Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sun May 03, 2009 4:01 pm

Aero Commander 1000.

zBird · Post by **zBird** » Sun May 03, 2009 5:25 pm

What about Merlin IIIb ?

co-joe · Post by **co-joe** » Sun May 03, 2009 5:39 pm

I personally think the 400 LS is on of the sexiest turboprops ever built. I've heard of climb rates as high as 6000'/min! Hughes air in yyc used to fly one, but if you ask them about it, it apparently spent as much time in the hangar being maintained as it did flying. Cabin space is a real issue as well. I think it's basically a chieftain with 1000 ponies a side.

For your list the -10 rice rocket would be good, but the Conquest would probably be better. A 300 or a 350 with RVSM would blow all your others out of the water...

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Mon May 04, 2009 9:12 am

how about a B100 king air with -10's good payload\range compromise, fairly comfortable, and 260-270kts

2R · Post by 2R » Mon May 04, 2009 10:36 am

What is the budget ?
Some owners want a ferrari that seats twelve and do not have bus fare for two

Debating about planes you have never flown ,well we might as well discuss the boobs we will never touch

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon May 04, 2009 3:01 pm

Can we?

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Mon May 04, 2009 9:34 pm

xsbank wrote:Can we?

+1

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:59 am

halle berry, salma hayek, MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:53 pm

bobm,

Are you redoing all the MU2's in that limited edition thing??

MU2 is the most fun you can have with your pants on.

'effin hippie · Post by **'effin hippie** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:12 pm

1000 NM + IFR reserves has got to be close to the max range for these machines.

It is for the KA200 I'm sure of that. And at full fuel 8 and bags is quite a stretch. Although I think I had the honour of flying the slowest 200 in the world, so maybe I'm a little off.

How do all these guys stack up for load with max fuel? I'm surprised at how many votes the Conquest is getting, I didn't think it was that much of a machine.

ef

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:13 pm

Both the Conquest I and II seem to be very good machines. Owners seem to love them.

Conquest Driver · Post by **Conquest Driver** » Wed May 06, 2009 12:20 am

I'm having my doubts about the Conquest II on this mission.

Max Gross 10,340, if you have all the mods.

Empty weight around 6200. Leaves you a useful load of 4140 pounds. 8 passengers plus their bags at 250 per passenger, subtract 2000 pounds. Subtract one 200 pound pilot. You end up with 1940 pounds of fuel. 1000 miles ain't gonna happen.

Working from memory you can load it up with about 3000 pounds of fuel, which leaves you 940 pounds of payload with a 200 pound pilot. That's great if you want to carry 3 people and I suspect that's where the Conquest II got its reputation.

The Conquest II is a good fast long range turboprop, but it doesn't have great load carrying ability. If the Conquest II won't do it there isn't a chance in the world a Conquest I will.

Hmm, a Lear 35A isn't all that expensive these days.

Pratt X 3 · Post by **Pratt X 3** » Wed May 06, 2009 8:02 pm

From the 2009 B&CA Purchase Planning Handbook (available in the May 2009 issue; look for it in your mailbox or local FBO).

Basics on all the aircraft mentioned so far, based on the maximum cruise speed since that is the general discussion here. Note that there was no listing for the Conquest II so that's why it's not mentioned. Format is TAS and fuel flow in pounds per hour at specified altitude.

Piper Cheyenne 400LS - 351KTS @ 940LBS/HR @ FL240
Mitsubishi Solitaire MU-2B-40 - 320KTS @ 634LBS/HR @ FL200
Mitsubishi Marquise MU-2B-60 - 306KTS @ 628LBS/HR @ FL200
Beech King Air B200 - 292KTS @ 700LBS/HR @ FL220
Hawker Beechcraft King Air B200GT - 308KTS @ 730LBS/HR @ FL220
Hawker Beechcraft King Air 350 - 312KTS @ 773LBS/HR @ FL240
Aero Commander 1000 - 301KTS @ 464LBS/HR @ FL200
Fairchild Merlin IIIB - 302KTS @ 671LBS/HR @ 17,000'
Beech King Air B100 - 268KTS @ 710LBS/HR @ 12,000'
Bombardier Learjet 35A - 451KTS @ 1210LBS/HR @ FL410

Be20Captain · Post by **Be20Captain** » Wed May 06, 2009 8:47 pm

Just to throw something else out there...How about a King Air 300? Not one of the useless 300LW models but a true King Air 300. Performance wise it is competitive with many of the other aircraft while being rather maintenance friendly. You can really dress them up with some nice winglets too.

Pratt X 3 · Post by **Pratt X 3** » Wed May 06, 2009 9:05 pm

Beech Super King Air 300 - 315KTS @ 698LBS/HR @ FL280

SunWuKong · Post by **SunWuKong** » Thu May 07, 2009 12:29 am

Very few aircraft out of the list above can carry 8 pax over 1000NM.

2R · Post by 2R » Thu May 07, 2009 6:57 am

Better get a plane with a shitter if you are carrying Adults and children that far

2R · Post by 2R » Thu May 07, 2009 6:58 am

rigpiggy wrote:halle berry, salma hayek, MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Thank you for that very pleasant thought !!!!

sirtate · Post by **sirtate** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 1:52 pm

what do the CAR's say about the MU-2 and training?

could some dude with a moderate time CPL MIFR and a bunch of cash just buy one and fly it legally?

or would a genuine bonafide type endorsement check ride be required... only asking this because of the whole FAA SFAR extravaganza...

if a Type Rating is required, where would somebody get that done?

Lloyd Christmas · Post by **Lloyd Christmas** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:17 pm

Conquest Driver said it well regarding the Conquest II, but with the appropriate Mod's it has MTOW of 10,850 rather than 10,340. It will do the 1000NM trip in this case, and has good fuel burns at FL 300 and above, 400lbs/hr or less. Great machine to fly, I've been very impressed with its performance, but I can't say I've flown the Cheyenne or the Mu2, so no comparison there. If RVSM'd they can be certified to FL 350, and typically do 280-300kts TAS.

Flying Low · Post by **Flying Low** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:51 pm

what do the CAR's say about the MU-2 and training?

could some dude with a moderate time CPL MIFR and a bunch of cash just buy one and fly it legally?

or would a genuine bonafide type endorsement check ride be required... only asking this because of the whole FAA SFAR extravaganza...

if a Type Rating is required, where would somebody get that done?

Although the MU2 has a GTOW of 11575 lbs. (for the long body model) it does require a type rating in Canada. To be current in an aircraft that requires a type rating means you have to have 3 take off and landings in 90 days in that type. As there is no type rating on the MU2 in the US they have the FAA SFAR to address the training and currency requirements. As for location...I did my sim training in Orlando at Simcom and the rest was in house (Thunder Airlines).

sirtate · Post by **sirtate** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:56 am

Flying Low wrote:
what do the CAR's say about the MU-2 and training?

could some dude with a moderate time CPL MIFR and a bunch of cash just buy one and fly it legally?

or would a genuine bonafide type endorsement check ride be required... only asking this because of the whole FAA SFAR extravaganza...

if a Type Rating is required, where would somebody get that done?
Although the MU2 has a GTOW of 11575 lbs. (for the long body model) it does require a type rating in Canada. To be current in an aircraft that requires a type rating means you have to have 3 take off and landings in 90 days in that type. As there is no type rating on the MU2 in the US they have the FAA SFAR to address the training and currency requirements. As for location...I did my sim training in Orlando at Simcom and the rest was in house (Thunder Airlines).

thanks for the reply,
that's what i thought... the whole 'high performance' caveat...

does anybody offer MU-2 type ratings in Canada to outsiders?

bobm · Post by **bobm** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:25 pm

Why would you want a type rating on the Mu-2 unless you are planning on buying one? If you are looking for a job, that is not the way...at least with our organization.

sirtate · Post by **sirtate** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:39 am

bobm wrote:Why would you want a type rating on the Mu-2 unless you are planning on buying one? If you are looking for a job, that is not the way...at least with our organization.

i am doing a bit of home work about buying an MU-2... good call...

my gut feel about the aircraft is that it is the equivalent to a 1100cc super bike... a lot of performance that requires a lot of restraint by the operator... without a 'hard, by the numbers' pilot it can bite... with awareness of the dark cobwebs in the flight envelope, the pilot can avoid any lengthy soirees into those corners and can leave a back door open in case of excitement...

i figure it would cost about $450/hour dry to operate, am i in the ballpark? or smoking crack...

i wouldn't mind working my way into a type rating, but i don't think it would be fair to go about the whole hiring process and do the old "sorry, but this isn't working for me" exit strategy after i get qualified... (heaven knows, i've been duped by that one myself)...

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:38 pm

My guess is you are close but below the bottom end of the ballpark.

Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

Re: Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2