Deathtrap MU-2 BANNED

[Berkut]

Assumption that the majority of the pilots are below average is a stretch.

I'd say probably half of them are below average.

 

[Hung Start]

I think Lead was pretty much right on with his description of the airframe idiosycrises of the MU-2. If I may expand on that a bit, lets look at the differences with the Garrett engine.
I have over 3,000 hours with a TPE in a King Air. And never had any problems with it. But, it will not windmill and sometimes not "feather" automaticaly like most turboprops. It has a fine system called NTS, or Negative Torque Sensing, which if rigged and operating correctly will help drive the prop to about 88% feather, certainly helping alleviate a lot of the drag. But, if it is not working, or not handled correctly, you are driving THE ENTIRE ENGINE. No free turbine here. And, as opposed to a lot of multi-training, where we are taught to "test" the dead engine by slowly pulling the power back to idle, that only tricks the NTS into thinking YOU WANT TO GO TO IDLE!!! So, the NTS will then bring the blades back to flat pitch. Just look at the radius of those big 4 blades (or 3 sometimes) and imagine all that wing area cut off from airflow, and you are dragging that entire engine also. Just try spinning the engine by hand sometimes, you get the idea. So, picture this, the left engine is in flat pitch, killing lift on that wing, and to try to raise the wing you use the yoke instead of rudder, now you have raised the spoiler on the right wing and killed lift there too. The correct drill in an engiine failure is to push the failed engine power up full, not retard. And rudder, then trim.
I think little things like this, plus the spoilers have caused more than a few accidents out there. Still a great plane/engine combo, just needs to be learned and respected a bit better than most.

Hung

 

[avbug]

But, it will not windmill

Oh, it does. Trust me on that. I found out the hard way. I also use the braking effect to good advantage during steep descents down terrain faces...but it definitely does windmill. NTS at idle during steep descents will pulse in and out as the system seeks to put a load back on the blades. The governor is attempting to move the blades to flat pitch, whereas NTS is trying to move it out of flat pitch and toward feather to put a load on the blades.

I'd say probably half of them are below average.

Hard to argue with logic. One out of every ten are probably also in the top ten percent...

And you'd be right. The Avanti is 67 lb/sq ft.

Which begs the question as to w(h)eather the wing loading is particularly relevant to the accident record of the MU-2. The Avanti has a high wing loading (I believe the wing area is the same, or roughly so, as the Cessna 182...you're a lot better at math...you might know)...clearly this of itself isn't the defining factor. But it's often cited in arguements agains the MU-2.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why? The Beech 18 is an airplane just like any other airplane. If you have basic conventional gear skills and a head on your shoulders, it is operated just as safetly as any other airplane...and insurance treats it accordingly. Operating it is basic stick and rudder (and instrument) skill...not rocket science. It's just an airplane.

That's just it.....I haven't had the privilege of flying in an 18, but everything I've heard on the Beech 18 bulletin boards is that the airplane is a relatively easy to fly and fairly dependable. Many who have flown it liken the old twin beech to a mini-DC-3. However, in recent years, the insurance rates for said airplane have gone through the roof and many pilots with less than 2000 hours time are finding it very difficult to get insured. Some say it's because of the tailwheel, others claim it has more to do with the twin 450 hp engines and still others claim it is related to the track record of freight operators. Regardless of the reason, the bottom line is that a low time individual owner operator is going to have some trouble getting insurance for the bird even though most pilots who have flown them find them very safe, reliable aircraft.

That MU-2 pilots don't seem to have the same trouble getting insurance seems to me to lend credibility to exactly what you are saying, Avbug: that the reality of the situation is that the plane isn't as dangerous as some would claim. I don't have the experience to say either way, but I find the subject rather interesting.

 

[Hung Start]

Avbug:

I guess I was not clear on that. When I say "it will not windmill", what I was saying is it will not windmill like a PT-6. Not a free turbine type of free wheeling. Yes, it windmills, but as a very heavily loaded set of blades that are in very flat pitch and driving the entire engine.
Agreed that you can use that to very good purposes, like landing in a very, very short distance, or descend in ways that ATC can't believe. And,,, if properly adjusted, they should not pulse. But most are never adjusted that well.
But, if you are in a loaded situation with a bad engine, and allow it to go flat instead of towards feather,, well,, your just going from bad to worse.

Hung

 

[Swass]

Awesome discussion guys.

Refreshing to see on this board again.

 

[A Squared]

I'd say probably half of them are below average.

Well, no, half are below the median. It doesn't necessarily follow that half are below average.

Let's say you have 100 people. 99 are 4' 6" tall. the other guy is 7 ft tall. The average height is 4' 6.3". 99% of that group is below average height.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

What a ridiculous way to cloud the issue. Nobody ever tried to correlate a wing failure with pilot error, nor incude a wing failure in the pilot error statistics. A wing which separates might be construed to be pilot error if it were the result of something the pilot might have found during a preflight, or if the pilot elected to fly through a thunderstorm. However, when we speak of pilot error and issues involving basic airmanship skills we're not speaking of wing separations.

Wow, someone takes themselves too seriously.
It's called SARCASM!

100% of the MU-2's could be involved in accidents...and this still wouldn't make it a dangerous airplane, seeing as the overwhelming majority of accidents and fatalities are the result of pilot error. This would make it a field of dangerous pilots...which not conincidentally is the leading causes of why the King Air crashes, too. Further, 100% of the MU-2's could be involved in fatal accidents and still not brush the fatalities caused from the wreckage of B737's.

Um, yes...it would.

Nobody argues that the B737 is dangerous, despite the number of fatalities. Yet the MU-2, frequently involved in fatalities when flown by untrained, inexperienced pilots with a common identifiable thread of deficiencies in background and experience, causes a sensation.

It's not the total, it's the number of accidents per flight hour, and it's
MUCH higher in the MU-2.

This web board was dominated for a time with the last spat of MU-2 fatalities, lorded over by wives and sisters of the deceased. Not experienced individuals who had a clue whence they spake, but by people who were presed by emotion and not knowledge or understanding. These same individuals were responsible for the lobbying that has lead the FAA to once more set it's political foot forward to "investigate" the airplane.

True, but doesn't change the facts.

Three separate panels of FAA investigators examining the airplane, it's history, it's accidents, it's everything, and putting 60 hours of flight testing on the airframe last year, and the official observation that "with reasonable training, an average pilot can operate the MU-2 safely if operated within the AFM guidlines." One might reasonably infer that either the MU-2's involved in accidents were being operated overwhelmingly by below average pilots, that average pilots had less than average training, or that average pilots (some better than others) failed to adhere to the AFM guildelines. Perhaps a combination thereof.

Of course, it's everythig BUT the airplane.

Assumption that the majority of the pilots are below average is a stretch. A given is that training by and large, particurly statistically among those involved in fatal accidents, is inadequate. That pilots have failed to adhere to AFM guidelines is also often borne out in accident investigations. Obviously far more flights are conducted successfully by pilots who are adhering to the aircraft manufacturer's guidelines than not, else we'd see a higher percentage of losses. Here we have everyman's airplane that really shouldn't be flown by every man...but legally can be until newly mandated training takes place.

The airplane requires MANDATED training but is not different from every
other airplane. Um, ok...

As proper training and oversight is mandated, a decrease in the accident rate and record is inevitable; this is exactly what we shall see. Again, there's nothing wrong with the airplane; it's a poor carpenter that blames his tools.

Except my tools don't kill 10 at a time.

All things mechanical can fail. As pilots, much of our training is spent not learning to fly operating equipment, but to deal with the failures. And therein, so said Sir William, lies the rub.

Rub all you want, just look at the numbers.

CE

 

[Hung Start]

Swass:

You were saying????,,,,,,,,

But we made it to 4 pages.

Hung

 

[Swass]

Waiting.......... for..................the................



"brightspark" comment that is sure to come.........