MU-2 into grass airfield.

… not to forget the very high wing loading and the resulting unwillingness to fly slow. 11.000 Pounds (long model) and a wing that’s about the size of a C-150 is all you need to know!

What was in the past is not really relevant, is it?

Not many of the design flaws (or rather peculiarities) of the MU-2 could be fixed by ADs. The real fix was to mandate proper pilot training. But many of the underlying problems remain and will continue to catch pilots.

Like the roll control by spoilers, that makes crosswind landings into short runways rather demanding.
Or the lack of crossfeeding capability of the tiptanks which means that fuel has to be dumped in the event of an engine failure. It’s bad enough to lose an engine, but even worse if you lose your remaning endurance at the same time.
Or the very demanding single engine climbout characteristics: You are not allowed to retract the flaps below a certain speed but may be unable to reach that speed under certain conditions – which is rather multi-engine-piston behavior than one would expect from a METP.

I am not an expert but I do not believe that most of the issues have been designed out. A lot of people have been killed due to the challenging OEI handling, which is a big part of the FAA special training requirement. My view is different; I would rather fly an aircraft that does not require special training and the skills of Chuck Yeager in his prime.

If an airplane had design faults and ADs were issued, corrections were made … why do I care? The problems are fixed and do not affect me. What was in the past is not really relevant, is it?

A very nice airplane (although, AFAIK, can be a handful) and obviously a pilot who knows what he’s doing. 3500 ft should be fine (My field is 3000 ad we have Citationjets coming, no grass though)

Rather more than a handful when you see the statistics. I knew it had a poor accident record, but the statistics are terrifying. I know Adam will be back to say that since the FAA mandated special training it’s improved, but I would counter that the FAA haven’t mandated special training very often, a King Air doesn’t need it.

Discussed at length on PPRuNe not so long ago. This one sums it up best: http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/552631-mitsubishi-mu-2-a-2.html#post8793705

A very nice airplane (although, AFAIK, can be a handful) and obviously a pilot who knows what he’s doing. 3500 ft should be fine (My field is 3000 ad we have Citationjets coming, no grass though)

My dream twin for when I win the lottery. Ticks all the boxes for me.

Adam it would be interesting to get the performance calculations for a twin turbo prop at Johnson Creek: balked landing, landing distance required, V speeds on take off and take off and obstacle clearance requirements.

Back in the 60’s the MU-2 (then marketed by Mooney) was a regular at air shows, with impressive short field performance.