Is the MU-2 Difficult to Fly?

[rfresh]

Is the MU-2 that difficult to fly?


Congressman Continues Fight Against MU-2 In Wake Of Canadian Accident
Cites Twelve Accidents In Less Than Two Years

"I believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with this plane." So said Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo to a Denver television station last week..."

 

[NYCPilot]

I'm not speaking from experience, but according to most of what I've heard is that it becomes difficult to handle with an engine loss. This is partially due to the lack of ailerons and short arm between the rudder and CG. Other than that I hear its a nice plane to fly, just unstable with asymetrica l thrust.

 

[rfresh]

I wonder if the 12 accidents were all related to losing an engine...probably not all 12 I would guess.

 

[atldc9]

No. It is no more difficult than any other airplane. Treat it with respect, know your stuff, and be on top of your game.

Awsome airplane to fly. Very capable.

That being said, duck, incoming slams...

 

[Hung Start]

With all the problems facing the country and the world, this guy is spending time on the couple of hundred MU-2's out there.
Let aviation people sort this out.
Let him screw up the war, economy, lobbyists, welfare, healthcare, roads, bridges, Supreme Court, etc., etc.
Something he (and his fellow professional polititians) is well versed at.

 

[9GClub]

.....short arm between the rudder and CG.

CG or center of thrust?

 

[NYCPilot]

CG or center of thrust?

CG.

The 3 axes rotate around the center of gravity.

The shorter the arm the greater the displacement required in order to create enough of a yaw moment to counteract the asymetrical thrust.

 

[rfresh]

Sounds like the MU-2 needs the rudder "fix" Boeing put on the 727's when flight testing showed that the rudder didn't have enough authority in the yaw axis: they added 64 vortex generators (vertically) along both sides of the vertical tail. They are a pre-flight check item for the Second Officer.

Maybe we can add 32 on each side of the MU-2's vertical tail to help correct this problem!!?

 

[aerodromebum]

While it is a demanding airplane, I don't think you need to be a offspring of Bob Hoover to fly one. However, you'll need to go through a comprehensive formal training. A two-hour checkout won't cut it in this airplane.

IMO it handles fine with an engine out (provided you use correct technique for MU-2's), has good single-engine performance, has planty of rudder authority, and even has good low-speed handling (you can maneuver at 80 kts or so if you had to).

I think MU-2 is kinda like a high-performance sports car: Respect and fly it within its limits and it'll reward you with blazing performance. Mishandle, misunderstand, or misuse it and it can get away from you and put you into a fence in a heartbeat. From my experience with it I can say it's a good, solid airplane.

 

[RJones]

Well, I’ll pipe in. I was checked out in the Mu-2 with a total time of about 2500 hours and the training consisted of two or three flights and a 135 check ride and off I went… no formal training. It wasn’t until I had some 3000 hours in the aircraft that I went to formal training and that was at the insurance company’s request.

I have flown every model Mu-2 in the United States with the exception of the Solitaire. The weakest performers are the early models, however, they can and do perform per the book on a single engine. The later models are by far the choice of Mu-2 and perform great but like the early models perform per the book on a single engine.

The main thing to remember about the Mu-2 is that during a single engine situation you must trim the spoiler out and use the rudder, of which the Mu-2 has plenty of. You must think well in advance during single procedures and keep your speed up and don’t make your turns steep and slow…that goes for any light twin.

I’ve had a few single engine situations and only one was in doubt. The Mu-2 requires a pilot that thinks well in advance and knows the systems. I’m perplexed why politicians feel they need to go wild over an aircraft that if properly maintain and pilot’s properly trained performs superbly. It is my personal opinion it all boils down to the operator. I speak from experience.

RJ

 

[LJDRVR]

The FAA consucts an extensive, expensive certification review on the MU-2 and gives it a clean bill of health. But some aviation layman politician says there's something intrinsically wrong with it?

Get bent Congressman. Leave the aviating to us professionals.

 

[Lead Sled]

Well, I’ll pipe in. I was checked out in the Mu-2 with a total time of about 2500 hours and the training consisted of two or three flights and a 135 check ride and off I went… no formal training. It wasn’t until I had some 3000 hours in the aircraft that I went to formal training and that was at the insurance company’s request.

I have flown every model Mu-2 in the United States with the exception of the Solitaire. The weakest performers are the early models, however, they can and do perform per the book on a single engine. The later models are by far the choice of Mu-2 and perform great but like the early models perform per the book on a single engine.

The main thing to remember about the Mu-2 is that during a single engine situation you must trim the spoiler out and use the rudder, of which the Mu-2 has plenty of. You must think well in advance during single procedures and keep your speed up and don’t make your turns steep and slow…that goes for any light twin.

I’ve had a few single engine situations and only one was in doubt. The Mu-2 requires a pilot that thinks well in advance and knows the systems. I’m perplexed why politicians feel they need to go wild over an aircraft that if properly maintain and pilot’s properly trained performs superbly. It is my personal opinion it all boils down to the operator. I speak from experience.

RJ

This man speaks from experience and my personal experience with the airplane mirrors his. (It's amazing to me how many MU-2 experts there are out there who have little or no time in the airplane.) The problem with the MU-2 is that it MUST be flown as if it were a jet and not as if it were the typical propeller-driven piston or turboprop light twin. Proper (formal school) initial and recurrent training is a must and unfortunatly isn't legally required. The accident history is merely a reflection of this fact.

'Sled

 

[Say Again Over]

my 2 cents

This airplane is not hard to fly, this airplane uses spoilers for roll control and is very different, never had a problem with a Garrett engine yet, no problems in icing conditions, the weakest part of the airplane seemed to be the aging auto-pilots, many I flew didn't work, an enjoyable plane to fly.:beer:

 

[FR8mastr]

I agree with the above, there is nothing wrong with the MU-2, in fact I loved it. But like it has been said you MUST fly this aircraft with respect. It is not like other aircraft in its catagory, but done correctly that is a good thing.

 

[GIVDrvr]

I would echo what has been said above. Definitely the most fun 3000 hrs I have flown. The one quirk that sticks in my mind is how the thing liked to go hunting for the rwy edge lights as you came across the gate into reverse. Clearly the symptom of unmatched engines, etc but even the aircraft with relatively matched powerplants would duckwalk..... I never saw anything like that in any other turboprop...Garrett or otherwise.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

It wasn't anymore challenging then any other aircraft out there. Just quick, very ineffective roll control at slow speed on final, and the fact that if you aren't seconds ahead of the plane your dead. Its like any other quick little TP. Treat it with respect and understand the airplane then its as safe as the next plane, disrespect it, and your dead. Although, I never did sucessfully ever grease a landing in that thing. I miss it!

 

[Publishers]

There have always been a number of aircraft which are great when all is working and require more knowledge and reaction than others. Aerostars come to mind from an earlier time. The speed usually makes them attractive bit I think we have to give credance to the record the aircraft has versus others. Most of you had good things to say about the aircraft, unfortunately the dead do not get to post.

 

[Tinstaafl]

Australia has always required a licence or log book endorsement for multis. For turbine equipment Oz requires a type rating with a formal ground school & then flight training. In the case of the MU2 Oz additionally requires ground training & certification for flight into known icing. The known icing requirement was introduced after an accident where the pilot was able to report the a/c's behaviour while falling out of the sky due ice accumulating on non-protected areas. Short answer is 'don't fly below the Vmin for icing'.

I did ground school with an 8000 hr MU2 time bloke. He had nothing but praise for the aircraft **subject to flying it in accordance with its peculiarities**.

He said the a/c's traps for the unwary included jet-like handling instead of the more familiar prop-like handling, spoiler-only roll control so using any roll input to manage asymmetric ops had adverse performance effects. He said the technique to use was to wind in up to full roll trim (the a/c uses dedicated small, inboard ailerons for roll trim) and a few other things related to the engines & fuel system.

Otherwise I was left with the impression of a capable aircraft that is somewhat similar in its 'traps' to other turboprops as the Aerostar is to other light piston twins. Respect it's peculiarites & get a lot of safe capability.

 

[Lead Sled]

Australia has always required a licence or log book endorsement for multis. For turbine equipment Oz requires a type rating with a formal ground school & then flight training. In the case of the MU2 Oz additionally requires ground training & certification for flight into known icing. The known icing requirement was introduced after an accident where the pilot was able to report the a/c's behaviour while falling out of the sky due ice accumulating on non-protected areas. Short answer is 'don't fly below the Vmin for icing'.

I did ground school with an 8000 hr MU2 time bloke. He had nothing but praise for the aircraft **subject to flying it in accordance with its peculiarities**.

He said the a/c's traps for the unwary included jet-like handling instead of the more familiar prop-like handling, spoiler-only roll control so using any roll input to manage asymmetric ops had adverse performance effects. He said the technique to use was to wind in up to full roll trim (the a/c uses dedicated small, inboard ailerons for roll trim) and a few other things related to the engines & fuel system.

Otherwise I was left with the impression of a capable aircraft that is somewhat similar in its 'traps' to other turboprops as the Aerostar is to other light piston twins. Respect it's peculiarites & get a lot of safe capability.

Thanks for the post. Isn't this what the experienced MU-2 pilots have said?

 

[Say Again Over]

originally posted by Lrjtcaptain: It wasn't anymore challenging then any other aircraft out there. Just quick, very ineffective roll control at slow speed on final, and the fact that if you aren't seconds ahead of the plane your dead. Its like any other quick little TP.

Sorry to pipe in but you don't appear to have any real knowledge about the plane, it has very effective roll capability even at very slow approach speeds well below blue line. As far as the challenge goes, all depends on what you were previously flying, if you had LR jet experience prior to the MU2 I can understand your opinion, compared to similar size turbo-props, this is much more challenging compared to say the King Airs, Pipers, Cessna or Merlin series. Like "any other quick TP", you are not even close, have you ever flown any turbo-props, I doubt it. Flame suit on.