Deathtrap MU-2 BANNED

[ACT700]

Once again, I understand about the fuel flows and the pulsing. I know it can be set up either way, and having flown at least one that was not set up well,,, oh yeah, it grabs your attention. Especially if one is a "hard" low pitch and the other is not. Talk about yaw!
But (and I am the first to defer to Avbug on this, because I am no mechanic) I believe Garrett or Mitts came out with a S/B on setting either the fuel flows or blade angles recently to help counter that.
Still,,,, a well seasoned and qualified pilot who knows the systems will be able to counter any rigging/setting/flow problem.
Just my .002 with a fair amount of Garrett time.

Hung

That is correct. I agree 100% with that statement.

And only a fool slams power levers from limit to limit-especially without knowing a plane's setting/rigging characteristics first.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of fools.

And speaking of rigging, you can take a perfectly rigged airplane, and have it completely out of rig after a hundred hours.
Why?
Because pilots abuse it! Jamming the throttles into full reverse as soon as the wheels touch, extending gear and flaps at or above limitation, all have a cumulative effect on (out of) rigging.

Training? Yes, but you can't hold a pilot's hand while on line.
There is a reason why airplanes have procedures, recommended or mandatory. Not observing them will lead to abnormal situations.

 

[agpilot34]

The Cessna 208 Caravan deserves far more scrutiny than any MU-2. Mr. Tancredo should look at the abyssmal accident rate of that thing first. IMHO, no single engine should be allowed in commercial service at night, IMC or in icing.

well, you're right about one thing... that's YOUR opinion.

 

[avbug]

And speaking of rigging, you can take a perfectly rigged airplane, and have it completely out of rig after a hundred hours.
Why?
Because pilots abuse it! Jamming the throttles into full reverse as soon as the wheels touch, extending gear and flaps at or above limitation, all have a cumulative effect on (out of) rigging.

The only way that should be possible is if an operator is performing zero maintenance, performs no inspections, and conducts no trend monitoring.

Going to reverse as soon as the wheels touch won't make any difference or do more harm than going to reverse at 60 knots...that's when reversing is most effective, at higher speeds.

Extending gear or flaps above their airspeed limits can eventually harm the gear or flaps, their motors, linkages, etc...but that won't have any bearing on the engine adjustments. Applying reverse is not like applying gear at too high a speed. Applying reverse doesn't cause the engine to go out of adjustment of it's own accord. Reverse is a simple linkage, governor, and fuel control adjustment. In reverse, the governor does it's own limiting by limiting engine speed by reducing fuel flow through the fuel control unit.

An airplane that's rigged properly is generally understood to mean properly adjusted, but the term refers to control rigging. Rigging of engine controls is specifically referred to as engine control rigging, gear rigging as gear rigging, etc. Flight controls should not change with respect to rigging save for damage to the aircraft, or actual control wear. In this case, with control wear such as rod end linkage play, the rigging still doesn't actually change, though the amount of play throughout a particular control run may increase. Rerigging won't change that; play can only be removed by rebushing, reshimming, or changing control components.

Engine rigging does change, as wear and travel adjustments internally and externally (control linkages from cockpit to engine, internal FCU and governor changes, etc), and should be adjusted from time to time. However the need for adjustment and the proper monitoring of the engine must be done on an ongoing basis. If an engine is left to go for several hundred hours without monitoring/adjustment, something is severely wrong.

 

[AerroMatt]

Stirring the pot...

heheh, not really, I'm just stirring the pot.

Man!!! Did you EVER stir the pot!!! Sure didn't take very long for this thread to get to 5 pages. hehe.

 

[ACT700]

Man!!! Did you EVER stir the pot!!! Sure didn't take very long for this thread to get to 5 pages. hehe.

I don't think he stirred the pot; this is the first objective MU2 discussion on this board.

 

[avbug]

Agreed...isn't it refreshing to see rational discussion, for a change?

Is this really flightinfo?

 

[Wanderlust]

Hey man! It's not Mitsubishi's fault the wing was too small for ailerons. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for speed!

 

[avbug]

The wing isn't too small. I believe we touched on it before, but the Piaggio Avanti makes the MU-2 look like it's standing still, and I believe it's got less wing area and a higher wing loading, with no spoilers and full aileron control.

 

[ACT700]

The wing isn't too small. I believe we touched on it before, but the Piaggio Avanti makes the MU-2 look like it's standing still, and I believe it's got less wing area and a higher wing loading, with no spoilers and full aileron control.

And let's see, here, the Piaggio was built in the 60s?

How can you even compare these two? They are designs from different eras, hence the difference in technology.

I'm not criticizing either, but a Piaggio also blows away a Citation I.

 

[Lead Sled]

I just received this from Aviation International News...

"On Thursday, the FAA plans to release a proposed special FAR (SFAR) mandating recurrent training for all Mitsubishi MU-2 pilots. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will have a short 30-day comment window. After a two-year period (2004 to 2005) in which 14 people died in 12 MU-2 accidents, an FAA evaluation determined that the MU-2B is a “complex airplane requiring operational techniques not typically used in other light turboprop airplanes,” according to the NPRM. While Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America has long pleaded with the FAA to require a type rating for the MU-2, the agency said this would not help because type ratings do not include mandatory recurrent training. Pilots will have to be in compliance with the SFAR 180 days after the rule becomes final. The FAA did not say whether it would apply the same training requirement for airplanes that have a higher accident rate than the MU-2, including the Piper Meridian, de Havilland -6/7/8 series and Merlin/Metro."

Finally, something constructive.

LS