Ok, what does anyone know about the MITSUBISHI MU 2 turboprop?

My mecanic tells me they are really good short field performer?


1970 MITSUBISHI MU 2F

Equipment Specifications

Year 1970
Manufacturer MITSUBISHI
Model MU 2F
Price US $395,000
Location Peoria, Illinois
Condition USED
Serial Number 158
Registration Number N22MZ
Total Time 6740 Hours
Overhaul 822 SMOH / 1265 SMOH
Hot Section Time -- / -- / 822 / 1265 SHSI
Flight Rules IFR
Number Of Seats 7

General Information
1969 Mitsubishi MU2 F - Glass Panel

Detailed Description
MU2F Performance Speeds - Max 296 Kts, Cruise 270 Kts, Maneuvering 181 Kts, Vmc 93 Kts, Stall 71 Kts. TakeOff Distance 1,700 Ft, Accelerate/Stop Distance 2,675 Ft, Max Landing Distance 1,550 Ft, Rate Of Climb (fpm) -
Two Engine - 2,875, Single Engine - 920, Baggage Capacity 574 Lbs,
Pressurization - 5.0 PSI, Sea Level cabin to 12,000 Feet, 8,000 cabin to FL 230. Max Ramp / T.O - 9,920 Lbs, Max Landing - 9,435 Lbs, Useful Load - 3,420 Lbs, Usable Fuel - 366 Gallons, Range - 1,358 nm.

Airframe:
Aircraft Status
ACTT 6740.0, NDH,
100 Inspection Due - 6840.0 3/31/10
200 Inspection Due - 6940.0, 3/31/11
Transponder Check Due - 3/31/11
Static Check Due - 3/31/11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine Specs:
Engines - Garrett TPE-331-1, 705 SHP, TBO 5,400

Left Engine -- S/N P92027C, 822.2 SMOH, 822.2 SHOT, 742 Cycles
Right Engine - S/N P92088C, 1265.2 SMOH, 1265.2 SHOT, 1142 Cycles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prop(s):
Left Prop - 54.9 SPOH - March 2007
Right Prop - 54.9 SPOH - March 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avionics/Radios:
New Garmin 600 PDF System, GNS 530W, GNS 430W, Dual G327 Transponders, GDL69 XM Weather, Bendix M4C A/P, RCA Primus Radar, WX500 Stormscope, Ryan 9900 BX TCAD w/ Alt. Alerter, Shadin Air Data, PM Engineering Audio w/ CD, 7 Place Bose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Equipment:
Executive writing table, new lead acid batteries, Woodward fuel controllers,
cleveland wheels & brakes, tip strobes, Hobbs meter, 7 Bose headsets, halogen taxi & landing lights, stainless steel hardware, cowl plugs, potty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Painted:
2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exterior:
Trim Colors - Teal, Black & Silver, Paint Condition - 7 of 10
Glass - Good condition, Boots - 2 patches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Interior:
2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior:
Interior - Taupe Leather, Carpeting - Charcoal, Condition - 7 of 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection Status:
Fresh 100 Hour / 200 Hour

I have no personal knowledge regarding this plane but I've always been interested.

Fast, high wing loading, easy boarding, good useful load, and if you gear it up the props don't even hit the ground.

Of course, there's that pesky accident rate so insurance may be staggering. Pay cash and self insure?

Hi Marc,

I have no experience with the MU2-F model but I have flown the Solitaire and Marquise models (when they were new). When off the ground they fly more like a jet than they do a turboprop. They are fast and efficient machines that require precise flying. Properly flown, these aircraft are just as safe as any other turboprop aircraft.

As you probably know, there is now an initial and recurrent training requirement to fly these aircraft which is a good thing. Here is a video with some background information about the SFAR:
The SFAR: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument

And a Video:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/TwfJ-ormgRU[/youtube]

Availability of parts and maintenance is exceptionally good considering it has been out of production for so long. This is, in part, thanks to a loyal group of owner/operators (see video).

My opinion is that you will need to make a serious commitment to recurrent pilot training, to maintain the aircraft to the highest standards, and to adhere to your personal limitations. I would guess you would do all three seeing as you are a member here

Kevin

Totally reasonable.

This aircraft is in my home stomping grounds, well all I could say is Pre-Buy Inspection.

My mechanic maintains an MU-2 and has been to MU-2 school. One of the more insane regular maintenance items is the every 150 hours (check the alternator brushes). This requires taking the engines OFF THEIR MOUNTS!

Anyway ... wicked accident history.

If you need to go turboprop Marc ... then you need to go King Air!

Mike

-- You fly on the canadian register right ? Bowing to political pressure from some crazed Texas congressman, the FAA has instituted fairly strict annual recurrent training requirements for this type. Canada may (or most likely will) be different.

-- If I recall correctly, there was a BT member selling a nicely tricked out Mu2k recently (try to search for 'mits'). Edit: It was Randy Africano trying to trade for a Baron.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3215&hilit=mits

-- There used to be a video of a short-field landing of the 'In-n-out Burger' MU2 somewhere in Cali on YouTube. Can't find it now . Must have been right before a brake-job, but he managed to 'make the first turn-off' with a little bit of smoke.

-- I think they are just misunderstood Somewhere in the political mudfight around the type, numbers of the odds of dying in one being 10x of a King Air where quoted. I don't believe those numbers are reflective of the current safety record.

-- Those flaps are a sight to behold. Lots of linkages wheels tracks to expand the wing area by 25% (bringing the wing loading down to somewhere just below the F104 for landing).

-- Dang those things are LOUD

Btw, that IS Randy Africanos plane you are looking at (N22MZ), the one with the G600.

Just curious about the type, not much interest of owning one.

Of course I know that the best engine is the good old Canadian PT-6.

I just need a good Baron.

I helped a friend buy an "M" model Mu2 in March and he hired me to fly the airplane for him.
I went to "school" in April 2009 and will gladly go to recurrent training each and every year as long as we operate the airplane. It is an awesome airplane.

If you are the type of person that would try to get around the training requirement, please don't look at an Mu2. I do recurrent training in my Travel Air! Why pilots fight a good peer-review is beyond me. The Mu2 is an airplane in which you really need good training.

Maintenance is much easier than any other airplane I have worked on due to much better quality of parts and construction, lots of availability and knowledge in the field.

The new SFAR is probably the best thing the FAA ever did. Has not been a serious Mu2 accident in several years and several of the previous accidents were thunderstorm penetration.

Generators are not a 150 hour inspection, but 100 hours or 1 year whichever comes first and do not require engine removal. Remember too, it is a Starter / Generator and is pretty important for getting the engine running. In any case, it takes a good mechanic about 33 minutes to remove an engine, but not necessary to remove S/G.

King Air has nicer flying qualities and is quieter, but the mighty Mits is much better performance for the dollar until you get up in to the B200 size aircraft. Additionally, the Mits fits in a small hangar - this is far more important than people realize anymore.

The Mits is mis-understood, which contributes to its awesome overall value.

Tj
Start this video--- http://www.4aviators.com/Aviators/Flying.html

I personally love the MU2 and I think it is a great machine if properly operated.

I did ask an underwriter recently why he didn't insure the airplane and his response had me laughing:

Q - How do you get an MU2?

A - You buy 5 acres of land and wait.



Anyway, I do think that the reputation has been borne out of accidents that could have been prevented had the pilots been properly trained. I actually like the FAA training stance for the aircraft - it's no 172.

Funny but nobody even notices the accidents in the PC12 this year... or the King Air.

USSIC writes them all day long with a decent pilot and school (not sure how I slipped through the system...). WBA, PAM and others too now if I recall.

Managing the wing is the thing. I consider it a semi-retractable wing.
If you are using the big wing, do not retract it... and keep it clean (spoilerons down).
They teach you how to do this for a solid week and it becomes habit.

That's about it. Remainder is same as any other airplane. Pressurization, Avionics, Fuel and E-systems are no different than any other pressurized cabin-class airplane.

Don't go too slow and load the wing up close to the ground.
Maintain your airplane properly and know how to use it.
These principles are not unique.

I have a friend/instructor that flies one a couple of times a week, all over the country. He flies "Con AIr" (not kidding, he flies prisoners around) for the aviation dept of a nearby county.

He loves the machine.

You need to do some reading on the MU2. I don't have personal experience with it (can't fly the county machine) but here is what I know second hand:

It was originally designed for short/rough fields but not really used much for that by owners. Designed for (and *is*) fast.

It's takes aircraft specific training to break some old habits. It uses spoilers rather than ailerons. Takeoff/landing and "engine out" handling is a different drill than for aileron equipped aircraft because adverse yaw... ain't. It's the same, only different. Doing it wrong, at the wrong time, will bite you in the rear. He says it's not hard to deal with, but you gotta "get it".

Careful how you fuel it (or who you let fuel it). Done wrong you can tip the bird over.

Most (aka All?) insurance companies will require annual simulator training.

Dan

Interestingly enough you can do in-aircraft training for the MU2 (if you go to the right guy) to satisfy insurance requirements with some companies.

Agreed on all.
ALL (read EVERY) insurance company requires annual recurrent on any turboprop with few exceptions.

It is a PAIN to fuel with only one hose:
Fuel the Main tank by filling Left Main filler to 3/5 capacity
then top off the right main filler for 154 gallons in the single Main tank that feeds both engines.
Then 15 in right Aux tank,
Then 15 in left Aux tank,
then 45 in left tip tank
then 90 in right tip tank
then the last 45 in the first tip tank you started with./.
Make sure the cabin door is closed.
No more than 45G imbalance in the tip tanks fur fueling.

There is a fair amount of things to study and learn in the Mu2.
I carry around the Limitations pages with me for casual reading.