My assessment is the -10 Commanders also top out around 300 knots, similar to the long body MU2s. It would be neck and neck.

Meanwhile, the short body MU2 pulls away from both of them.[/quote]
After this thread started, I was bucking a 100 knot headwind at FL200, so I decided to do an all out speed run. 100% RPM, throttle up to 5C under temp limit (engines had 28C and 38C margins due to compensation, so I was really 33C under temp limit at worst).

Resulting speed: 324 KTAS.

The Conquest II might be able to do that or get close, but a Merlin or a Commander, I doubt it.

Fuel flow was 100 GPH which is why I don't run in this mode very often. I went back to 96% RPM and my speed was about 307 KTAS and fuel flow 84 GPH. Flying at FL200 uses quite a bit more fuel than FL270/280, but that day, it was worthwhile.

Mike C.

I don't post much on this site, but I've been reading this thread. A little bit odd how folks go on the attack, but I guess nobody likes having their choice in aircraft degraded. I went through a plane search process recently. I had gone from a Cessna T210 to an Aerostar 10 years ago. I wanted a turbine twin. It came down to a TC or short MU-2. I didn't get to fly a TC, but if it flies like my Aerostar (same designer), I will guess that it flies nicer than the plane I picked (MU-2B-25-10). When I researched the cost of ownership on the TC, the MU-2 really came out ahead. I find the MU-2 to be very trim intensive and heavy on the controls. It feels a bit like I'm flying a building instead of a plane. BUT (and this is a big BUT)...in about 84 legs in the last 6 months in the MU-2, I've had a flat tire (fixed in 2 hours) and nothing else has broken. Yesterday I departed with a 45 knot 50 degree cross wind and "the brick" just took off (another plane crashed the day before due to cross-winds) as though it was just another day...a real utility plane. I would say that the TC will probably climb better, cruise a bit slower and be more fun to fly (spoken by someone who has not flown it by the way), but it will likely be a good deal more expensive to own and it has a huge wingspan that will probably be more punishing in turbulence and hangar rent. I cruise the MU-2 at 96%, (lowest cruise setting) and 20 to 25 degrees cool of max temp. I had 93 knot headwinds yesterday with mountain waves and turbulence...it rides through it like an L10-11. Last few flights' average cruise speeds have been: 307,309,326,310,307,317,312,311,302,304,317 with fuel burns from 72 to 90 gph depending on temperature/altitude. I have to say I "enjoy" flying the Ted Smith Aerostar more than the MU-2 (until you take into consideration the pervasive concern nagging me about what might fail during the trip). I'm sure the TC is much more reliable than a piston Aerostar, but when I did the research from 1 year to 6 months ago, the MU-2 came out well ahead in the performance and cost of ownership figures. It's been pretty good so far...DOC on par with piston twin, maintenance costs far lower (as in almost zero).

Thomas,

I assume you are an orthopedist. Guessing you are accordingly busy and use the plane in your practice.

Would like you to comment in the difference between Mits and TC training and how that factored in your decision. And while I am at it...initial insurance rates for each aircraft.

Very informative post. Thanks.

In terms of training requirements for the TC, in the US there are no legal requirements for specific training (beyond having your multi, high altitude, high performance ratings/endorsements...) but based on my experience getting insurance coverage for myself and significantly more experienced pilots I wanted to be named pilots on my policy - it is reasonable to expect US insurers to require for pilots with no previous TC time:
- to complete an approved initial training program (figure 3 days of ground and flying or ground and sim) and
-some quantity of dual time flying after initial program (between zero and 20 hours [I had zero turboprop time and needed to do 20 hours dual])

In the U.S. the insurer which I dealt with required, for all pilots, even for experienced TC pilots, to have completed initial or recurrent ground and flight/sim within the previous 12 mos (recurrent being one day, I believe).

(Interesting note, for my current insurance, which was organized through in the UK, where I'm currently living, which includes global coverage [hull plus the significantly higher legally required liability coverage calculated based on MTW for Euro ops] excluding warzones and the US, recurrent training is not required. I asked the broker and he thought that my ~100 hours meant they didn't require anything but that I am legal to fly the plane, which I am. Interesting as well that if my plane were European registered, I would need to obtain a type rating for it, but being N-reg and with FAA papers, I don't. I do plan to do recurrent training anyways...)

For the MU2, you need to complete the SFAR. I'm only a bit familiar with this but it sounds a bit more structured and rigorous, certainly more standardized, than the various initial training program options for the TC and it includes a formal checkride, as I understand it. I will let the MU2 pilots explain the MU2 requirements.

edited to fix some repetition

It's your reality. It seems to be generated by the need to scare people away from planes you don't sell.

I have a long list of "if you ever sell, call me first" people for my plane.

Maybe popular is "like it so much I'm not selling".

That list you provided looks like an excellent opportunity for owner operators to pick up some very nice airplanes. The advantage to these legacy airplanes is that you can upgrade them for much less than the newer "integrated" electronic cockpits of the newer planes.
Mike C.

I bought a MU-2 Solitaire three months ago and have about 70 hours in it so far. I started with only 30 hours of multi time (and no turbine time) but flew a few trips with a mentor pilot and then did the SFAR training with Howell Enterprises to get my 100 hours multi PIC required.

I had no issues getting insured through Tom Johnson who I met through this site. The cost is about half what I expected, only four times as much as the 1966 V35 Bonanza I owned previously.

The plane had flown very little recently (like 30 hours over the last 10 years) so there were a couple of minor issues like a sticking valve and a bad relay that were resolved over the first few flights. I had to replace a main and a nose tire after all the landings I did for training, but so far both direct operating costs and maintenance costs have been significantly lower than my projections, but I haven't been through a 100 hour yet.

I tend to fly higher (FL 250 typically) and at lower power settings because my typical trip length is long, but I have seen 315 KTAS at lower altitudes. I usually end up at 290-300 KTAS and 500 lbs/hour total in cruise.

If the plane could carry 300 lbs more fuel it would be perfect for our needs (two to three adults, two small kids, 1000 to 1700 nm trips).

Nathan

In my 980 commander I normally see 295kts to 305kts while burning 450lbs/hr (67gph) That is at FL270 or FL280 which is almost all I ever fly.

It takes about 15 minutes to reach cruise.

The best thing about the airplane is it's single engine performance. I can lose an engine right at lift off and the procedure is pull the gear and fly the plane. Once you get comfortable you secure the engine. It climbs at 1000fpm on one engine. There is lot of margin!

On take off there no flaps to deal with and you can land with no flaps with very little penalty.

Some of the things I think that have been missed in this thread are the most obvious differences the wings and the procedures.

I would recommend you read both POHs and compare the engine failure on take off procedures.

The wing on the MU-2 is both a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because of the footprint. They are short winged, great at getting into a hangar but not so good at flying on one engine.

The short wing also penalizes the aircraft at altitude, particularly the long bodies. While I can get to FL280 quickly at GW. The MU-2 long bodies might not bother because they need a longer flight to make it worth it.

You will find most MU-2 long bodies stuck in the low 20s burning 95gph doing 275kts.

The longer wing on the Jetprop Commander also hold more fuel, but more importantly allows for a very flat flight path. It is the flattest flying airplane I have ever flown.

Training is optional in the commander once you get checked out. The check out very simple due to two things. The commanders do not have SFAR requirements and the procedures are easy to master.

If you need a lot of room I would go with the MU-2 long bodies. They are bigger than the commanders.

I have 6 in my family and we have done legs over 5 hours long. The comments from the family was "that's cool we did not have to stop"!

Ok... I have to say something negative about the Commander... it takes a little bit to get use to taxiing the dang thing!!!

In the case of the 980 (my favorite) I don't believe there is anything else to pick on!

About 15 years ago I sold Lance Neibauer (Lancair) the 980 Jetprop that Rob Walton previously owned, when Lance bought it he didn't even have a twin rating, plenty of turbine time... but it was all SETP. He went to the local school,got his multi and went to Flight Safety... two weeks later he was flying the Commander! It really is that easy.

By the way, back in the day Walmart, guided by FRUGAL Sam Walton had a fleet of over 30 Commanders!

Mark,
I'll make an attempt to answer your questions, but I don't have all the answers.
Yes I'm an orthopedic surgeon. Our practice uses aircraft to get to our clinics as do many medical practices in this state. Flying is generally more predictable than driving in winter time as roads close regularly and sometimes remain closed for a couple days. We operate 4 C90A King Airs. About 7 years ago, our flight department (4 pilots) did an exhaustive research process to determine if there was a better choice that we could operate at a lower total cost than the King Airs while maintaining a safe operating environment. We looked at the single engine turbines, but given that we often operate at night, over the Rocky Mountains and in snow and ice storms, we decided against them. Their final determination was that trading the King Airs for 4 Marquise MU-2's would make the most sense. TC's were considered, but eliminated based on maintenance costs. We were moving in that direction but came up against an insurance block wherein the underwriter would not grant the 25M smooth coverage we have on the KA's if we went with the MU-2's, the highest they would go was 2M. Things have changed since then as the SFAR mandate has really altered the accident rate and insurability.
I'm the only pilot in our group of docs and I have progressively moved toward self-transport instead of flying in the corporate KA's, in the Aerostar the last 8 years and more recently in the MU-2 K.
My training took one week with 20 hours of operation followed by 10 additional hours of mentor flight by my SFAR instructor (accomplished by having him fly with me back from the east coast where I trained and do two business trips here in Wyoming). It's much like a type rating. I've already described how the plane feels to fly...each TPE-331 engine has more power than both of my Aerostar's 350hp Lycomings together, so you really need to watch asymmetric thrust, but the thing that makes people consider the MU-2 "dangerous" is that it is different than other twins. You can't "identify, verify, feather, and clean it up" after engine failure because the engines and wings are different than planes like a King Air. I wouldn't call the plane "difficult," just "different." Like a TC, the MU-2 also climbs and flies very well on one engine. Just wait for 130kias to go flaps 20 degrees to 5 degrees, and wait for 150kias to go clean. Much like any turbine, actually feathering and securing the engine comes after plane control, obstacle clearance, and positive rate is assured. What is complex with the MU-2 is mostly other issues that make it a bit more difficult than the KA's for efficient transport like disconnecting the nose steering link when parking, needing to heat the engines before start when it's cold, 3 min cool-down after landing, manually spinning the props after shut-down etc. It's not a big deal, but it all adds up on a three-leg, two clinic day. It's partially compensated for by the fact that the MU-2 cruises 80 to 90 knots faster than the KA's, but the "get in and go, park and leave, start in any temperature" nature of the KA/Pratts are attractive in their own right. I don't think the TC would be much different because most of those issues are related to the plane having Honeywell instead of Pratt engines, but against that you have the fact that the Honeywell is fully 30% more efficient...as with all things, it's a trade-off.
I can't answer on insurance because mine was pro-rated the first year and joined with other planes, included in their policy. I got 2M smooth and $600K hull coverage. I had virtually no prior turbine time, (2300 hours total, ATP and about 1000 multi). Cost of in-plane training including mentor flight time was $7200. I've heard most 100 hr/annual inspections were running 10 to 14K in the MU-2 which is not a lot different than complex piston twins and less than what I read most owners are spending on their TC. It is certainly MUCH less than what we spend on each King Air annually. TBO on mine are 5000 with HS at 2500.

Just for reference the last 150 hr on my commander cost 13k at Naples jet center not a cheap shop. I doubt the MU-2 cost less. In reality it all depends on the how good the airplane is you bought.

The MU-2 handles TO engine failures just like other turbine IF you are comparing it to jets. Except of course the jet has a lot more power and maybe another crew-member.

The commander climbs quite a bit better than a MU-2 on one engine. The climb gradient is substainsionally better.

As Thomas describe there are multiple steps to getting the MU-2 confiquired during a OEI procedure.

Most turbo props are much simpler and the Commander is one of the simplest during OEI.

My insurance is $7500 for 5 million smooth on a 1.2 million hull.

The commander is pretty cheap to run for a turbo prop, of course it really all depends.

Steve,

How much turbine time/twin time did you have to get a premium that low for that much coverage? Just got a quote back for my first twin that was considerably higher and half the liability and hull value. Who did you use to write your coverage?

Mark, I had a few thousand hours of turbine time.

My agent is a BT member you can PM him or call.

Alejandro Galioto
True-Course Aviation Insurance

4000 Calle Tecate, Suite 208
Camarillo, CA 93012
T - 805.727.4510
F - 805.727.4451
CA License 0G87202
www.true-course.com

If I had needed one less seat, I would be in a 1000........I think that airplane is awesome.......

Cabin layout in the TC's is my biggest hangup...
The circular seat in the back seams awkward, but negotiable maybe. The unenclosed potty up front, not so much.
What am I missing?

Nothing, you know what we know