MU-2 Crash in Hillsboro

[rumpletumbler]

You can just look at it and know something is wrong. It looks like somebody dropped a hot one and then somebody else threw a banana over the top with cheese puffs taped to the ends. Its just out of its way butt ugly.

 

[Metro752]

How many more times will we read about Mitsubishi accidents.

I've read about so many, there is no way I would ever get on one.

 

[Doug Parker]

It's a whole lotta airplane for not a lot of money. Like someone said, most accidents are owner-flown aircraft, not flown by professional pilots. Many companies have flown the Mits for years and many thousands of hours and never had an accident.

It's a great airplane if flown and maintained properly. Regular recurrent training is a must.

My condolences to the families..........

 

[RightPedal]

I've worked for two Companies that flew MU2's. One was a life flight operation and one was a manufacturing company. Both flew them a lot. The pilots that flew them spoke of a respectful fear of them, for a lack of better words.
The pilot of the Mfg op crashed his right after takeoff out of MGM in the early 70's. Took it through a line of oak tree's and walked away without a scratch.
There was Texan owner pilot that use to frequent the airport I was raised on that could ring that thing out. His arrival and departure was an airshow to say the least. I've watched him do his downwind from what appeared to be over the taxiway and then do what I would call a modified split-S to a perfect short field landing.
Maybe the rice rocket should be in the same catagory with the cessna skymaster, a machine ahead of its time.
I've never flown either but I like the looks of both. But one would expect such form me, I am a crop duster.
Above all that, I mourn for those that suffer the loss.

 

[Daveman]

MU-2 driver replies,

From a former MU-2 driver:
Read Kingairrick and BigD' posts'. Pretty much summes it up. I've only flown only the J ,N and Marquise.
Ya lose a baby after T/O, it's very different then a conventional twin.
If ya start to raise the flaps you kill a great deal of lift.

If you've flown the J model you know after you suck the flaps from 20 to 0 you better be rollin the trim wheel, or you'll have a nose high Attitude and be sinking.
I've got some time in the mits, and if you fly like you train, you'll be fine.
I've trained at Howell Enterprises, Inc. (Symrna, TN). Thee place to go for training. I cut my teeth in the mits, and I think every Type (4) has been a cake walk comparded to the initial in the mits.
Don't hate the plane from what you've heard, or if it's killed a love one. Live life , and if it's in a Mits, get the best training.
daveman

 

[skyking1976]

Hello All! Like Yogi would say, "it's deja vu all over again". Haven't checked on the site for awhile because I've been practicing retirement. I think I'm getting better at it. I was saddened to see the last MU2 story and sadder yet to see the experience level of the pilot. 17,000 hours. One would think that it would be enough to tame the beast but evidently not. Since Paul's accident I have been following the investigation of the NTSB closely and so far nothing abnormal (surprise!) has turned up with the engines, fuel control units, props or prop control units. As Pauls father I am hopeful that the NTSBs return to the airframe will yield some clues as to the cause of the accident, but I fear that the bottom line on the investigation will be that ever familiar cause of the accident being "unknown cause of engine failure". A lot of the MU2 accident investigations have ended with this cause. But, without trying to be partial, it seems that the aircraft has to prejudices when it comes to the experience level of those who fly them. Paul had around 3,000 hrs and the pilot of the latest accident in Oregon had @17,000. I try to keep an open mind about accidents until they are investigated and their causes solved but the MU2 definitely gets me to wondering. How can so many airmen with so much or so little time be subject to its mysteries? I know there are many who have flown them successfully, but the question still remains; why do so many VERY experienced pilots continue to go down with them? I hope that the NTSB comes up with something specific in my sons accident and also with the latest one. Somewhere there has to be some common unknown that no one seems to be able to predict or handle when things get sticky. I just hope the Feds keep on poking until they find it. Hugs to all, Dad.

 

[Flightjock30]

My friend (yeh i know i always say my friend, but I have a lot of friends in aviation) used to fly MU-2s and he had to make an emergency landing in one because one of the engines started melting on him on flight. What I mean is something went wrong to the turbine on it and s**t his the fan real fast for him and had to nose over and descend to the closest airport immediately.

 

[kingaira90]

can you give an example of what you mean.. to someone unfamiliar with the MU-2?

I am not an MU-2 pilot this is from reading and talking to MU pilots, so if I am wrong please someone correct me. I think there are a few things that make it very DIFFERENT to fly.

-It has lots of power with a very small wing (roughly the area of a 172), and small rudder. Since the wing is small (low drag at cruise, ie fast) you need more lift for takeoff and landing, hence full wing flaps. Which doesn't leave room for ailerons. So they use Spoilerons (on top of the wing instead of on the trailing edge). Unlike an aileron (which increses lift on one side to turn), a spoileron disrupts lift on the opposite side. So when you have an engine go poo poo in a slow configuration you: 1) have a small rudder (not real effective at low speeds) to do a poor job of staying straight, 2) lots of power on the other side for the puny rudder to fight against, 3) if you retract the flaps to decrease drag you just lost lots of lift, 4) then when you turn you kill MORE lift on one wing.

I would think that managing your speed would be very critical in this aircraft, more so even than a jet ( the yaw problem in a jet with fuselage mounted engines is neglegable compared to a high proformance t-prop). Leading to the underqualified pilot accidents and the well qualified pilot accidents. Just a seemingly small mistake at the wrong time could spell disaster.

If I am off please be gentle -kingaira90

 

[Flyin Tony]

Maybe its the pilots? I know a guy with 7,000 hours in the MU2s and has never had a problem. But yes them planes are always going down. But how many 172 crashes have there been this year? But there is alot more 172s flying around then MU2s
But you wont find me flying one
not to start a flame or anything!

 

[Lead Sled]

Over the years, a disproportionately high percentage of MU-2s have been involved in incidents and accidents. Several years ago, the FAA got involved and did a full certification review. There was even talk of requiring a special MU-2 type rating for pilots, which would have been a first, as type ratings are not required for turboprops less than 12,500 pounds. After the dust settled, the MU-2 passed the certification review and the matter was dropped.

In my opinion, the MU-2 accident rate was a result of 2 major factors:

1. The airplane, while “safe”, is very demanding of proper technique. It isn’t a King Air or a Seneca and if you try to fly it like one after the loss of an engine it can turn on you. When it was designed, the engineers used high wing loading to their advantage. I understand that it’s about the same as some very high performance aircraft – the Boeing 727, the Lear 35, and the supersonic Northrop T-38. As a result, it needs to be flown more like a jet than a propeller driven aircraft. In my opinion, there are only a couple of places where a pilot can obtain proper training to prepare him/her to fly the MU-2 – one is at FlightSafety and there’s a company in Tennessee (I believe) that also comes highly recommended. Can you legally train else where? Yes – many 135 operators train “in-house”. Does in-house training adequately prepare a pilot to fly the MU-2? Again, just my opinion, but the answer has to be no.

2. As turboprop aircraft go, the airplanes were available on the used market comparatively cheaply. This allowed some people “of means” to buy older MU-2 models at prices comparable to that of newer, less complex, aircraft. At one time I remember that you could buy a new A-36 Bonanza or a used late model Cessna 310 for about the same price as the older MU-2s. Let’s see... a 170 knot single or 200 knot piston twin verses a 300 knot turboprop for the same money. For a lot of people it was a “no brainer”. That’s all well and good, but many of these older MU-2 weren’t maintained properly – even though they could be purchased quite cheaply, they still had the maintenance requirements (and expenses) of a multi-million dollar aircraft. Many owners simply didn’t maintain them properly. Along those same lines, many owners didn’t get the proper initial and recurrent training. You can see where this is going…

There is one other big “gotcha” when it comes to MU-2 operations…

Experienced MU-2 pilots will check the security of the fuel caps on the tip tanks VERY closely after each refueling. If a cap were to come off immediately after takeoff, when the tip tanks were full and the aircraft at a high angle of attack, the pressurized air would force the fuel out of the tip tank. Sort of a "pressurized" siphoning system, if you will. Such a scenario would create an out of balance condition that would result in the loss of lateral control (remember the airplane has spoilers for roll control) and would be unrecoverable.

Is the MU-2 dangerous? Not as long as it’s being flown by a properly trained pilot. However, it definitely has its quirks and can be challenging to fly. Once you get the hang of it they become a lot of fun and they give you a lot of bang for the buck. I flew the Marquise and have a little time in the J model. The Marquise had a 10% bigger cabin than the KA200. It was 10% faster on 10% less fuel. Pretty impressive.

‘Sled