banner
banner

14 Jul 2025, 18:46 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 12:24 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6652
Post Likes: +5960
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Aerostar Superstar 2
You can always tell when someone is new to Commanders if the rudder is moving when they taxi... ;)

_________________
Without love, where would you be now?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 12:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Username Protected wrote:
I doubt the MU-2 cost less.

Mine has.

Quote:
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.

What does an MU2 pilot have to do that a Commander one doesn't?

Engines are the same, so feather, beta follow up are the same.

Plane has to be trimmed.

Shutdown list will be similar with generator, bleed air, etc.

So, what am I doing that you are not?

Just curious.

Mike C.



Here is Thomas's comments on the MU-2 in case you missed them. I disagree with him on the single engine performance. He owns and flies a MU-2 so I assume the rest is accurate.

Quote:
.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.


On the commander you don't use flaps on take off so no flap retraction to deal with or multiple speeds to wait for.

The wings are different. MU-2 has a little wing with no ailerons the commander has a large wing with traditional ailerons.

The clean up procedures are different.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 12:52 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20458
Post Likes: +25742
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
what exactly do you think they copied to build the MU2?

The F-104J Starfighter.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 12:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7095
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Pilatus was based on the Millennium Falcon.

_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 12:57 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20458
Post Likes: +25742
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
On the commander you don't use flaps on take off so no flap retraction to deal with or multiple speeds to wait for.

Granted, that is a difference. The Commander wing is so big that flaps aren't needed for takeoff. Or to put it another way, you can't make the wing less if you wanted to. This is typical of piston heritage aircraft.

Quote:
The wings are different. MU-2 has a little wing with no ailerons the commander has a large wing with traditional ailerons.

The aileron versus spoilers thing is of no consequence in the operation of the plane. The little versus big wing thing does have consequence. There are pros and cons to both ways of doing it.

Quote:
The clean up procedures are different.

The MU2 takes off with flaps, the Commander doesn't. By the time I am fooling with flaps, I am well established in single engine flight, so not a big deal.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 12:59 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20458
Post Likes: +25742
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
Pilatus was based on the Millennium Falcon.

That explains why you have to beat the bulkhead to make the master relay work.

I sure hope your reliability is higher...

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:17 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Quote:
.
The MU2 takes off with flaps, the Commander doesn't. By the time I am fooling with flaps, I am well established in single engine flight, so not a big deal.

Mike C.


That's the point I don't want to be fooling with flaps during a emergency!

I guess it depends on what you considered "established" when you are in single engine flight.

If clean and climbing is what you consider established then you will have a much longer time waiting to be established than a Commander pilot.

My Commanders VXSE is 97kts! I am at VXSE by the time the gear leaves the runway.

MU-2 clean VXSE is 140kts!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 11068
Post Likes: +7095
Location: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Aircraft: PC12NG, G3Tat
Username Protected wrote:
Pilatus was based on the Millennium Falcon.

That explains why you have to beat the bulkhead to make the master relay work.

I sure hope your reliability is higher...

Mike C.


:coffee:

It's a utility airplane, you always gotta beat it a little!!!
_________________
---Rusty Shoe Keeper---


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:37 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/24/11
Posts: 76
Post Likes: +33
Aircraft: Mitsubishi Solitaire
Username Protected wrote:
That's the point I don't want to be fooling with flaps during a emergency!

Would you do your single engine landing with no flaps?

Quote:
If clean and climbing is what you consider established then you will have a much longer time waiting to be established than a Commander pilot.

How about just climbing? No hurry to do anything with flaps, it will climb just fine with 20 degrees of flaps, where the wing area is closer to Commander size. :)

Quote:
My Commanders VXSE is 97kts! I am at VXSE by the time the gear leaves the runway. MU-2 clean VXSE is 140kts!

I rotate at 105 and am at 125 (Vxse with takeoff flaps) within several seconds of takeoff. I think you are dramatically overstating the significance of those few seconds, and would argue many other safety factors are more important.

Nathan


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:40 
Online



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8166
Post Likes: +10527
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
what exactly do you think they copied to build the MU2?

The F-104J Starfighter.

Mike C.


Inspired by the Commander... one of the first "business twins" and then influenced by the F104, I think it's pretty clear that the success of Twin Commander is what drove Mitsubishi to build the airplane and market it in the US (no business aviation in Japan at that time)
_________________
Winners don’t whine.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 13:43 
Online



 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/23/13
Posts: 8166
Post Likes: +10527
Company: Jet Acquisitions
Location: Franklin, TN 615-739-9091 chip@jetacq.com
Username Protected wrote:
Quote:
.
The MU2 takes off with flaps, the Commander doesn't. By the time I am fooling with flaps, I am well established in single engine flight, so not a big deal.

Mike C.


That's the point I don't want to be fooling with flaps during a emergency!

I guess it depends on what you considered "established" when you are in single engine flight.

If clean and climbing is what you consider established then you will have a much longer time waiting to be established than a Commander pilot.

My Commanders VXSE is 97kts! I am at VXSE by the time the gear leaves the runway.

MU-2 clean VXSE is 140kts!


Wing loading and control surfaces.

The Mits has the highest wing loading of any twin engine aircraft (I'm aware of) without jet engines...

The rudder on a TC is a thing of beauty... and it's really beautiful if you're down to one engine.

_________________
Winners don’t whine.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 14:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Quote:
. Would you do your single engine landing with no flaps?



Yes

Quote:
.How about just climbing? No hurry to do anything with flaps, it will climb just fine with 20 degrees of flaps, where the wing area is closer to Commander size. :)


Then why does the engine out procedure call for a clean up?

Quote:
. I rotate at 105 and am at 125 (Vxse with takeoff flaps) within several seconds of takeoff. I think you are dramatically overstating the significance of those few seconds, and would argue many other safety factors are more important.

Nathan


It will take longer than a few seconds to accelerate with only one engine producing power and the gear either out or retracting.

That's why the MU-2 SFAR has a procedure that calls for an airbourne abort of the takeoff if you are below 50 ft!

Labeled " takeoff engine failure - unable to climb"


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 15:32 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20458
Post Likes: +25742
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
My Commanders VXSE is 97kts! I am at VXSE by the time the gear leaves the runway.

Then you are artificially lengthening your takeoff run, you could be airborne sooner.

Quote:
MU-2 clean VXSE is 140kts!

Nobody takes off clean, so this number is meaningless.

My takeoff configuration Vxse is 125 KIAS.

The Commander definitely wins on OEI performance after takeoff. You basically have such a large wing that you have effectively some flaps down all the time.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 15:50 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 20458
Post Likes: +25742
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
That's why the MU-2 SFAR has a procedure that calls for an airbourne abort of the takeoff if you are below 50 ft!

You will have to show me where the SFAR says that.

Hopefully, no one is using your posts as guidance on how to fly an MU2.

Mike C.

_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Considering a Turbo Commander for my next plane
PostPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 16:17 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/09/13
Posts: 1910
Post Likes: +927
Location: KCMA
Aircraft: Aero Commander 980
Username Protected wrote:
That's why the MU-2 SFAR has a procedure that calls for an airbourne abort of the takeoff if you are below 50 ft!

You will have to show me where the SFAR says that.

Hopefully, no one is using your posts as guidance on how to fly an MU2.

Mike C.


Here you go.

Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next



PWI, Inc. (Banner)

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.