MU2 Question.

[TDTURBO]

I read somewhere recently on this board about the difficulty turning a MU2 on one engine. From what I gathered it is nearly impossible to turn the thing into the good engine due to the torque and distance the engines are from the wings, is this true? A CFI friend of mine said that you ALWAYS turn into the good engine and that it it the same for the MU2. I told him that because of the spoilerons(sp?), excessive power and torque and unique flying characteristics compared to a piston twim that it is the opposite with the MU2. So, do you turn into the dead engine because you have to with the MU2 or am I mistaken?

I think I read it in the MU2 thread that crashed but can't find it.

 

[Vector4fun]

An MU-2, (when not loaded to the gills and with sufficient speed), flies just fine on one engine. Where the lore about MU-2s comes from is the spoilers. In a "normal" twin, you'd hold a bit of bank into the good engine for straight and (almost) level flight. In the Mitzi, doing so with spoilers only kills lift, and doesn't help a bit. You just use rudder and keep wings level.


There's quite a few different models of Mitzis, and some are quite powerful, others can be marginal when loaded. I only flew the J model, but it would do just fine with medium loads so long as you had 160 kts or so. I forget where blue line was, long time ago. Pulling an engine back in cruise just made it into a King Air...

 

[Guitar Guy]

CFI friend of mine said that you ALWAYS turn into the good engine...

That seems rather odd for an instructor to say. When I used to fly piston twins, the Seneca that I built my time could turn into either engine. As with any situation, you watch your bank, coordination and airspeed. But I'm surprised to hear a CFI saying that you only turn into the good engine. How could you do a procedure turn on an instrument approach if you could only turn one direction?

 

[TDTURBO]

That's a good question, I don't know where he is coming from but the main jist of the argument was that a MU-2 will turn in only one direction, at least that is what I read in the other thread. The crash in Denver might have been cuased by trying to turn it the wrong way. Somebody stated that it will only turn in one direction and that was into the dead engine. I just need to know if this is true.


Since nobody argued with the dude I figured it was, I just need to find the post.

 

[Guitar Guy]

I can't believe that the FAA would have certified the MU-2 if it could only turn in one direction after an engine loss. I think your instructor friend is misinformed on the MU-2.

 

[GIVDrvr]

Mu2

Vector is correct. Mu2 flies perfectly fine on one engine as long as the other engine is feathered..the 96in (if I recall)propeller disc makes single engine unfeathered flying unlikely. It is important to trim out the spoileron input as this can reduce your climb rate by 200-300 fpm. I flew the Marquis with Dash 10 Garrets...3000 hrs worth....absolutely freakin loved that airplane. SPZ autopilot/fd also rocked.

 

[TDTURBO]

No, he is mis-informed because he believes you should only turn ANY twin in the direction or towards the good engine. I am saying in the MU2 you do the opposite since it doesn't turn into the good engine do to it's design. This is what I recently read on this forum. I just have to show him that the MU2 is a lot different than other twins in this regard. I am still looking for that **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** post!

 

[User546]

A CFI friend of mine said that you ALWAYS turn into the good engine...

What a load of horse manure. Although its a good practice as to create a zero side slip after an engine failure, it is in no way written in stone and a MUST do.

I even had an examiner giving me my MEI ride very clearly state how poorly most of the MEI applicants are trained in that they will ONLY turn in the direction of the good engine during a failed engine scenario. For instance if you have an engine failure shortly after takeoff, and are turning to return to the airport, they will only turn in the direction of the good engine, even if its the much longer way around. He said it was ridiculous, and if you can get turned back around quicker by turning in the direction of the dead engine, by all means do it.

I'm sure everyone who've trained in multi aircraft, have turned in the direction of the bad engine before. Aircraft performs just fine, just requires a little bit more control pressure while doing it.

 

[minitour]

...I even had an examiner giving me my MEI ride very clearly state how poorly most of the MEI applicants are trained in that they will ONLY turn in the direction of the good engine during a failed engine scenario...

That's really interesting to learn...I don't have any OEI experience yet, but I would think you'd want to be proficient at turns in both directions...you brought up the example of losing one on takeoff...and a good one...so you lose the left engine and there's a tower to the right of the airport (say somewhere in "downwind" of the right traffic pattern)...uh...do they still turn right?

Thanks for the heads up...I'll try not to piss off the examiner with that one..

-mini

 

[User546]

(Double-Posted for some reason, continue down to next post for what was here)

 

[User546]

Well Mini, I don't think I understand your question but I'll try to answer it based on what I think your asking.

Actually, I've read it four times now and don't have a clue what your asking.

Be more specific... sounds like your getting at something good, but your example isn't really clear.

:: putting down rum & coke trying to concentrate ::

 

[GIVDrvr]

TD-
I have flown the MU2 SE many times..and I mean with one shut down and feathered...not zero thrust power setting....and I assure you it turns fine in either direction...as a matter of fact it is quite nimble considering its reputation.

 

[surplus1]

TDTURBO,

I have never flown an MU2 but I'm quite sure the information you were given is not correct. Just think about this....

No multiengine airplane, regardless of it's good/bad flying characteristics, would ever get an airworthiness certificate if it could only turn in one direction, whether on one engine or both engines.

Provided they are flown correctly and loaded properly, Multiengine aircraft never crash because of which way they turn. That is a myth, give it up.

 

[GIVDrvr]

TD-

I can tell you that the MU2 is not designed for SE taxi however and even differential power for steering during normal ops is highly discouraged due to the cumulative side loads on the nose gear strut attachment points.

 

[Lead Sled]

Here's the straight poop...

The MU-2 does not have spoilerons. Lear 35s and Boeing 727s have spoilerons. The MU-2 uses straight, old-fashioned, honest to goodness spoilers and nothing but spoilers for roll control. It uses small trim ailerons for roll trim. The MU-2 flies just fine on one engine and will turn into the dead engine just fine thank you. (How do stupid ideas like this get started? It amazing how many MU-2 experts have little or no time in type.) One of the quirky parts of flying MU-2s stems from the need to keep the spoilers down flat against the wing in straight flight. This isn't done with the rudder, it's done with the trim aileron - you merely input enought trim to insure that the wheel is level. As far as feathering goes, the MU-2 has a negative torque sensing system that basically serves as an autofeather. It will take the propellor 90+% into feather, enough so that no further trim is required if you were to trim it up before you put the prop into feather. The NTS system is a no go item.

'Sled

 

[leardrivr]

That's a good question, I don't know where he is coming from but the main jist of the argument was that a MU-2 will turn in only one direction, at least that is what I read in the other thread. The crash in Denver might have been cuased by trying to turn it the wrong way. Somebody stated that it will only turn in one direction and that was into the dead engine. I just need to know if this is true.


Since nobody argued with the dude I figured it was, I just need to find the post.

No that is not true. the aircraft handles very well in either direction as long as you keep your speed up. what makes turning into the good engine differnt in this airplane than other models you may be used to is the amount of ruddder required to stay coordinated. you push, push some more and than extend your big toe! if possible you want to turn into the good engine just like any other airplane. When you turn into the dead engine the tourqe from the operating wants to flip you on you back. That would be a bad thing. All you have to do is man up, use all the rudder you need, keep the spoilers trimed down and for gods sake go fast! oh and if you remember all that don't forget to lower the gear before you land! Shes a beast so trat her with respect. She's not your daddy's learjet. Fly safe!

 

[TDTURBO]

Thanks for all the replies, I am glad that's cleared up. I still can't find that other damm post that said you couldn't turn into the good engine.

 

[Daveman]

Then you have to do those NTS airborne checks. Turned ok for me.
I like 'em but (loaded) after breaking ground and you lose one, you might find yourself on your back. That's my dime. 1200 in a J &-2B-60.

Edit: Read LedSleds post. I, as well have never heard the term spoilerons (ref mu-2).
He makes a good statement.

 

[GIVDrvr]

The term roll spoilers is correct although I have heard 'spoileron' tossed around frequently in MU2 circles.

 

[nosehair]

Didn't know that old fishwive's tale was still floatin' around out there - about NEVER turn into the dead engine.

Here's the deal: way back when - one of the common twin trainers was the Apache (underpowered) and since you're already banked a little into the good engine, and the fear was that if you attempted to release rudder to allow a turn into the dead engine, you might lose control and roll into the dead engine, it was consider good practice, when all other things being equal, increase the bank into the good engine to effect a turn. All things being equal - that is. Of course, if you have to turn into the dead engine, just be very careful to not let the airplane get away....and you know what happens to these training routines. People leran to fly rote. "Never do this! Always do that!"...That is the result of the 5 hour multi rating.

 

[EatSleepFly]

Did it occur to anyone that the instructor meant that you generally "bank" into the good engine (you know...to maintain straight and level)?

Just giving him the benefit of the doubt. I find it hard to believe that an instructor (or any multiengine-rated pilot) would be so narrow-minded as to believe you could only turn in one direction in a twin (any twin) with an engine shut down.

 

[Donsa320]

That "never turn into the dead engine" B.S. has been around a lot longer than the Apache. At least before WW2 and probably before that. You are absolutely correct however about the slight overbanking tendency and the need to be careful. I might add that, in fact, if you are just barely hanging on to your speed and altitude, a turn into the dead engine is slightly less costly in increased drag since you can actually release a little of the rudder you are holding thereby reducing a little drag from it during the turn.

D.C.

 

[Lead Sled]

The term roll spoilers is correct although I have heard 'spoileron' tossed around frequently in MU2 circles.

You're right, but never the less, it's incorrect - kind'a like calling a stabilator an elevator. Excuse me for occassionally picking at a nit or two.

Back in my LifeFlight MU-2 days (daize) we went to FlightSafety (As far as I'm concerned that's a must if you're going to fly the beast.) and our chief pilot insisted that we do a couple of ILSes to touchdown, under the hood, every 6 months in the airplane. It actully went pretty good if you limited yourself to flaps 20 (a pretty common practice in the MU-2). It was pretty hard to get a "squeaker" in the airplane under any circumstances and even harder to tell the difference between an "arrival" made under the hood and a normal "I'm going to impress the nurses" touchdown. You MU-2 guys will know what I mean.

'Sled

 

[skygirl1968]

MU2 Widow

Hi all,
Since my husband was the one killed in the MU2 out here in Denver a few weeks ago the title of this thread naturally caught my eye.

After reading all of your posts, I felt compelled to give you a few of the details that I do know about what happened that night.

First, he was heavy...full load, packed to the gills, and had an SIC/trainee with him. Second, he was even heavier because he had full fuel due to bad weather in SLC that night. Third, he was 3 for 3 as far as flying conditions - low, slow & heavy, bad combination. Fourth, we are assuming that his bad engine was totally shut down, not feathered, shut down, based on the conversation that he had with the tower.

Our initial report from the NTSB was that he made an about face for the runway that he took off from (17/35), overshot the centerline, and was either trying to correct his heading or change heading to make the diagonal runway (28). The tower controllers reported seeing his landing lights suddenly point toward the ground and then disappear. We still don't know which engine was shut down.

The entire time he flew that plane he complained about the nonexistence of ailerons and the difficulty of not having solid roll control. He often spoke of the difficulty in handling it during crosswind landings, and of not ever being able to 'grease one on' when landing. I'm only a private pilot, but my gut feeling is that because he was so low and slow, he got into a flat spin when trying to turn that monster around.

If there are any high time MU2 guys out there, I would really welcome your thoughts on this aircraft. The more I learn about it, the more I hate it.

Carrie Krysiak

 

[bart]

I will say that if you are right on speed, with no crosswind, right on glideslope and hold just a little power in until touchdown and get a greaser in an MU2 it was because you were lucky. I have 1000 hours in a Marquise and have met alot of "experts" in my day that had a friend who knew someone that flew right seat in one once. I have just gotten to the point in conversations where I just ask how many hours they have in the plane and then walk away without saying another word.

The MU2 is a very different airplane that requires type specific training to operate safely. I have not lost anyone I know to an MU2, much less a loved one, and I respect your feelings about the plane. I would probably dislike it as well in that situation.

For me, I still miss flying it. It was an airplane that required good piloting skills and you had to work to fly it well. I felt it had good roll control, but it did have high roll control forces (just had to get to the gym often) and was very intolerant of being out of trim. And it went out of trim on all axes when you filled your coffee cup, or shifted in your seat.

 

[semperfido]

i am sorry for your loss. i am sure he was doing everything right.


the mu2 is a mature aircraft that should have top notch maintenance. it is an aircraft that needs to have both pilots going to flight safety every six months. it is also the kind of aircraft that needs to have it's operating envelope respected. it is a very unforgiving aircraft. it is a quirky aircraft. it is fun to fly. i don't see too many around anymore. it may be on the verge of extinction.

 

[Lead Sled]

If there are any high time MU2 guys out there, I would really welcome your thoughts on this aircraft.

Carrie, you asked for some thoughts on the MU-2. Perhaps I can help a little, but there are probably others on this forum who would be better qualified - I flew air ambulance MU-2s, single-pilot, for three years but that was 17 years ago. I'm sure that there are others whose experience is more recent.

As you’re discovering, MU-2s have a bad reputation. Over the years, a disproportionately high percentage of them 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, the ONLY place where a pilot can obtain proper training to prepare him/her to fly the MU-2 is at FlightSafety. 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. There are other equally “quirky” airplanes out there (Lear jets come to mind.). Since they can be purchased inexpensively, they are a favorite with charter and freight companies – where else can you get their combination of performance and price? The problem is that many of these companies skimp when it comes to training. is it legal? Yes. Is it smart? Not in my book.

‘Sled

 

[semperfido]

now that is an excellent post

cudos to sled for such a well thought out post.

 

[skygirl1968]

I'll second that! That was an excellent post and very informative. I like that you refrained from giving a lot of 'opinion' and gave me a lot of fact instead. I've made friends with another MU2 widow and so far, our opinion has been that its a pile of junk. I realize that every pilot has an opinion and a favorite plane, that's why I'm glad you gave such an in depth post. Thanks for all of the info.


Carrie

 

[GIVDrvr]

Skygirl-
I am very sorry for loss of your husband, I have been in this game for a long time and have lost more than a few close friends to airplane accidents including one in a MU2 crash this past May at BWI, as yet unexplained. My thoughts are similar to those previously expressed in this thread. However, I would like to add that I flew the Marquis almost everyday for over three years, during that time I had several inflight shutdowns, an engine fire, and a few other emergencies that could have gotten ugly. I am thankful that none of these happened when I was new to the airplane or I might not be typing these words. I also broke in a few new captains that were very experienced pilots with lots of turbine time and good skills and I saw them challenged by this aircraft until they got comfortable with MU2's personality. For me this airplane is the ugly duckling you grow to love. But I dont think I am being overly dramatic when I say that this airplane is very demanding of its pilot...but it is a great aircraft. I knew some of the ACT folks that I shared the ramp with at MDW and BKL...the freight dogs are a brotherhood and are some of the best sticks in the game. God bless you and your family.