Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

MU-2 for the adventurous.

You’d have to derive from maintenance, 337’s etc approximate times. If none such can be found, you need to satisfy all SB’s, all AD’s and certify or overhaul any time limited component. It could get expensive quick.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

It is an interesting game of thought here what would have to be done, as much under FAA

If it was the FAA, your biggest job will be convincing a DAR that it IS what you say it IS.

You need to build a rock solid case to pass scrutiny.

The problem is if after spending $$$ and 1,000 of hours and the DAR slams you, then you will be up the proverbial creek sans paddle …

FAA A&P/IA
LFPN

This is not in relation to original aircraft, but to MU-2’s in general:

Just heard from broker Randy Africano that this MU-2 short body is now reduced to $290K. It has a lot of time left on the engines (almost 4000hrs). This would be a good plane for Europan ops – short takeoff and sturdy gear suitable for smaller or even grass airfields.

MU-2F

That’s an astonishingly complete advert, with PDFs of the maintenance logbooks etc. Never seen that before in an advert. Also it looks like it was maintained well.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The build quality of the MU-2 makes them serious turbine bargains – with excellent aftermarket support, and safety training.

https://www.air1st.com/aircraft-sales/turboprops/118-1973-mu-2b-25-s-n-277-n3gt.html

300KTAS 900lbs full fuel payload 1300NM NBAA IFR 3,000 ft balanced field 3,000 fpm – what’s not to like :)

Last Edited by RobertL18C at 08 Jun 15:25
Enstone (EGTN), Oxford (EGTK)

https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/18014747/1973-mitsubishi-mu-2k

Am I incorrect but on around 200 to 300 hours a year, a syndicate would be operating this cheaper than a cabin class piston twin operating similar hours?

A $5million PC-12NG is typically €1,500-2,000 an hour, including crew and not covering airframe depreciation – but an MU-2 short body might be operated for €800-1,000 an hour excluding crew.

For owner flown syndicate you would need the cost of recurrent safety training for each owner, which is around a week in the USA every year.

Enstone (EGTN), Oxford (EGTK)

Yeah, the MU-2 is one of the most economical options out there. First of all, they’re built very tough to start with, so you’re unlikely to have many age or fatigue related issues. Secondly, they’re still fully supported. Thirdly, they’re also mainly hour based rather than calendar, which is good for the lower utilization owner. All this adds up to an airframe that is comparatively low cost to operate compared to a King Air or PC-12 etc.

This particular model in link has pretty high time engines, so if you’d elect to run it past TBO, you’d pretty much have to keep it on the N-reg. Expect to pay about $40-80K/side for the hot sections when they come up (every 1800hrs) – pretty much on par with a piston engine overhaul cost for the same hours. I know quite a few MU-2 guys who fly theirs for about $600-800/hr. An extra cost, as mentioned, is the yearly SFAR training: it’s about $8K.

Is it cheaper than a piston twin? No, but certainly very close, or on par with the operating costs of a C421 Golden Eagle, which is a good piston comparison.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 09 Jun 13:56

RobertL18C wrote:

what’s not to like

OEI flying characteristics. Hideous safety record (addressed by training, I know). Lack of ailerons.

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Neil wrote:

Hideous safety record (addressed by training, I know).

My understanding was the main reason for that was that the wing is “too versatile”, the flaps “too effective”: flaps up, it is optimised for (and requires) high speed, and flaps down it allows low speed flight. “Light” ME pilots are trained to immediately take one notch of flap up on engine failure on take-off, because a typical light twin will not climb (enough?) on one engine with take-off flaps, and on a typical wing the “drag vs lift” compromise is in the favour of retracting flaps, because flaps add lots of drag and not that much lift. On the MU2, retracting flaps takes away a lot of lift, because the flaps are more effective than on a wings typical in other GA aircraft.

I’m rather sympathetic to these kind of problems: a machine that works that much better than its “competitors” that people use it incorrectly.

This was made worse in FAA-land, since the certification requirement for the pilot is the same as a for a MEP… Train on a light MEP, and fly the MU2!

[ posts moved from the Corrosion-X thread to the MU-2 thread ]

ELLX

I believe that now it is treated as a type rating with annual safety training and revalidation the safety record is amongst the best, if not the best of the multi turboprop types.

It is unique with lateral control via full span spoilers and nearly full span flaps (0, 5, 20 and 40 degrees). Takeoff at 102 KIAS (Flaps 5) with Vyse of 140 KIAS (Flaps 5), but STOL has Flaps 20 data, and slightly lower Vyse of 135 KIAS, or Vxse of 125 KIAS.

The EFATO drill calls for Flaps 5 while accelerating to Vyse. The gap from lift off speed (Flaps 20) to Vyse (Flaps 5), will require pitching to accelerate before retracting flaps.

Not exactly a type for a weekend bimble, arguably to be flown with professional, full time crew.

Enstone (EGTN), Oxford (EGTK)
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top