Cloud Nine's New Plane

@denverpilot I did know about the icing investigation that had gone into the MU-2s in the 90s. What came out of that was an amended manual saying that in cruise flight in icing one should go 180 KIAS or faster. But when you read that report, it's very obvious that they got into bad icing and didn't work to get out of it. Losing that much speed in any airplane should be cause for strong alarm, MU-2 or otherwise.

From what I've read, the subsequent investigation (flying behind the tanker) showed that the plane actually could handle icing extremely well, but that you did need to fly it fast. The faster you go in any airplane the less ice accumulates. It gets my attention if I'm losing 10-15 KIAS in icing. The 40+ that they would've lost should be extraordinarily obvious...

@3393RP I'm not familiar with that AD... any information you could link me to on that would be great. It sounds very interesting.
 
Arbiter419 said:
Another 50pph and you're in Pilatus land at the same speed :D think of all the dogs! A guy here has a long body MU-2, seems to like the GPU for starts. Very excited to see you guys make use of it!
Click to expand...

Thanks! And while the PC12 cabin is certainly great, it would have enormous costs associated. Cost to buy, cost to hangar... and I'd bet the operation/ownership costs are going to be a lot more expensive, too.

Lots of costs associated with aircraft ownership to consider. Oh, and two engines. That's important to me. :)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
While I'd be glad to have you along, I must point out that the regs don't allow anyone who hasn't taken the required training to touch the controls, even for SIC purposes.
Click to expand...
Not quite true. The reg carves out several provisions...
(b) A person who does not meet the requirements of this subpart may manipulate the controls of a Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane if a pilot in command who meets the requirements of this subpart is occupying a pilot station, no passengers or cargo are carried on board the airplane, and the flight is being conducted for one of the following reasons
(1) The pilot in command is providing pilot training to the manipulator of the controls;
(2) The pilot in command is conducting a maintenance test flight with a second pilot or certificated mechanic; or
(3) The pilot in command is conducting simulated instrument flight and is using a safety pilot other than the pilot in command who manipulates the controls for the purposes of § 91.109(b).
Click to expand...
(2) Very easy to operate under as is.
(3) Is easy too, once you meet the below requirements which you would in near-ish future:
(3) Has a minimum total pilot time of 2,000 pilot-in-command hours and 800 pilot-in-command hours in multiengine airplanes; and

(4) Has:

(i) 300 pilot-in-command hours in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, 50 hours of which must have been within the preceding 12 months; or

(ii) 100 pilot-in-command hours in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane, 25 hours of which must have been within the preceding 12 months, and 300 hours providing instruction in a FAA-approved Mitsubishi MU-2B simulator or FAA-approved Mitsubishi MU-2B flight training device, 25 hours of which must have been within the preceding 12 months.
Click to expand...
 
jesse said:
Not quite true. The reg carves out several provisions...
Click to expand...

Fair point. Although I think when you say 3 is easy too you mean 1, because those requirements are what you need to be an MU-2 instructor providing training towards the required training. Yes, once I meet the time required I could be an MU-2 instructor. That'll probably take 2-3 years, depending on how many hours I fly the plane.

What's interesting with it is that overall, the MU-2 is more restrictive than most other type ratings. If someone donated a Lear to Cloud Nine, I could get my PIC type rating and any multi rated pilot could sit right seat and be SIC. Granted the MU-2 is a single pilot aircraft, but if you're operating it on 135 without autopilot in lieu of SIC authorization, both the PIC and SIC would be required to go through the training.
 
I know everyone here despises MrAviation haha, but he posted a cool video of him flying in a VERY nice MU-2 a while back. That same guy also owns or did own a Lancair that was turbine powered.

I always heard these things were really dangerous, but obviously it is just a stigma/stereotype that isn't necessarily true.
 
CC268 said:
I always heard these things were really dangerous, but obviously it is just a stigma/stereotype that isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...
Transition training is important in all planes. It's life-or-death in some planes. Like the first page of the construction manual for my Van's RV-14 kit quotes from Capt. A. G. Lamplugh: "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
 
CC268 said:
I know everyone here despises MrAviation haha, but he posted a cool video of him flying in a VERY nice MU-2 a while back. That same guy also owns or did own a Lancair that was turbine powered.

I always heard these things were really dangerous, but obviously it is just a stigma/stereotype that isn't necessarily true.
Click to expand...

The thing with either of them is that they need to be flown fast and are unforgiving. You need to treat them more like a jet.

The issue with the Lancair is that, in addition to being flown fast and being unforgiving, you have the reliability that goes with a single engine piston (for most of them) rather than turbine. If you have an engine failure, a IV-P I think has about a 4,000 FPM descent rate. That's just going to be hard to dead stick that in successfully, so you need to be on your game.
 
Ok, finally got the video uploaded to YouTube:


I'm thinking I'll go by the airport this weekend and do an engine start on the thing as the manual says you should run the engines every 2 weeks, and it will have been 2 weeks. I'll try to do a video of that.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ok, finally got the video uploaded to YouTube:


I'm thinking I'll go by the airport this weekend and do an engine start on the thing as the manual says you should run the engines every 2 weeks, and it will have been 2 weeks. I'll try to do a video of that.
Click to expand...
That's so cool!! You ever gonna fly down to Georgia?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
@denverpilot I did know about the icing investigation that had gone into the MU-2s in the 90s. What came out of that was an amended manual saying that in cruise flight in icing one should go 180 KIAS or faster. But when you read that report, it's very obvious that they got into bad icing and didn't work to get out of it. Losing that much speed in any airplane should be cause for strong alarm, MU-2 or otherwise.

From what I've read, the subsequent investigation (flying behind the tanker) showed that the plane actually could handle icing extremely well, but that you did need to fly it fast. The faster you go in any airplane the less ice accumulates. It gets my attention if I'm losing 10-15 KIAS in icing. The 40+ that they would've lost should be extraordinarily obvious...
Click to expand...

Yep. I figured you’d have remembered all that. Just figured I’d post it because in the report there’s a lot of other questionable stuff maintenance wise and pilot wise and business wise and it’s kinda a mess. Folks who haven’t read it might be interested.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Ok, finally got the video uploaded to YouTube:


I'm thinking I'll go by the airport this weekend and do an engine start on the thing as the manual says you should run the engines every 2 weeks, and it will have been 2 weeks. I'll try to do a video of that.
Click to expand...

Damn I almost could smell the kerosene! Niceeeeee!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Make no bones about it. The MU2 is dangerous airplane. That’s exactly why special training is required... in order to mitigate the airplane. One can say whatever they want, but once it takes extra training to fly the airplane.....

Now I have 0.0 doubt Ted will handle this without a hiccup. (Not sure if I said that backwards?? Intended to complement Ted). But he is a pro, and will get the training. More importantly I’m sure he won’t fly it until he is comfortable.

But a completely non issue craft would not require extra training.
 
Kritchlow said:
Make no bones about it. The MU2 is dangerous airplane. That’s exactly why special training is required... in order to mitigate the airplane. One can say whatever they want, but once it takes extra training to fly the airplane.....

Now I have 0.0 doubt Ted will handle this without a hiccup. (Not sure if I said that backwards?? Intended to complement Ted). But he is a pro, and will get the training. More importantly I’m sure he won’t fly it until he is comfortable.

But a completely non issue craft would not require extra training.
Click to expand...
So those airliners you fly are dangerous airplanes?

I think you’re being a little heavy handed in your assessment of the mu-2. Just because an aircraft requires special training does not make it unsafe.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
So those airliners you fly are dangerous airplanes?
Click to expand...
Okay... I’ll bite.. why, because they require a type rating?
No, the Airbus was not singled out. It’s in that realm because it’s a jet and over 12.5.
 
Kritchlow said:
Okay... I’ll bite.. why, because they require a type rating?
No, the Airbus was not singled out. It’s in that realm because it’s a jet and over 12.5.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t baiting you. Hope it didn’t come across that way. I’m saving all that for @MauleSkinner in the TAS thread :devil:

The MU-2 has a lot in common with jets in that it has flight characteristics and systems that require type specific knowledge. If you have that knowledge they are very safe and fly quite nicely. If you don’t they can be a real bear. Just like the airbus or just about any other jet. The requirement for a type was created to provide a net that would catch most of the aircraft likely to require type specific knowledge i.e. any jet or aircraft over 12.5. Sometimes one slips through the net. The MU-2 falls into this category in my opinion. It’s not inherently unsafe. It just requires type specific knowledge.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I wasn’t baiting you. Hope it didn’t come across that way. I’m saving all that for @MauleSkinner in the TAS thread :devil:

The MU-2 has a lot in common with jets in that it has flight characteristics and systems that require type specific knowledge. If you have that knowledge they are very safe and fly quite nicely. If you don’t they can be a real bear. Just like the airbus or just about any other jet. The requirement for a type was created to provide a net that would catch most of the aircraft likely to require type specific knowledge i.e. any jet or aircraft over 12.5. Sometimes one slips through the net. The MU-2 falls into this category in my opinion. It’s not inherently unsafe. It just requires type specific knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well the MU2 is indeed almost worthy of a typ rating, but you could say that about several aircraft. The King Air C90 in my opinion is more complex than the B200. I also have a whooping 14.1 hours in the MU2, but don’t know much about it.

My point?? All airplanes, especially complex turbines, should have an appropriate level of check out even if not required to get a type rating.
 
Kritchlow said:
Make no bones about it. The MU2 is dangerous airplane. That’s exactly why special training is required... in order to mitigate the airplane. One can say whatever they want, but once it takes extra training to fly the airplane.....

Now I have 0.0 doubt Ted will handle this without a hiccup. (Not sure if I said that backwards?? Intended to complement Ted). But he is a pro, and will get the training. More importantly I’m sure he won’t fly it until he is comfortable.

But a completely non issue craft would not require extra training.
Click to expand...

Every damn airplane out there is a dangerous airplane, because every damn one of them will kill you if you disrespect its ability to do so. Even the lowly Cessna 150, in the hands of an inattentive pilot or one of inadequate skill, will kill its occupants. And if you think an Airbus is somehow different from an MU2 in that respect, it's unfortunate you are unable to discuss that point with any of the cabin occupants of AF 447.
 
GRG55 said:
Every damn airplane out there is a dangerous airplane, because every damn one of them will kill you if you disrespect its ability to do so. Even the lowly Cessna 150, in the hands of a pilot of inadequate skill or inadequate concentration, will kill its occupants. And if you think an Airbus is somehow different from an MU2 in that respect, it's unfortunate you are unable to discuss that point with any of the cabin occupants of AF 447.
Click to expand...
Well... some airplanes are inherently more dangerous than others. I guess that’s my point.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well the MU2 is indeed almost worthy of a typ rating, but you could say that about several aircraft. The King Air C90 in my opinion is more complex than the B200. I also have a whooping 14.1 hours in the MU2, but don’t know much about it.

My point?? All airplanes, especially complex turbines, should have an appropriate level of check out even if not required to get a type rating.
Click to expand...
I agree. I believe the issue with the mu2 was that if a pilot was bold enough to go forth and play without proper training there was a high probability of epic failure. I’m not a high time mu2 guy myself but worked alongside at one of my 135 gigs where I became familiar with the aircraft. I was flying it’s jet cousin the MU-300. Everyone on the 2 liked it but my second airframe was the king air. The company didn’t like having pilots flying two typed airframes and they treated the mu2 as a typed airframe.
 
Ted, here's a link to the ADs listed in the Federal Register. I think it's all of them but there could have been others since 1995. Just glancing at it, I don't think the MU-2-1 is affected but I'm not sure.

I read up on the subject of reactionless mode after the crash that killed the governor of South Dakota. That aircraft shed a propeller blade causing a fuselage puncture and depressurization.

Loss of the blade tore the engine loose from one of the mounts, resulting in aerodynamic impairment and the inability to maintain altitude. The attempted off airport emergency landing was not successful.

That aircraft was a long body, I think a -60 and had -10 engines.

Link to AD summary:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-01-12/html/95-633.htm

The NTSB report (direct link to pdf download):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjABegQIExAB&usg=AOvVaw3nUjA_Sk5WmvZYsXRrtXe_

I apologize for including the information about the accident. I doubt it is of value to you, but I wanted to expand on the cause of propeller issues described in the ADs.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
So those airliners you fly are dangerous airplanes?

I think you’re being a little heavy handed in your assessment of the mu-2. Just because an aircraft requires special training does not make it unsafe.
Click to expand...

I don't think that dangerous is the right word, but unforgiving and unusual would be. My understanding is the USA was the only country that DIDN'T require a type rating for the MU-2, due to the way we structure our type rating system (which in my opinion is rather silly). Every time the MU-2's certification has been reviewed (which has happened several times at this point due to crashes), it's been determined the plane was properly certified. The comparison to the jet is the most accurate one - you have to fly it the way Mitsubishi tells you to fly it. If you don't, your punishment is it will kill you. But the planes don't fall out of the sky on their own - they have ultimately proven to be very tough and require intervention of a pilot to crash.

American turboprops tend to be more forgiving. They have more conventional designs (since they were mostly an evolution of a previously existing piston aircraft) and have wing designs and wing loading that keep approach speeds slower and have more forgiving stall characteristics. The MU-2 has a wing loading of around 53 lb/sqft, in line with an early Lear. But the MU-2 also has enough power that when flown properly, engine failures are almost never a concern. Compare that to a Lancair IV-P where you have the reliability of a piston single with an airplane that will fall out of the sky at 4,000 FPM in an engine out... I would consider the IV-P dangerous long before the MU-2.

I've never flown a King Air. But reality is I could just get in one and fly it like I've done with other aircraft if I read through the POH. It flies like an airplane and I have enough experience flying airplanes (including turboprops) that not everything would be pretty necessarily, but it would be safe, and emergency situations like engine failures I'd still be able to handle comfortably.

I've never flown an MU-2. I probably could get in it and fly it fine having read through the POH assuming nothing went wrong, but my standard habits that I've had for the past 2,300 hours of multi-engine time largely don't apply to it. So emergency situations might not end well. Hence, the training is logical and the NTSB stats prove it.
 
wayne said:
It was more a comparison for we mortals that fly lowly piston planes. ;)

You have to slow to 150 knots.
Click to expand...

Oh I know. It also creates some legitimate potentials for conflicts. If I do take the plane to Osh this year (which I may, don't know) it will definitely be timed for a period when there's lower traffic, or I might just land at another airport altogether. Don't want to be in a situation where I'm stuck behind a slow person. Similarly, I wouldn't be too thrilled flying it into someplace like FRG where you're often stuck behind a 172 or the like in the pattern.

But going into a Bravo and told to maintain 170 as long as practical? That sounds much more doable.
 
wayne said:
It was more a comparison for we mortals that fly lowly piston planes. ;)

You have to slow to 150 knots.
Click to expand...

You can get into some bad habits with the capabilities of these turboprops. It is no problem whatsoever to come into the pattern mid downwind at 220 kias and be get slowed for a proper base and final. I should say no problem for the airframe. Not saying it is polite, smart, or a good idea. You don’t have to baby the engines like a piston and the huge rotary speed brakes work wonders.... just don’t get slow.
 
James_Dean said:
You can get into some bad habits with the capabilities of these turboprops. It is no problem whatsoever to come into the pattern mid downwind at 220 kias and be get slowed for a proper base and final. I should say no problem for the airframe. Not saying it is polite, smart, or a good idea. You don’t have to baby the engines like a piston and the huge rotary speed brakes work wonders.... just don’t get slow.
Click to expand...

Seems like the best answer is "dont get slow". :)
Put in the jelly camp. Awesome plane!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Oh I know. It also creates some legitimate potentials for conflicts. If I do take the plane to Osh this year (which I may, don't know) it will definitely be timed for a period when there's lower traffic, or I might just land at another airport altogether. Don't want to be in a situation where I'm stuck behind a slow person. Similarly, I wouldn't be too thrilled flying it into someplace like FRG where you're often stuck behind a 172 or the like in the pattern.

But going into a Bravo and told to maintain 170 as long as practical? That sounds much more doable.
Click to expand...

You can use the turbine approach. 2300 feet and 135 knots. (if the procedures stay the same as last years)
 
charheep said:
You can use the turbine approach. 2300 feet and 135 knots. (if the procedures stay the same as last years)
Click to expand...

There's the 2300 ft and 135 kts on the normal arrival, which eventually merges with the slower traffic below. But the turbine/warbird arrival (the details of which I forget) would be what I'd use.

I'd still want to come in when it wasn't busy.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I don't think that dangerous is the right word, but unforgiving and unusual would be. My understanding is the USA was the only country that DIDN'T require a type rating for the MU-2, due to the way we structure our type rating system (which in my opinion is rather silly). Every time the MU-2's certification has been reviewed (which has happened several times at this point due to crashes), it's been determined the plane was properly certified. The comparison to the jet is the most accurate one - you have to fly it the way Mitsubishi tells you to fly it. If you don't, your punishment is it will kill you. But the planes don't fall out of the sky on their own - they have ultimately proven to be very tough and require intervention of a pilot to crash.

American turboprops tend to be more forgiving. They have more conventional designs (since they were mostly an evolution of a previously existing piston aircraft) and have wing designs and wing loading that keep approach speeds slower and have more forgiving stall characteristics. The MU-2 has a wing loading of around 53 lb/sqft, in line with an early Lear. But the MU-2 also has enough power that when flown properly, engine failures are almost never a concern. Compare that to a Lancair IV-P where you have the reliability of a piston single with an airplane that will fall out of the sky at 4,000 FPM in an engine out... I would consider the IV-P dangerous long before the MU-2.

I've never flown a King Air. But reality is I could just get in one and fly it like I've done with other aircraft if I read through the POH. It flies like an airplane and I have enough experience flying airplanes (including turboprops) that not everything would be pretty necessarily, but it would be safe, and emergency situations like engine failures I'd still be able to handle comfortably.

I've never flown an MU-2. I probably could get in it and fly it fine having read through the POH assuming nothing went wrong, but my standard habits that I've had for the past 2,300 hours of multi-engine time largely don't apply to it. So emergency situations might not end well. Hence, the training is logical and the NTSB stats prove it.
Click to expand...
Yep. Exactly what I’m saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
James_Dean said:
You can get into some bad habits with the capabilities of these turboprops. It is no problem whatsoever to come into the pattern mid downwind at 220 kias and be get slowed for a proper base and final. I should say no problem for the airframe. Not saying it is polite, smart, or a good idea. You don’t have to baby the engines like a piston and the huge rotary speed brakes work wonders.... just don’t get slow.
Click to expand...

I have my suspicions that bad habit is exactly what Pascal had gotten into, and likely contributed to his crash nearly 2 years ago in the MU-2. Crossing the IAF 1,500 ft high and 100 kts faster than he should've been, he was probably used to the big 4-bladed props acting as speed brakes. In the end, he was right on that part - they worked so well that they got him from 220 KTS to 99 KTS in virtually the blink of an eye. But he was so busy looking for the runway out the window when trying to shoot an approach that was advertising ceilings 300 ft below mins that he didn't pay attention to his airspeed, and I'm guessing also didn't have the flaps set correctly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have my suspicions that bad habit is exactly what Pascal had gotten into, and likely contributed to his crash nearly 2 years ago in the MU-2. Crossing the IAF 1,500 ft high and 100 kts faster than he should've been, he was probably used to the big 4-bladed props acting as speed brakes. In the end, he was right on that part - they worked so well that they got him from 220 KTS to 99 KTS in virtually the blink of an eye. But he was so busy looking for the runway out the window when trying to shoot an approach that was advertising ceilings 300 ft below mins that he didn't pay attention to his airspeed, and I'm guessing also didn't have the flaps set correctly.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm mostly ok with being more cavalier when VFR, but it's a whole other kettle of fish when shooting an approach. My practice is to be stabilized when cleared for and fly an approach at 170 kias, throw the first notch of flaps and gear out at GS intercept or the FAF which will slow me to 140kias and that is the configuration until landing is assured when the rest of the flaps can come in. Hate criticizing him, but I simply don't understand why Pascal didn't ask for a vector to get things set up correctly. I get the icing concern, but he seemed to be anything but stabilized and a vector would've added but a few minutes.

If I get to flight idle on a real approach I've done screwed the pooch. It's time to go missed and try again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
James_Dean said:
Yep. I'm mostly ok with being more cavalier when VFR, but it's a whole other kettle of fish when shooting an approach. My practice is to be stabilized when cleared for and fly an approach at 170 kias, throw the first notch of flaps and gear out at GS intercept or the FAF which will slow me to 140kias and that is the configuration until landing is assured when the rest of the flaps can come in. Hate criticizing him, but I simply don't understand why Pascal didn't ask for a vector to get things set up correctly. I get the icing concern, but he seemed to be anything but stabilized and a vector would've added but a few minutes.

If I get to flight idle on a real approach I've done screwed the pooch. It's time to go missed and try again.
Click to expand...
Not judging how well your procedure may work, but respectfully, what you described does not sound like a stabalzied approach.
 
Kritchlow said:
Not judging how well your procedure may work, but respectfully, what you described does not sound like a stabalzied approach.
Click to expand...

Maybe not according to your opspecs, but the FAA's definition of a stabilized approach is exceedingly simple: "A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway." No mention, of course, of configuration or power settings which are common additions I think. And, if you read the link below, they do mention those things as being factors which can contribute to a stabilized approach. So, YMMV...

Link here: https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-11.pdf
 
Kritchlow said:
Not judging how well your procedure may work, but respectfully, what you described does not sound like a stabalzied approach.
Click to expand...

Due to the late deployment of full flaps as I described?
 
ChiefPilot said:
Maybe not according to your opspecs, but the FAA's definition of a stabilized approach is exceedingly simple: "A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway." No mention, of course, of configuration or power settings which are common additions I think. And, if you read the link below, they do mention those things as being factors which can contribute to a stabilized approach. So, YMMV...

Link here: https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/SE_Topic_16-11.pdf
Click to expand...
Except he’s not configured by 1000 feet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top