As Adam brings up the subject anybody here ever flown an MU-2? Ok the airframes are old but it seem to be an amazing aircraft which can be purchased at rather low prices.
If you don’t mind a fixer-upper with no logs, here’s a really “cheap” long body one. Got some work to be done before it can fly. Bet price is seriously negotiable, though:
But for $400K you get a proper one and well kept after with decent times left on. Good value for a TP. And with the new SFAR, they’ve also become the safest TP twin there is. Built like tanks (they have very few AD’s and are fully supported by factory still). That said, the have the Garretts that make a lot of noise on the ground (cabin is quiet), so I assume they’re not very popular at some European airports. You might get charged a bit extra on landing because of noise certificate. The MU-2’s also have about a 1000-1100nm range limit, with no aux fuel tank possibilities. This might be enough for most people, but it wouldn’t hurt to have a little more. The Commanders have better range in this category, and the option of adding aux fuel which will take them up to around 1500-1700nm. Speeds are otherwise pretty similar, with slight advantage to MU-2. The MU-2 is built sturdier, though. And it’s short wingspan might make it fit in your normal hangar. No RSVM, so in the US can’t fly higher than FL280, not sure if you can fly higher in Europe. Think it’s certified to FL300.
I looked into them quite a bit for awhile, and I was well keen. In the end I couldn’t swing it financially without a loan, and I didn’t want to do that. So I picked an older Commander instead I could afford. Commanders require no SFAR training and are perhaps a little more forgiving to fly. But I think the MU-2’s are a stellar deal and I’ve heard from enough owners that will confirm this. They have a very active owners group.
I wonder how many there are flying in Europe?
Another option not often thought about is the King Air B100. It’s the Garrett powered ones from the early 80’s. This way you get the known factor of the King Airs (although Beechcraft have steep parts prices), but with the speed and economy of the Garretts. A much better and more economical choice than the C90’s or older PT6 King Air’s as they burn 20-30% less and cost about half to overhaul. The B100’s area little more expensive than the MU-2’s, but not by much. They have a pretty loyal following.
AdamFrisch wrote:
I wonder how many there are flying in Europe?
My WAG, about half a dozen.
Trying to find some SFC specifications between the PT6 and the -331 I found this thread which seemed informative, and hopefully reasonably grounded, but on a simulator site.
http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=47896&start=75
One poster showed around a 15% SFC advantage to the Garrett (PT6 0.585 lb/HP-HR to the -331’s 0.515).
If the Garrett is more efficient, especially at altitude, why didn’t the TBM use it?
The PT6 is a wonderful 1950’s design but the training manuals seem to have a lot of troubleshooting scenarios, which makes troubleshooting our 1940’s design Lycomings look relatively simple. The free turbine design of the PT6 presumably making it easier to operate, and start, in remote locations. So I can see it being preferred for Ag use, Caravans, Otters and the PC12.
RobertL18C wrote:
If the Garrett is more efficient, especially at altitude, why didn’t the TBM use it?
Two (possible) reasons come to mind:
1. Noise. For some reason, Garrett engines are louder than the PT6. At least with most propellers that are in use. Don’t know the noise figures of those new 5-blade propellers that can be seen on some Metroliners novadays. From my own experience flying a Metroliner with the standard four-blade props the noise of a Garrett engine is hard to bear – both inside and outside the aeroplane.
2. Starter current demand. Since the Garrett is a single-spool turbine, the starter has to turn the propeller together with the core engine. This puts an enormous load on the battery and requires a bigger-than-otherwise-necessary battery in any case. Operating the Metroliner we always tried to get ground power for starting. The alternative was to use a switch which put the two batteries in series (48V instead of 24). This worked well but was said to shorten the life of the starter motors considerably.
I have never flown a PT6 powered aircraft myself, but every other pilot I have talked with who has flown both prefers the Garrett (apart from the noise…). Less fuel burn, very direct throttle response (almost like a piston engine) and easy to operate when the “single red line computer”, a poor man’s FADEC, is installed.
Yeah, Garretts use a lot of power. I just bought two new Gill batteries for mine at $1550/pop and they keep saying to not expect more than 2-3 years out of them. With religious Battery-Minder usage and mainly GPU starts, you might get 5 years out of them.
