There will be MU2s flying for a very long time. I bet there is an MU2 still flying on the day the last Eclipse EA500 retires.

They are overbuilt, maybe even incompetently so. There is literally one ton, 2000 lbs, more aluminum in an MU2 than in a Cessna 421, and the 421 is bigger.

Mike C.

There will be MU2s flying for a very long time. I bet there is an MU2 still flying on the day the last Eclipse EA500 retires.

They are overbuilt, maybe even incompetently so. There is literally one ton, 2000 lbs, more aluminum in an MU2 than in a Cessna 421, and the 421 is bigger.

Mike C.

That obnoxious sound keeps people from talking about you or at least keeps it from being heard. Love Garrett’s and the 20% fuel savings.

Try crop dusting in one. Reliability makes it worth it.

My Solitaire was quieter inside than a 441. No one complains about the noise on those.

I do miss owning a plane that was so loud outside the cabin that the line guys always knew you were coming. I don’t marshall myself in so that noise never bothered me

"They are overbuilt, maybe even incompetently so. There is literally one ton, 2000 lbs, more aluminum in an MU2 than in a Cessna 421, and the 421 is bigger"

Take a magnet to some of the cockpit structure, it all ain't aluminum....it is more like a tank than most folks realize. I am a little over 2 years and 285 hours into MU2 ownership, finally found a plane my wife actually likes!

Jeff Axel
N228WP

FWIW, Portland OR to San Diego on Thursday, 3:41, 224 gallons. At FL250, in an F model. They are pretty miserly on fuel in the mid twenties, but about 30-40KTAS slower than the later ones. Would be faster if it was cooler, still pretty warm at altitude.

Any knucklehead can overbuild an airplane. It’s expensive and more labor intensive, so most knuckleheads don’t. Conservative designers can also fall into the trap.

While having an overbuilt airplane has some benefits, it also suffers from a performance perspective due to that.
Tanks don’t fly.

A good aerostructure is just as strong (heavy) as it needs to be plus margin. No more, lest you leave performance on the table.

And yet the MU2 is substantially more fuel efficient and costs less to operate than a King Air. Those knucklehead plane builders are laughing all the way to the bank.

And yet the MU2 is substantially more fuel efficient and costs less to operate than a King Air. Those knucklehead plane builders are laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't believe the overbuilt story. Well built, yes. It's probably pretty optimized for it's gross weight.

B200 gross 12,500 lbs, empty 8283 lbs.

MU-2L gross 11,574 lbs, empty 7568 lbs

The 2000 lbs empty difference to a 421C is spurious, gross isn't in the same ballpark.

[/quote]
No I think a pile of 200s are in there also, but there is another thread for all that.

The chances of you dying from a randomly failed NTS system combined with a truly failed engine … ain’t gonna happen that way.

That system works just fine[/quote]

I hope you’re right. But if you can’t accurately assess the health of the NTS system on the ground and you rarely test it in the air (since that’s the only apparent way to 100% check its functionality), then you’re basically having to assume you’re taking off each time with the NTS system not working. Especially if you haven’t “flight” tested the NTS system in the last couple flights, then I don’t know how you can fee comfortable about the NTS pre-takeoff check knowing it’s not 100% accurate. Maybe you just have to take off knowing that if you lose an engine before like 150kts you chop both throttles and land straight ahead. Because from what folks have said on here previously that losing an engine right after takeoff when you’re not cleaned up and fast is basically uncontrollable of the NTS system isn’t working. What am I missing in my assessment?

I think I have mentioned this in a previous thread, but at Cessna we had an NTS failure in the early 441 flight test days.

It was caused by a shipping gasket left on (I forget if prop governor or prop pitch control) followed by an intentional engine shutdown, fortunately not at takeoff. Don't remember anything about NTS test. Flight test reported it was a pretty wild ride.

my turboprop rankings (wish list) puts mostly the Garrett powered airplanes out in front for their efficiency and high TBO. Being a mechanical engineer I see the common reference of “built like a tank” to be a negative, although most use it as a term of endearment.

It’s a negative because in aero overbuilding means you weren’t good enough to design and build it in an optimal manner (or you were but strangely chose not to). Experience shows many pilots and laymen are confused by this.

I don’t know where the MU2 measures up on this exactly and I do love the airplane, however its reputation is that it is quite a bit heavier than it needs to be and it does seem on face value that 500 lbs more fuel would serve the platform well.

for me:

1. P-180
2. C441
3. Turbo Commander (gulfstream era)
4. PC-12
5. MU-2N -10
6. TBM 850 pre G1000
7. KA B100
8. Cheyenne 400
9. C425
10. Gulfstream I

How about the Merlin, which could barely carry crew with full fuel, and some of which had/needed water injection or RATO for EFATO.