To the OP -

Read Pascal's threads/comments...then read about his MU2 upgrade and the crash.

Its all archived here on BT.

Best,

Jesse, great suggestion. There's plenty to be learned from Pascal's path. Just search for Pascal Gosselin.

I think insurance will likely dictate any upgrade path in today's market, regardless. That's where I'd start. Figure out what the requirements are likely to be.

I transitioned to the Mustang from an A36TN. The things that helped me were significant IFR time and plenty of hours in the high teens (although not the upper flight levels). After getting typed in the Mustang the insurance company required 25 hours of mentor time, which was very reasonable. If I were to try to take the same path today, I highly doubt they'd approve it. It's currently a much more difficult insurance market.

My advice to Jonathon would be to hang onto the SR22 for a while and get seasoned in the IFR environment. Get prepared for higher performance beforehand. The single/twin and piston/turbine discussions will always be there, but IFR proficiency is exclusive on its own, regardless of what you're flying.

I was with you until right there. The engine out procedures in a piston twin require far more precision than those in a turbine (though the turbine can still bite just ask the guys at ADS) but they are fundamentally the same. Maintain directional control, maintain proper airspeed, set power, clean up the plane, run the checklist. In that order. It’s the same procedure whether you’re in a Twin Comanche or a Dreamliner.[/quote]

I don't think that's really true. There is no question that getting accustomed to managing system problems, IFR/ATC complexities, and in-flight failures are somewhat helpful for building one's experience, but I would agree with Jon regarding the relative "negative" training that a piston twin offers the pilot when operating an MU-2. Its wing and TPE-331 engine create a situation wherein "doing the procedure" (after power loss low close to the ground) just like you always did in a piston twin will end badly.
Verify (by pulling back the power lever, just like the throttle)...not in a TPE-331, bad news, you need the opposite for Beta follow-up, advance the power lever.
"Clean it up" also not a great idea. The takeoff position for flaps is necessary to maintain lift. If you get a failed engine right after takeoff, you don't want to be dumping your lift. You accelerate on a schedule going to 5 at 130kts and clean at 150kts. If you dump them right after engine failure as per you piston training, you will crash.
Even the "identify" element is a bit off, as some failure modes of the engine can result in increased torque so the "dead foot" will actually be opposite the abnormal engine...you need to use the torque gauges to identify the failure.
Yes...in all aircraft, you should focus on flying the plane after engine failure, but there are lots of differences with an MU-2 and those differences have killed folks prior to the SFAR.

My "small engine" -1 Mits was doing 270-275 TAS at 17,500 burning a tad under 70 GPH. At FL220 it was doing 261 burning 58GPH. It's efficient enough to not feel bad operating it solo.
Great machines! I try to shoot a practice approach at every airport. You have to fly this thing weekly. Take offs with full fuel really take accelerating with the nose down to get on step. If one quits at this stage, you better really have your stuff together or you're going to die.

I'll say this one last time and I don't know you but I care about you as a human and fellow pilot. Please don't buy a Mitsubishi at this stage in your piloting career. It's my favorite airplane other than the Widgeon but it took many years and many airplanes to get to this point. I have 80 hours in it now and am still sticking to light IFR and mostly day VFR. I'd launch off tomorrow and shoot an approach to minimums in a Citation but I'm not there yet in the MU-2.

The MU-2 is actually 4 airplanes in one, a 172 at flaps 40, a Bonanza at Flaps 20, a Lancair at flaps 5 and Jet at flaps zero. I can't explain this more eloquently but it is this very feature (a morphing wing) that makes the MU-2 so very capable while at the same time making it so deadly in the wrong hands. Gaining experience at all 4 levels adds immensely to one's ability to operate it safely.

Jonathan, I apologize if I missed it, but what does your normal mission look like?

What's the primary reason for the upgrade (speed, range, # of seats, pressurization, or...??)?

Congratulations on even considering a Mits.

The written IR was one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to study for. (I’m a math major).

I have over 1700 hrs of instrument flying now, mostly in my Bo. Living in IA and now MN I have seen my fair share of what I would call hard IMC. I now fly down to minimums without soiling my pants, in and out of the big class B’s without losing sleep anymore the night before. I know when and how to negotiate with ATC if I don’t like the routing. But this took some time to get to that level of comfort and proficiency. A Mits can cross several weather systems on a single flight. You will need to become an expert. Never mind the flying. That’s a given.

If you can get it insured, by all means, buy a Mits. But also hire yourself a capable instructor who will fly with you for about a year. 100 hrs. Kinda nice to roll up to the airport after a meeting and have the plane all fueled up, paid up and flight plan filed. Your mission smells of a business need. Serious get there itis. Even more dangerous.

Listen to Stan.

I will follow your progress with great interest.
Congratulations!

Winter is here. Great opportunity to practice IMC in your Cirrus.,

We’ll agree to disagree then.

The process you described sounds a lot like the one I described in simpler terms.

Of course there are going to be airframe specific techniques.

The bottom line is to maintain control of the airplane first, last, and always.

Bottom line question. Who do you think would be safer transitioning into an MU2 the OP with zero multi time or me with 500 hours in a Baron?

I honestly think it has more to do with the type of flying and systems management requirements than whether it’s a single or twin. I don’t know either of you but if you fly IFR a lot in the Baron I’d pick you. However, I’d take a 500 hour pilot in an old P210 that routinely flies nighttime hard IFR in the flight levels on a fixed schedule over a multi engine piston pilot that’s a weekend flier.
I’m just suggesting that the “training” a piston twin gives with respect to engine failure management must largely be unlearned when transitioning to the Mits.

Mike, I've never met you in person. I have seen some of the planes you have flown (and survived in!). I've never flown a Mits, so I have no comment on a Mits...my comments have been reference to flying a turboprop in the flight levels.


I find your "4 in one" to be very interesting (and certainly sounds true!)


The fact that you've had the experiences you've had....and your comments....bear weight IMO

Comfortably certain insurance will be the insurmountable hurdle.
Especially after the mess following Nathan’s accident.

And hopefully you won’t get talked in to “just listing a pro Mu2 Pilot” and flying under his ticket to gain time.

I think you need one more intermediate airplane to get a couple hundred RG and ME hours, bag some turbine time and then make the move. I had about a thousand ME hours before we got our Mu2.

If this came across my desk at AirPower Insurance I would respectfully decline to represent it to Underwriting. That doesn’t happen a lot!

Aside from that, I like where you are going!
Mitz is badass and another one is brewing in my future

MT is spot on. The mu2 is 4 planes in one. It’s capability is stunning, but it requires constant flying to stay ‘in the flow with it’. Every mu2 pilot I have ever met talks about this. Never heard it for another type. It’s the sum of 100 small things.

As has been said here multiple times, stepping up isn’t really a problem, people have done it, including me. It’s just not the plane to both learn the ifr part of flying AND learn the complex plane to manage at the same time.

There is a lot of passion here from people that have flown mu2. Note their consistent responses. There is a reason for that.

The real reason the safety record changed is the training requirements (and insurance requirements) did a better job weeding people out of the pilot pool. The people who end up in it at this point all take it very seriously and respect the beast, which is really what the plane is. This forum has highlighted some amazing mu2 ownership experiences and two terrible ones. Pascal accident is a great example of how much airplane this really is. He was clearly not at the point in his flying arc to be handling that plane, in those conditions. I believe he just didn’t have enough time in the plane to fully realize how behind the airplane he was during that approach. It all ‘feels’ normal in a plane like an mu2. The more time you have in complex ifr situations in other planes will hone your spidey senses in a way you can’t in the mu2, even with a mentor in the other seat.

I would also submit if you think the ifr exam is hard, fly something else for a while before diving into an mu2. I would rate the ifr written as a 2.5 on the difficulty scale and a low vis takeoff in the mu2 with a random light flashing at you just after rotation as a 7. My brain works harder on most mu2 flights than it ever did prepping for and taking the ifr written.

As an aside, I have been in a bunch of jets and tprops and the mu2 is the only one I wouldn’t have bet money I could have gotten around the patch on day 1 with zero instruction. As mt described, the quirks of the wing just make it different than most things. It takes 100hrs IMO to get used to it. Google joe Casey mu2 and read his pirep. He talks about how long it took to get comfy with this. Once he did though, magic. If you spend 100hrs with a mentor, you will just be comfortable with handling but I dint think you will have learned much about ifr flying Bc the plane learnings will be consuming.

Even if all you do is spend 200 hours in next 12 months flying ifr in your cirrus, you will be exponentially more prepared for flying mu2 than at present. You really do need some part of the flying to be second nature to make the transition even remotely safe.


Last point - finding a mentor in the mu2 is tricky if your schedule is not extremely flexible. There are just not that many around. In Denver, there are no local ones I know of, for example. Make sure you research that in advance. I found this out after i already had a plane in the hangar. Had I not already satisfied insurance requirements in training, I would have been hosed for a while.

IFR written really was just as easy as the others I found. Multiple choice. Can not be compared to anything in University level math/engineering.

I definitely would not buy a different airplane or twin to gain IMC/IFR experience. I would go through a season or two with emphasis on in the soup flying in the Cirrus. Get the SFAR training done in the sim. Get some dual in aircraft MU2. Show up with something to show when talking to insurance.

Thread drift ahead - I went through engineering math at university 20 years ago. I help teach a few engineering classes at present and have for the last 10 years. Engineering, like all university classes, is easier now. The students are not pushed NEARLY as hard and there is a lot lower washout rates in the early years of the program b/c they are letting people through core engineering classes (physics, diffEQ, calc2-3, etc) that should have to redo them.

The result of this low washout rate is the folks in the advanced classes are, on the average, not as sharp and tend to complain WAY more about any assignment that is not super specific. Ironically, things like the IFR exam are loved by current students - you give them all the answers in advance and say memorize them. Ask the typical millennial student to 'think' vs 'regurgitate' and then grade them based on their actual quality of work and you will have a parent emailing you about how 'unfair' your class is.

Many professors lament the incentive structure at present, where student ratings are key to moving up professor ranks. Push folks hard, fail the people who shouldn't be in the room and see where your student ratings, and thus career opportunities end up.

I think if I was interested in making such a transition I would sort out the insurance angle up front. But I wouldn't go to a broker blindly and say can I get insured in an MU-2. I would first put together a proposed training program. I would have the guys here and elsewhere help in that regard.

I would then present the program with my request to be insured. I think it would indicate to them that you are aware of your deficiencies and a serious character in this regard. Perhaps then you will receive the astronomical insurance quote that is sure to follow.