Mid range Twin Turboprop

WacoFan said:
Man...nobody is nibbling on the MU2 idea. I'm not getting that. OP was told that his original mission could be accomplished by an MU2, and for sure the modified mission...yet no "Wow...let me look into it". For my money that is what I'd get.
Click to expand...
MU2= Bad stigma.

Isin't the MU2 significantly higher to insure vs its competitors?
 
Speaking of MU2...anyone have feelings about operating them 135 pax?

Eligible-On-Demand ops, so it would have to be two pilots. Based in the Northeast.

Thoughts? Mx considerations? Recommendations on training providers? I'd prefer to use the sim for all training until the .299 ride but having read through the SFAR that may not be possible?

Realistic performance numbers and DOC? Minimum runway? 5000'? 6000'? (For FAR 135 wet landing distances)

-mini
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Plus an MU-2 makes TONS more noise. And as we all know, airplane noise="The sound of freedom"
Click to expand...

I really wonder how much louder an insulated mu-2 would be over that turbine navaslow? Or over a KA for that matter.

Boris, MU-2 vs be-99 at takeoff?

Edit: speaking of 99's, went to look up and see how much they cost, and a bunch of them are for lease/for sale by the same management company. Are those alpines birds?

http://www.controller.com/list/list...Manu=BEECHCRAFT&Mdltxt=99&mdlx=exact&setype=1
 
+1 for the mu2

If your boss is sold on a kingair, forget the 100. If hes willing to go for an E90, then get an F. Possibly the most bad ass kingair there is.
 
I have always loved the Merlin IIIB. It'll go from Philly to Florida and back on one tank of gas and looks awesome sitting on the ramp. I have never operated one, but I would be very surprised if the operating cost was over $400,000 a year for the type of flying a typical private owner would do. We didn't come near $400k a year in the Conquest flying 400 hours a year.

Alex.
 
RPJ said:
MU2= Bad stigma.

Isin't the MU2 significantly higher to insure vs its competitors?
Click to expand...

MU2's have a bad reputation. Luscombes do too. And Pitts Specials. Lots of planes. Make the low purchase price work for you. The much lower cost of acquisition over inferior airplanes works in your favor (as it does with Luscombes, Pitts, etc). Maligned airplanes are bad ass and a great opportunity because there often isn't much substance behind it.
 
scooter2525 said:
and waco's :bandit:
Click to expand...
Oh no you di'int.

WsXlQo1Pco0gcgjytBjOEykGo1_r1_400.gif


-mini
 
bksslc said:
All i ever hear about the MU-2 is how scarry it is. What is so bad about it?
Click to expand...

I've never flown one, but AFAIK the only thing "bad" about it is that there were a bunch of people in the left seat that had no business being there. I'll defer to Boris for the specifics.

I think its along the same lines as icing in a caravan. If you're properly trained, and know what you're doing, then theres no problem. The accident statistics are just inflated because its a plane that green horns usually go straight to after flying nothing but 172s.
 
bksslc said:
All i ever hear about the MU-2 is how scarry it is. What is so bad about it?
Click to expand...

I'm sure I've expounded on the subject to (and perhaps beyond) everyone's satisfaction, but the short version is 'nothing', provided you respect and maintain it. I'd certainly rather be in a mitsi than a 99 in any conceivable 'bad situation', excepting maybe engine failure at rotation...
 
cmill said:
I've never flown one, but AFAIK the only thing "bad" about it is that there were a bunch of people in the left seat that had no business being there. I'll defer to Boris for the specifics.

I think its along the same lines as icing in a caravan. If you're properly trained, and know what you're doing, then theres no problem. The accident statistics are just inflated because its a plane that green horns usually go straight to after flying nothing but 172s.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit more involved than that.

The MU2 has spoilerons, if I understand the aircraft, and if you attempt to crank the yoke over during an engine failure, it would mean that the spoiler would deploy and destroy lift. Folks have managed that stupid pilot trick while an engine was failed, resulting in airplanes being turned into lawn darts.
 
jtrain609 said:
I think it's a bit more involved than that.

The MU2 has spoilerons, if I understand the aircraft, and if you attempt to crank the yoke over during an engine failure, it would mean that the spoiler would deploy and destroy lift. Folks have managed that stupid pilot trick while an engine was failed, resulting in airplanes being turned into lawn darts.
Click to expand...

Like I said, im hardly one to debate the finer points, but with training/experience, it shouldnt be a problem. Its just there were times when pilots went from a semenhole to a mitsi without a second thought.
 
cmill said:
Like I said, im hardly one to debate the finer points, but with training/experience, it shouldnt be a problem. Its just there were times when pilots went from a semenhole to a mitsi without a second thought.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and it's a natural reaction to crank that yoke over, but as you say, the training would instruct these guys to trim the aileron in. It's just that it's a bit backwards that you need to combat an engine failure with aileron trim instead of yoke input, as it's contrary to almost every other aircraft out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top