Hey everyone

I was hoping someone experienced or has knowledge about the MU-2 care to share some valuable information regarding the airplane.
I have already heard enough of the nicknames that the airplane has and even jokes about crashing. Although funny to hear, it doesn't help me a lot to prepare.
So any help would be most appreciated.

I suggest you fire off an e-mail to your company to get what they have if you are doing in house training. If you are going to sim (I think they have those for the Mu2??) Talk to Flightsafety about your course and log in to get some study material off the website training section.

Ground School is also the time to learn,take notes and study you must realize as well.

Read accident reports.

If there is a Flight Safety PTM for it, get your hands on it and read it before course. That way the course, in house or not, is more review than learning and you can concentrate on the finer details with a better understanding of the systems.

If there is no PTM, take the time to read the AFM. The books Flight Safety puts out makes it a lot simpler, but the AFM works as well.

I think Sulako or made a really good post about the aircraft a few years back, maybe he can link it to you. Or you can roll up your sleeves and search for it.

Here's a good start for your reading...definitely get on google and get into those accident reports.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... Mitsubishi

Did ya get on with Thunder or Skynorth? I've got north of 1500 pic, shoot me a PM

Edit:

As SSH said respect the numbers. At my previous company we didn't use flaps 40, high drag high power approaches is where you get into problems.
An approach flown until over the threshold at 105 ref didn't leave you in the "squirrely" low speed/stall regime

I love the airplane. As my first turbo prop, everything I've flown since has been comparatively boring.

Although it should be given considerable coverage, I'll keep it short.

I liked the aircraft a lot but I was fortunate enough to have sim training at Flight Safety in Houston followed by aircraft training by Bob Mackie when he was an almost youngster in the Soo.

Its an airplane that must be flown very accurately by the numbers and procedures. The constant speed engines mean there is next to no aural feedback in response to power settings. The high wing loading means a super stable ride, but it feels the same in your butt at 1 knot above stall as it does at one knot below VMO. The biggest indicator of aircraft performance is through the instrument panel.

The control interaction is complex .... almost helicopter-like in ts sensitivity to any forces change .... if you change one thing, you need to retrim about 6 other things in sequence. You'll get very good at trimming and knowing the cycle of control.

The airplane is very strongly built and has lots of performance built into a small package which is dependent on the excellent flap design to reconfigure the wing.

Give it some time, and you'll come to appreciate the work done by the aeronautical engineers.

It is an airframe that is unforgiving of inattention. It can smoothly develop a sink rate which "can only be matched by a Simonized manhole cover" as one fellow used to say.

The FSI instructors used to say the typical MU 2 accident is landing a half mile short in a high sink rate ......

Edit .... One last thing that was taught at FSI by the late Noel Springer was "Never let this airplane take you anywhere your brain hasn't already visualized 3 minutes before, and fly it according to that movie."

All the best to you on the airplane, and hopefully this info will be helpful.

Always, sort of, kind of, sometime, I'd like to fly one.
Illya

well thanx for the reply everyone

I do realise that this airplane is a difficult one to handle and is unforgiving if not flown properly.. so I do respect it and really want to do well for my ride.. kinda nervous at the same time lol..
have been reading up on most of the published articles & accidents that have happened. enlightening

First, the aircraft is not difficult to fly for someone who is disciplined and has reasonable hands and feet skills. It is fun to fly. You must fly the aircraft by the numbers (as you should any aircraft) with strict adherence to SOPs.

If you were hired by Thunder you should have received a "dropbox" link to the SOP and training manual in your welcome email, if you didn't, contact the company. That is all you need to study but be sure you do! You will receive additional training materials upon your arrival.

BTW: The Mu-2 is currently rated as the safest turbo prop in its class. (Robert Breiling, http://www.breilinginc.com/ )

There are quite a few "Mu-2 experts" out there that have never been in the aircraft so don't believe everything you hear. Those who have flown it, love it.

SSH appears to.

I know this has nothing to do with sitting at the point end of the Moo 2 but from a ground handlers perspective, it was the worst airplane built. They way it is fuelled, to the the nose gear torque links to the GPU connection right behind the #1 exhaust. AND NOISY. Those Garretts are the worst.

From a flying point of view, yes they are fast, yes they are stable, if flown by the numbers and carry good loads. But they pick up ice and don't like too much of it to build up. There is a reason why not many drive or own this bus.

Didn't anyone tell you that all imports are noisy?

The angry hair dryer is no exception to that rule...

Those who fly it absolutely love it! Good luck and hopefully you got on at Thunder!

Darkwing Duck wrote: But they pick up ice and don't like too much of it to build up.

No they don't, I had the pleasure of flying thunders for a couple years way back, I've had them in lots of ice as with other aircraft and they never accumulated ice any worse than anything else.

It is a common misconception however that people think this, so common in fact that the engineers over at Mitsubishi put the aircraft behind the ice tanker aircraft and sprayed ice all over the moo too (only non-commuter aircraft to have this conducted on) to see just how it handled.

Low and behold, it flew great with a butt load of ice on it.

That ice test flying was done in response to a call to investigate this widow maker's handling in ice.

The video of the ice proving flights was kept under tight wraps to discourage Bozos from using the load of ice the flight test MU-2 carried as being the new standard of normal operations for the night freighters and weekend pilots who were able to buy it cheaply, and thought flying it twice a month was sufficient to maintain proficiency.

single_swine_herder wrote:That ice test flying was done in response to a call to investigate this widow maker's handling in ice.

After 2000 hours flying it in summer and winter in Northern Ontario I'm pretty comfortable saying it's not the airplane...

That fuel imbalance thing could get you into an uncomfortable phone call situation. You'll be responsible for making sure the fuellers don't tip it over on you.

The one I flew had gear problems galore. I might have 10 hours on the rice rocket but at least 7 of those are with the wheels stuck down. There's an ungodly number of squat switches on the legs in series with the motor control circuit that all have to work or no retract.

Spoilerons! Spoil lift so stalling a wing in the flare is a risk.

Other than that I loved it. Getting my hands on a Marquis with those dash 10 engines one day would be a hoot. I think we still did over 200 Kts with the gear down!

If that Moo Too was the one based in YVC, it had led a very hard life.

co-joe wrote:That fuel imbalance thing could get you into an uncomfortable phone call situation. You'll be responsible for making sure the fuellers don't tip it over

Oh no! You have to give proper instructions, and have one of the pilots make sure they get followed??? But I got a job to fly planes, not babysit fuellers!!!

Spoilerons! Spoil lift so stalling a wing in the flare is a risk!

If you're stalling it in the flare, you're doing it wrong! Fly the airplane onto the runway. But if you do stall it, the spoilers remain effective, allowing you roll control throughout the stall!

co-joe wrote: Other than that I loved it. Getting my hands on a Marquis with those dash 10 engines one day would be a hoot. I think we still did over 200 Kts with the gear down!

That may have been part of your problem.... No more than 175 with the gear down!

co-joe wrote: Other than that I loved it. Getting my hands on a Marquis with those dash 10 engines one day would be a hoot. I think we still did over 200 Kts with the gear down!

That may have been part of your problem.... No more than 175 with the gear down![/quote]

I loved that airplane. It made me a much better hands-and-feet pilot and I'm grateful for the opportunity to fly it.

My only real advice is that every time you change any settings (power, flaps, whatever), retrim all 3 axes. The plane has electric trim on all axes and you'll retrim hundreds of times over a typical flight.

Good luck! They are great birds.

Darkwing Duck wrote:I know this has nothing to do with sitting at the point end of the Moo 2 but from a ground handlers perspective, it was the worst airplane built. They way it is fuelled, to the the nose gear torque links to the GPU connection right behind the #1 exhaust. AND NOISY. Those Garretts are the worst.

Ok, I'll give you that the fuelling is a bit of a hassle, but what is the problem with the nose gear torque links and the GPU connection? The torque link has a quick disconnect so you can easily tow it with no worries of exceeding limits. The GPU connection is on the aft fuselage, behind the entrance door. Ok, maybe Boeing has a better setup in their aircraft, but talking about business turboprops, I would take the MU2's GPU and torque link over the King Air's setup any day.

leftoftrack wrote:

co-joe wrote: Other than that I loved it. Getting my hands on a Marquis with those dash 10 engines one day would be a hoot. I think we still did over 200 Kts with the gear down!

That may have been part of your problem.... No more than 175 with the gear down!

[/quote]

175 indicated. We still went up to FL 180 and trued over 200 kts with the gear down! I was mostly along for the ride anyway. My trainig was "take the AFM home tonight, tomorrow your the FO". They decided to hire a third captain instead of me (was low time at the time). Company folded a year later or so. Was a bit of a "yeeeehaw, hold my beer watch this" kind of show. Still wish I'd have been able to get some decent time on the rice rocket though.

NotDirty! wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:I know this has nothing to do with sitting at the point end of the Moo 2 but from a ground handlers perspective, it was the worst airplane built. They way it is fuelled, to the the nose gear torque links to the GPU connection right behind the #1 exhaust. AND NOISY. Those Garretts are the worst.

Ok, I'll give you that the fuelling is a bit of a hassle, but what is the problem with the nose gear torque links and the GPU connection? The torque link has a quick disconnect so you can easily tow it with no worries of exceeding limits. The GPU connection is on the aft fuselage, behind the entrance door. Ok, maybe Boeing has a better setup in their aircraft, but talking about business turboprops, I would take the MU2's GPU and torque link over the King Air's setup any day.

Understatement of the year for the fuelling as a bit of a hassel. 6 tanks and all had to be balanced. Each tank drizzelling into the other so you never knew just how full you were. And unless you had to run around under the shower to get wet it was always a combination of yoga and gymnastics to get in between the engine nacelle and fuselage not to scratch up the paint job with the ladder or hose. As a guy who has worked the ramp for years I have disconnected thousands of torque links on various types and the rice rocket was by far one of the worst. The GPU connection was right behind the exhaust so you were huffing fumes and getting blasted as you disconnected the cord. The only other airplane I can think of with a worse GPU connection was the Metro/Merlin on the engine nacelle (oh wait, another Garrett). If you weren't careful on that one, a guy could of had his entire day ruined. But at least on the Metro you were not sucking fumes.

The GPU connection on the king air (pt6) is right behind the tight engine along the nac. Same issue

Well, we'll bring the knowledge of type up to 2014,

First, the dual 44Ahr lead-acids;
cart starts don't happen anymore, ever...takes too long, and we got's to go. (Flip-gen recharge is 30 seconds)

Second, low experienced pilots on type and fueling (a thing of the past),
If you're an hour away, I burn the mains and NOT, the [TIPs plus 60L out of the main]; I just burn the mains...YOU, just fuel the mains

It's really not that complicated.