Newbe to the MU-2

[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

 

[con-pilot]

Say Again Over, may I ask what series MU-2s you have flown and how much time do you have in each?

Specifically have you flown the MU-2 G? I have. It is an underpowered piece of crap.

How about the following fact.

Compare the accident rate of the MU-2 to the Beech Super King Air 200, another twin-turboprop of comparable size, in terms of accidents per 100,000 hours flown. By this measure, the MU-2 accident rate over a 38 year period, 1964-2002, is nearly five times higher than the King Air, and about seven times higher in terms of fatal accidents.

I have over a 1,000 hours in MU-2s in the G, L and the N. I don't like them, never did like them.

Now regarding your statement that the spoilers do NOT affect the MU-2s single engine performance I am afraid I must disagree. Upon loss of an engine on takeoff if any spoiler is used to keep the aircraft heading straight ahead you will, not may, will lose considerable single engine climb performance. That is an aerodynamic fact.

So to the young man that started this thread my advice to you is to pass it up.

 

[con-pilot]

Sorry, double post.

 

[X man]

M U 2

:cartman: To Mistaknly
That articule on the MU2 is excellent, and would seem to answer many myths that have developed around the aircraft. I have never flown one, but always wanted to, found the shape and design to be unique.

Thanks

 

[Say Again Over]

It is an underpowered piece of crap by con-pilot

Yes I agree, one of my other posts does mention the types flown, as mentioned before I am not an engineer and can only give you my opinion as a pilot. When the real facts are analyzed the accident rate isn't as bad as you suggest, I'm too lazy to dig them up now but the last time I attended a P.R.O.P seminar, the BE20 was leading the pack. Your experience on the G is just one model, I have flown almost all models and can only say that I feel it is a very safe aircraft with the proper pilot training and maintenance.

 

[Gruman Fan]

When the real facts are analyzed the accident rate isn't as bad as you suggest, I'm too lazy to dig them up now

I’m nominating you for the FEMA Director position; I can see you now in front of Congress:

“Well Senator Kennedy, Hurricane Katrina wasn’t really a bad storm, when you look at the historical data compiled by FEMA using the latest computer models you can see that Katrina was really only a level 4 thunderstorm. The damage New Orleans suffered was caused by all the black people living there, and had nothing to do with the weather”…

 

[Say Again Over]

Nice retort Gruman, too bad you don't have any statistics!

 

[mzaharis]

Nice retort Gruman, too bad you don't have any statistics!

From Business and Commercial Aviation:

"Overall, its five-year accident rate from 2000 to 2004 was 3.17 per 100,000 flight hours, compared to 1.73 accidents per 100,000 flight hours for that time frame among other popular turboprops, according to Robert E. Breiling Associates. "

Pretty interesting article from Business and Commercial Aviation on the MU-2 controversy - no hysterics, and includes a flight test by the author with an experienced MU-2 pilot, trying engine-out procedures:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_bca_story.jsp?id=news/mu2_0206.xml

 

[Say Again Over]

Yes, I've read the article, basically there are two camps, the attorneys and experts for the plaintiffs (all of whom have no experience with the aircraft and a financial agenda, duh) or the people like astronaut Col. Frank Boreman who has thousands of hours in the aircraft. The same article presents this view from the FAA:

Agency officials said that there's "nothing wrong" with the MU-2B's fundamental design and that it meets or exceeds all type certification standards that were in effect in 1965 when it was undergoing its certification trials. One former NTSB investigator said Kennedy was trying "to rewrite the laws of physics."

So don't take some little of snippet out of an article to make some ridiculous point that you have. From my point of view the biggest detractors of the MU-2, are people like yourself that have half the facts about the aircraft and zero (0) experience in the MU-2.

 

[mzaharis]

Yes, I've read the article, basically there are two camps, the attorneys and experts for the plaintiffs (all of whom have no experience with the aircraft and a financial agenda, duh) or the people like astronaut Col. Frank Boreman who has thousands of hours in the aircraft. The same article presents this view from the FAA:
So don't take some little of snippet out of an article to make some ridiculous point that you have. From my point of view the biggest detractors of the MU-2, are people like yourself that have half the facts about the aircraft and zero (0) experience in the MU-2.

God, you're paranoid. It is not my goal to say that the MU-2 is safe or unsafe. I was just trying to supply a statistic. I linked to the article (which I read as being a pro-MU-2 article - the author asserts that any issues with the MU-2 are primarily those of training) so that people could read it and form their own opinions.

You're totally correct - I have no relevant experience flying those aircraft, and cannot offer an an informed opinion. I am not a detractor or supporter of the MU-2. Trust me, I'm aware of my lack of experience, and I rarely actually offer opinions on this board. I'm not trying to make ANY point here. I am not in the business, but will sometimes post relevant facts, statistics, and interesting links, and ask the odd question.

Tell me, do you think that the article is a good one (despite the spelling error)? I'd like to hear if the author provided a good characterization from someone with MU-2 experience.

 

[Say Again Over]

Sorry, didn't mean to attack you or your post, been on the defense on this thread if you hadn't noticed. :blush:

 

[mzaharis]

Sorry, didn't mean to attack you or your post, been on the defense on this thread if you hadn't noticed. :blush:

I understand. The whole MU-2 thing inspires strong opinions on both sides. It is an airplane with some very impressive capabilities, but it also seems to require the pilot to be on the top of his/her game, moreso than some other turboprops.

Trust me, other than physics and aerodynamics (the two topics I can speak with a LITTLE bit of authority), I will never attempt to tell a group of experienced pilots how to do their business. :beer: