When I first saw this plane around 1965 in Burbank, I was impressed. As a teenager then I was in love with planes and jets. While having lunch at the airport, I saw this one red and white MU-2 taking off and I couldn't believe how fast and how steep the plane was capable of flying. This MU-2 took off like a jet with a very steep ascent. I have read about accidents in this plane and have always thought it was more pilot error than mechanical in most cases. It may be a demanding aircraft like pilots have mentioned but at 360 MPH, it is more like a jet than a propeller plane. Good video!
I flew the aircraft for 6.5 years single pilot. Good aircraft. I flew 4 nights a week, one engine failure. Excellent aircraft, but not for a candy-ass.
I operated two "G" models in the '90's for my 135 op out of Ohio running mostly auto parts for Kitty Hawk (GM). Lost the left engine at 400' and managed to get it back to the opposite runway but went into the grass when I put it into reverse on a wet runway. The engine failure was due to the idler gear between the negative torque sensor and the high pressure fuel pump breaking loose. Mitsubishi has since cut the spars on all Gs. Under powered, using -1 engines on a long body. I had about 2500 hours in MU-2s at the time and around 5000 hours TT. I also changed to flaps 5 takeoffs for the most part after that happened.
I have never flown an MU2, rode many MU2's many models, handled the controls once for a quick feel, short field take off and landings, all I can say is I love the ride and the speed. And the smell of Jet Fuel burning
Provided ATC services for many years at MHT ATCT, home base of the highest time MU2 pilot. This pilot and plane could outrun a turbojet to the airport, or slow to follow a Cessna 172. Not all controllers understand what this aircraft is capable of!
I've flown several turboprops and a couple of jets (not to mention plenty of pistons), and I wouldn't take one of them over an MU-2 (1400 hours PIC in them). Fast, capable, built extra tough (look at the bulkheads on a Mitsi vs. the bulkheads on a Kingair). It's not just a "good" airplane, it's an EXCELLENT airplane. It's a victim of the poor pilots who are portrayed as it's victims. Go faster, land shorter, burn less gas than a Kingair? What's not to like?
My experiance with the aircraft has been terrific. It has been some years since I last flew it (Solitare in the mid-80's) but the love of the machine has not diminished. It is a true pilot's aircraft and when flown like a jet it is very docile. Fly it like a 310 or a Baron and it will bite you.
we must be of similar age. i flew the marquise, solitare & earlier models in the 1980s (in australia), LOVED the aircraft, & did my flight training back then in Houston with flight safety international. the problem was the USA regulations. ...... unlike ausralia, USA did not require type training on the aircraft. i think it requires some kind of training now.
our company use to own mu2 for years got maybe 1000 hours on it, great machine but if your not trained right you can easily stall the aircraft mainly if you feather. making a turn.
man I'd love to get a chance to fly/fly in an mu-2...it's always been pretty evident to me that any problems with the mu-2 have been due to lack of proper training...it's not as easy as hopping out of your 310, getting a quick check out then busting through the clouds in your new turboprop as of now (unless somethings changed that I'm not aware of) that's perfectly legal and that is the "problem" with the mu-2 (as well as the fly by night cargo ops that change the oil every 3 years)
Had freight dog Mu-2 driver on my jump seat many years ago with he and I swapping MU stories. Turns out this young man lost a blade on left engine-long model. IFR instant almost upside down he says. Right side back up declared emergency. Unable to maintain Alt. vectored to nearest TX. airport. Flashlight reveled blade gone wing "bent slightly". Center says emergency equipment has been called at very remote arpt, Jumpseater makes runway with a hard landing. Gets out and sits on rwy and hears equipment screaming to him.. WOW only MU could fly through that !!
Didn't Mitsubishi do themselves in at Square Zero, i.e. in order to increase sales, they deliberately got it certificated for MTOW < 12,500 lbs, i.e. 14 CFR 23 vs 25, thus allowing all kinds of under-qualified, under-trained Part 91 operators to get into all kinds of in-over-their-heads trouble??
It was in the USA that they didn't require type training. i had heard on the grapevine that Mitsubishi pleaded with your FAA for special flight training to no avail.____ in the 1980s in Australia where I flew the Marquise, Solitare & earlier models, type training is a requirement, I went to the USA & did my training with Flight Safety Intl. in Houston.
No, Mitsubishi didn't do themselves anything that stupid as you say here for two reasons. The most obvious one is the maximum takeoff weight of the long fuselage heavier version Marquise-11,575 lb. It's far less that 12,500 lb. Why certify for a category which the plane doesn't belong to? Why Cessna 172 is not certified as a giant 747? Oh, those Cessna money grubbers wanted to increase sales! The not so obvious is that the MU-2 appeared as a Japanese military order, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries had enough money form the army, they didn't even need to keep the plane in production. USA is the only country in the world that allowed underqualified pilots fly this type.
Thanks for the feedback. What year and model would you buy? If you run it less than 200 hours a year what do you expect the hourly cost to run? Are we looking at 500 lbs fuel flow an hour total, in cruise? Do you figure 800 lbs the first hour and about 350 lbs the last? Thanks; a professional pilot.
For private flying, I'd buy an F model. 260ktas honest at about 60gph. If you need the long body, you probably want to look at an L. Something with -10 engines if you're doing a lot of high and/or hot flying.
The plane got a crap reputation from buyer/pilots who traded their C310 or Seneca in on a turboprop, got 3 bounces in the local pattern and off they went. Can't fly this like a 310 ... you fly it like a jet and a lot of people got in big trouble with high wing loading, slow speeds, minimum to non-existent systems knowledge and failure to properly execute in-flight icing procedures. It was demanding and not forgiving for the pilot who isn't trained or doesn't stay in the game. I have about 3000 hours and flew at least a few hours in every single model that was marketed in the USA from the B thru the Solitaire/Marquise.
I did the MU-2 course with Flightsafety and I’d say that the airplane is nothing great.....noisy Garrett engines rob you of your high frequency hearing over time, cockpit layout is fairly standard with a (at the time), goofy autopilot controller that hinged from the panel. Because the thing uses spoiler roll control, an engine failure at rotation required positive rudder input (nothing different from any other high performance twin)and then gear selected up followed by 5 second push on a trailing edge trim tab to get rid of the spoiler input that was needed to keep it upright (but this same spoiler input cuts critical lift capability needed to gain altitude and airspeed)...any pilot who tries to tell you how glorious the MU-2 is will probably argue the price and operating costs. A piece of junk will be cheaper to buy won’t it?.....compare and contrast with a King Air with straightforward engine out characteristics, amazing ride and performance. I know what I’d rather be flying!
@@Captain-.James.-T.-Kirk Well, you're memory has failed you. MU2s fly well on one engine. Never had an issue in the plane or in the simulator where the airplane didn't fly including a simulated engine failure coupled with an NTS failure in the simulator.
@@Captain-.James.-T.-Kirk Not true IF you checked your performance data before you took off. Lots of difference between MTOW at sea level on a standard day and MTWO at 5000 MSL on a 90F day. And that's NO different in a KA too. You can exceed engine out performance in any multi-engine airplane under the wrong circumstances. And that includes airliners which are sometimes weight restricted. As a pilot, which you claim you are, you should know that.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
When I first saw this plane around 1965 in Burbank, I was impressed. As a teenager then I was in love with planes and jets. While having lunch at the airport, I saw this one red and white MU-2 taking off and I couldn't believe how fast and how steep the plane was capable of flying. This MU-2 took off like a jet with a very steep ascent. I have read about accidents in this plane and have always thought it was more pilot error than mechanical in most cases. It may be a demanding aircraft like pilots have mentioned but at 360 MPH, it is more like a jet than a propeller plane. Good video!
I flew the aircraft for 6.5 years single pilot. Good aircraft. I flew 4 nights a week, one engine failure. Excellent aircraft, but not for a candy-ass.
I operated two "G" models in the '90's for my 135 op out of Ohio running mostly auto parts for Kitty Hawk (GM). Lost the left engine at 400' and managed to get it back to the opposite runway but went into the grass when I put it into reverse on a wet runway. The engine failure was due to the idler gear between the negative torque sensor and the high pressure fuel pump breaking loose. Mitsubishi has since cut the spars on all Gs. Under powered, using -1 engines on a long body. I had about 2500 hours in MU-2s at the time and around 5000 hours TT. I also changed to flaps 5 takeoffs for the most part after that happened.
I have never flown an MU2, rode many MU2's many models, handled the controls once for a quick feel, short field take off and landings, all I can say is I love the ride and the speed. And the smell of Jet Fuel burning
Provided ATC services for many years at MHT ATCT, home base of the highest time MU2 pilot. This pilot and plane could outrun a turbojet to the airport, or slow to follow a Cessna 172. Not all controllers understand what this aircraft is capable of!
One of the coolest twin's ever made in it's class!
I've flown several turboprops and a couple of jets (not to mention plenty of pistons), and I wouldn't take one of them over an MU-2 (1400 hours PIC in them). Fast, capable, built extra tough (look at the bulkheads on a Mitsi vs. the bulkheads on a Kingair). It's not just a "good" airplane, it's an EXCELLENT airplane. It's a victim of the poor pilots who are portrayed as it's victims. Go faster, land shorter, burn less gas than a Kingair? What's not to like?
Options for range extenders are less.. but it seems to be a good aircraft regardless.
And the sexiest plane on the tarmac.
My experiance with the aircraft has been terrific. It has been some years since I last flew it (Solitare in the mid-80's) but the love of the machine has not diminished. It is a true pilot's aircraft and when flown like a jet it is very docile. Fly it like a 310 or a Baron and it will bite you.
Absolutely true. Well spoken.
we must be of similar age. i flew the marquise, solitare & earlier models in the 1980s (in australia), LOVED the aircraft, & did my flight training back then in Houston with flight safety international. the problem was the USA regulations. ...... unlike ausralia, USA did not require type training on the aircraft. i think it requires some kind of training now.
@@carolahume4020
It's _SFAR-108_ now.
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title14-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title14-vol2-part91-appFederal-id438.pdf
our company use to own mu2 for years got maybe 1000 hours on it, great machine but if your not trained right you can easily stall the aircraft mainly if you feather. making a turn.
man I'd love to get a chance to fly/fly in an mu-2...it's always been pretty evident to me that any problems with the mu-2 have been due to lack of proper training...it's not as easy as hopping out of your 310, getting a quick check out then busting through the clouds in your new turboprop
as of now (unless somethings changed that I'm not aware of) that's perfectly legal and that is the "problem" with the mu-2 (as well as the fly by night cargo ops that change the oil every 3 years)
Had freight dog Mu-2 driver on my jump seat many years ago with he and I swapping MU stories. Turns out this young man lost a blade on left engine-long model. IFR instant almost upside down he says. Right side back up declared emergency. Unable to maintain Alt. vectored to nearest TX. airport. Flashlight reveled blade gone wing "bent slightly". Center says emergency equipment has been called at very remote arpt, Jumpseater makes runway with a hard landing. Gets out and sits on rwy and hears equipment screaming to him.. WOW only MU could fly through that !!
Didn't Mitsubishi do themselves in at Square Zero, i.e. in order to increase sales, they deliberately got it certificated for MTOW < 12,500 lbs, i.e. 14 CFR 23 vs 25, thus allowing all kinds of under-qualified, under-trained Part 91 operators to get into all kinds of in-over-their-heads trouble??
It was in the USA that they didn't require type training. i had heard on the grapevine that Mitsubishi pleaded with your FAA for special flight training to no avail.____ in the 1980s in Australia where I flew the Marquise, Solitare & earlier models, type training is a requirement, I went to the USA & did my training with Flight Safety Intl. in Houston.
No, Mitsubishi didn't do themselves anything that stupid as you say here for two reasons.
The most obvious one is the maximum takeoff weight of the long fuselage heavier version Marquise-11,575 lb. It's far less that 12,500 lb. Why certify for a category which the plane doesn't belong to? Why Cessna 172 is not certified as a giant 747? Oh, those Cessna money grubbers wanted to increase sales!
The not so obvious is that the MU-2 appeared as a Japanese military order, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries had enough money form the army, they didn't even need to keep the plane in production.
USA is the only country in the world that allowed underqualified pilots fly this type.
Thanks for the feedback. What year and model would you buy? If you run it less than 200 hours a year what do you expect the hourly cost to run? Are we looking at 500 lbs fuel flow an hour total, in cruise? Do you figure 800 lbs the first hour and about 350 lbs the last? Thanks; a professional pilot.
For private flying, I'd buy an F model. 260ktas honest at about 60gph. If you need the long body, you probably want to look at an L. Something with -10 engines if you're doing a lot of high and/or hot flying.
There was just an article in "FLYING" about this very topic... (January 2012 edition I believe)
You just hit the nail on the head. The MU-2 is a great airplane.
We flew MU2’s back in the 90’s running passengers and freight at night. We also flew Caravans and 310’s. It was flying that made men men!
that garmin commercial was horrendous
The plane got a crap reputation from buyer/pilots who traded their C310 or Seneca in on a turboprop, got 3 bounces in the local pattern and off they went. Can't fly this like a 310 ... you fly it like a jet and a lot of people got in big trouble with high wing loading, slow speeds, minimum to non-existent systems knowledge and failure to properly execute in-flight icing procedures. It was demanding and not forgiving for the pilot who isn't trained or doesn't stay in the game.
I have about 3000 hours and flew at least a few hours in every single model that was marketed in the USA from the B thru the Solitaire/Marquise.
Wow! Every single model!!!💪🏼🤟🏼
I did the MU-2 course with Flightsafety and I’d say that the airplane is nothing great.....noisy Garrett engines rob you of your high frequency hearing over time, cockpit layout is fairly standard with a (at the time), goofy autopilot controller that hinged from the panel. Because the thing uses spoiler roll control, an engine failure at rotation required positive rudder input (nothing different from any other high performance twin)and then gear selected up followed by 5 second push on a trailing edge trim tab to get rid of the spoiler input that was needed to keep it upright (but this same spoiler input cuts critical lift capability needed to gain altitude and airspeed)...any pilot who tries to tell you how glorious the MU-2 is will probably argue the price and operating costs. A piece of junk will be cheaper to buy won’t it?.....compare and contrast with a King Air with straightforward engine out characteristics, amazing ride and performance. I know what I’d rather be flying!
Idiot!
@mjd4277 Absolutely truth!!! Its A great aircraft...outstanding performance, you can make things in a MU-2 that no other turboprop can!
Great plane that is a performance beast! Got to fly it with precision by the numbers.
The chief designer of MU2 used to design fighter airplanes during the WW2. I guess he wanted to make it like a figher airplane.
Thanks for this, !
It's been happening to MU-2s for years.
Briefing: Lose engine after rotation..crash straight ahead.
BS. Obviously you've never flown one.
@@StevieWonder737 Sure did, 30 years ago.
@@Captain-.James.-T.-Kirk Well, you're memory has failed you. MU2s fly well on one engine. Never had an issue in the plane or in the simulator where the airplane didn't fly including a simulated engine failure coupled with an NTS failure in the simulator.
@@StevieWonder737 Good for you. Fully loaded immediately after takeoff if one quits, you're going down.
@@Captain-.James.-T.-Kirk Not true IF you checked your performance data before you took off.
Lots of difference between MTOW at sea level on a standard day and MTWO at 5000 MSL on a 90F day.
And that's NO different in a KA too. You can exceed engine out performance in any multi-engine airplane under the wrong circumstances. And that includes airliners which are sometimes weight restricted.
As a pilot, which you claim you are, you should know that.