Anyone here ever fly an MU-2

[WiFli72]

Aircraft has a bad rap. Is it safe to fly? How is it in icing? Just wondering, saw a freight company flying one the other day

 

[jergar999]

It's a long story, but I used to right seat in one almost weekly. A small cargo company was nice enough to let me use their nightly run to commute. Impressive speed and efficiency. Everyone says they are tricky airplanes, but I never thought it was so bad. I only took the controls a few times, but I thought it was a decent flying and handling airplane. I would certainly rather fly one than fuel one.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

you know, they do have a bad reputation.

Small wing, no aileron! At approach speed, with the spoilerons, they are very ineffective. Other then that, I don't know. I flew them quite a few times on ride alongs with a company a while back and never was worried, but it can get squirly.

 

[vetteracer]

I think there bad rap started when a propeller hub (I think) separated and killed all on board, including our Governor at the time George Michelson. I am not sure of the particulars, it was about 10-12 years ago.

They were in icing conditions and either the prop itself had a fracture and led to vibration damage or the hub failed. I think it was Hartzell, could be mistaken that was sued.

They are a pain in the a$$ to fuel, as you have to play round robin to keep them from tipping over. They have garrets so they are loud.

I have never flown one so no comment on handling or performance, all though rumors are they are fast and handle well except for low speed / approach operations.

I would not be afraid to fly or ride on one. I am sure that whatever the problem with the propeller assembly was addressed in the form of an AD and complied with. Antidotal evidence would lead me to believe that the above accident was an isolated incident.

Mark

 

[Snakum]

I was told that MU2s don't actually fly, but rather, are so ugly they are merely repelled by the earth. Hence, the cantankerous flight characteristics on short final.

Minh

 

[freightdoggie]

SnakumI was told that MU2s don't actually fly, but rather, are so ugly they are merely repelled by the earth. Hence, the cantankerous flight characteristics on short final.

Minh



Funny, I was told the exact same thing about helicopters........

 

[Dr4uh60l]

You saw a cargo company operating an MU2?! NO WAY!!!!

 

[gear_guy]

The story is too long and boring. Just do a search and you will see plenty of info on the MU-2. I, for one, have never had as much fun flying as I did in the Mits. Just make sure you go to an accredited school. Experience in this airplane will keep you alive. Since it takes a while to gain the experience, it is also a necessity to have impecable mx. And yes, it sux in icing. It is a high workload aircraft operated single pilot. Not too bad when crewed appropriately.

 

[Flyin Tony]

I have 1.3 hours in one! MU2b. Stright and level only, and that was alot of work. My Dads friend who we bought the comanche off of has one. He has his own pilot to fly the thing. His pilot has 5,000-7,000 hours in them. He flew the INnOut MU2. They found that plane on a dirt road in south america loaded with money. Its fast 300kts climbs like a rocket. They just put a 100 grand into the panel.

A litlle overview on the plane

The MU-2B, in 1967 the first Mitsubishi delivered in the country, could cruise at a maximum speed of 315 knots, nearly 100 knots faster than the Beech King Air 90

If MU-2 pilots had been trained in jets, they would have known that when an engine quits after liftoff you never touch the flaps until reaching a safe altitude.

The safety record of the MU-2 has not been good but there has been no pattern of crashes.

A total of 740 MU-2's have been built, with that number split about evenly between the original short-fuselage and the long-body airplane. In the early years, 25 or 30 percent of the turboprops sold each year were MU-2's and the airplane accounts for about 10 percent of all turboprops in the United States.

Walk into an FBO lounge filled with pilots and say one word: “MU-2”. Then watch the fun begin as pilot after pilot perpetuates the myths that support the MU-2’s bad reputation: “It’s dangerous,” you’ll hear, and “pilot-killer,” or “It’s impossible to land smoothly.”

You can get alot of the info on the MU2 from
www.mu2b.com

 

[FlyFlyFly]

It is an outstanding airplane, that is not respectful of a poorly trained pilot. Anyone that tells you otherwise usually has never flown over 100 hours in them.

They are about the most fun to fly airplane out there, but they are not a KingAir, and if you use KingAir type procedures in the plane after losing an engine near the ground, you will certainly crash. If you do not get type specific training for this airplane, make sure your life insurance is paid up. It will kill ignorant pilots in a big hurry and give the well-trained pilot a terrific experience.

I would not reccomend single pilot ops in this airplane until you have a few hundred hours in it with someone experienced in flying it, though if you are an above average stick, I might come off of that.

The key, number one and most critical thing is to get type specific training from a school, preferably Reece Howell in Smyrna, TN.

 

[Vector4fun]

I had some right seat time in a J model back in the very early '80's with a law firm. The company actually inquired about insuring me in it as a backup/relief pilot, because their pilot was comfortable with my flying, but the insurance company wasn't.....Until I had about another 500 hours in it.

They sold it before I reached that goal.....

My impression of the airplane was exactly as FlyFlyFly put it. It will not tolerate a 200 kt brain in the left seat. A bit different and slightly squirrly at liftoff and touchdown, but flies like a dream otherwise. It has a small wing area, flies more like a jet than a typical prop. I assure you it's not as difficult to hand fly as a Lear 24. I would rank it about as easy to fly as the Sabreliner. But Sabreliners generally have a crew of two.

And I've been in that J model when it looked like a horizontal snow cone. We landed once with so much ice still clinging to the tips/nose/etc, that the Tower guys actually came out on the catwalk to ask where the hell we'd come from. (It was like 70 degrees and sunny on the ramp.)

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

The Mu2 was fun. The only one I ever flew was the Marquise. 2nd fastest in the fleet compared to the short body solitare with the same -10's.

Its loud, and fast, and unforgiving. Its a challenging airplane and thats what I would be looking for is something that is a challange everytime I fire it up. The only problem we had was enroute to DSM, the nacell on the right side unhinged and swung down. Thats alot of drag believe me.

But how many airplanes out there have the landing gear structured to basiclly take the force of a carrier landing, I would know, thats how I landed the thing. 110kts and really didn't flare too much. We were flying checks, the didn't give a crap about the landing!!!

I love that plane. I see them less and less, but as a controller I always thank the Mu2 pilots for flying in because I just love them. Unlike what most people belive, I think its a great looking airplane. Little rice rockets are fun. Id love to own one for personal stuff. Goto vegas in an hour

 

[RJones]

"Aircraft has a bad rap. Is it safe to fly? How is it in icing? Just wondering, saw a freight company flying one the other day"

Bad rap: It was sold before the erra of having pilots go to school (F.S./S.F. ect.) on a high performance aircraft...the result, smack face.

Safe to fly: The Mu-2 requires you fly it, not let it fly you as you may very well do in a King Air and get away with it. Even with the autopilot on you have to keep your eye on it more so than any other plane I've flown. Three engine failures and one explosive decrompression and several other pain-in-the-but things I'm here to tell you it's safe as long as you have a pilot who knows the plane and flies it.

Icing: It's like any other plane, get out of it!

The key to the airplane is good maintenance and the right pilot.

RJ

 

[rumpletumbler]

I'll bet it is really encouraging to the pax when taxing out on a bumpy airport or in turbulence and those wings are bobbing up and down.

 

[flyifrvfr]

I just recently flew the MU 2 from Groton, CT. to KMTN in Maryland. I flew right seat part 91 and was allowed to take-off and fly us all the way back to the pattern where the PIC took the landing. I rotated us at 100kts and climbed out at around 150kts. I leveled us off at our cruising altitude of 16,000 feet and logged 1.2 hours PIC. I also logged .8 actual IMC.

I thought it was the coolest thing to descend at 250kts all the way to just a few miles from the runway. Way Cool!!!!!

 

[CSY Mon]

Anyone here ever fly an MU-2

No.

My primary CFI got killed in one however....BNA 1979.
Flew into powerlines on approach...Not sure that the MU-2 was at fault.

Heard so many bad things about the rice-rocket that I would rather pick a
Beech King Air if I had the choice: Slower, quiter, stabler, comfortabler, bigger, safer, friendlier and more pilot-payer.

 

[Lead Sled]

I'll throw in my 2 cents here. I flew the MU-2B-60 (Marquise) single-pilot for 3 years for an air ambulance outfit. I liked the airplane, but it definately demands a professional approach and proper initial and recurrent training. Its flight characteristics are more akin to a tubojet than a propellor-driven aircraft and it, as has been mentioned, demands to be flown like a jet. For example, in practically every other propellor-driven aircraft you go for "blue line" in the event of an engine failure. In the MU-2 you fly a profile and clean up the aircraft sequencially as you accellerate just as you would in a jet. Try flying a MU-2 like a King Air or light twin and you'll turn yourself into a lawn dart if you loose an engine.

As far as the safety record goes, a lot of it has to do with the low price of early models on the used market. In years past, wealthy individuals could choose between a new single, used light twin, or an early MU-2. Let's see, a 170 knot Bonanza, a 200 knot twin or a 270+ knot MU-2 for the same price. Aircraft salesmen would tout turbine reliability and safety and make the sale. The insurance companies would ask for proper training, but there were enough guys out there that would fly without insurance and with out anything more than a rudimentary checkout. The airplane ate those kind of pilots for lunch.

When it comes to ice, the MU-2 Marquise didn't handle ice particulary well. It did have a recommended ice speed of 160 TIAS. One of my friends made the mistake of flying it slower in ice and dang near didn't make it back to the airport. Keep the speed up and you'll have no problems though.

The airplane is a good one, you just need to get proper training and fly it according to the AFM. The Marquise had a 10% larger cabin, was 10% faster and burned 10% less fuel than the KA200. In order to get that kind of performance, Mitsubishi had to use a lot of aeronautical tricks. After all, the total wing area isn't that much greater than say a Cessna 210. As I remember, it had the same wing loading as the T-38, the B-727, and a Learjet. You have to fly it as you would any other highly wing loaded aircraft, a King Air it ain't. (My MU-2 time actually came in pretty handy when I got my Lear type. It was a pretty good "flying Lear simulator" and the transition was pretty simple.) It takes a little to get used to flying a wing with spoilers instead of ailerons; but once you do it handles pretty nice - no adverse aileron yaw, no ailerons.

Lead Sled

 

[bigD]

It takes a little to get used to flying a wing with spoilers instead of ailerons; but once you do it handles pretty nice - no adverse aileron yaw, no ailerons.

I'm curious about this - other than no adverse yaw, how does it handle differently? The MU-2 has always been interesting to me.

 

[FracCapt]

The MU-2 is a great airplane. I loved flying it. I've got time in the Marquise and Solitare. The Solitare is faster, sportier, more fun to fly....but the Marquise will haul a hell of a load. The Solitare is a little twitchier, but still very manageable. The MU-2 got a bad rap because of lack of training. It's a very high performance turboprop. You can't fly it like a King Air and survive. Aircraft like the KA will allow you to get sloppy and still be fine(I have over 1500 hours in KA's, so I'm qualified to make that statement) - the MU-2 will not. Keep the speed up(ESPECIALLY when single engine) and don't overcontrol and there won't be a problem..

 

[FracCapt]

At approach speed, with the spoilerons, they are very ineffective.

I disagree. Spolierons are QUITE effective at any airspeed. They destroy lift on the wing.....they don't create lift as ailerons do. I used to demonstrate this fact in Beechjets by showing new FO's how effective the spoilerons were at low speed. At ref+20, I could go full left for about a second and hit 60 degrees bank, go full right for about 2 seconds and hit 60 degrees on the other side, and then have it level within another second. They are almost as effective at approach speed as they are at max speed.

BTW, looks like an AFF 6 or 7 photo in your avatar....you finish?

edit: Then again, maybe a POST AFF photo...no helmet...I think helmets are in the BSR's for students...