First flight

Ken Ibold

Ken Ibold

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
5,888
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
This weekend got my first flight in a Mitsubishi MU2 -- a really nice Marquise operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries -- so you know everything on it has gotten maximum care.

Was flying with the guy who spearheaded the development of the new training SFAR for MU2 pilots, and he's got something like 2500 hours in the airplane we flew. Having heard the stories, I wanted to really put it through its paces. As it turned out, it was sort of like me giving him a check ride. "Show me this. Show me that..." We did simulated single-engine go-arounds, cranked in full roll while single engine at Vmc, stalled it past the stick shaker. Gosh what fun!!

By the end of the flight, my demo pilot was drenched, whist I had been calmly basking in pressurized, air conditioned comfort. Tell you what, he was BUSY. While it's an easy airplane to fly, it's a very complicated airplane to operate. Quite an eye opener.
 
but wait, you didn't *sputter* crash *sputter*.... :fcross: :D

Sounds like a fun ride, Ken...
 
It does not suck to be you, Ken, does it? :p
 
How are the ears Ken? Everytime the one at my home drome fires up I swear I lose about 2 years worth of hearing.
 
kevin47881 said:
How are the ears Ken? Everytime the one at my home drome fires up I swear I lose about 2 years worth of hearing.
Click to expand...
Inside it's not bad at all. Most of the noise stays on the outside. This one was equipped with Bose at every seat, but at one point I took them off and the sound level was on par with other pressurized twins.
 
cool Ken, I look forward to the article. the MU-2s have always fascinated me.
 
Ken Ibold said:
Inside it's not bad at all. Most of the noise stays on the outside. This one was equipped with Bose at every seat, but at one point I took them off and the sound level was on par with other pressurized twins.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I didn't think they could contain that much noise on the "outside" of the bird.

I'm definitely jealous of your ride.
 
Ken, I think you and I should become friends...so I can somehow steal your job :). Back in LEB we used to get an MU-2 in 3-4 times per week...with ear plugs in, I love watching those things...I don't know what it is about them, but they're just fascinating airplanes. I can't wait to read the full write-up!
 
They are lean, mean, loud machines! I have one - 280 knots true airspeed on 70 GPH - and solid as a rock....
 
That's pretty cool... I like them, too. There's really nothing else quite like an Mu-2.

Not surprised at all by your comments about handling it vs. managing it... seems to have been a big factor in most of the single-pilot accidents with those birds.
 
AdamZ said:
Ah Andrew Stanley is gonna be a Jealous guy
Click to expand...

Not to mention me... ;)

PJ: Thread resurrection. Note the date of the original post! :eek:
 
I flew in a chartered MU2 a few times. Liked it. I love the short/rough field capability, plus the thing looks great.

I saw some scary numbers on operating costs from Conklin & Dedecker. :yikes:
 
flyersfan31 said:
I flew in a chartered MU2 a few times. Liked it. I love the short/rough field capability, plus the thing looks great.

I saw some scary numbers on operating costs from Conklin & Dedecker. :yikes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, looking around it seems that something like $800/hr seems roughly accurate. Although that does get a lot better when you factor in how fast you're going.

I just wish they'd used PT-6s instead of TPE331s. Those Garretts are too dang loud.

EDIT: Any comparison to what it costs to run a King Air or Cheyenne? And then in $/mile since the King Air and Cheyenne are both slower?
 
Last edited:
Hey no fair resurrecting such an old thread -- I thought Ken had come back to visit us!
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, looking around it seems that something like $800/hr seems roughly accurate. Although that does get a lot better when you factor in how fast you're going.

I just wish they'd used PT-6s instead of TPE331s. Those Garretts are too dang loud.

EDIT: Any comparison to what it costs to run a King Air or Cheyenne? And then in $/mile since the King Air and Cheyenne are both slower?
Click to expand...

A good resource here http://www.conklindd.com/Page.aspx?cid=1120 although they do "cheat" the numbers high as they assume all plane are hangared in downtown Manhattan or something and loaded with expensive catering.

The pt-6 on the Mu-2 would up the hourly cost quite a bit as the PT-6 only has a 3600 TBO versus around 5600 of the TPE331. 500 grand spread around make a difference.
Mu-2 roughly $300 less than cheyenne/king air , notice that anything with the TPE's (Conquest II. aero commanders etc...all have a lower cost mostly due to the more gracious tbo and a slightly less fuel burn
 
Last edited:
taters said:
A good resource here http://www.conklindd.com/Page.aspx?cid=1120 although they do "cheat" the numbers high as they assume all plane are hangared in downtown Manhattan or something and loaded with expensive catering.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I'll be checking that out. I prefer having higher estimated costs, that way if you budget for it then you'll probably come out below budget. Much better than the alternative, since having extra money is never a bad thing when it comes to expensive airplanes.

The pt-6 on the Mu-2 would up the hourly cost quite a bit as the PT-6 only has a 3600 TBO versus around 5600 of the TPE331. 500 grand spread around make a difference.
Mu-2 roughly $300 less than cheyenne/king air , notice that anything with the TPE's (Conquest II. aero commanders etc...all have a lower cost mostly due to the more gracious tbo and a slightly less fuel burn
Click to expand...

Hmm. Maybe that noise isn't so bad after all. I'd thought that some PT-6s had TBOs in the 6000 hour range? Or maybe there's some extension program for that and that's not the "natural" TBO of the engine. As I've said, I'm not a turbine guy, so I really don't understand all the specifics that go along with those engines. Piston engines make me happy.
 
Is the 3600 a hard and fast #? I was under the impression that you could extend that if you use trend monitoring.

BTW - I'm moving on. All the scare stories about the MU2 have chased me away. I'm thinking TBM700 now. :D
 
flyersfan31 said:
Is the 3600 a hard and fast #? I was under the impression that you could extend that if you use trend monitoring.

BTW - I'm moving on. All the scare stories about the MU2 have chased me away. I'm thinking TBM700 now. :D
Click to expand...

Not for everyone..for ex. some of the of cargo only p135 do have tbos up in the 6 k range on the Pt-6's but you will still have to do the hot sections several times and trend monitoring a must....PT6's usually do get tired around 3500 though and begin to run hot /dog out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top