Video

Just a function of the camera. Far away from the tree in actual flight

Thank you for your comment Bud

I agree. 747 & Concorde at 3 & 4?

Yeah, and even some of the landing with the focus ring in the right place.

same.. i was waiting to see how it climbed

Thanks for sharing these observations. As with Lancairs I find the MU2 exciting yet also humbling. You should not even consider them IMO unless you are honest about your willingness and ability to develop and then maintain the required attitude and performance.

Thank you for your comment. I have the Acme Aero Black Ops Gen 4. Previously had the Gen 3. Excellent product & outstanding support!

Thank you Gary. Will take you up on your very kind offer...Ted

I believe it was never certified in the UK because of those issues

Care to elaborate and back up those statements? It was a clean sheet design, and in usual Japanese fashion they optimized it as much as they could. Most (all?) other twins in this class evolved from piston engine airframes. The MU-2 is no more or less unforgiving than a jet. It demands to be flown by the numbers. If you can do your part to fly it by the numbers, you'll be rewarded with cruise speeds better than a Cirrus jet and that narrow, highly loaded wing penetrates turbulence as smoothly as a Lear Jet.

You're correct on 1.5 counts. The Mits does not forgive, but it's also not that hard to fly if you know what you're doing and listen to what the airplane is telling you. The safety "issues" were never airframe issues, they were training and pilot/operator issues; in fact the plane has been certified by the FAA three separate times thanks to these perceived "issues". It's a wonderful plane and 91 subpart N has made it safer than most other cabin class twins and turboprops on the market.

​@@milleRC51 yes, but thanks to the internet spreading the word, a nice MU2 now goes for about the same price as a used PC-12, and add in the fact that most of the ones I've seen on the market are right at 7,500 hours, they no longer have an operating cost advantage. The inspection schedule is pretty light up to 7,500 hours, at which point the airframe has to be stripped and all major components and frames inspected for cracks and fatigue, then there's the 8,500 hour inspection, and so on. Before 7,500 hours they're super light on inspections and are built like tanks, so very light on maintenance, too. I ran the numbers and a PC-12 just makes more sense nowadays. Sure, it's not quite as fast, but over 800nm the difference between cruising at 290ktas and 270ktas is about 10 minutes. Is it really worth going deaf to shave 10 minutes off a 3 hour flight? And if you can afford a shiny new PC-12 NGX then you can cruise just as fast, or even faster, than the MU-2. And if 6 seats is adequate, a TBM will get you there even faster. Both the PC-12 and TBM are also easy to sell and have historically had very predictable depreciation. Cost of acquisition is a very small factor in the very big picture that is plane ownership.

@@ParadigmUnkn0wn You bring up some good points, when I bought my Marquise they were half the price of a clean F90 or B200, much less a low-ish time /47 (I wanted 2 engines, despite several hundred hours flying PC-12's). The 7500 hour inspection is a big one, but once it's done you're good for another 7500 hours which is far beyond what us 91 operators are going to fly in our lifetimes. Also, add up all the savings in the previous recurring intervals compared to other airframes and you've already got enough mx money in escrow to cover it. Speed is not the be-all end-all deciding factor. Hell, I cruise at 96% every time only doing about 265-285 depending on the season. Fly it like you own it, right? What I love about the Mits is that I know, every single time I show up, it's going to be airworthy. In 7 years and 1,000 hours of ownership I've had to cancel 1 flight for a maintenance issue. I can't say the same thing for any other airframe I've flown in 16 years of 91, 135, and 121 operations. The plane is just plain reliable. The only people going deaf are the poor folks on the ramp- the mits is surprisingly quite in the cabin- and I carry extra ear plugs to pass out through the message hatch for the unsuspecting rampers that show up without ear pro before startup. Yes, the Garrett's are obnoxiously loud, but some common sense and courtesy like taxiing to a vacant ramp spot or even just turning away from the terminal mitigates that. They'll also eat rocks and spit out gravel without a hiccup. There are plenty of other good options out there, and the MU-2 community is fiercely loyal to their planes, for a reason. Any schmuck can go from a Baron to a King Air, it takes a pilot to bond with the Mits. And it's a very rewarding relationship.