Cloud Nine's New Plane

You're thinking of the Mitsubishi Diamond jet. Also used by the Air Force for pilot training. T-1 I believe.

upload_2018-1-31_12-48-28.jpeg
 
The MU-2s had a lot of positives, but comparing it to a King Air 90 or a Merlin I think is a bit of a stretch. The cabin on a short body is much smaller than either of those. That's why Beechcraft really won the turboprop market - not the fastest, but the most comfortable.

One thing that strikes you about the MU-2 in person is how small it feels compared to other aircraft. But it's deceptive. Once you get in it you realize the cabin is actually still quite nice, and its length/wingspan/height are all similar to the 414.

I like it.
 
steingar said:
Congrats Ted. I do hope you subscribe to lots of recurrent training. Those things have killed a lot of good pilots, I'd rather you weren't one of them.

One thing I like about POA is I can't recall seeing anyone from the board in the NTSB reports.
Click to expand...

Didn't we just have one last week?
 
MU-2 were used under contract by the Navy for Air Intercept Control. My first handful of intercepts were MU-2 vs MU-2 off Catalina Island.
 
gkainz said:
MU-2 were used under contract by the Navy for Air Intercept Control. My first handful of intercepts were MU-2 vs MU-2 off Catalina Island.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is the MU2 is a warbird. Ted now owns a warbird.
 
bradg33 said:
So what you're saying is the MU2 is a warbird. Ted now owns a warbird.
Click to expand...

Point of note: Cloud Nine owns the warbird. I am President of Cloud Nine, but not owner. 501(c)3s don't have owners. They own you.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Point of note: Cloud Nine owns the warbird. I am President of Cloud Nine, but not owner. 501(c)3s don't have owners. They own you.
Click to expand...

Details, details :) (important details, I'll grant you, but details nonetheless). I don't let details get in the way of a good rumor or proclamation (like proclaiming that Ted owns a warbird).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Point of note: Cloud Nine owns the warbird. I am President of Cloud Nine, but not owner. 501(c)3s don't have owners. They own you.
Click to expand...
Then it doesn’t sound like you’re on a Cloud Nine....as much as you’re under a Cloud Nine. ;)
 
I was wondering what a "Turbo II" was as well.

The 680s also had -1s, like the early MU-2s, but the MU-2 was a much faster plane. The 690s were when they figured it out and the speed gap, while still there, was less noticeable.
 
steingar said:
Only for the one thread that talked about him in which he ignored everyone.
Click to expand...

Yep. Or argued with everyone. But I'm pretty sure that's the one being referred to.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
To answer your question, with the 414 we were at around $200/dog typically on a trip from Houston to CA or the northeast, assuming an average load of 40. We'll see how it works with this.
Click to expand...
Just curious, what about total cost/dog flown?
 
Cooter said:
Just curious, what about total cost/dog flown?
Click to expand...

I don't understand your question. Like I said, it was around $200/dog for an average load of 40 on a normal trip from Houston to CA or the northeast. That includes the all-in aircraft cost, not just fuel.
 
Just a tiny correction - both the 680T/V/W and 681 Commander models came with -43A's or -43BL's from factory. 575hp engines, 2000hr TBO. The Century, or -1's, engines were all aftermarket conversions. My conversion was done by Garrett themselves in the early 1970's.

But otherwise the -1's in the MU-2's and the Turbo Commanders are interchangeable with a minor SB mod. So if you're looking to replace eventually, Ted, you can look at all models.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't understand your question. Like I said, it was around $200/dog for an average load of 40 on a normal trip from Houston to CA or the northeast. That includes the all-in aircraft cost, not just fuel.
Click to expand...
I guess I would think of cost as considered over a time period, like total annual expenses, not just those on a single flight. Your number may have captured it, but I was thinking of staging flights, post maintenance flights, return trips, flights for other purposes, etc.
 
stratobee said:
Just a tiny correction - both the 680T/V/W and 681 Commander models came with -43A's or -43BL's from factory. 575hp engines, 2000hr TBO. The Century, or -1's, engines were all aftermarket conversions. My conversion was done by Garrett themselves in the early 1970's.

But otherwise the -1's in the MU-2's and the Turbo Commanders are interchangeable with a minor SB mod. So if you're looking to replace eventually, Ted, you can look at all models.
Click to expand...

Good point.

One of the options I'm considering is trying to get a used engine to put on. There's one I've found that's a -1-151G, which can easily get converted to a -151A. I could get it installed cheaper than I could likely do an HSI on this one, but it's a 10k TT engine. This engine is currently around 7k TT. One can argue whether that matters or not, but I suppose I just don't have a good feeling about this other engine.

Cooter said:
I guess I would think of cost as considered over a time period, like total annual expenses, not just those on a single flight. Your number may have captured it, but I was thinking of staging flights, post maintenance flights, return trips, flights for other purposes, etc.
Click to expand...

My number is a total all-in cost over the course of the life of the aircraft.

Now, the part that doesn't get taken to account is change in resale value of the aircraft from purchase to sale. We'll see what the 414 goes for when I sell it, but I'm doubtful that I'll be able to sell it for what I paid for it since it's now a plane that needs 3 cylinders before you can fly it. It still makes a really good deal for the right person, but those people are few and far between.

If you look at the total math on what we'll get for the 414 and what the new engines on it were going to cost vs. what the MU-2 cost and the hot section, etc., we still are doing pretty well. That's why I was comfortable making the deal on this plane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
snip
Now, the part that doesn't get taken to account is change in resale value of the aircraft from purchase to sale. We'll see what the 414 goes for when I sell it, but I'm doubtful that I'll be able to sell it for what I paid for it since it's now a plane that needs 3 cylinders before you can fly it. It still makes a really good deal for the right person, but those people are few and far between.
snip
Click to expand...
Ted, maybe you already covered this question above, but how does the potential resale of the 414 compare as-is versus you put 3 cylinders on it then sell?
 
gkainz said:
Ted, maybe you already covered this question above, but how does the potential resale of the 414 compare as-is versus you put 3 cylinders on it then sell?
Click to expand...

I didn't cover it, and that's a good question, one that I've somewhat wrestled with.

The engine has 1200 hours on it, but is 25 years since overhaul. So you have some people who would say they just want to put an engine on the plane rather than put 3 new cylinders on a 25 year old engine. Plus, some people would just overhaul these 3 cylinders, some would do 5 and have a fresh top (I did one cylinder in November).

So, my preference is to keep the plane as-is and let the buyer decide the best way to handle it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It more or less is a case of "it is what it is." The 414 had more dog space, but in a lot of cases groups weren't able to receive enough dogs to fill the 414 entirely, so we actually had times when it was only partially full. On the whole, I think the size of the MU-2 won't pose any issues for us.

As far as human passengers, we're a family of 5 and the plane is a 7 seater (3 across the back, 2 in the middle, 2 in front), so we have plenty of space there. The baggage compartments on the plane are kinda oddly shaped in the back of the plane, but there's overall more baggage space than the 414 for our luggage for the rare personal trips we do.
Click to expand...

As Cloud Nine is a 501(c)3 how much do you reimburse the corporation per hour when you fly with the family?
 
skippers said:
As Cloud Nine is a 501(c)3 how much do you reimburse the corporation per hour when you fly with the family?
Click to expand...

We set a dry rate that's based on average costs the fleet sees, which ends up being more fair to the non-profit than to me since I've been able to consistently operate our aircraft cheaper than fleet averages. Since Cloud Nine owes me a whole lot of money, personal use then gets deducted from the debt owed to me. If Cloud Nine ever gets to the point where it doesn't owe me anything (which is the hope) then I'll have to start writing checks for personal use rather than taking it out of the debt owed. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Last year we did two personal trips, which is about average.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Thanks! We're excited to start flying it.
Click to expand...

Does it have to have the hot section before you can fly it? And I assume you need the SFAR required training as well.
 
jsstevens said:
Does it have to have the hot section before you can fly it? And I assume you need the SFAR required training as well.
Click to expand...

I could fly it a bit before doing the HSI, but we're going to do the HSI prior to flying it. Otherwise I'm doing my training and then sitting around while the HSI gets done and letting the training get rusty, which I don't think is a smart move on this airplane.

Technically the SFAR is no more (although I've been referring to the SFAR) it's now 14 CFR Part 91 Subpart N. But yes, I need that training before I fly it. People will probably be calling it the SFAR training for at least 10 years. :)

So the plan is:

1) Get the HSI done (might have to hire a pilot to fly it somewhere for that, but I'm leaning towards having the engine pulled and reinstalled locally)

2) Get the training done

3) Fly
 
Went by the hangar this morning to show @Mtns2Skies the MU-2 and 414 (and check out his beautiful new 180!).

The hangar smells like Jet-A. I like it. :)

The hot section is proving to be interesting. There was an AD issued on Monday against all TPE-331s, although it seems to primarily impact the -5s and -6s more than the -1s, -10s, etc. So in the end it probably won't impact me as much, but for those it impacts, you need to buy a new $20k combustor case. In my case if it's cracked then I could buy a serviceable used one, which is much cheaper.

I am expecting the first stage turbine wheel to fail inspection since it seems they typically do, and this one had 3,000 cycles on it when it was reinstalled at the last hot section. Wheels aren't cheap. Wheels #2 and #3 I think are more likely to be fine, but no way of knowing until you get into it. Which shop you go with matters, too. The Honeywell service centers are going to go in telling you that you'll need to put new disks in and a new casing in with a higher cost (as you'd expect).

Still deciding who we want to go with for the hot section. Making some more phone calls, talking to the various shops. I've ruled a few out entirely, but still have some on the list (including a Honeywell service center) that I'm considering.
 
If you want an opinions on the shops of places to get parts let me know, a good friend worked that platform for 40 years and just retired.
@Ted DuPuis Couple pictures you might enjoy that were lurking around:

mooney mu-2.jpg test bed.jpg mooney mu-2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
@bijanmaleki always interested in recommendations on shops.

And very nice pictures! I especially like the old Mooney MU-2 marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top