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?