Newbe to the MU-2

[RkyMtnHigh]

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!!!

 

[GVFlyer]

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

 

[Gulfstream 200]

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?

 

[AerroMatt]

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

What? Has Jack Northrop risen from the dead?

 

[landlover]

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?

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.

 

[RkyMtnHigh]

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.

 

[Say Again Over]

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. imp:

 

[Gruman Fan]

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?

 

[Lead Sled]

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

 

[X man]

Mu 2's and Natural Amish Food

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.

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

 

[Say Again Over]

And if that doesn’t convince you ask yourself this

Great, another expert from the peanut gallery, please tell me from all your MU-2 experience or aircraft design knowledge the problem with the airplane, when you get it all together please let the FAA and NTSB know, apparently they don't understand.

 

[Say Again Over]

If it was such a great and capable aircraft… why isn’t it still in production?

Hey can someone please tell me what ever happened the G-159, now thats a dangerous airplane. :nuts:

 

[Lead Sled]

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?

That was the dumbest statement posted here in a long time.

'Sled

 

[mistaknly]

I really enjoy reading the posts by the well informed. And sometimes I get a laugh or two from the flame messages. This is my first post. I just felt compelled to defend Mitsubishi.

As someone who was already flying when the Mu2 came out, I couldn't help but point out that it was, and is, a great example of aerospace engineering.

Unfortunately, its high wing loading produces performance on one hand and risk on the other. All aircraft are compromises in features. See the F104 Starfighter.

In single engine airplanes you might compare early Mooneys with Bonanzas. The laminar flow wing on the Mooney produced situations at low speeds that were unrecoverable at low altitude (if you weren’t careful). The Bonanza can be horsed around at low speed, although not entirely with impunity.

The Mu2 is the same. Although it is quite controllable at low speeds, you don’t have as much margin for error as on a King Air. Another example is the early Lear wings. You just don’t want to get too slow in marginal conditions.

GVFlyer has some excellent posts concerning nice big thick wings versus thin fast wings and all that it implies for the GV/G550 performance at high altitudes.

So all of this suggests that to fly an aircraft which is closer the margin all time requires better pilot training, discipline, skill and nerve. And it wouldn’t hurt to have a set of safety procedures and minimums that go beyond FAA mandates. Especially if you’re an owner/pilot.

I think Mitsubishi did an outstanding job given the technology current at that time.


Excellent link from the Howell site really puts it all in perspective:

http://www.mu2b.com/pdf/MU2Info/MITSUBISHI MU-2 - the odd looking machine - (1).pdf

 

[Lead Sled]

I really enjoy reading the posts by the well informed. And sometimes I get a laugh or two from the flame messages. This is my first post. I just felt compelled to defend Mitsubishi...

Welcome to the fray. I'm looking forward to hearing more of what you have to say. I always look forward to well thought out posts from experienced folks. (You don't always get that around here.)

'Sled