds true for the -1 engine in the F. Furthermore, there is a decrease in performance. Roughly speaking, I would say the F model with the -1 engines is 30–40 knots slower than a -10 model, with the -5/6 models in between that.

I would not steer away from a -5/6 model with good engine times, though. They still offer excellent value and performance—275–280 knots is nothing to sneer at. Even if you have to do a hot section on one of those at $150,000, it’s still comparable to an engine overhaul on a Cessna 421, which can easily exceed $100,000 in today’s environment.

After about 350 hours between an F model and a -10, I still cannot say enough good things about the MU-2. It is, without a doubt, the most solid plane I have ever owned. I always said that the 421 was like having a child wearing diapers, it constantly needs changing as something cr@pped out. The MU2 on the other hand is like a well behaved teenager that makes you proud.

The $1M airplane might end being worth $500K also if the market goes down. Much more downside risk in the more expensive airplane. The $300K airplane can't lose $500K value and it has salvage value at some point.


Maybe, but it usually isn't when you fully account for the cost of capital. The $1M tied up in the airplane is on average $100K lost investment income every year.

Mike C.