Never was an issue in my 13 years owning an MU2. I never had any passenger decline due to this. I've never had a customer decline period.


Cost as much to operate as an MU2 per mile, won't be nearly as reliable, will be much slower.

And it requires leaded fuel which is becoming a bigger issue in recent times.


421C on 600 nm legs won't meet the 2.5 hour block time.

MU2 will.

Put some 100 knot headwinds into your thinking. That will clarify things for you real quick why you want 300 knots.


Comfort and money are directly tied together. Also, faster is more comfortable just due to less time inside the plane. The ride in turbulence should also be considered.

MU2 cabin is decent, the plane is fast, rides turbulence well, but it is noisy. Definitely a headset airplane. Wearing one is sometimes not comfortable for passengers. If wearing a headset is not an issue, then the MU2 really shines as the best choice.

A Citation 501SP is probably the top end for passenger comfort. Quiet, fast, flies above weather and most turbulence, reliable. Probably fails on your opex requirements, though. Can be bought pretty cheap.

In the 300 knot turboprop class are MU2s, Commanders, and 441 Conquest. IMO, the class leader is 441. A lot more to buy, but quieter than an MU2. Long range, if you ever need that. Actually a touch faster than the MU2. MU2 is the low cost leader of the group. Robust, fast, great in turbulence, but noisy. Commander might work, but big, seems expensive to maintain, and not great in turbulence.

Any turboprop with PT6 is going to be slower and/or expensive to operate.

A PC-12 could work if you can afford the capex. Faster than a 421, but slower than the other choices.

I'd be loathed to go into the piston realm. 421 is a nicest airplane of that group.

Anything unpressurized scores low on comfort. In weather, thin air, noisier, slower generally.

Mike C.

Thanks, Mike C.

I am getting more onboard with the MU2 as the days go by. I have pretty much given up on piston aircraft for this mission. We will fly four people at most for now and we can complete the shorter missions in a TN A36.

Those longer missions will have to wait until we have the funds for a turboprop. I had always considered the Piaggio Avanti as the ultimate step up - no need to ever buy a jet. So, with the feedback from BT and guidance from others privately, the goal that emerged was to structure our finances, including tax incentives, to acquire an Avanti in the next 2 - 3 years.

What's interesting now is that we might be able to shorten that timeline by purchasing an MU2 in 1 - 2 years. The only thing keeping me on the sidelines is comfort - particularly noise. My staff and I can deal with headsets. We can see it as part of the job. Clients are a different story. That's a tough one. Impressions matter.

So, what about soundproofing an MU2? Doable? Would a combination of the 5-bladed MT props and a cabin refit with generous soundproofing help, or are the Garretts just unavoidably noisy?

Vic

Garrets are incredibly noisy to people outside the airplane (Mu2 more than most for some airframe specific reason)

Garret airplanes don't have particular internal noise problems compared to a KA.

I agree with Charles that the interior noise of an MU2 is not an issue, but they aren't all the same.

For example, the cockpit of a short body MU2 is noisier than the cockpit of a long body because of the proximity of the propellers. I haven't ridden in a 3 bladed MU2, but it is my understanding that they are slightly noisier, compared the 4 blade version.

Anecdotally, I think the passenger cabin of the long body is also slightly quieter, but that is just my experience. I owned a Cessna 340 for several years and took a test flight in a short body MU2 and my (then) wife and frequent passenger said the cabin noise in the 340 and the short body MU2 were "about the same".

She also commented that, depending on where she sat, the cabin noise in the long body was somewhat quieter. I owned a long body for a few years and found the cockpit noise to not be obtrusive.

Here is a general statement that I think most will agree with. The MU2 is one of the noisiest turboprops when you're standing outside listening to it, but it is about the same as other turboprops when you're in the cabin as a passenger. I've been in the cockpits and passenger cabins of different King Air models and Twin Commanders and that was my observation.

Don't let interior noise be a deterrent to picking the MU2.

I'd agree with Mike C on the noise issue. Mine is a 3 blade -10 short body and it is loud inside and out. We have 4 King Airs and my MU-2 moving staff for our practice. None of the passengers in the King Airs wear headsets. I've had one person elect not to wear a headset in the MU-2, everybody else has wanted one. The Mits is louder inside than my Aerostar was as well. With noise cancelling headsets in back, the noise becomes a non-issue (as long as the headsets are not themselves an issue). And yes, you sometimes get some scowls on the ramp with people covering their ears as you taxi by or start up...but the plane turns out cruise numbers at 97% engine speed between 305 and 315kts TAS pretty regularly, so I guess it's just the "sound of awesomeness"
If you need the cabin size and can afford the cost of acquisition and operation of an Avanti, that would certainly be quite a ride for you and your customers. For me, the MU-2 fits my mission very well.

FWIW ... an Avanti is major overkill for 600nm. Do you anticipate your mission expanding substantially?

What about the King Air B100 with the dash-10 engines? Still the familiar King Air look that lots of people know (and love). The dash-10 engines give it great performance (not counting the P180).

Or...

The Merlin III. Possibly also overkill for 600NM but it has that "big aircraft" feel and great performance.

The P180 avanti will get you over most weather at jet speeds, great cabin, very quiet (inside).

The C501SP will offset its higher fuel cost with the lower price tag. Possibly the safest and easiest to fly as well.

And since a jet is also considered: my personal favorite SP jet: the Premier 1A. Fast, comfortable, big cabin, lav, great ramp appeal. What's not to love.

The price.

Indeed, Charles. On the other hand, we've been looking at our capital spend, depreciation schedule and office location expenses and a 400 knot airplane just may allow us to make some different long-term logistical choices. So, while 600 nm is a breeze for the Avanti, that aircraft's capabilities open up some other opportunities that might help us grow.

Still, why wait for Ms. Right when you can have Ms. Right Now? I am going to get some actual time in a long-body MU2 (ideally with the 5-blade props) to help with the decision process.

Vic

Indeed, Charles. On the other hand, we've been looking at our capital spend, depreciation schedule and office location expenses and a 400 knot airplane just may allow us to make some different long-term logistical choices. So, while 600 nm is a breeze for the Avanti, that aircraft's capabilities open up some other opportunities that might help us grow.

Still, why wait for Ms. Right when you can have Ms. Right Now? I am going to get some actual time in a long-body MU2 (ideally with the 5-blade props) to help with the decision process.

Vic

Re 441 vs MU2. I flew in a 441 recently. Awesome plane however it was just as loud or louder than MU2 from pilot seat. Which isn’t bad, just saying they are equivalent. I also preferred MU2 tube to squashed tube if 441. MU2 rides better but 441 has better range, is easier to handle and baggage space is incredible. Systems seemed simpler too but I am still not sure why. They are both fantastic planes though.

Hi Chris. Sorry for the delay. Was in the Bahamas last week for Spring Break. First trip outside the country flying myself. Took 8 people (4 adults and 4 kids ages 8-14) with enough stuff for 5 days in style.

Looking back at it, the transition has been smooth, but there were definitely times I thought I would never get it. The learning curve is steep but it's not really about the airplane - it's operating at a different level w/ ATC and the requirement that you stay mentally ahead of the airplane. In a Cirrus or a Bo you can bail yourself out of bad planning with good stick and rudder skills - like if you're high and/or fast coming in. In the jet you need to be thinking miles ahead - jets are slippery and are hard to slow down. 10 knots fast over the threshold translates to an extra 1,200' of runway.

I was fortunate that in my Cirrus club, one of the instructors had 20 years of airline experience and was flying Citations for a charter outfit (he packaged out of SWA when COVID hit so both the Cirrus instructing and Citation flying were fun jobs for him). I flew missions with him for 3 months before I went for my type rating. His experience in both the Cirrus and jets was invaluable as he knew exactly where I was coming from and could really focus on the differences. Plus between the military (he was a USAFA graduate and viper pilot prior to the airlines) and 121 experience, he really harped on doing things by the book which I think is critical for flying a jet.

The airplane is extremely easy to fly. The plane I bought has dual G600s and dual GTN750s so it was pretty easy coming from the G1000 in the Cirrus. That change also saved a ton of weight - the plane has 1,566lb useful full fuel load. I find there is more work in the planning stage than in a piston. In the Cirrus I would check the weather and take 15 seconds to decide whether to fuel to tabs or full fuel. With the jet I more closely calculate expected fuel and the rotation, approach, and landing speeds are weight and temperature dependent so you calculate those each time. Once you have done that stuff ahead of time it's extremely simple to fly. There is a decent amount of systems knowledge to soak up but I am a nerd so reading Operating Manuals was fun and interesting to me.

Back to ATC. Once you are in a jet and flying in Class A, ATC expects you to be a pro pilot. I am fortunate to live in a sparsely populated area so I was able to take baby steps into more and more congested airspace. Even though I had done STARs into Kansas City, the first time I was given a Descend VIA Arrival clearance into KIAH my hands were shaking. I really didn't want to mess up the entire conga line of airliners that I was mixed in with. It went fine other than I had to keep my speed up until the FAF which then required speed brakes to get under my gear speed.

Hangar only went up $100 from the SR22 (from $350/month to $450/month). This is for a shared/FBO hangar. I actually prefer that system as when I am ready to fly the plane is pulled out, fueled, and waiting. Then when I come home I just button it up on the ramp and they put it away.

Maintenance has been pretty straightforward. Tarver had done all the big things before I bought it. SierraTrax keeps track of everything and lets you know what's coming up. Like any airplane, finding a knowledgeable and hopefully local mechanic is crucial to a smooth experience. Should I also note that this is the first airplane I've owned?

Insurance I won't even talk about.....

It does use a ton of fuel, but at least that is under my control. If I overdo it one month I can back off the next. I don't cruise as high as I could - I usually hang out at 320-340. I like the extra margin I get in case of decompression and I bias time savings over fuel savings. So at those altitudes I am burning ~0.5g/nm (vs ~.1g/nm in the Cirrus though Jet-A is 30% cheaper than 100LL at my field). Also, my missions are usually fairly short - 375nm from here to Houston, 200nm to KC, etc. In theory I could have a piston single for shorter trips with fewer people, but IMO I don't fly enough (on track for 100 hrs/year) to be proficient in both planes. So I take the efficiency hit on short trips to keep my proficiency as high as I can.

I've rambled on quite a bit. Happy to answer any other questions you have.

one other thought on being a business owner and the pilot of the company aircraft.

we owned an Aerostar which fit our missions well but I learned very early on to have a pro pilot on hand to fly it for many of the missions. working all day and then flying was beyond my endurance. I found having the pro pilot, when I flew to a difficult day meeting was well worth the cost in improved productivity and safe reliable dispatch.

my two bits is the airplane is a great business tool in many situations but its utility was much enhanced having the pilot to fly it when necessary. I think the utility was much better with a pro pilot available to fly it most of the time. and the cost was lower when you looked at its productivity.

the cool thing is I could charge all the training etc off to the business when I used it for personal use.

I can relate to this thread. When I had my Bonanza I was facing the same dilemma. I wanted something that could take 4-6 of us 600nm. The Bonanza was ok for four in benign weather, a Baron would be a little better, and a King Air would get it done at a higher cost. I wound up with a Mustang over the King Air, and that was seven years ago. Absolutely no regrets. We tend to have multiple meetings/conferences/conventions every year throughout the West Coast, which range from 300-700nm. Just returned from Las Vegas last week (600nm). Six people, very productive convention for us. The one thing that you can't overlook is the overall capability of the airplane. Unless there is a weather event that's on the national news, I can always go. That isn't the case with piston airplanes in this end of the country. I needed something that could negotiate real weather conditions. The peace of mind is worth a lot. The first decision is finding the airplane has the range/payload for the mission. The second decision is choosing the airplane that can consistently do it.

Bill,
I have been thinking along those same lines. My hope is that I can find a pilot that I could also employ in my business - full/part time or as a consultant. I just don't know enough yet about how to engage a non-employee pilot on a per flight basis or monthly contract. Seems like scheduling might be a challenge. Still, I will look into it.

Vic