Thomas, you are batting 1,000 on your observations; MU2 is the best bang for the buck in every category!

Others have superbly covered most aspects of both the long and short body models. Yet one unmentioned but important comfort aspect of the long body is its rather spacious, fully enclosed aft-belted-potty, which also serves as a certified passenger seat when necessary. Too, all baggage is located internally, just aft of the ground-level cabin entrance, thus is fully accessible in flight.

Having operated both the short-body Solitaire and the long-body Marquise, my personal favorite is the Marquise (MU2B-60), primarily for its spaciousness and its smoother handling characteristics.

OK, good point, I will concede I spoke sloppily and revise: the CG is further in front of the main gear than most.

There is a goodly amount of weight on the nose gear of the short body. When mine was weighed a few years ago, the weight distribution was 2,790/2,830 (R/L mains), and 1,425 on the nose gear. That's empty! Full tip tanks move things forward a bit (and add weight). Empty CG is roughly 36 inches in front of the main gear.

Who you callin' airstair? One interesting little recognized advantage of the MU2 is that there is no "stair". The door simply opens (horizontally) and the cabin floor is close enough to step into. Sometimes advantageous for some less nimble pax.

(Long body does have a small step that opens when the door opens. But it is a "step" not a "stair".)

So why are they not back in production?

It would be a heck of a plane new!!!

Is it me, am I too nostalgia oriented.
Bring it back, and also the Conquest II !

Mu2 real advantage as a new airplane was efficiency and short field capability. Jets have gotten better and so have airfields. Between pc12, ka350 and CJ series there's not many unmet missions.

& the 400LS.

Hey David, does he give the required initial in his plane, or must you have your own? I have been thinking that going though the initial might be a good way to get acquainted with the plane and decide if it is worth buying before shelling out the big bucks.

Nigel,
Thanks for the info. Those MU2s are very interesting and I love hearing from operators who run them off of shorter strips. We ran a couple of 331 powered Thrushes about 10-12 years ago and although loud, they seemed to be relatively economical to operate. I still prefer the PT6As, but it looks like the benefits of the Mitsubishi airframe may overcome the benefits of the Pratt engines.

I feel like I really missed a good opportunity a few years ago. I had a farmer that I worked for who used an MU2 in his real estate business. The plane was very under-utilized and he was always looking for a partner. I didn't even consider it back then because his hired pilot went on and on about how hot the plane was and how nervous he was if they had to go anywhere under 5000'. They refused to go anywhere under 3500 under any conditions. Well, an airplane like that obviously isn't useful in our operation. Now, years later, I am reading what a great short field plane the MU2 is, and how economical it is to operate.

After running a 90 KA out of our strip a few times, I thought that would be the ultimate plane for the mission, but the calendar is not kind to the KA in terms of maintenance costs. It also gobbles up precious hangar space. It certainly appears that the MU2 would preserve hangar space, and be an interesting replacement for our 58.

Will a short body MU2 work through a 14' high door without problems? Also, is it possible to remove the rear seats quickly if we wanted to haul a PT6 or other large parts?

Thanks,
Craig

Craig,

The short body will clear with a foot to spare. Aircraft height 12ft 11 in; the longbody 13ft 8in. The seats can be pulled with ease but will take some manuevering to get a PT-6 through the door opening ( 46 in x 26in ), then again if you spilt the hot section won't be as much gymnastics.

There are long bodies with a (46 x 52 in )cargo door mod for sale, that might suit your occasional needs to haul oversize loads. The double doors on the 58 does spoil you. The maintenance requirement for the MU-2 requires 100/200/400/ 600 hr items with special airframe inspections at 5000/7500/10500 etc without the phase inspection cycle.

The airframe is overbuilt and the average cargo MU-2 had closer to 15,000 hrs on the airframe when I last flew them in 1999. The new issues among operators is Hartzells prop overhaul requirements but I see MT props have come out with a 5 blade kit to give Hartzell a run for their money.

Craig, I strongly recommend flying with Reece Howell, he has a lot of time for Ag operators ( ex ag himself) looking to transition to MU's and will show you how to utilize the airplane, so much so that you won't think twice about flying it into any strip you operating a thrush out of.

Attached is a PDF from 2010 of maintenance issues to look for with MU-2's

http://www.airmmagazine.com/airm/2010/AIRM-MU2Issue-3.pdf

Rest of Mitsubishi reviews from air magazine Spring and Summer 2009

http://www.airmmagazine.com/airm/2009/AIRM-MU2spring_09WebEdition.pdf

http://www.airmmagazine.com/airm/2009/AIRM-MU2summer_09.pdf

Regards,

Nigel

Great info. Yep, the 58 doors will certainly spoil anyone wanting to haul oversize cargo. Usually we only haul engines from the "C" flange forward, so it's not as bad as it could be, but I'll certainly try the MU2 door on for size. I've got some scrap exhaust ducts lying around that would be perfect to measure door width with.

Are you coming to the NAAA conventions in the next few years? If so, Graham and Bill know me well, so use them to find me and I'll buy you a few rounds.

Thanks,
Craig

I was at KMQY today. Reece was not there but I talked to his mechanic. He said Reece has a long body that he has provided training in but it is on a case by case basis. He did say that if a MU-2 is on the market-he will know the airplane and could steer you in the right direction! He does broker them as well and I can vouch for his knowledge and character.

You should see Jon's - with the Garmin glass panel I think the age is not a huge issue.

The short body, 3 blade, 6 psi airplane were all musts when we bought due to hangar space, lower inspection cost and better altitude performance. Along with that 6psi cabin is FL280 and 10,520 ramp weight.

Not much can be added from what was written above, except that I have never raved about the handling. It ain't no Beech on control harmony. But it has plenty of control in all axis, if a little heavy. Stable like rock mattress. You have to make it move, and then it just sits there.

The long body is 1000lbs heavier on virtually the same power and wing so us west coast high-DA guys wanted the extra performance.

The factory support is exceptional, all very helpful with lots of great resources in a fairly tight community and tons of spares are reasonable prices. Four years into the ownership of our M-model we occasionally revisit our "mission analysis" and for us it was the perfect fit.

Nigel, great photo!!!

This is all great info. Thank you guys!