Cloud Nine's New Plane

This is the new generation POA, inclusive and welcoming to all regardless of boobs or NTSB status (not that the two are related).
 
With the 414 under contract, I have gotten the HSI scheduled for the MU-2 as well as the training. The plan is for me to do the training on the 24th-28th, and around the end of that or the following weekend I'll fly the MU-2 (either with the instructor or perhaps as my first solo flight) to the shop to do the HSI. Originally I wasn't going to do the training until after the HSI, but I decided that the timing made sense to do it beforehand, and I can always have the instructor come back after for some additional training (which I may do). Paying a pilot to fly the plane down and back was going to cost enough that I figured it would be much smarter to put that money towards investing in training for me rather than just getting the plane moved.

Currently, it looks like the plane should be ready to fly again in the first half of April. But we'll see how all of that goes. It's very exciting.
 
denverpilot said:
414 already sold, eh? That was quick.
Click to expand...

It was on the market publicly just under 2 weeks. It's under contract now, so technically the sale isn't completed. A few things to take care of first.

Matthew said:
Why the need for the HSI? Hours? Performance issues?
Click to expand...

The engines are both performing great (at least according to the pilot who flew it out here) but hour wise it's due.

Under Part 91 overhauls are not mandatory, but inspections are. So I can run the engines past TBO, but I do have to comply with HSI, gearbox inspection, airframe inspections, etc. when those come due. This HSI will take the right engine past TBO. The left engine has about 1200 hours until it reaches its next HSI which coincides with a gearbox inspection. I think when the left engine approaches that will be a decision point as to whether to put the money into the airplane and keep flying it or change to another plane. I'm not going to make any predictions on that seeing as 1200 hours is likely anywhere from 6 to 10 years and a lot can happen in that timeframe.

A note on the airframe inspections. The principle inspections are the following:

- 100 hour (this must be done every 12 months at a minimum)
- 200 hour (this must be done every 12 months at a minimum)
- 3 year inspection
- 10 year inspection

The plane had a 10 year inspection done last year, so that's good for 9 years. The next 3 year inspection is due next year.
 
3393RP said:
Ted, I imagine you are fully aware of the ADs concerning RPM limits during ground idle with a quartering tailwind.

Operation at a certain speed causes a reactionless mode resonance which can cause blade fatigue and separation.

I mention it because I found the literature describing the causes and effects of this phenomenon really interesting.
Click to expand...

3393RP said:
Ted, here's a link to the ADs listed in the Federal Register. I think it's all of them but there could have been others since 1995. Just glancing at it, I don't think the MU-2-1 is affected but I'm not sure.

I read up on the subject of reactionless mode after the crash that killed the governor of South Dakota. That aircraft shed a propeller blade causing a fuselage puncture and depressurization.

Loss of the blade tore the engine loose from one of the mounts, resulting in aerodynamic impairment and the inability to maintain altitude. The attempted off airport emergency landing was not successful.

That aircraft was a long body, I think a -60 and had -10 engines.

Link to AD summary:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-01-12/html/95-633.htm

The NTSB report (direct link to pdf download):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw3nUjA_Sk5WmvZYsXRrtXe_

I apologize for including the information about the accident. I doubt it is of value to you, but I wanted to expand on the cause of propeller issues described in the ADs.
Click to expand...

Finally read through the report and the AD. A few notes:

1) The report is very interesting to read with a few takeaways.
2) The AD is only applicable to 4-bladed propellers, as the reactionless mode doesn't exist with the 3-bladed props. To my knowledge, a 3-bladed prop has never lost a blade.

If I had 4-bladed props, I would likely be wanting to convert to the MTs more strongly. The reactionless mode was found during initial cert testing, but obviously their solution (turn up the idle RPM) didn't take care of it. Others feel the same way and that's been part of why they opted to go to the MTs. The physics behind it is very interesting and the MU-2 is affected worse than other airplanes with the same engines and same propellers.

Perhaps the bigger takeaway is that if you lose a blade and the engine comes dislodged (or rather, if the engine comes dislodged somehow) it's possible that you won't be able to maintain level flight and you may have control difficulties, requiring that you go faster for better control. In this situation, rushing down might not be a good idea depending on the situation. In the case of that crash, they hurried on down to 8,000 when they had a cabin decompression in the low flight levels, but then found themselves unable to maintain altitude and crashed. The low clouds in the area made it much worse since they couldn't pick a field to land in and thus ran into a silo.

But interestingly, the whole scenario would be a lot easier to handle today with modern avionics. One of the factors in the crash was that ATC didn't have all the local airports on the screen, nor did they have convenient weather. These days, we can access that info faster than ATC can with our avionics, even if it's just an iPad.

Interesting things to consider.
 
?
Ted DuPuis said:
I realize you're joking with this, but there's a point. One thing that aviation should teach all of us is that there is always someone with more money than you.

I could operate a Lancair 360 and not think twice about any costs that come up with it, so I'd never have to ask. The 310 requires thought, but mostly I don't have to ask. I could probably swing operating a 340/414, but that would require even more careful planning, a lot of owner MX (more than I do now), and a certain amount of luck, so I should ask. I could no way afford a turboprop, and even a "cheap" Lear, so I'd have to ask. All the smart people who come into the Twin Cessna forums ask about costs before buying.

Regarding the Malibu, everyone I've talked to who's owned them for a while has said they aren't economical at all from a MX perspective. Fuel, yes, economical, but that's where it ends. If you go in with a couple of partners and the plane is going to be flown several hundred hours per year, though, then I would suspect that you could get the costs to be a lot more reasonable. Doing your own research and owner MX where applicable will help keep costs down. I can't see you operating one for under $300/hr and would expect closer to $400 or more.

If I upgraded to something with turbos/pressurization, I would likely want to have at least one partner.
Click to expand...
 
skippers said:
?
Click to expand...

That post was made over three years ago. I'm not going to speak for Ted, but financial situations change. Five years ago I thought all I'd ever be able to afford was a Cherokee 180. These days I can't seem to stay away from the Cessna 310 section of the classifieds. :)


EDIT: Oops...a day late and a dollar short, as usual! Ted beat me to it.
 
The point was never say never in regards to airplanes. They are a serious addiction. Was not meant in anyway as a derogatory comment.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Finally read through the report and the AD. A few notes:

1) The report is very interesting to read with a few takeaways.
2) The AD is only applicable to 4-bladed propellers, as the reactionless mode doesn't exist with the 3-bladed props. To my knowledge, a 3-bladed prop has never lost a blade.

If I had 4-bladed props, I would likely be wanting to convert to the MTs more strongly. The reactionless mode was found during initial cert testing, but obviously their solution (turn up the idle RPM) didn't take care of it. Others feel the same way and that's been part of why they opted to go to the MTs. The physics behind it is very interesting and the MU-2 is affected worse than other airplanes with the same engines and same propellers.

Perhaps the bigger takeaway is that if you lose a blade and the engine comes dislodged (or rather, if the engine comes dislodged somehow) it's possible that you won't be able to maintain level flight and you may have control difficulties, requiring that you go faster for better control. In this situation, rushing down might not be a good idea depending on the situation. In the case of that crash, they hurried on down to 8,000 when they had a cabin decompression in the low flight levels, but then found themselves unable to maintain altitude and crashed. The low clouds in the area made it much worse since they couldn't pick a field to land in and thus ran into a silo.

But interestingly, the whole scenario would be a lot easier to handle today with modern avionics. One of the factors in the crash was that ATC didn't have all the local airports on the screen, nor did they have convenient weather. These days, we can access that info faster than ATC can with our avionics, even if it's just an iPad.

Interesting things to consider.
Click to expand...
I presume your note 2 that a 3 bladed prop has never lost a blade refers to 3 bladed props on MU2’s? Surely a three bladed prop has lost a blade on some airframe?
 
skippers said:
The point was never say never in regards to airplanes. They are a serious addiction. Was not meant in anyway as a derogatory comment.
Click to expand...

Fair point, 3 years ago I stand by saying that it was a “No way” proposition, it was never intended as a “never going to happen” statement. Some of the change has been education since then on turbine ownership, some has been changes in finances, but ultimately this plane represented a unique opportunity and a lot of it was taking advantage of that.
 
Briar Rabbit said:
I presume your note 2 that a 3 bladed prop has never lost a blade refers to 3 bladed props on MU2’s? Surely a three bladed prop has lost a blade on some airframe?
Click to expand...

Correct, that was only on MU2s.

Threaded hub McCauley props have lost blades on 3-bladed props a number of times, which is why they have the AD out on them.
 
With training starting on Sunday, I've spent the week reading through the manuals and learning up on as much as I can. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on the systems and a basic understanding on procedures which will become clear once we start flying. The plane does have some interesting numbers and I can see why people who bought the things and just hopped in them back prior to the SFAR had such a bad fatality rate. It has enough differences from traditional twins (piston especially, but also turboprops) that can trip you up. Either way, I'm feeling pretty prepared going into it. We'll see how the actual flying goes. I've spent time in the cockpit as well learning where the switches, gauges, etc. While I don't have it down like I do the 414 (as you'd expect) I've got it basically figured out.

There are several limits on this plane that I'm not used to seeing elsewhere. Maybe they're common in the turbine world, I don't know. For one, there's an operating limit that you aren't supposed to operate the engines above ISA+30C, regardless of altitude. DA is limited to 8,000 ft for takeoff, and there's also a chart that reduces the allowable takeoff weight based on OAT.

The W&B is interesting. It seems essentially impossible to get this plane to its aft CG limit. The maximum takeoff and landing weights decrease with forward CG, so you really have to pay attention to your CG and your weight. My guess is that this has to do with weight limits on the tiny nosewheels.

Can't wait to fly it. :)
 
denverpilot said:
Whoa. That’s a huge limitation.

I guess you won’t be visiting us in summer? LOL. Day-um.
Click to expand...

I don't know if they changed it with the later models that had bigger engines. Calling it a "huge limitation" I think would only be true for people who are based out west. I do know there are MU-2s based in your neck of the woods, so I'm guessing probably later models with -10s in them.

For me, probably not a big deal. Remember, it's a short wing. Shoooort wing.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't know if they changed it with the later models that had bigger engines. Calling it a "huge limitation" I think would only be true for people who are based out west. I do know there are MU-2s based in your neck of the woods, so I'm guessing probably later models with -10s in them.

For me, probably not a big deal. Remember, it's a short wing. Shoooort wing.
Click to expand...

I was just thinkin’ there’s plenty of doggie deliveries out West.

Interesting problem to have. You can deliver at night some nights. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
I was just thinkin’ there’s plenty of doggie deliveries out West.

Interesting problem to have. You can deliver at night some nights. ;)
Click to expand...

I can land at higher DAs, I just can't take off again afterwards.

We've done deliveries to Colorado and the west coast, but that's been about it thus far. I've gotten requests to the northwest, but they haven't happened yet. The MU-2 might change that, though, with the extra speed and better altitude capabilities.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
DA is limited to 8,000 ft for takeoff, and there's also a chart that reduces the allowable takeoff weight based on OAT.
Click to expand...

Well if you visit me in the summer, you may be able to leave a few minutes before sunrise. I have seen the DA get above 10,500 in summer.

In the middle of winter I have seen the density altitude here drop as low as 4000 feet....
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I can land at higher DAs, I just can't take off again afterwards.

We've done deliveries to Colorado and the west coast, but that's been about it thus far. I've gotten requests to the northwest, but they haven't happened yet. The MU-2 might change that, though, with the extra speed and better altitude capabilities.
Click to expand...
dibs on NW trips!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Um, isn't that spinny thing supposed to be going roundy round?
 
Once you hit 300 KTS GS, aren't you required to wear epaulettes?

That's why I stay at or below 299.
 
Last edited:
The 8000ft is a limitation of the OEI climb rate. That small wing, dirtied up with spoilers and huge flaps, doesn't do wonders for single engine ops. The good thing is it's faster than the competition.

Congrats on finishing training! Look forward to pirep...
 
stratobee said:
The 8000ft is a limitation of the OEI climb rate. That small wing, dirtied up with spoilers and huge flaps, doesn't do wonders for single engine ops. The good thing is it's faster than the competition.

Congrats on finishing training! Look forward to pirep...
Click to expand...

So is it certified under Part 23 to climb out like an airliner, or was it a limitation of the aerodynamics and bad handling at low speed?

All sorts of twins out there that can’t climb out OEI that take off that way, every day... which is why I’m curious.

Don’t know if you know, just askin’ since it’s curious.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Um, isn't that spinny thing supposed to be going roundy round?
Click to expand...

Normally, yes. But one of the requirements of MU-2 training is shutting an engine down and restarting it in-flight.

James_Dean said:
I thought that plane was uncontrollable in that condition? ;)

View attachment 60496
Click to expand...

The plane likes going fast. That condition was 170 KIAS with one engine feathered. Other engine wasn't at max power. The plane flew beautifully like that - better than any other plane I've flown OEI. Trim it out, and it's hands off. Obviously once you change speed/power you need to retrim it, but OEI it did very nicely. You do want to accelerate and get fast as fast as you can as an engine failure when slow is not ideal.

But I can, in fact, beat @SixPapaCharlie in the Cirrus with one feathered. And I proved it.

denverpilot said:
You meant to say, “Now the real training begins.”

:)
Click to expand...

Good point.

Honestly, this was some of the best (if not the best) training I've ever received in my flying career. I attribute this to a few things. First off, the instructor was excellent. Great background, lots of time flying these things (used to fly MU-2s on cargo). We got along great and he's very practical. We had a lot of fun.

The other thing is that the FAA requirements for MU-2 training are really restrictive on requiring a lot of maneuvers, but also require that MU-2 instructors have 500 hours in type and some other requirements. In other words, you can't just say "Oh, I have a multi rating, I can instruct you in the MU-2." You actually need a LOA from your FSDO saying you can instruct in the MU-2. I think this helps to produce a higher caliber of instructor. One thing I've noticed with the MU-2 is that most people seem to be very happy with the instruction they receive. I wish I could say the same in other realms, but that's often not the case. I think that the FAA intervention in MU-2 training requirements has been a good thing for the airplane and its pilots.

The plane flies differently than a normal airplane. Not dangerous, but different. You need to get to know it. I've said if this plane was a Cheyenne, I would've just gone and flown it home. Same with a King Air or a Conquest. Even if I could legally, I wouldn't have done that with the MU-2, and I think after training that's prudent. The NTSB reports have shown people who try to fly it without training don't do well. With training, it's a great plane.
 
denverpilot said:
Sorry to hear man. It looks like it’ll be a great airplane if it doesn’t bankrupt you in the process. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks. It hasn't been the money so far, it's the time lost.

Thought I'd pick her up this week, but now three new things have popped up - voltage regulator, squat switch glitching (probably) which actuates the safety valve (making her dump pressure) and a vacuum leak that can not be pinned down.
 
Last edited:
This weekend I completed the first Cloud Nine mission in our new plane. Here's the FlightAware for those interested:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N228WP

While the training was a real blast and I enjoyed every minute of it, getting out and actually stretching your legs to see what she'll do on a real trip is the next step.

In summary, the plane did close to what I expected. I'm operating the engines pretty conservatively so I'm not using as much power as I could. I may experiment some more as I get more time in the plane. The plane did around 250-260 KTAS on 56-62 GPH combined in cruise. Takeoff is around 110 GPH combined, but it goes down quickly. By the time you hit the mid to high teens (which doesn't take long) you're down below 70 combined, and by FL200 you're in the 60 range.

That sounds like a lot, but by the time you factor in the price of Jet A and the speed, it's not much different than the 414 dollar wise. It comes fairly close to even.

The plane is a great performer. Even taking off out of ABQ (one of our stops out west) at 5300 MSL, the plane took off and climbed quickly. You could still notice the altitude, but it's much more noticeable in a piston. Initial climb rates, even heavy, are around 2,000-2,500 FPM, and that's at 160 KIAS. By the flight levels you're down in the 500 FPM or so range. FL240-250 are relatively hard to utilize unless you're lightweight or it's really cold out. We flew down to Houston at FL240 and that worked, but heading west with dogs, FL200 was a better altitude. The fuel and speeds aren't much different there, so it doesn't hurt much.

I've long said that it's best to have an aircraft that's one of the fastest for its ideal cruise altitude, as then the winds don't effect you as much. This showed very true. Even with some pretty decent headwinds, ground speeds were above 200 in cruise for basically the entire flight. And coming home at FL230 from California, we saw 280-310 KTS across the ground, making for a 4:15 non-stop flight. FL200-230 seems to be the optimal range in this plane, although the mid to high teens work just fine, too. Max speed I believe is in the high teens/low flight levels, but I'm more interested in best efficiency for the route.

Dog wise, the plane did better than I expected it would. The 414 held 23 crates in its normal configuration. The MU-2 holds 21. The sizes are a bit different, but it comes out to a very similar capacity. I was a bit concerned about that, but everyone was happy with the capacity. I found out that for the freighters they had a pilot's door STC, and I'm going to look into that. That would let me put two more large crates in the plane, which would help capacity further.

It was a very satisfying trip. Flying wise, I did catch myself making some mistakes. Nothing significant, and also expected being new to the plane as I get to know it more. I had one landing with 20G28 direct crosswind, and it handled it beautifully.

A couple pics from the captain's seat (@kayoh190 there! A panel pic!). For puppy pics, check out Cloud Nine's Facebook page.

IMG_2198.JPG IMG_2197.JPG
 
I also just realized that, using the fun panoramic photo feature of the iPhone, I could actually start off with one engine shut down, do a restart and shut down the other engine, and do a photo that looks like both engines are feathered.

(no, I'm not actually going to do that)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top