MU-2 into mountain grass strip.

Jenner owned an MU-2? Did he pilot it him/herself
 
The MU-2 has a reputation of being dangerous. No idea if that's a myth or well deserved. My first 14.1 hours of multi after my MEL rating were in an MU-2. I recently removed that from my logbook, as I didn't want to log "Fake PIC" and the time was a-ok for single pilot ops.
 
Kritchlow said:
The MU-2 has a reputation of being dangerous. No idea if that's a myth or well deserved.
Click to expand...

Myth. The MU-2 flies and performs well if properly flown. As you are aware it flies more like a jet than a prop. The "bad reputation" came from low time inexperienced pilots getting in above the head and skill level.
 
Actually the MU-2 has had a bad reputation which still lingers. That is not a myth. At one time there was some substance to the reputation as it had a very high accident rate and a huge percentage of those accidents were fatal. However the FAA determined that the aircraft wasn't necessarily dangerous if flown by pilots properly trained in its handling characteristics. The FAA also determined that many of those accidents were caused by pilots who unfortunately were not properly trained. That is why the FAA issued a SFAR on the MU-2 mandating type specific training. Since then, the accident record of the aircraft has significantly improved.

A lesson to be learned by those who shun type specific training.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Actually the MU-2 has had a bad reputation which still lingers. That is not a myth. At one time there was some substance to the reputation as it had a very high accident rate and a huge percentage of those accidents were fatal. However the FAA determined that the aircraft wasn't necessarily dangerous if flown by pilots properly trained in its handling characteristics. The FAA also determined that many of those accidents were caused by pilots who unfortunately were not properly trained. That is why the FAA issued a SFAR on the MU-2 mandating type specific training. Since then, the accident record of the aircraft has significantly improved.

A lesson to be learned by those who shun type specific training.
Click to expand...

The real reason the safety improved is most have crashed and not many are left...:rolleyes::rolleyes:;)...:D..

It is a high performance aircraft and needs to be flown with top notch skill... Gravity will bite you REAL quick in one if you get slow..

Best joke I heard was... " If you want a MU-2, buy 40 acres somewhere because sooner or later a MU-2 will fall on it"....:eek:.....:D
 
Kritchlow said:
The MU-2 has a reputation of being dangerous. No idea if that's a myth or well deserved. My first 14.1 hours of multi after my MEL rating were in an MU-2. I recently removed that from my logbook, as I didn't want to log "Fake PIC" and the time was a-ok for single pilot ops.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, MU-2s have always been approved for single-pilot ops.
 
N801BH said:
The real reason the safety improved is most have crashed and not many are left...:rolleyes::rolleyes:;)...:D..

It is a high performance aircraft and needs to be flown with top notch skill... Gravity will bite you REAL quick in one if you get slow..

Best joke I heard was... " If you want a MU-2, buy 40 acres somewhere because sooner or later a MU-2 will fall on it"....:eek:.....:D
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
You just ain't right.
 
Henning said:
If he has -10 engines he also has over 2000hp
Click to expand...

Actually the -10 engines on the short body are flat rated to 665 HP each if I remember correctly. I am not sure what the thermodynamic horse power is but it is quite low resulting in a very low altitude for temp out.
The Marquise (long body) had engines flat rated to 715 horse power with a thermodynamic rating of I think 775 which also results in a low temp out altitude. On a +20 day they temp out at around 8K and struggle to the high teens. The -25 conversion changes the compressor section out to give the -151A 840 thermodynamic but they are still flat rated to the original 715 giving a higher temp out altitude. I am not absolutely sure but I THINK 715 is the highest flat rated power available on the MU-2's I know more useless information.

What rotowing and skydog said is very true. A couple of points is the lack of ailerons and the fact that the craft will not climb single engine in fact may have a negative climb while the gear is in transit (which takes 8-10 seconds). The extremely narrow gear can make cross wind landing and T.O. interesting. Flown correctly by a competent and well trained pilot they are good aircraft.

Edit: one other thing is the fuel system, good grief!
 
Neal Howard said:
The WiFi there doesn't work so well when 100 + devices are trying to hit it simultaneously all at once during the Super Cub Fly-In :lol:
Click to expand...


I bet......

Best to check emails at 3 am....

Altho the new shower building is real nice...
 
ronnieh said:
Actually the -10 engines on the short body are flat rated to 665 HP each if I remember correctly. I am not sure what the thermodynamic horse power is but it is quite low resulting in a very low altitude for temp out.
The Marquise (long body) had engines flat rated to 715 horse power with a thermodynamic rating of I think 775 which also results in a low temp out altitude. On a +20 day they temp out at around 8K and struggle to the high teens. The -25 conversion changes the compressor section out to give the -151A 840 thermodynamic but they are still flat rated to the original 715 giving a higher temp out altitude. I am not absolutely sure but I THINK 715 is the highest flat rated power available on the MU-2's I know more useless information.

What rotowing and skydog said is very true. A couple of points is the lack of ailerons and the fact that the craft will not climb single engine in fact may have a negative climb while the gear is in transit (which takes 8-10 seconds). The extremely narrow gear can make cross wind landing and T.O. interesting. Flown correctly by a competent and well trained pilot they are good aircraft.

Edit: one other thing is the fuel system, good grief!
Click to expand...

Interesting, the -10 on the Jetstream were 1020hp IIRC.
 
I THINK that is a different series engine. The Jetstream uses the -10 UG or some such thing. MU2 is a -10?? I can't remember but, different. I think the UG is a 1100 thermodynamic and flat rated to 1020 or something like that.
I guess it could be looked up if it was really important.:)
 
ronnieh said:
I THINK that is a different series engine. The Jetstream uses the -10 UG or some such thing. MU2 is a -10?? I can't remember but, different. I think the UG is a 1100 thermodynamic and flat rated to 1020 or something like that.
I guess it could be looked up if it was really important.:)
Click to expand...

The ones we had at Express1 (NW Airlink) were a U- <some more stuff> with the U designating the NTS system IIRC, it's been 20+ years...
 
Not sure about that. The 331's used in the MU2, B100, Jet stream, Conquest and others all had the NTS without the letter U in their dash numbers. Not important enough to research it. There must be some 331 operators here that can straighten this out. That is assuming it needs straightening. :D
 
ronnieh said:
Actually the -10 engines on the short body are flat rated to 665 HP each if I remember correctly. I am not sure what the thermodynamic horse power is but it is quite low resulting in a very low altitude for temp out.
The Marquise (long body) had engines flat rated to 715 horse power with a thermodynamic rating of I think 775 which also results in a low temp out altitude. On a +20 day they temp out at around 8K and struggle to the high teens. The -25 conversion changes the compressor section out to give the -151A 840 thermodynamic but they are still flat rated to the original 715 giving a higher temp out altitude. I am not absolutely sure but I THINK 715 is the highest flat rated power available on the MU-2's I know more useless information.

What rotowing and skydog said is very true. A couple of points is the lack of ailerons and the fact that the craft will not climb single engine in fact may have a negative climb while the gear is in transit (which takes 8-10 seconds). The extremely narrow gear can make cross wind landing and T.O. interesting. Flown correctly by a competent and well trained pilot they are good aircraft.

Edit: one other thing is the fuel system, good grief!
Click to expand...
I've flown in the right seat of an MU2 a good bit. The pilot, a good friend, has over 14000 hours, lots in a lear and probably 5000 in the MU2. It's a wonderful airplane to fly in, gets out quickly , climbs fast ( and yes it will climb on one engine) it's not something you fly after a cessna 310 or a shrike commander without a complete checkout by an MU2 pro. Accidents have been , for the vast majority, due to inexperience and not being familiar with the engine out procedure which is different from the usual due to the flaps. It has a very heavy duty gear and a grass runway is no problem. In the hands of a pro its a winner.
 
ktup-flyer said:
I know SMO has. There was a fuss over it at Naples, and a few other airports, but I'm not sure if they ever did anything
Click to expand...

While they have a unique sound, they are by no means loud. But I guess people can complain about anything
 
Last edited:
Dave Theisen said:
While they have a unique sound, they are by no means loud. But I guess people can complain about anything
Click to expand...

Are the P180s not as loud as the standard Garrett? Not doubting you, just curious.
 
Last edited:
The P180 has a lower dB rating than a King Air. But it's square wave sine and is easier to spot and perhaps more annoying. But not louder.
 
Kritchlow said:
Are the P180s not as loud as the standard Garrett? Not doubting you, just curious.
Click to expand...

I don't think any turbo-prop is as loud as an MU-2! :yikes: Even the Conquest II's are quieter, not by much. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top