BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 06 Mar 2016, 22:08

Quote:

Bottom line is, get a turbine. It's amazing and you can always make more money to pay for it. And specifically, look hard at mu2s. Trust people who own them. Every post from an owner I have read is spot on. The majority of posts from people who do not own seem disconnected from my experiences in the plane.

The build quality of the mu2 is so high, I wouldn't hesitate to own one of the vintage this post is about.

Anthony, I love your style...you can always make more money... :lol:

I have to say, it's true though and my enjoyment of aircraft ownership over the years has been directly proportional to my investment in the plane, the learning of new proficiencies in the new plane and the satisfaction of the ACCOMPLISHMENT!

Yeah, I'm sure my accomplishments in flying may not be much compared to others flying much longer or flying turbofans, but their mine

and would never trade the time spent along the way.

My current challenge is getting SFAR qualified in my new to me MU-2B-40 (Noisy Boy)...can't wait!

A word to the fence sitters thinking of moving to a turbine: fuel ain't gett'in any cheaper, jump in, the water is fine!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2016, 03:18

I still see these in Japan being used by the JSDF.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2016, 20:39

Username Protected wrote:

It's a nice plane and those earlier models are good, they just don't have the performance of the later, -10 models. Interiors of all short body MU-2s are the same (all long bodies are the same as each other as well). Biggest difference with the earlier models is performance (speed and altitude). Think of the earlier model MU-2s as being comparable to a KA90 -- about a 250 kt airplane. The later model MU-2s are more like a KA200 and roughly 300 kt airplanes.

Challenge on this plane is not only the HSI coming due but also the total airframe hours. At 7500 hours it hits the 7500 hour inspection and then goes into the recurring 1000 hour inspection (8500, 9500, 10500....). The 7500 hour inspection is the closest thing the MU-2 has to some of the high dollar SID/aging airframe inspections that have plagued the old King Airs and Cessna 400 series planes.

What's the ballpark $$ on the 7500 hour ? The 1,000 hours after that ?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2016, 23:02

The 7500 hour is a 20-30K inspection. The earlier, 3 part wing MU-2s are a bit more expensive to do than the later, single piece wing planes. The 8500, 9500, 10500, etc. are the same inspection. That's why higher time planes have the drop in value...once you hit the 7500 number that big and expensive inspection comes into play. Of course for most owner operators that is only once every 5-10 years, but where the plane is relative to the inspection becomes a pricing factor on the plane's value.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 08 Mar 2016, 23:43

I was talking to Mike Noblin and he said the 7500 will cost around 60K but that will cancel the recurring wing inspections.

That still makes that plane a bargain!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 09 Mar 2016, 15:55

Username Protected wrote:

I was talking to Mike Noblin and he said the 7500 will cost around 60K but that will cancel the recurring wing inspections.

That still makes that plane a bargain!

I looked at this plane over the weekend and I think it will make an excellent plane for anyone looking at an F model. The hot section is is 90 hours away, I have spoken to several maintenance people about this... Best case 25K worst case likely 60-70K, I think it will be reasonable to budget for 50K and hope you get away with less.

I agree with other poster's comments that this is good value in a turboprop and I am sure you can operate this for less than my 421 costs.

The fact that the F model's -1 engine runs out of steam at 20-21K feet is my biggest issue with this plane as I will be flying over the rockies with my family on board, however if you live out east and would be happy staying in the high teens this should make a great turboprop.

Hilgard

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2016, 18:59

There is a shop near Nashville that performs very high quality Hots at half the price of the bigger shops. I think its called The Turbine Clinic, whose owner is Calvin. If anyone is interested call Mike Noblin at Mid South Aviation, KMQY.

As far as -1 petering out at FL200, that's their best altitude, but an F model will easily fly at FL250. There aren't many places in the Rockies were FL160 isn't high enough and the low 20s will be well over everything. It will certainly out perform a C421.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2016, 19:03

Username Protected wrote:

There is a shop near Nashville that performs very high quality Hots at half the price of the bigger shops. I think its called The Turbine Clinic, whose owner is Calvin. If anyone is interested call Mike Noblin at Mid South Aviation, KMQY.

As far as -1 petering out at FL200, that's their best altitude, but an F model will easily fly at FL250. There aren't many places in the Rockies were FL160 isn't high enough and the low 20s will be well over everything. It will certainly out perform a C421.

Good tip. I have a -1 hot to do in about a year. Found the contact:

http://www.buzzfile.com/business/The-Turbine-Clinic-Inc-615-654-4708

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2016, 19:05

I can attest to that. I was getting 268TAS at FL200 yesterday and could have gone to FL240 if I wanted. The winds were terrible where I was so I stayed put. When people talk about the -1 engines tuckering out up high, you have to compare that to something. If that something is a -10 powered something, then yes they make less power but if the comparison is to a GTSIO520, there is no comparison.
I can also attest to working with Calvin. He fixed my engine and was very reasonable and fast.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2016, 19:14

So what kind of speed and "sweet spot" altitude do you guys see with the -1 engines?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 10 Mar 2016, 20:12

Username Protected wrote:

If that something is a -10 powered something, then yes they make less power but if the comparison is to a GTSIO520, there is no comparison.
I can also attest to working with Calvin. He fixed my engine and was very reasonable and fast.

The gtsio can make 75% power at fl250, i believe - 280hp.

The -1 is a normally aspirated engine with no flat rating to speak of. 280/665 = 43%. That's probably pretty close to what it's making with the 8-10" of pressure available at altitude.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 11 Mar 2016, 12:32

Username Protected wrote:

If that something is a -10 powered something, then yes they make less power but if the comparison is to a GTSIO520, there is no comparison.
I can also attest to working with Calvin. He fixed my engine and was very reasonable and fast.

The gtsio can make 75% power at fl250, i believe - 280hp.

The -1 is a normally aspirated engine with no flat rating to speak of. 280/665 = 43%. That's probably pretty close to what it's making with the 8-10" of pressure available at altitude.