Incipient senility, or just dumb?

Threefingeredjack

Threefingeredjack

En-Route
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,171
Location
Central Oregon/Hawaii
Display Name
Threefingeredjack
Home Airfield
KBDN/PHOG
The time has come to move on in my ownership path. The last Comanche is gone, (yes, I had two in a partnership with two other owners), leaving me with just the 180hp 172. I have recently fallen in love with this:

http://www.avbuyer.com/aircraft/detailed.aspx?aId=29613&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I have heard the horror stories about the MU-2 but have always thought them a fascinating design and just plain sexy. Does anyone here have experience in type? Knowledge about specific maintenance quirks? Their low price makes them very attractive, and I've never had a desire for a red Porsche, so this may be my old man's folly.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
The time has come to move on in my ownership path. The last Comanche is gone, (yes, I had two in a partnership with two other owners), leaving me with just the 180hp 172.
Click to expand...

You had two half-shares of a Comanche? Why not full ownership of one?
 
roncachamp said:
You had two half-shares of a Comanche? Why not full ownership of one?
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. I own a 172, was in the Comanche group with two others,(one was a 180 the other a 250), and am half owner of a 310. I like having a plane to meet whatever mission I want to fly.
 
All I know about the MU 2 is that they are quite loud if you are on the ramp and they have unique/difficult? Handling characteristics which requires special training.

Go for it if you can feed and house the new toy
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I have heard the horror stories about the MU-2 but have always thought them a fascinating design and just plain sexy. Does anyone here have experience in type? Knowledge about specific maintenance quirks? Their low price makes them very attractive, and I've never had a desire for a red Porsche, so this may be my old man's folly.
Click to expand...
Biggest thing I understand about the MU-2 is that it can be a real handful if you lose an engine in flight. The reason they're cheap is due to the bad reputation they got as widow-makers.

On the positive side though - alot has changed over the last 5-10 years between insurance companies and the FAA as well. What they found was that there was nothing wrong with the airplane that proper training couldn't overcome. The MU-2 accident rate in Europe was less than half what it was in the US. The big reason - Europe required type training in the aircraft - the FAA did not (anyone with a AMEL could fly it). Now, anyone who flies an MU-2 in the US must have type specific training (and the accident rate has gone down dramatically). I can't recall if it is now FAA mandated, or just insurance requirement, but you will have to get the proper training before you can go flying off into the sunset.
 
Just looked it up - the training is an actual FAA requirement now - look up SFAR 108 for the MU-2 for more details.
 
Do you need the capability of a Mu2 for any of your missions ?

The annual recurrent training is not cheap, limited number of facilities that offer it.

We have a local courier freight outfit that operates six of them. Apparently nothing beats it in the speed/payload/investment balance.


The one you posted is priced based on the hours on the engines. iirc TBO is 5700hrs. Unless you fly it a lot (at $600/hr doc), the 1000hrs left on the engines should last you a while.

But dang they are loud ! :hairraise:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
It's worse than that. I own a 172, was in the Comanche group with two others,(one was a 180 the other a 250), and am half owner of a 310. I like having a plane to meet whatever mission I want to fly.
Click to expand...

PM sent...
 
Wow, that's a lot of airplane for $300K! Dual 430's, G-600 with 1000 hours left on the engines. I like the MU2's from a distance, never flown one, but I do like what they can do for the money. For 2/3's the asking price of a good 421C, you are getting Garretts and Glass! not to mention 280+ knots:D
 
I know nothing about this plane but I do know there is dinner in it if you fly it to XFL. That is one cool looking plane.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Biggest thing I understand about the MU-2 is that it can be a real handful if you lose an engine in flight. The reason they're cheap is due to the bad reputation they got as widow-makers.

On the positive side though - alot has changed over the last 5-10 years between insurance companies and the FAA as well. What they found was that there was nothing wrong with the airplane that proper training couldn't overcome. The MU-2 accident rate in Europe was less than half what it was in the US. The big reason - Europe required type training in the aircraft - the FAA did not (anyone with a AMEL could fly it). Now, anyone who flies an MU-2 in the US must have type specific training (and the accident rate has gone down dramatically). I can't recall if it is now FAA mandated, or just insurance requirement, but you will have to get the proper training before you can go flying off into the sunset.
Click to expand...

I won't step into any airplane that complex I haven't flown before without a professional type instruction program. I have a good solid background in turbines, and a fair number of hours.....but I'm not an idiot.....unless you talk to my wife and she says different. :lol:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I won't step into any airplane that complex I haven't flown before without a professional type instruction program. I have a good solid background in turbines, and a fair number of hours.....but I'm not an idiot.....unless you talk to my wife and she says different. :lol:
Click to expand...
I agree. Problem is, before the SFAR, alot of guys were doing just that - because they were cheap to acquire.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I agree. Problem is, before the SFAR, alot of guys were doing just that - because they were cheap to acquire.
Click to expand...

Exactly why so many got bent...or worse. Bang for the buck I'm not finding any other twin turboprops out there that come close. Right now I'm still in the head scratching and investigating stage. My wife has pointed out that the same pile of cash would make a nice down payment on her dream cottage in Provence. :yikes:
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Exactly why so many got bent...or worse. Bang for the buck I'm not finding any other twin turboprops out there that come close. Right now I'm still in the head scratching and investigating stage. My wife has pointed out that the same pile of cash would make a nice down payment on her dream cottage in Provence. :yikes:
Click to expand...
I have a friend who got seriously interested in moving up from a Navajo to a MU2 but he ran out of money before buying one. From his research:

The flight characteristics are significantly different than most airplanes of similar performance, primarily due to the spoiler roll control. The feel, especially at low speeds is "unusual" but quite adequate if you're familiar with it. In addition there are some serious issues with roll control which AFaIK are well addressed in type specific training but old habits might still bite. Also, I think he determined that only the Solitaire model offers the high cruise speeds the breed is known for.
 
Additional Equipment & Features

OPTIONS:
Tip Tank Taxi Lights
Co-Pilot Instruments
Pilot Heated Windshield
Audio Panel w/6 place intercom and music jack
Cleveland Wheels and Brakes
Refreshment Bar
Executive Table
Click to expand...

Does he blow on it to defrost?:lol:
 
Like any other love relationship, falling in love with a plane is a thrilling and terrifying experience. You know it's gonna be complicated, expensive, maintenance-intensive, and exhausting at times.

The only questions are:
Do you think it will be worth it?
Can you bring what's needed to the relationship?


Next week on Dr. Phil.. Boats, and the idiots who love them.
 
TMetzinger said:
Like any other love relationship, falling in love with a plane is a thrilling and terrifying experience. You know it's gonna be complicated, expensive, maintenance-intensive, and exhausting at times.

The only questions are:
Do you think it will be worth it?
Can you bring what's needed to the relationship?


Next week on Dr. Phil.. Boats, and the idiots who love them.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dr.Tim. It would be worth it, given the performance and the low cost, which would be offset somewhat by the money I'd spend getting type specific training, including housing and the associated costs as it looks like I'd be spending time in Orlando.

Not sure what you mean by me bringing what is needed. Need for that much airplane?? Debatable but justifiable. I am at the stage in life when I have decided that I've been a good boy and deserve a shiny toy. :dunno:
 
Bring what is needed in this case would be adequate funding and dedication to keep the love alive, so to speak.

I've seen too many people buy the airplane they loved when they really couldn't afford the money or the time to keep the airplane up or keep their own skills up to the level required by the airplane. This never ends well.
 
TMetzinger said:
Bring what is needed in this case would be adequate funding and dedication to keep the love alive, so to speak.

I've seen too many people buy the airplane they loved when they really couldn't afford the money or the time to keep the airplane up or keep their own skills up to the level required by the airplane. This never ends well.
Click to expand...

Ahhh got it. You are absolutely correct. I've been pretty lucky in my life, (dumped almost all of my real estate investments in 2007), and am 100% debt free. My wife is a terminally addicted workaholic tax and corporate law specialist, who I am trying to lure into retirement with me. I don't kid myself that my skills haven't dulled since I retired, but I have kept semi active in jets helping out with deliveries from time to time. A friend just got into a PC-12 and lets me play occasionally. I am fully committed to, if I go with this type, writing a bunch of checks to Simcom.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Ahhh got it. You are absolutely correct. I've been pretty lucky in my life, (dumped almost all of my real estate investments in 2007), and am 100% debt free. My wife is a terminally addicted workaholic tax and corporate law specialist, who I am trying to lure into retirement with me. I don't kid myself that my skills haven't dulled since I retired, but I have kept semi active in jets helping out with deliveries from time to time. A friend just got into a PC-12 and lets me play occasionally. I am fully committed to, if I go with this type, writing a bunch of checks to Simcom.
Click to expand...

Good for you!

You go on my "That bastard is living MY life" list along with Jimmy Buffett and a few others.

Seriously, congratulations. I've flown in MU-2s and they are really nice airplanes. Your background and attitude make you a good fit.
 
Just a tiny bit of clarification. SFAR 108 is not type specific training nor is it a type rating. MU2 is not a type. The SFAR in very general terms is a FAR requirement for yearly recurrent training for make and model. It spells out what this training must consist of and spells out qualifications for instructors giving instruction in the MU2.

TFJack, like any plane burning kerosene yiou must be able to write checks with lots of zeroes in them and get over it. The purchase price of the MU2 is only ther price of admission. A few things to consider: You maintenance facility needs to be familiar with the MU2's. There are some pretty serious requirements, to mention a couple is the prop AD that requires 5 year overhauls (4 blade remember) even for part 91. Also I believe at 7500 TT the aircraft required a very extensive and expensive inspection. Many planes that are cheap are close to needing that inspection. Remember the zeroe's?

No doubt your experience will allow you to safely operate one but, get the whole picture on the care and feeding of this particular make and model.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Not a bastard.....Coast Guard....NOT Navy :D

Seriously, thanks to all for their input.
Click to expand...

When I was at Group Cape May, a chief was getting initiated, and of course the newest greenest Ensign was assigned to the defense. He had a coat that said "the bastard's last hope" and they made him change it, for the exact same reason. All the bastards are in the Navy.
 
Hey shallow-water pirates ... up yours!

Love ya! Navy guy! :D
 
I'd love an MU-2, and we've looked at them. The acquisition price on them is great, but ultimately we haven't been able to swallow the ~$1,000/hr operating costs (fuel + MX). Figure $10,000/year in recurrent training in the sim. This, of course, assumes that everything happens when it's supposed to. I fly a Commander 690A, which is very similar as far as speed, engines, complexity, and operating cost. Purchase cost is higher.

Now let's look at a few problems that come up on the engines:

Fuel controller failure: $70,000
Hot section: $50,000
Hot start: Varies, $50,000 - $500,000

We just had to change out a windshield on the Commander, and that was about $50,000 just for the windshield. I can't imagine the MU-2 windshields are much cheaper.

Not to mention the fuel burn, which should be in the range of 500-700 pph, depending on your altitude. That translates into roughly 75-100 gph, and I'm still seeing Jet-A at most places in the $4.50-$6.50 range.

The various pop-up costs that can come up on a turbine simply make it too risky for us.

Then there's the whole issue of proficiency. If you're going to fly it at least 100 hours a year (and that's if you plan on flying it pretty much exclusively), I personally wouldn't get it. That's a lot of airplane, easy to get rusty fast.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
The time has come to move on in my ownership path. The last Comanche is gone, (yes, I had two in a partnership with two other owners), leaving me with just the 180hp 172. I have recently fallen in love with this:

http://www.avbuyer.com/aircraft/detailed.aspx?aId=29613&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I have heard the horror stories about the MU-2 but have always thought them a fascinating design and just plain sexy. Does anyone here have experience in type? Knowledge about specific maintenance quirks? Their low price makes them very attractive, and I've never had a desire for a red Porsche, so this may be my old man's folly.
Click to expand...


The only problem with the MU2 is the degradation of the pilot training industry that kept up with the nanny standards of our society. I had to get in the belly between the gear once to do some clean up for inspection and I though it was built pretty stout. IIRC it was an MU-2 that a dude peeled the wings off at an airshow being roughly handled at high speeds.

I got a right seat ride in one once, I thought it was pretty slick and efficient, she's a bit short coupled so I'd take it up and through the envelope to see where you lose leverage, I just flew it along for about 20 minutes on our way N to Van Nuys, so I never got slow or SE in one, but we power lever limited by speed at 2500' next to downtown under the B. It was a pretty fast plane and IIRC he had the -10s. The main reason I would likely not buy one is the noise factor, however I would be open to giving it another sample with either ANR or Earbud technologies. My old Soft Comms didn't exactly have great noise attenuation. One thing I recall it not having was a lav, but I have a sampling of one so...
 
The G -600 should designate the SVT unlocked, so you have that. The G430w is quite sufficient so long as it all gets fed fuel flow. When I do my next IPC It'll be 600 SVT w/750 650 and a third stdby ind SVT. It'll be mostly learning the new system, but I had read the manuals while the plane was gone to the upholstery shop and it seemed simple and sweet.
 
Henning said:
IIRC it was an MU-2 that a dude peeled the wings off at an airshow being roughly handled at high speeds.
Click to expand...

You may be thinking about a P68 that the demo pilot yanked the wings off at Vne+27kts.
 
Nothing wrong with the MU-2 at all. Just stay current with the training and be able to write the checks and it's a non-issue.

You don't have to be a superman to fly one.
 
I have a fair bit of right seat time in the MU-2, it's definitely a pilots airplane - and by that I mean you have to keep being a pilot from startup to shutdown, no sitting back and enjoying the ride. It's a high performance airplane and as long as you stay in front of it, life is good. Get complacent and things get nasty, as with any other high-performance airplane.
 
ronnieh said:
Just a tiny bit of clarification. SFAR 108 is not type specific training nor is it a type rating. MU2 is not a type. The SFAR in very general terms is a FAR requirement for yearly recurrent training for make and model. It spells out what this training must consist of and spells out qualifications for instructors giving instruction in the MU2.

TFJack, like any plane burning kerosene yiou must be able to write checks with lots of zeroes in them and get over it. The purchase price of the MU2 is only ther price of admission. A few things to consider: You maintenance facility needs to be familiar with the MU2's. There are some pretty serious requirements, to mention a couple is the prop AD that requires 5 year overhauls (4 blade remember) even for part 91. Also I believe at 7500 TT the aircraft required a very extensive and expensive inspection. Many planes that are cheap are close to needing that inspection. Remember the zeroe's?

No doubt your experience will allow you to safely operate one but, get the whole picture on the care and feeding of this particular make and model.
Click to expand...

Excellent input, and those are exactly the numbers I'm crunching now. Thanks. :thumbsup:
 
Ted's info looks pretty good to me. I do disagree with 100 hours per year. IMO if you are flying it that little then I suggest you figure in training every 6 months and I would add about $300 per hour to Ted's numbers. Again JMO.
 
ronnieh said:
Just a tiny bit of clarification. SFAR 108 is not type specific training nor is it a type rating. MU2 is not a type. The SFAR in very general terms is a FAR requirement for yearly recurrent training for make and model. It spells out what this training must consist of and spells out qualifications for instructors giving instruction in the MU2.
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused: It's not? Doesn't it have a Type Certificate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top