I'm a retired Part 121 A&P. I was told that the Mitsu was the "preferred craft of narcotics runners" (tongue in cheek). Is it true that you can pull the circuit breakers that control the torque limit of the engines and sling shot it off in half the distance it takes to land?
@@markhull1366 How does pulling a breaker limit the available power? The worst thing you can do to a Garrett is cook the turbine. Taking away elec power is only going to allow you to overheat them more easily. What am I missing?
@@lbowsk I have no idea. You'll notice I posed it as a question, not a statement. I remembering reading that in an aviation periodical years ago. Supposedly it's a torque limit control from what I remember in that article. Pulling it let's you run it in manual control??? The C-130 had a syncrophase prop control system (at least the A models I worked on did). It had a manual bypass switch where you could run the props manually. I never saw it run in that configuration though. I've only worked on military and Part 121. Cooking any turbine is no bueno, but if you're drug running, I don't supposed engine life is very important. Cheers!
This plane use to be fixed in SBVT at UNIAR. When I saw the video I thought about this plane. Very interesting coincidence. Very happy to see this plane again! Thanks for sharing this video.
#1 nacelle wasn't wobbling... it's the video camera's rolling shutter artifact (rapid movement i.e. spinning props or camera vibration can create a wobbly/jello effect)
to Mr.Mola Duhhhhh never thought of that being an antenna.....Thank you very much for your answer .Always thought it was part of controlling the tail steering. Feel totally like an idiot.
homen aranha caipira treinamento, nao é avião para manicaca, depois que a FAA obrigou que todos anos, os pilotos fizessem flight school dele, é uns dos avioes com maior indice de segurança.
Ed eu voei o marquise e o solitaire por 10 anos. A aeronave requer que os pilotos passem por treinamentos, não se deve usar experiências de outras aeronaves pra voá-la. Cara , aeronave é ruim, não é confortável para passageiros, ruído, extremamente agressiva quando se reduz pra ground idle. Aeronave agora passou agora para categoria classe multimotora, graças a Deus não tem tantos mais voando aqui no BR senão seria um potencial grande de acidente. Tive um monomotor nessa aeronave e não segurou o voo como deveria. Muito mais máquina que ela é o turbo commander e o king air.
I agree keep up got my despend on women vote as men plane Mitsubishi act/action follow up made from factor Future work on it very easy comfortable "Mitsubishi"
@@steveevans4093 Only for neophytes in the Marquis. The Solitaire was difficult because the center of balance is so far forward of the rear wheels. But......both are built like a tank. Love Marquis and Solitaire. Those -10s have a distinct sound.
It's true, but after the requirements of SFAR 108 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation) for training required of all MU-2 pilots to act as pilot in command per FAA regulations, now is one of the safety planes to fly.
Actually one recently fell apart in mid-air in the Bahamas. It's getting to be an old bird now, I just think that Mitsubishi should recall these and save face. Alas, you should be able to fly whatever you want, so I say proceed at your own risk. These are really awesome planes but after even 150 people have died they should have realized something. I mean seriously, how can you look someone in the face and say these are safe to fly and have only killed a few hundred people? I'd rather be in a Cessna 152 than this death trap. Beautiful deathtrap, I mean. ;) Thanks for the video, I still give it a thumbs up I promise.
An MU-2 is not a bad airplane, it is a sophisticated one yes and it requires a well trained pilot, and with current training requirements it has been a now very safe plane!
When flown and maintained properly, an MU-2 is one of the safest, "fastest", economical, trouble-free and most satisfying planes to fly. SFAR mandated training has completely reversed the previous pilot safety issues. Cause of the recent disappearance of an MU-2 over the Bahamas has yet to be determined. Love flying 'em.
The MU-2 certainly has a high accident rate relative to other aircraft, so it's logical to assume that it is dangerous. Marc was alluding to the fact that the accident rate was high due to the airplane flying much differently than most turboprops of its size. Many turboprops of the MU-2s era began their lives as light twin piston aircraft (Turbo Commander from the Aero Commander, Piper Cheyenne from the Navajo, and the King Air from the Queen Air), so most pilots moving into turbine-engined aircraft could do so with little trouble. They flew their new airplanes just like the piston aircraft they grew up in. The MU-2 was designed to be a high performance turboprop from the start, and that's where pilots got in trouble. It has high wing loading when clean (its clean wing area is less than that of a Piper J-3 Cub) but very advanced and efficient flaps that greatly increase its wing area and camber when extended. This means it has to be flown more like a large jet than a light piston. Its minimum speed changes with each flap setting, and the flaps cannot be raised all the way up immediately after takeoff or the loss of an engine, like in most piston twins. I believe (but do correct me if I am wrong) that a vast majority of MU-2 accidents have been a result of the pilot losing control of the airplane by allowing themselves to stall. The theory was that the pilots needed to receive more training for such a high performance aircraft, and SFAR 108 was the result. It's not a difficult plane to fly (so I have heard), but if you fly it incorrectly it is unforgiving. Imagine teaching a group of teenagers to drive without ever leaving the parking lot, then giving them their license and allowing them to drive unsupervised on a highway. A rash of accidents would happen. In contrast, the Air Force uses contracted pilots flying a large fleet MU-2s out of Tyndall AFB for Air Battle Manager training, and they have had no accidents. No doubt these pilots were well trained from the start. Unfortunately, we will probably never know why the MU-2 in the Bahamas crashed, but it's possible the aircraft and her pilot were just the unlucky victims of an inherently dangerous activity.
![Chk Chk Boom - Stray Kids ストレイキッズ 스트레이 키즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240719](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/63QPwqCRGcw/mqdefault.jpg)
I flew the short and long version for many years ! A pleasure to fly . A strong high wing loading all weather turboprop !
Absolutely stunning landing and beautiful video
Love the MU2! You'll never see a king Air do that. That's what the mitts was designed to do.... Great video. I flew them for 4 years.
I'm a retired Part 121 A&P. I was told that the Mitsu was the "preferred craft of narcotics runners" (tongue in cheek). Is it true that you can pull the circuit breakers that control the torque limit of the engines and sling shot it off in half the distance it takes to land?
@@markhull1366 How does pulling a breaker limit the available power? The worst thing you can do to a Garrett is cook the turbine. Taking away elec power is only going to allow you to overheat them more easily. What am I missing?
@@lbowsk I have no idea. You'll notice I posed it as a question, not a statement. I remembering reading that in an aviation periodical years ago. Supposedly it's a torque limit control from what I remember in that article. Pulling it let's you run it in manual control??? The C-130 had a syncrophase prop control system (at least the A models I worked on did). It had a manual bypass switch where you could run the props manually. I never saw it run in that configuration though. I've only worked on military and Part 121. Cooking any turbine is no bueno, but if you're drug running, I don't supposed engine life is very important. Cheers!
My old bos in 1979 could clearly and safely land over power lines.
He was a real pilot and loved the rice rocket!
Hopefully your intelligence has improved withing the proceeding two years that you made your ignorant comment, though I highly doubt it . . .
This plane use to be fixed in SBVT at UNIAR. When I saw the video I thought about this plane. Very interesting coincidence. Very happy to see this plane again! Thanks for sharing this video.
I flew at uniar and this mu2 LJS for 4 years in Vitória.
Voei o PT-LJS de 2001 até 2004.
1：30
Mitsubishi MU-2 & Mitsubishi Pajero
Nice landing and video
I like the way the engines wine...
Whine?
eita japônes lindo
I used to fly this exact model mu-2. It was scary on blacktop sometimes lol
Nice!
Aqui em Cuiabá Brasil pousava um deste daí branco
I like the rice rocket!
Hopefully your intelligence has improved withing the proceeding two years that you made your ignorant comment, though I highly doubt it . . .
Ref: comment below; actually it was a soft touchdown, then the pilot got the props into beta then maybe reverse.
good song's
Love the HF wire antenna--is that typical of many MU-2s?
+AlaskaMike72 >> Aircraft from de 80's, a lot of them in Brazil has HF, because the Amazon region.
Bon visuel.
Stuck Grimes oscillating beacon under the cockpit. Hate that ... Great beacon otherwise altho' a heavy assembly.
what the heck was the illusion of the #1 nacelle "wobbling" right at the very end?
#1 nacelle wasn't wobbling... it's the video camera's rolling shutter artifact (rapid movement i.e. spinning props or camera vibration can create a wobbly/jello effect)
I love that plane.....can someone explain what the wire is for from the fuselage to the tail ?? Thank you
HF radio antenna
to Mr.Mola Duhhhhh never thought of that being an antenna.....Thank you very much for your answer .Always thought it was part of controlling the tail steering. Feel totally like an idiot.
Listen to the Garretts hum !
Very nice aircraft
Porque tantas fatalidades aconteceram com esse avião?
homen aranha caipira treinamento, nao é avião para manicaca, depois que a FAA obrigou que todos anos, os pilotos fizessem flight school dele, é uns dos avioes com maior indice de segurança.
Ed eu voei o marquise e o solitaire por 10 anos. A aeronave requer que os pilotos passem por treinamentos, não se deve usar experiências de outras aeronaves pra voá-la. Cara , aeronave é ruim, não é confortável para passageiros, ruído, extremamente agressiva quando se reduz pra ground idle. Aeronave agora passou agora para categoria classe multimotora, graças a Deus não tem tantos mais voando aqui no BR senão seria um potencial grande de acidente. Tive um monomotor nessa aeronave e não segurou o voo como deveria. Muito mais máquina que ela é o turbo commander e o king air.
I agree keep up got my despend on women vote as men plane Mitsubishi act/action follow up made from factor Future work on it very easy comfortable "Mitsubishi"
Boy I bet that plane cost a couple thousand.
This is the last Marquise fabricated .... the owner paid U$700k
That's was hard to watch. Hard landing on soft soft field.
All landings in MU-2s are "hard landings".
@@steveevans4093 Only for neophytes in the Marquis.
The Solitaire was difficult because the center of balance is so far forward of the rear wheels.
But......both are built like a tank.
Love Marquis and Solitaire.
Those -10s have a distinct sound.
There have been over 300 fatalitites from mu-2 crashes.
It's true, but after the requirements of SFAR 108 (Special Federal Aviation Regulation) for training required of all MU-2 pilots to act as pilot in command per FAA regulations, now is one of the safety planes to fly.
Actually one recently fell apart in mid-air in the Bahamas. It's getting to be an old bird now, I just think that Mitsubishi should recall these and save face. Alas, you should be able to fly whatever you want, so I say proceed at your own risk. These are really awesome planes but after even 150 people have died they should have realized something. I mean seriously, how can you look someone in the face and say these are safe to fly and have only killed a few hundred people? I'd rather be in a Cessna 152 than this death trap. Beautiful deathtrap, I mean. ;) Thanks for the video, I still give it a thumbs up I promise.
An MU-2 is not a bad airplane, it is a sophisticated one yes and it requires a well trained pilot, and with current training requirements it has been a now very safe plane!
When flown and maintained properly, an MU-2 is one of the safest, "fastest", economical, trouble-free and most satisfying planes to fly. SFAR mandated training has completely reversed the previous pilot safety issues. Cause of the recent disappearance of an MU-2 over the Bahamas has yet to be determined.
Love flying 'em.
The MU-2 certainly has a high accident rate relative to other aircraft, so it's logical to assume that it is dangerous. Marc was alluding to the fact that the accident rate was high due to the airplane flying much differently than most turboprops of its size. Many turboprops of the MU-2s era began their lives as light twin piston aircraft (Turbo Commander from the Aero Commander, Piper Cheyenne from the Navajo, and the King Air from the Queen Air), so most pilots moving into turbine-engined aircraft could do so with little trouble. They flew their new airplanes just like the piston aircraft they grew up in. The MU-2 was designed to be a high performance turboprop from the start, and that's where pilots got in trouble. It has high wing loading when clean (its clean wing area is less than that of a Piper J-3 Cub) but very advanced and efficient flaps that greatly increase its wing area and camber when extended. This means it has to be flown more like a large jet than a light piston. Its minimum speed changes with each flap setting, and the flaps cannot be raised all the way up immediately after takeoff or the loss of an engine, like in most piston twins. I believe (but do correct me if I am wrong) that a vast majority of MU-2 accidents have been a result of the pilot losing control of the airplane by allowing themselves to stall. The theory was that the pilots needed to receive more training for such a high performance aircraft, and SFAR 108 was the result. It's not a difficult plane to fly (so I have heard), but if you fly it incorrectly it is unforgiving. Imagine teaching a group of teenagers to drive without ever leaving the parking lot, then giving them their license and allowing them to drive unsupervised on a highway. A rash of accidents would happen.
In contrast, the Air Force uses contracted pilots flying a large fleet MU-2s out of Tyndall AFB for Air Battle Manager training, and they have had no accidents. No doubt these pilots were well trained from the start. Unfortunately, we will probably never know why the MU-2 in the Bahamas crashed, but it's possible the aircraft and her pilot were just the unlucky victims of an inherently dangerous activity.
good ol Hiroshima screamer