Boom.

And the thing is so stable that while you hear nothing but King Airs and RJs grousing about turbulence, my coffee rest comfortably in its holder.

BTW, the Garmin is not dialed in properly with the computer, so disregard the wind vector; it's off.

Do you know what the wing loading is on the MU-2 or your model? Must be considerably higher than a King Air.

Wing area is the same as a Piper J3 Cub, 178 SF.

For M, P, Solitaire, at MGTOW (10,470 lbs), that is 58.8 lbs/SF.


Oh yeah.

King Air C90A is 34.4 lbs/SF.

The extra wing loading makes the MU2 ride turbulence better, but it also goes faster, which partially negates some of that advantage.

The flap lever has 0, 5, 20, and 40 positions. They could be labeled "Lear Jet", "King Air", "Baron", and "182". Four airplanes in one, make sure you choose correctly.

Mike C.

Hi Craig,
So what is your altitude and true airspeed on 75 gph. OK I see it now 305 tas. Alt?
Jim

Your enthusiasm for the MU-2 is gushing over! What do you suppose caused the King Air to outsell the MU-2 by such a large margin?

Cheap fuel in the 1960s and 1970s meant the PT6 efficiency disadvantage wasn't so important.

American manufacturer with established product lines versus startup Japanese maker. At the time, "Made in Japan" was kind of a slur for cheap, even the cars. It took a generation to change that (now Chrylser claims "imported from Detroit"). The MU2 was well made even so.

Early accidents. Then the plane got used for more dangerous missions like cargo and short field work. So the reputation fed on itself.

Beech had better marketing, no doubt.

King Air is quieter, at least on the ground.

Mike C.

Yep, I thought about the "Japanese" stigma when I saw the first flight video. We all know that they build great products now, but back then that wasn't the case.

Also, when I heard Honda was going to be building a jet way back when, I thought that will be a great jet, based on Japanese quality, first impression. Surprisingly, most pilots I talk to believe the quality of the Honda Jet will be terrible. Different impressions I guess.

The MU-2 is a performance based machine whereas the King Air is purpose built (passenger carrying). This became very apparent when the A100's didn't sell, but the 200 became the best selling corporate plane ever. The T-tail along with a few other changes made a huge difference to the people buying them.

Here's the TAS.

That's funny, Mike. That's what flashes through my mind when I make configuration changes in the Bonanza. I like to think of airplanes as transformers. Pick the airplane that fits the current phase of flight.