Mid range Twin Turboprop

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...
Why don't they just modify the the aircraft to be able to turn the spoils off on take off?
 
Probably because if you fly the aircraft the way it's designed to be flown then you'll be fine. As folks have said, if you're trained properly, and overcome your intuitive impulse, you're fine.
 
wjmiller3 said:
Because it doesn't have ailerons IIRC. Spoilerons are all it has.
Click to expand...

I guess we're all taking guesses, 'cause I'm certainly not an MU2 driver.

But that being said, and if I understand the aircraft correctly, you can TRIM the ailerons in, but if you turn the yoke they don't activate.

Does that make sense? Let me look it up.

Yup, interesting stuff actually.

The big difference between the MU-2 and other turboprops is that the Mitsubishi uses spoilers–not ailerons–for roll control. The MU-2 does have trim ailerons for lateral trim. The spoilers are effective in a wide range of speeds and they are located on the wing ahead of where airflow is disrupted during a stall, so plenty of roll control is available at low speeds.

With the spoilers so effective, pilots need to learn that roll rates at low speeds are almost as quick as high-speed roll rates. In a King Air, when the airplane slows, the ailerons are less effective and roll rates are lower. That is not the case in the MU-2, and one fatal accident involved a pilot causing an accelerated stall low to the ground.

Why did Mitsubishi engineers use spoilers instead of ailerons? Goonen explained that to achieve the goals of an airplane that could fly out of a 3,000-foot strip and cruise at 300 knots while burning 500 pph, designers needed a small wing with large flaps. Ailerons that are effective enough would not leave enough room for the full-span double-slotted Fowler flaps.
Click to expand...

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/new-training-for-mu-2-reduces-accident-rate/
 
Operating costs on the MOo2 are too high for a cheapskate. In fact the Mustang and Phenom have lower operating costs(including insurance). MUCH lower. It was the difference of 1million-500K respectively a year on about 3600hrs a year. According to my calculations on the numbers I researched and plugged into a model. Roughly 20% more operating cost.
 
jtrain609 said:
Who needs autofeather when you have...NTS!!!
Click to expand...

Make me look THAT up now.

Thus the MU-2 and P-3 both have negative-torque systems (NTS), which automatically move the propeller blades toward (but not into) feather, reducing drag by about 70 percent and enabling the pilot to maintain control of the airplane while feathering the propeller
Click to expand...
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/new-training-for-mu-2-reduces-accident-rate/

For those who were wondering as I was.
 
All the spoileron stuff is right on. Seems like the Mustang and Phenom are intended for a VERY different mission to me, and they cost a comparative fortune to acquire. I can't fathom how the MU-2 could be a lot more expensive to operate than a King Air 90. Slightly higher fuel burn (I would guess...long body mu-2 burns very close to the same as a BE99 per hour), rarely breaks, no major ADs that I recall, a couple of recurring inspections. If you're really interested, I'd contact one of the Mitsi specialist dealer/shops and see what numbers they have. Gotta root for the home team and recommend Intercontinental Jet in Tulsa, but I'm sure the others would have good info too.

NTS is amazing. You should see the size of the little gears and pins that make it work...they're like the size of my fingernail.
 
Eh, I wouldn't call NTS amazing. Especially if you pull the power levers back close to FI and you feel the back and forth bump motion of NTS lol. I do think it is a very smart system if you pop an engine, since it's the closest thing you can get to an "auto feather" system on a Garret.
 
It's a direct drive turbo-prop. You couldn't have the turbine just immediately come to a grinding halt at say full power, which would happen if it immediately went into feather. Some of the parts in there are rotating at 40k RPM.

If you lose an engine the NTS would recognize that the engine is no longer driving the prop, and the prop is driving the engine. It would then change the blade angle close to the feather position to reduce drag. This would put the prop in the next best position other than feathered, until the crew had time to react and secure the dead turbine. Also if the engine should relight while in NTS, the prop would return to normal mode and you would get thrust back. That would not be a possibility if it went into full feather.
 
If you keep the airplane for 10 years the jets pay for themselves in MX over older aircraft........ Part of the reason airlines get new airplanes.
 
Gosh, I love this site! MU-2s, I would have NEVER thought about the operating expense being more than a King Air.
 
Boris Badenov said:
All the spoileron stuff is right on. Seems like the Mustang and Phenom are intended for a VERY different mission to me, and they cost a comparative fortune to acquire. I can't fathom how the MU-2 could be a lot more expensive to operate than a King Air 90. Slightly higher fuel burn (I would guess...long body mu-2 burns very close to the same as a BE99 per hour), rarely breaks, no major ADs that I recall, a couple of recurring inspections. If you're really interested, I'd contact one of the Mitsi specialist dealer/shops and see what numbers they have. Gotta root for the home team and recommend Intercontinental Jet in Tulsa, but I'm sure the others would have good info too.

NTS is amazing. You should see the size of the little gears and pins that make it work...they're like the size of my fingernail.
Click to expand...

I dunno... MU-2 low cruise might be as fast as King Air 90 normal/high cruise. Or at least near it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top