Another MU2 down...

[five-alive]

I believe that any plane that requires you to bring your "A-game" everytime is a poorly designed plane. There should be some margin of error, and you should not have to defend an airplane

 

[Cardinal]

Like driving a Pinto, but taking great care to avoid getting rear-ended??

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Orville and Wilbur used "wing warping" for lateral control, effectively the same as ailerons.

Think about how we were all trained in piston twins for single engine, bank slightly into the good engine and handle yaw with rudder. Bank an mu2 and your are putting a board up on the good wing, killing lift, increasing drag, etc. Add ice to the equation, yikes.

Remember, certification flight are conducted in a new airplane, carefully maintained, flown by a test pilot who knows whats going to happen and when.

Its my opinion that the 900EX I fly is the easiest airplane I've had the pleasure to operate. Looking back i can't believe I was flying a Seneca I engine out for my multi training.

Night freight guys in barons, caravans, mu-2's, etc are working. I'm watching an airplane fly me around.

RIP

 

[Dangerkitty]

Think about how we were all trained in piston twins for single engine, bank slightly into the good engine and handle yaw with rudder. Bank an mu2 and your are putting a board up on the good wing, killing lift, increasing drag, etc. Add ice to the equation, yikes.

Remember, certification flight are conducted in a new airplane, carefully maintained, flown by a test pilot who knows whats going to happen and when.

Most of the aircraft I have flown use spoilers to augment the ailerons in flight (B-727, B-737, MD-80, ATR-42, ATR-72) You never ever ever bank the aircraft into the good engine during an engine failure. Especially during a V1 cut. Doing so might be the last time you ever bank an aircraft.

Are you stating that every aircraft that uses spoliers for roll control or to assist in roll control are unsafe and should be decertified? If so I think you are being a bit extreme.

Night freight guys in barons, caravans, mu-2's, etc are working. I'm watching an airplane fly me around.

Agreed.

 

[dseagrav]

Most of the aircraft I have flown use spoilers to augment the ailerons in flight (B-727, B-737, MD-80, ATR-42, ATR-72) You never ever ever bank the aircraft into the good engine during an engine failure. Especially during a V1 cut. Doing so might be the last time you ever bank an aircraft.

Wait, wait - Stupid student time - Explain this, why doesn't it work with spoiler augmentation? The spoiler reduces lift on the downgoing wing - Doesn't the aileron going up do the same thing?

 

[Dangerkitty]

Wait, wait - Stupid student time - Explain this, why doesn't it work with spoiler augmentation? The spoiler reduces lift on the downgoing wing - Doesn't the aileron going up do the same thing?

dseagrav,

I am not sure I follow your question. What doesn't work with spoiler augmentation?

 

[Dangerkitty]

If you do a search for the Cessna the majority of accidents are non-fatal...when you search for MU-2 accidents, just about every other one is a fatal.

If you do a little more research you will also see that when it comes to engine failures, statistics show that being in a single engine is much safer than being in a twin. Twin engine props have over twice the fatality rate as single engine props when it comes to engine abnormalities.

 

[dseagrav]

dseagrav,

I am not sure I follow your question. What doesn't work with spoiler augmentation?

Banking into the good engine. (Or is that bad for all twins?)

 

[Dangerkitty]

Like your son I started out in the Mu-2 with about 2800tt and when all said and done I gathered some 6500 hours in the type flying all the models currently in the U.S… During that time in the plane I suffered three engine failures, one crew hatch window failure, and a dual inverter failure during IMC conditions and the list continues...I just happened to be quick to get the plane under control and get it back on the ground. The final straw that got me out of the plane was when I lost an engine with ¾’s of a load of canceled check and simply couldn’t maintain altitude until the plane descended to thicker air and I was able to get it to an airport … I did pee my pants.

You could insert any airplane into the above statement and it would still be valid. If you lose an engine in a twin even though you take away 50% of the power you take away 80% of the performance. I have been flying a jet filled with passengers when we lost an engine at FL350. We had to descend as well because that aircraft wouldn't hold altitude until we got down into the low 20's. In the industry we call this a drift down. Should the jet I was flying be decertified because it couldn't hold altitude when it lost an engine at FL350? I dont think so.

I am sorry for your loss but until the facts are in about the accident I think we should withhold judgement as to what happened and the safety of the MU-2.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Banking into the good engine. (Or is that bad for all twins?)

Ok, I see where you are getting at. I will try to get my point across without typing too much.

On a light twin banking into the good engine will increase performance. But most light piston twins cannot and will not climb shortly after VR when an engine failure has occured. The Baron I used to fly would only climb after VR during an engine out only if I was light or it was cold outside.

Jets on the other hand must demonstrate that they can climb on one engine if an engine failure happens at V1 and continue the takeoff to an altitude of at least 35 feet at the end of the runway.HOWEVER, on MOST jets there is no need to bank into the good engine for a number of factors.

Most heavy jets and even smaller jets have spoilers that help to augment roll control during low speed operations. Using ailerons during take off with an engine failure can spoil crtitical lift and make climb performance suffer.
On the MD-80, B-727, B-737, ATR-42, ATR-72 and even the EMB's you can pull back on the control column only and continue the takeoff after engine failure just by using rudder for directional control. Using ailerons for directional control will only make a bad problem worse.

Using rudder instead ailerons during the takeoff after an engine failure will allow to pilot to maintain aircraft control without giving himself any undue handicaps. No need to use ailerons.

For what its worth however there is a plane that sometimes needs banking into the good engine after engine failure. The Falcon 50EX does need at times a little aileron at times when you lose one of its three engines UNLESS of course the engine failure was in the #2 middle engine.

Of my 7600 hours of flight time and experience in 8 jets the Falcon 50EX is the first aircraft I have come across that need a little aileron at times during engine loss.

Clear as mud?

 

[dseagrav]

Clear as mud?

Yeah, I get the idea. "With jets, you have enough thrust that you don't need to sacrifice lift in the form of banking to gain/maintain altitude, whereas single-engine piston twins have the performance of a winged brick and need help in the form of banking to reduce drag-due-to-yaw to a manageable value." Or something close to that. It'll be some time before I have to worry about multi stuff, I just like to cheat and know some things ahead of time. ^_^

 

[Dangerkitty]

Yeah, I get the idea. "With jets, you have enough thrust that you don't need to sacrifice lift in the form of banking to gain/maintain altitude, whereas single-engine piston twins have the performance of a winged brick and need help in the form of banking to reduce drag-due-to-yaw to a manageable value." Or something close to that. It'll be some time before I have to worry about multi stuff, I just like to cheat and know some things ahead of time. ^_^

I will be honest, it has been awhile since I have flown a light piston twin. And to tell you the truth I only have about 75-100 hours in piston twins.

I think you understand the situation and have a firm grasp of the concept.

 

[Flechas]

I think what he is talking about is that if you bank into the good engine in a plane that uses spoilers to roll, you are spoiling the airflow over that wing, decreasing performance big time. When you bank into the good engine in a plane than only uses ailerons, you are only decreasing lift by reducing the anfle of attack on that wing.

 

[Dangerkitty]

some people out there are defending this plane...okay, go ahead, but please stop defending it like you have some emotional attachment to it and that "most" of the mu-2 crashes were because of pilot error. We're all aviation people here...all kinds of planes crash...we get it, we know. These planes will obviously keep flying...our loved ones won't. Try our shoes on for a day....we dare you.

With all due respect I think it is you who is getting emotional over the safety of the MU-2. And I can understand why.

But before you lash out at this aircraft I think that the prudent thing to do would be to wait for the NTSB to come out with their report before you start bashing the aircraft and dont have all the facts.

I am sorry for your loss.

 

[hotwings402]

Now I really have no room to speak since I have'nt flown the bird. BUT All the accidents seem to be from engine failures or some wierd occurance with ice of something. Wonder how this airplane really compares to others when correct for flight hours flown, like 1 accident per 100,000 flight hours etc then we can start making opinions. I can't say I'd get in the aircraft as a pilot or a pax, not when there are much safer alternatives.

 

[avbug]

For those that are melting down when one person they know is lost...you should know that after the fifteenth friend, and the thirtieth...it still doesn't get any easier. At the same time, one comes to realize that it's not a melt down panic situation...it's a tragedy, it's a loss, it's sad. But it's no time to go blaming the airplane. Friend gets shot, we don't blame the gun, we blame the shooter. Friend dies in a fire, we look to the cause of the fire, not the fire itself. Friend makes a personal choice and jumps off a bridge...you get the idea. We don't blame the bridge.

A poor carpenter blames his tools...a poor pilot blames his or her airplane. I die in an airplane, don't go blaming it on the airplane. Even if it comes apart in flight, I'm the guy who signed for it, I'm the guy who made the decision to fly it, and I'm the guy who was acting as the supreme authority in this world with respect to the responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight, and yes...you can lay the blame on my soulders, if you're one of those candy-assed blame-seeking sort of kalifornian fruitcakes. Some of us would rather seek soloutions than spend a lifetime seeking blame, but then that's just the maturity and responsibility peeking through. Go figure.

Any professional pilot who blames the airplane overhimself is no professional, but a kid with a lot of growing up to do. If you elect to fly the airplane and you think it's beyond you, then you're making an unprofessional and irresponsible, and criminal mistake...but it's your mistake, not the airplane. I don't care what kind of airplane it is, be it a mitsubishi, bonanza, viper jet, or super cub. It's YOUR choice. Don't feed the world crap talk about how xxx couldn't refrain, was too drawn to the light. We're all in the same boat, some of us have been flying since before we could drive, and have sacrificed just about every aspect of our lives to make this our way of life. I fully understand what drives someone to fly, but don't mitigate a pilot's personal responsibility in the cockpit with sad stories about the airplane, or this or that, leading to tragedy.

It's the pilot. 100% pure and simple, always the pilot, who takes full responsibility as pilot in command, for the safe outcome of the flight. We bet our lives on that fact, live and die by that fact.

Lost close friends and relatives, walk a mile in your shoes? Every damn day. Every day. More losses each year by percentage of aircraft in service, by percentage of pilots involved, by percentage of hours flown, than most any combat unit...year after year. Not once have I ever lashed out at the airplane, even when the airplane broke up in flight, even when friends died, even when I was personally involved, even when I watched it happen and personally put out the fire. Been there. Done that. Will probably do it again...and one day someone will be there for me, too.

But this business of lashing out and blaming the airplane is ludicruous, stupid, foolish, nuts, childish. I had a room-mate once who loved to shoot hoops. Funny thing was that when the ball didn't go through the hoop, he'd get mad at the ball. He'd yell at it, he's even hit it. He'd blame it...it's the ball's fault he didn't make the basket. Didn't matter what make of ball, where the sun was, how much he practiced, weather he'd had his wheaties or enough sleep...he blamed the ball. Some pilots blame the airplane.

The loss of integrity enough to take the full brunt of the blame for what goes wrong on our flight is a loss of honor, and a degredation of the industry. When we begin to blame the airplane instead of ourselves, or to look anywhere but ourselves for the full and total responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight, we belittle ourselves, we belittle others, we insult the intelligence of those of us who know better, and who hold the honor and responsibility and professionalism high enough in esteem to take that responsibility.

Loss is painful. We seek understanding. We seek help. We seek an answer. All too often, there isn't one, so we make one. We lay blame. We file lawsuits. We cry foul, we call for grounding this or that. Someone must be to blame, after all, right?

Yes. Us. We. The pilots. The crew. Most specifically, the pilot in command. If you can't take responsibility for being in command, if you're not man enough to stand up and point your finger at yourself and quit making excuses about weather, airplanes, company, union, other crewmembers...then step aside, because you've failed your most basic duty as PIC.

All this talk about Learjets, the MU-2, and heaven knows what else being a dangerous airplane tells me one thing...folks who say as much haven't the experience in type, in the operation, in life, and in the industry to know what they're talking about. That's inexperience, anger, frustration, and rumor talking. Ground this. Change that. How about merely learning to fly it properly, or stepping aside to let someone else do so who can?

Someone mentioned the Lear 23 being a dangerous airplane. Surely you gest. Someone mentioned the Seneca being a dangerous airplane. I'd be deeply embarassed and ashamed to have made such a ridiculous statement...such statements really speak to the state of mind and ability of the speaker...not the airplane, for they identify the speaker as one who is either unable to fly, or merely ignorant of the fact, but certainly not in posession of a good grasp on airmanship or reality. Crikey.

One airpane I fly is a fairly unstable ship. We had a pilot come fly it a few years ago who made one sortie, got out, and walked away. He said he was afraid of it. Was he a wimp or a bad pilot? I doubt that, but he recognized his limitations. Was the airplane bad? I'm still flying it, and I don't think so. I've met a lot of pilots who have flown it, and they tell me how dangerous it is...what I hear coming out of their mouth is really "I lack the skills to properly fly the airplane." It's not a dangerous airplane, not by a long shot. A lot of pilots have been killed in one. We lost three last year, all spectacular fatals, all folks we knew well...it's a small community. They put a stand-down for three days on the type while they considered the implications, and then immediately returned us to service...just as they should.

Is it a bad airplane? No. Are they bad pilots? I can't say. They believed enough in what they were doing that they bet their lives on it...they lost, we mourn, we move on. But condemn the airplane? Come on, people. Grow up...plant your feet where you stand and show some gumption...take responsibility for pete's sake. Do you fly the airplane, or do you let it fly you???

Orville and Wilbur used "wing warping" for lateral control, effectively the same as ailerons.

Nothing like ailerons...hence the law suits that followed and the turf war with Curtis, et al. I believe you were the one that said anybody who flies an aircraft without ailerons should revisit his or her medical, implying that such a person has a problem of some sort. Do you then imply that the Wright brothers should never have flown?

Think about how we were all trained in piston twins for single engine, bank slightly into the good engine and handle yaw with rudder.

But we don't train that way in most turbine equipment, do we? (no).

Remember, certification flight are conducted in a new airplane, carefully maintained, flown by a test pilot who knows whats going to happen and when.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The airplane isn't being flown by "test pilots," it's a known quantity, and pilots who undertake a flight in the airplane have a full understanding of it's pecularities. All airplanes have personalities, strengths, weaknesses. The mitsubishi is no different. Accept that, or don't fly it.

Some say it's gear is too narrow and it's too difficult to land. What claptrap...it's the pilots saying that who don't know how to land. The airplane does just fine.

Its my opinion that the 900EX I fly is the easiest airplane I've had the pleasure to operate. Looking back i can't believe I was flying a Seneca I engine out for my multi training.

Night freight guys in barons, caravans, mu-2's, etc are working. I'm watching an airplane fly me around.

If you truly feel that way, I can't believe you were flying a seneca around either. If you're really watching the airplane fly you around, now is a good time to turn in your certificates and do something that doesn't involve others depending on you. What a truly scary thing to say.

Folks, the loss is sad. Beyond that, how about knocking off all the speculation (a truly wasteful and childish act that speaks only to the character of the participant), and waiting for the facts to emerge? How about remembering those lost not for how they died, but for how they lived...surely this is how they would like to be remembered?

 

[semperfido]

For those that are melting down when one person they know is lost...you should know that after the fifteenth friend, and the thirtieth...it still doesn't get any easier. At the same time, one comes to realize that it's not a melt down panic situation...it's a tragedy, it's a loss, it's sad. But it's no time to go blaming the airplane. Friend gets shot, we don't blame the gun, we blame the shooter. Friend dies in a fire, we look to the cause of the fire, not the fire itself. Friend makes a personal choice and jumps off a bridge...you get the idea. We don't blame the bridge.

A poor carpenter blames his tools...a poor pilot blames his or her airplane. I die in an airplane, don't go blaming it on the airplane. Even if it comes apart in flight, I'm the guy who signed for it, I'm the guy who made the decision to fly it, and I'm the guy who was acting as the supreme authority in this world with respect to the responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight, and yes...you can lay the blame on my soulders, if you're one of those candy-assed blame-seeking sort of kalifornian fruitcakes. Some of us would rather seek soloutions than spend a lifetime seeking blame, but then that's just the maturity and responsibility peeking through. Go figure.

Any professional pilot who blames the airplane overhimself is no professional, but a kid with a lot of growing up to do. If you elect to fly the airplane and you think it's beyond you, then you're making an unprofessional and irresponsible, and criminal mistake...but it's your mistake, not the airplane. I don't care what kind of airplane it is, be it a mitsubishi, bonanza, viper jet, or super cub. It's YOUR choice. Don't feed the world crap talk about how xxx couldn't refrain, was too drawn to the light. We're all in the same boat, some of us have been flying since before we could drive, and have sacrificed just about every aspect of our lives to make this our way of life. I fully understand what drives someone to fly, but don't mitigate a pilot's personal responsibility in the cockpit with sad stories about the airplane, or this or that, leading to tragedy.

It's the pilot. 100% pure and simple, always the pilot, who takes full responsibility as pilot in command, for the safe outcome of the flight. We bet our lives on that fact, live and die by that fact.

Lost close friends and relatives, walk a mile in your shoes? Every dang day. Every day. More losses each year by percentage of aircraft in service, by percentage of pilots involved, by percentage of hours flown, than most any combat unit...year after year. Not once have I ever lashed out at the airplane, even when the airplane broke up in flight, even when friends died, even when I was personally involved, even when I watched it happen and personally put out the fire. Been there. Done that. Will probably do it again...and one day someone will be there for me, too.

But this business of lashing out and blaming the airplane is ludicruous, stupid, foolish, nuts, childish. I had a room-mate once who loved to shoot hoops. Funny thing was that when the ball didn't go through the hoop, he'd get mad at the ball. He'd yell at it, he's even hit it. He'd blame it...it's the ball's fault he didn't make the basket. Didn't matter what make of ball, where the sun was, how much he practiced, weather he'd had his wheaties or enough sleep...he blamed the ball. Some pilots blame the airplane.

The loss of integrity enough to take the full brunt of the blame for what goes wrong on our flight is a loss of honor, and a degredation of the industry. When we begin to blame the airplane instead of ourselves, or to look anywhere but ourselves for the full and total responsibility for the safe outcome of the flight, we belittle ourselves, we belittle others, we insult the intelligence of those of us who know better, and who hold the honor and responsibility and professionalism high enough in esteem to take that responsibility.

Loss is painful. We seek understanding. We seek help. We seek an answer. All too often, there isn't one, so we make one. We lay blame. We file lawsuits. We cry foul, we call for grounding this or that. Someone must be to blame, after all, right?

Yes. Us. We. The pilots. The crew. Most specifically, the pilot in command. If you can't take responsibility for being in command, if you're not man enough to stand up and point your finger at yourself and quit making excuses about weather, airplanes, company, union, other crewmembers...then step aside, because you've failed your most basic duty as PIC.

All this talk about Learjets, the MU-2, and heaven knows what else being a dangerous airplane tells me one thing...folks who say as much haven't the experience in type, in the operation, in life, and in the industry to know what they're talking about. That's inexperience, anger, frustration, and rumor talking. Ground this. Change that. How about merely learning to fly it properly, or stepping aside to let someone else do so who can?

Someone mentioned the Lear 23 being a dangerous airplane. Surely you gest. Someone mentioned the Seneca being a dangerous airplane. I'd be deeply embarassed and ashamed to have made such a ridiculous statement...such statements really speak to the state of mind and ability of the speaker...not the airplane, for they identify the speaker as one who is either unable to fly, or merely ignorant of the fact, but certainly not in posession of a good grasp on airmanship or reality. Crikey.

One airpane I fly is a fairly unstable ship. We had a pilot come fly it a few years ago who made one sortie, got out, and walked away. He said he was afraid of it. Was he a wimp or a bad pilot? I doubt that, but he recognized his limitations. Was the airplane bad? I'm still flying it, and I don't think so. I've met a lot of pilots who have flown it, and they tell me how dangerous it is...what I hear coming out of their mouth is really "I lack the skills to properly fly the airplane." It's not a dangerous airplane, not by a long shot. A lot of pilots have been killed in one. We lost three last year, all spectacular fatals, all folks we knew well...it's a small community. They put a stand-down for three days on the type while they considered the implications, and then immediately returned us to service...just as they should.

Is it a bad airplane? No. Are they bad pilots? I can't say. They believed enough in what they were doing that they bet their lives on it...they lost, we mourn, we move on. But condemn the airplane? Come on, people. Grow up...plant your feet where you stand and show some gumption...take responsibility for pete's sake. Do you fly the airplane, or do you let it fly you???

have you been imbibing? that is pure unadulterated BS and spoken like a true BUFFOON

 

[FN FAL]

I believe that any plane that requires you to bring your "A-game" everytime is a poorly designed plane. There should be some margin of error, and you should not have to defend an airplane

Good point.

 

[FN FAL]

Most of the aircraft I have flown use spoilers to augment the ailerons in flight (B-727, B-737, MD-80, ATR-42, ATR-72) You never ever ever bank the aircraft into the good engine during an engine failure. Especially during a V1 cut. Doing so might be the last time you ever bank an aircraft.

Are you stating that every aircraft that uses spoliers for roll control or to assist in roll control are unsafe and should be decertified? If so I think you are being a bit extreme.



Agreed.

We use spoilers on the Caravan as well...they deploy after 5 degrees of aileron input, for lateral control during slow speeds. Add a peculiar ice shape on the wing somewhere north of the boots and a circling approach...kiss your ass good bye! (and maybe hello again).

 

[WNRHD17]

I believe that any plane that requires you to bring your "A-game" everytime is a poorly designed plane. There should be some margin of error, and you should not have to defend an airplane

You are my new favorite person....not saying that you can not be there 100% of the time when flying, BUT...yes, you should not have to defend an airplane, operator error is not the issue all of the time. Everything man-made is faulty in one way or another.