As long as we're discussing, I don't see a lot mentioned about the Cheyenne 400 LS. I know the fleet numbers are small, but we live very close to Friend Air Care which services them. I know this was above our 1 million budget, but would love some thoughts on this:
https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?ca ... e=aircraft

The mits will fit pretty much in the same space as a 421C will. I think ts 4ft longer and 2ft taller. A solitaire will fit in standard T hangars. But the marquise may have some issue in the smaller ones because the tip tanks might push against the cut out in the back. But a square box hangar - it'll easily fit. Not so with the larger guys - Commander, Citation etc

We took our 421C cross country all the time. Its a long haul from Virginia to Arizona or Las Vegas. The Mits looks like it will shave close to 2 hours off this trip. So we are looking forward to that.

It really is a dream to fly. Go and fly with someone, and it'll bring a smile to your face. The 3200ft is a non issue at 20deg flaps or 40deg flaps. You put it down in the first 1/3 and it'll easily stop. takeoff is about 1800ft at gross. Im a full proponent of joining the cult airplane clubs :-).

Good luck in your decision making process.

we briefly considered but didnt go down hard down this path. Not only the limited service options on it since its such a rare bird, but the engines are very very costly for hots and overhauls. They are honeywell TPE-331, but they are the -14's and not the more common -10s or other variants.

I went from a C340A to a MU2 Marquise.

If I had a need to fly 100+ hours per year, I would not hesitate to buy another MU2. With proper training and continued maintenance of your proficiency, it is a great plane.

I think one of the key factors for you and your partners is how many hours each of you are going to fly. When I bought my MU2, I sought advice like you and had several MU2 owners tell me that I needed to keep up my proficiency and that it wasn't a plane I could go a month or 2 without flying and expect to hop in and go. My personal experience matched their advice. I see another owner in this thread saying the same thing.

If you are splitting time with your partners and each of you is only getting 50-75 hours a year then I would opt for the Citation.

Absent that disclaimer, for me, the MU2 was everything everyone here has described.

*Goes from Annual to Annual with very little service in between
*Built like a brick sh$thouse and provides a very nice ride in turbulence
*With proper training, is no more challenging to fly than a twin piston
*Has great support from the manufacturer and service center network

My thoughts about cabin noise...

Some MU2 models and individual aircraft can be loud inside, but it is very dependent on which model and which seat you're sitting in. If you're sitting in the back of a short body, my wife tells me it is comparable to the C340 (vs 4 blade P Model). In the cockpit of a short body, I think it is louder than the cockpit of a C340 (again the 4 blade P Model), mainly because you're sitting right next to the prop arc.

In the long body that I had, the cockpit noise level was equal or less than the C340, because you are a few feet in from of the prop arcs. The cabin was comparable, but if you were sitting in a seat even with the engines, then it might have been a bit louder.

I realize you had a 421, so you're coming from an airplane that is quieter than my C340.

Good luck with your decision and let us know what you decide.

Coming from a piston twin driver, what makes the MU2 more difficult to handle after a hiatus?

I am not sure why the 425 is claimed to be hard to get parts for and the build quality is questioned. I moved up to a 425 from a very nice trailing gear 421C. I looked for over a year to find the right plane that could match the condition of my 421. I have owned the 425 for almost 2 years and have had no major issues or any issue finding parts. I had a flow pack that needed to be replaced, and I found a rebuilt one on the shelve. It was a bit pricey, but it was overnighted, and plane was back in service in under 48 hours. I fly about 150 hours a year and I have missed no flights due to the aircraft being down. The plane just fires up and goes. I have a Blackhawk 425 so not many turbo props faster than me.
I looked at King Air 90's and liked them. I almost had a nice one bought until I flew in a Blackhawk 425. The speed difference and trailing ling gear plus over 600 hours in a 421 made the choice for me easy. I also looked at the 441 and really liked it, but I didn't need that many seats or range, most of my flights are under 500 miles.
There are pros and cons to all planes, but just letting you know a 425 especially the Blackhawk 425 is a heck of a plane and I really enjoy mine. The really nice ones hardly ever hit the open market. So, if you want one you will have to do some digging and make a few phone calls to the top maintenance shops for the 425.

Chuckle... I knew someone would question me on this.

Yes, I think the 441 is more challenging to fly than the 421. Compared to the 421, the 441 is obviously faster, has a touch more finicky w&b envelope, and has some very strange engine failure modes (mostly related to the computers).

Don't get me wrong, I think the 441 is an amazing airplane and it's the clear winner for long range efficient travel. Depending on the airframe (there is a lot of variation) they are between 275&300kts true at 500-600#/hour and can go for a LONG way. Truly impressive airplanes.

The main issue for new turbine pilots are the motors. Yes, they are pushbutton start and stop which is cool, but compared to King Airs and Citations I've just seen too many variations on the engine readings - There is black magic that happens between the power levers and the actual motors, and I think that can be challenging for a new turbine pilot.

I've had more motor "goofiness" in 441s than any PT6 or JT15 powered airplane. Computers tripping offline, torque readings bouncing around, drastically mismatched gauges, etc. No, nothing dangerous but I've also been flying for a while.

Compared to a KA I also don't think they are particularly well built and I personally find a KA more comfortable, but I realize that is completely subjective.

Of the airframes (441, 421, KA and even Citation) I have the lowest time of the four in a Conquest, and absolutely no other 331 experience, so some of this may just be lack of comfort with the Garrets. However, I do teach recurrent in the 441 and actively fly several of them on contract.

Robert

I'm curious - What calendar items did you find problematic?

The just under 200 hour mark is about perfect for a King Air - Do a combined 2 phases every year (eg 1&2 in year 1, 3&4 in year 2). You actually get into a little issue when you start flying more than 200 hours a year since that triggers the need for a phase. You can time the rest of the little inspections (ie pitot/static, etc) to line up with the phases pretty easily.

Ironically, the inspectional interval is one of the things that pushed me away from the MU2 (that and the fact that the short body was too small and the long body too big...). As I understand the MU2s, you have a mandated inspection every 100 hours.

Robert

I'm curious - What calendar items did you find problematic?

The just under 200 hour mark is about perfect for a King Air - Do a combined 2 phases every year (eg 1&2 in year 1, 3&4 in year 2). You actually get into a little issue when you start flying more than 200 hours a year since that triggers the need for a phase. You can time the rest of the little inspections (ie pitot/static, etc) to line up with the phases pretty easily.

Ironically, the inspectional interval is one of the things that pushed me away from the MU2 (that and the fact that the short body was too small and the long body too big...). As I understand the MU2s, you have a mandated inspection every 100 hours.

Robert

Just one person's datapoint, but it was a non event getting the inspections to line up for the phases. Since I'm running (just) sub 200 hours, I basically treat the phases like an annual.

The only real onerous inspection is the 6 year gear one. That's expensive ($35k?) and a bit of a pain.

Again, just one datapoint, but having owned a 421 and a King Air, the King Air has been cheaper on maintenance and overall cheaper to run. Also, she's been in the shop a LOT less than my 421 was.

Robert

...as a 421 owner, these two sentences give me immense pause.

$35K for a 600hr on a King Air? The last 600hr on my MU2 was just over $15K. 100/200hr inspections have averaged around $10K. Will see what the next one costs as my next inspection is a 600hr. I also will have a HSI on one engine, so that will be expensive. FWIW, an MU2 will be faster on less fuel than a King Air too.

Jeff Axel
N228WP

I just finished putting new boots and windows on my 501. I don’t think I’ve ever loved Airplane more than this airplane. I just can’t imagine going back to a turbo prop; there’s just no justifiable reason to do it