MU-2 Study

[semperfido]

It's a wonderful airplane to fly and I would fly it again in a heartbeat.

who are you kidding?...no, it is not a wonderful airplane to fly and i seriously doubt you would fly it again in a heartbeat. i too went to fsi in houston at least a half dozen times and i was happy to say bye-bye to the mu2 and move on to bigger and better things. it was fun for a while, but i consider it as part of my dues paying years. that was when it was relatively new-- now it should be retired and nicknamed the WSCOD. not the legacy.

 

[VampyreGTX]

Most of the people that bad-mouth the airplane have never flown one. It's not your daddy's baron, and has to be flown by the book and by the numbers.... There are very few accidents where it was the airplanes fault. Most of the accidents were people doing something stupid, flying the airplane without training, etc. ...
EB

Sorry for snipping your post down!

That's why they aren't grouding the fleet until at least they uncover something that would require that to happen.

Also I don't buy the pilot error excuse that seems to be the cause of 95% of crashes (not a real stat, but you know what I mean). Yes, I think pilot error is responsible for possibly the majority of wrecks, but not even the investogators are perfect, things will be overlooked, problems may be hidden by other damage. (Some damage can be differentiated between impact forces and other kinds, but I still doubt this is 100%). If the NTSB can't find anything, they automatically lay the blame on the pilot.

I don't want to bad mouth the airplane, as your right, I haven't flown it. But there is a pattern. Some of the latest crashes involved people with plenty of experience and training in that plane, with full knowledge of the beast in can be if it gets away from you. I do think that needs to be looked at. If if does come down to pilot mis-training, inexperience, then the fleet will not be grounded, and MU-2 flights will continue. If this time, they do find something wrong that was overlooked previously, then it will be grounded as it should be if there truly is something wrong.

 

[wolf]

I would like to find out from those who fly the mu2, what are the difficulties when you have an engine out, is it any more difficult than any other twin?

 

[Donsa320]

I would like to find out from those who fly the mu2, what are the difficulties when you have an engine out, is it any more difficult than any other twin?

There is an old saying....."you can't lift a wing with a spoiler"....used by an equally old friend of mine. He was refering to the B-52, but it bears repeating.

~DC

 

[ACT700]

I love when people who have no clue, much less "experience", comment on certain, "in the spotlight", accidents.


VampyreGTX,
according to your logic, the Feds (FAA to you) need to ground the majority of the air traffic system-or at least reroute traffic over non populated areas.
Maybe Denver DIA will be the only commercial airport left in the US!

I mean, MDW, surely has to be criminal!!

Be careful pushing pencils-don't drop one, cause the loss of humanity could be gigantic...



I wish I was drunk; all this probably would make a lot more sense!

 

[VampyreGTX]

I love when people who have no clue, much less "experience", comment on certain, "in the spotlight", accidents.


VampyreGTX,
according to your logic, the Feds (FAA to you) need to ground the majority of the air traffic system-or at least reroute traffic over non populated areas.
Maybe Denver DIA will be the only commercial airport left in the US!

I mean, MDW, surely has to be criminal!!

Be careful pushing pencils-don't drop one, cause the loss of humanity could be gigantic...



I wish I was drunk; all this probably would make a lot more sense!

Actually, no that's not my logic. I think the general public (and us pilots) accepts the risk of aviation (and everything else we do in life); however, the FAA (Feds to the public) does need to ensure that there is no EXTRA risk (key word, EXTRA). If there is a KNOWN problem with an airplane that makes it excessively dangerous, than it SHOULD be grounded. If you knew the plane you were flying had a mechanical abnormality that increased your chance of crashing by 2, 5 or 10 times, could you really feel comfortable flying that airplane, with passengers on board?

What about the good 'ole Electra, would you feel comfortable flying that plane still if it happened been 'fixed', knowing that there was an inherent defect in the engine mounts and wings that led to the wings ripping off the airplane when excessive vibration was trasnfered to the wing via the mounts from the engines? Per YOUR logic, they shouldn't ground that plane then? They didn't ground the plane initially while a study (like in this case with the MU-2) was conducted that finally led to them determinng the stiffness of the engine mounts transfered propeler 'flutter' top the wing ina resonance that caused the wing to seperate. The fleet was grounded, the mounts were changed and the plane flew safely after that.

I hope I misread your reply. My comments refer to planes like this, the electra, where there is a KNOWN problem or issue or where there appears to be something beyond the regular risks involved with taking tons of steel (or composites, or aluminum )into the air.

With the MU-2, there is no KNOWN problem, not yet at least. That's why they will study it first. No one is GROUNDING the plane. The FAA stated that is something is descovered it will be grounded if NECESSARY. If something arrises that show there is a mechanical defect with the airplane, or something in the design, that significantly increases the chance of an accident, then are you seriously trying to say it shouldn't be grounded?

And as for Midway, I never said one thing about preventing flights over populated areas, I just added the point that what would the reaction have been like if either of these two planes killed a few people on the ground in each of the accidents? The news coverage and calls for grounding it would be MUCH louder. Though Midway did have it's share of planes crashing off airport into residential areas in the mid 1900's, but in my opinion, you live near an airport, you should expect a slight risk of an accident, but you should hope that the accident didn't result from the responsible parties turning a blind eye to a problem with the aircraft.

 

[TIGV]

( Sigh )

Listen folks, the MU-2 has already been the subject of two previous FAA recertification/evaluation flights...why?
Cos it had the misfortune to be piloted around and into the ground in it's early days by a bunch of rich folk with political sway who couldn't have given a hill of beans, or some of their inherited riches, about their own safety and training, God rest their souls.

In each case The FAA Found no apparent fault with the aircraft

Scooch forward to the present day, the majority of MU-2's flown now operate in the freighter capacity....1200 to 1500 hours a year a piece, versus 300 hours for a corporate machine, most of the freighters fly 5 legs a night single pilot IFR year round.

Unfortunate though it may seem, statistically I'm amazed their isn't MU-2 aluminum raining down over the 48 on a nightly basis.....speaks volumes for the skill level of the pilot gorup, speaks volumes for the aircraft design but does dog it's overall accident statistic.

I'm sorry but if you got two engines and a set of flight instruments the only way you're gonna bite it is if you run it out gas or you really f*&#$ something up.....Both are pilot error

So what will a third investigation reveal ???
I'm hoping nothing at all and we can merrily cruise on as before with maybe some increase in initial pilot training.

I would be devastated if that Waste of Skin Tancredo be permitted to ride the misfortune of my comrades for political gain.

Cheers.

 

[con-pilot]

I hate to say this to you MU-2 supporters but, the MU-2 is a total piece of absolute crap. I was fortunate enough to have survived over 800 hours flying these wingless wonders.


I have flown the J, L, M and K models. All of them where underpowered and as for high and hot airport performance, forget it.


Flying the MU-2 I have had:


Aft cabin in flight fire. (Due to improper wiring done at the factory.)


Split flaps.


Tip tank fuel cap structural failure. (Just after rotation on takeoff.)


Three emergency gear extensions due to frozen gear prox. switches.


Main cabin door frozen shut after landing.


Jammed throttles due to incorrect auto-pilot wiring. (This was on a brand new M model.)


In-flight engine failure on the right engine. (I realize that this is a vendor problem, however in over 40 years and 23,000 plus hours of flying turbine powered aircraft this was the only sudden failure of a turbine engine I have had.)


There were other problems that I had with the MU-2 that were more on the line of design induced pilot error problems that cause more than a few moments concern. Such as the blasted thing cannot carry any amount of ice.


Attend a NTSB accident investigation school as I have and study turbo-prop fixed aircraft accidents by type. I think you will be very surprised on the accident rate of fatal accidents of MU-2s as compared to other turbo-props.


Now there is no argument that King Air 200s and Turbo Commanders have had major accidents due to structural failures because of design errors, but those problems were addressed by the manufacturers and have been fixed by modifications. The problems of the MU-2 have not been fixed and can never be fixed because the entire design is bad.


I had more problems flying MU-2s in just 800 hours than in any other aircraft I have flown including 7,000 plus hours in Boeing 727s, 6,000 plus hours in Sabreliners 40, 80 and 65 series, 3,000 hours in Jet Commander/Westwinds, JetStars and etc. I have over 600 hours in King Air 200s with NO problems.


I realize that the false bravado of saying, “Boy, you really got to be a hotsh!t pilot to fly the MU-2!” sounds good in a bar to impress the ladies, but sorry that doesn’t work for me.

 

[TIGV]

23000 hours with that kinda luck ?
Don't gamble your retirement in Vegas, Jokes aside and as mentioned before:



I'm not really in a position to Judge, but I'm sure the Fed Flight Standards guys who flew the original recertification and icing test flights had a little more varied experience than you con-man, and found no fault.

However....

Interestingly....With all your MU-2 prblems, you are still here...
I would say that you actually PROVE the case FOR the aircraft wouldn't you? After all.....

Split flaps

Engine failure

Are pretty critical for this airplane....but ya muddled through and you're still around.



You gotta be a hotsh!t pilot to fly ANY turboprop one one engine. Want bragging rights at the bar ?
Try the F-27 !! hmm, that thing isn't underpowered on one engine, lifting 45,000 lbs with 1800 horsepower.

I digress, the ONLY certification fault I have found with the aircraft is that it takes a pilot with above average skill to control stuff when things go south.

Now on to more important things Con Man.....you guys hiring ???

Cheers.

 

[con-pilot]

TIGV, sorry no bragging rights asked for, the engine failed during cruise over DFW in the mid-teens altitude wise. I just made a right turn and landed at Love.

However, it was my experience on many occasions on the icing issue. Now this was on the long body models, I have been told that the short airframe aircraft handled ice much better. Remember the short body airframe was the one that went through icing flights. Those big old gear pods make a BIG difference.

ps. Not with the USMS any more, I am now semi-retired, and no, I do not want a job flying MU-2s again, ever!