Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Newbe to the MU-2

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Amish RakeFight said:
You probably don't want to get mixed up in that situation if you have no real time the plane. It has very tempermental handling chracteristics when you lose an engine in it. As another poster mentioned, do a search of mu-2 accidents...you'll find a lot.

I agree that getting into this situation without any experience in the airplane is asking for trouble. However, I have to say, the airplane handles just fine on one engine. What would doing a search of MU2 accidents accomplish? It would be no different that doing a search on Lear 23 or 24 accidents. It is a high wing loaded, high performance, turbo prop. It is simply UNFORGIVING.
 
Know the facts

Amish RakeFight said:
You probably don't want to get mixed up in that situation if you have no real time the plane. It has very tempermental handling chracteristics when you lose an engine in it. As another poster mentioned, do a search of mu-2 accidents...you'll find a lot.

I do have to agree that you don't want to get yourself into a situation babysitting when neither of you have any experience. As for the airplane itself, it is by far the best performing, most reliable airplane in it's class, and those of you who think otherwise are just showing off how little you know about the subject.

The MU-2 has no "tempermental" characteristics on one engine, in fact, the airplane performs better than most twin turbines operate on two engines. (That insight does come from experience.) And doing an accident search (and actually researching the accidents) only goes farther to show that the airplane has never been the problem. The MU-2 does require a "professional" pilot behind the controls, and most of the plane bashing comes from the people who are "not" professionals and just need to boost their egos by trying to make people think that they actually know something.

Bottom line, if you want to fly the airplane, please get the training, and just have respect for what the airplane was designed to do. And that goes for every airplane out there. Reese Howell is one of the best instructors that I have had the opportunity to fly with, and if you have a question about the MU-2, there is the guy you need to ask (over 25,000 hours in the MU-2 probabaly makes him somewhat of an expert.)
 
I don't mean to join along and condemn the plane, but the original poster should be forewarned that he's not babbysitting a newly minted private on some long x-ctry's.

I have no personal experience in the MU-2, and for that perhaps I should say nothing. But I have read a fair amount about the aircraft on this board from those who have flown it as well as independant reports on its handling including contreibuting factors in acident reports.

It would seem one needs some serious experience in that plane to ride along safely if you're to be of any help to the gentleman whom hires you to do so.

From what I have gathered, it has a very short arm aft of the CG, and along with spoilerons makes for a difficult time controllingthe plane during low speed flight regimes like takeoff and landing.

As others have already alluded to, the plane is not inheriently dangerous, it just takes sharp skills to handle it under abnormal conditions.

As far as reccomending to do a search on here about MU-2 accidents, its meant to direct the reader to look up additional discussion about he pros and cons of the MU-2, not to highlight any regularity in accidents that the plane may have and condemn it.

Point is, someone asked for adivce on a babysittign position in this plane, all I can say is, its a good thing he's inquiring about it.

good luck.
 
someguy said:
It is a high wing loaded, high performance, turbo prop. It is simply UNFORGIVING.

The spoileron system also adversely affects stall and single-engine characteristics.

GV
 
The spoileron system also adversely affects stall and single-engine characteristics. by GV
More ignorant statements by the uninformed, you going for a record today?
 
From what I have gathered, it has a very short arm aft of the CG, and along with spoilerons makes for a difficult time controllingthe plane during low speed flight regimes like takeoff and landing.
Please spare me, this airplane has the roll rate of an F-4 when it's fully configured and at 90 knots, too many arm chair experts around here. :rolleyes:
 
I must point out that the MU2 does NOT have spoilerons. Almost the entire trailing edge of the wing is flap. The roll control is provided only by SPOILERS. The exact same concept can be found on Diamonds and Beechjets. In fact, its during the low speed regimes such as takeoff and most of all landing, that you have the most roll authority. You have more roll authority with flaps full than you do with no flaps at all. Its a common misconception but the concept makes perfect sense when thought out.
 
The thread can be summed up by stating that the plane requires some finess during slow speed maneuvering especially if you lose an engine and perhaps having an aft CG.

It's a safe and fine plane for what it is, you just need to be more careful with it.

I think the original poster more or less has the jist of the MU-2 and what to expect.
 
someguy said:
In fact, its during the low speed regimes such as takeoff and most of all landing, that you have the most roll authority. You have more roll authority with flaps full than you do with no flaps at all. Its a common misconception but the concept makes perfect sense when thought out.

Thank you!!!
 
Say Again Over said:
More ignorant statements by the uninformed, you going for a record today?

You are correct in your assumption that I have no flight experience in the MU-2, however, I was assigned to perform closed-loop handling qualities test flights of the Beech 400 for my military service. This aircraft uses a similar spoiler system and among our findings was that the spoiler system made stall and single engine events more critical.

This would be intuitively obvious to anyone with an aerodynamic background whether or not they had flown either aircraft.


GV
 
OK wait here, we are talking MU2 right?

argue all you want, just take this hunk of $hits safety record -- call it "inexperienced pilots", "adverse conditions", "cheap owners with poor mx"....whatever..statistics speak for themselves. I would seriously question any individual who buys one of these for personal or corporate transportation.

at the end of the day you are flying the lemon of avitation.

How much money are you going to make doing this? I bet less than King Air wages.

I just gotta ask....

WHY?

:confused:
 
G100driver said:
You do realize that you just flammed the designer of the B-2 flying wing ....

What? Has Jack Northrop risen from the dead?
 
Gulfstream 200 said:
OK wait here, we are talking MU2 right?

argue all you want, just take this hunk of $hits safety record -- call it "inexperienced pilots", "adverse conditions", "cheap owners with poor mx"....whatever..statistics speak for themselves. I would seriously question any individual who buys one of these for personal or corporate transportation.

at the end of the day you are flying the lemon of avitation.

How much money are you going to make doing this? I bet less than King Air wages.

I just gotta ask....

WHY?

:confused:

G200 you seem to be the voice of reason around here when ever i pop in. If it dont make dollars it dont make sense. The MU-2 maybe a great a/c but who cares, it seems like those things fall outta the sky like a greasey toolbox. Please spare yourself with this job. And the low pay that is rolled into this job.
 
GVFlyer said:
You are correct in your assumption that I have no flight experience in the MU-2, however, I was assigned to perform closed-loop handling qualities test flights of the Beech 400 for my military service. This aircraft uses a similar spoiler system and among our findings was that the spoiler system made stall and single engine events more critical.

This would be intuitively obvious to anyone with an aerodynamic background whether or not they had flown either aircraft.


GV

A quick question. Were your test results purely aerodynamic or were you factoring the pilot into the equation? I am no aerodynamacist, but I would have to think that in a single engine situation, having the ability to reduce induced drag caused by aileron deflection would be a positive for using spoilers. In a single engine situation you are supposed to ensure that you fly the aircraft with the spoilers in the neutral position, and I think this also holds true for the BE-400.

Noted that the pilot does have to configurie the aircraft just after engine failure to get no spoiler deflection, but this procedure takes minimal time and can be done without severely degrading handling performance.
 
This would be intuitively obvious to anyone with an aerodynamic background whether or not they had flown either aircraft by GV
OK fine, I am not an aircraft engineer or designer, my perspective is from mr. average joe pilot, but I think it is only fair to mention the fact that the original (I think) design of the aircraft (1962?) was to compete with corporate aircraft such as the Queen Air, a non pressurized recip with huge landing gear for grass fields. The low wing loading made the the Queen Air pretty rough in turbulence, voilà, the MU-2, high wing loading, a pressurized cabin, gear attached to fuselage for strength, 85% of the trailing edge with gigantic fowler flaps to enable the grass field capability and with a 260 kt cruise, just a bit faster than the Queen Air. :pimp:
 
Gulfstream 200 said:
argue all you want, just take this hunk of $hits safety record

And if that doesn’t convince you ask yourself this:


If it was such a great and capable aircraft… why isn’t it still in production?
 
I'll chime in with my 2 cents worth. (I've got about 1000 hours of MU-2 time - 99.5% single-pilot, most of it at night in mountainous terrain out West as a Life Flight pilot.) First of all, there's nothing wrong with the MU-2 that good initial and recurrant training won't adequately address. Second, the worst jobs in aviation have the words "baby sitting" in the job description. Third, IF both of you get adequate (Howell Enterprises or Simcom) initial and 6 month recurrent training then I personally wouldn't have any extraordinary safety concerns. If, this isn't the case then I wouldn't touch the job with a 10 foot pole. Finally, now matter what the training status is, it's still a baby sitting job. Almost without exception, THEY ALL SUCK.

Personally, I'd pass on it.

'Sled
 
Mu 2's and Natural Amish Food

Amish RakeFight said:
You probably don't want to get mixed up in that situation if you have no real time the plane. It has very tempermental handling chracteristics when you lose an engine in it. As another poster mentioned, do a search of mu-2 accidents...you'll find a lot.

:rolleyes:What is the relationship between these to, I must have missed something, high speed Japanese turbo prop and Amish Food.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top