So what is the proper crosswind technique? Just kick it over in the flare? I've heard it gets a little interesting if one tries to slip it with those draggy spoilerons...
I like the "add power on the downwind engine" technique. I realize that in theory it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but as a wise man once said "In theory, theory is no different from practice, but in practice, it is". It's also important to use the trim. The trim is actually an aileron of sorts, so if you use it correctly, it will keep you from needing to spoil perfectly good lift. This is even more important in engine out situations, which brings us to your next question.
In your opinion, what is it about this plane that has caught so many pilots off guard? You mentioned the King Air - so what sort of bad habits does that plane give a pilot that is transitioning to a MU2?
Well, the accidents I know about are all fairly recent, and they mostly seem to involve either A) Stupid pilot tricks (like the guy who kept getting a fire warning light from what was probably a bad loop, but kept taking off and then returning...eventually he returned to a housing development under construction instead of an airport and wound up on the losing end of an argument with a bulldozer) and B) Engine out performance. I won't sugar-coat that particular issue. The thing is a bear with an engine out at low speed. Our SOP is rotate 100-110, accelerate to at least 120, then worry about climbing. The gear gets even draggier when it's retracting (big doors hanging out), so there is a brief period when you're extremely vulnerable should an engine take a vacation. If you're brave enough to take a chance, it can do insane things with flaps 40 and much lower rotation speeds, but I like to get fast and stay that way.
The major difference in the engine out drill is that the first thing you do is make sure the gear is up or in transit, then trim the ailerons, then trim the rudder, THEN identify, verify, feather, beta followup, checklist. This is because when you're already in marginal-performance land, you want the spoilers and gear doors to be stowed.
As to being "caught off guard", a lot of it has to do with the type of person who winds up flying it. The mu-2 is dirt cheap, which tends to attract a more "down-market" clientele (like me
). In the past a lot of dudes with a wet private multi took a look at it and stepped up from their baron. No type rating required, so Joe Sixpack can buy one and fly it legally, but probably not wisely. Hence the whole SFAR debacle, which is grist for a different mill.
Plus, I just realized that I bloviating like an expert when I have just over a grand in the plane. This article explains everything I'm talking about much better:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene...206.xml&headline=What''s Wrong With the MU-2?
Although let me add in response to the "expert" in the "foes" section that I've never had engine "burp", not once. The fuel system is actually ludicrously simple...if you can't manage an mu-2s fuel system, you probably run out of gas on the freeway. And it's no worse than a Baron in ice, except you have a lot more power and a lot more options about how to deal with it. Oh, and I've had occassion to land one with one spinny thing not spinning (bad fire loop). Total non-event.
KLB said:
I've gone head to head in the metro against the MU-2 on a few occassions flying out of CYOW to KSYR. I have to call it a tie between the two on such a short leg. One time they got the best of me while other times ATC made me slow up to keep from running them over.:rawk:
I'd give dollars to donuts that the difference is whether you're going up against an older three-blader or a Marquise/Solitaire. And whether it's a clapped out freighter or a shiny private plane. I plan about 255-260 for our J-models. Our (still relatively draggy, cargo-doored, escape-hatched, slightly clapped out) Marquises do maybe 275-280. A private Marquise will do probably 300, a Solitaire at least 310. There's a pretty wide range.
As to the mighty sewer-tube, it's definitely a man's plane. I read somewhere that it actually has a higher accident rate (maybe higher fatal, lower total, or vice-versa) than the mitsi, but for some (political) reason, the mitsi gets the unwanted spotlight. It's definitely another "marginal" airplane I'd like to fly someday, but only alone
CitationKid said:
Hey that's my picture
It's a great shot. I actually looked around for a shot I thought captured the plane, didn't just paste the first thing that popped up. Well done.
WacoFan said:
I am interested in them too. Ihave a couple of hours in a Swift - another maligned plane. Not nearly enough time in anything to say their reputations are earned or not...but it did seem like most of the reputations are not shared by people with experience in them.
I find that's true in lots of things, not just aviation. I know at least that I'm not man enough for a T-6, though. One must know their limits.
Ok, sorry, hijack over.
