A Question for MU-2 Mike and other MU-2 Pilots

[John]

This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
thought about it?

MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."

[Mike Rapoport]

Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD
on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none
of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.

You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other year
and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.

Mike
MU-2



"John" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
> thought about it?
>
> MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
> After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
> the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
> specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
> general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
> in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
> concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
> about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
> think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
> John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
> aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
> characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."
>

[Dale]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an AD
> on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that none
> of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
> compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
> instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
> is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
> conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
> should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
> compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
> accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.


What does the AD require? what do they do? how does training replace it?

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Juan Jimenez]

Training as alternate compliance to an AD? I've never heard of that before.
What's the AD #?

Juan

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
> AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that
> none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
> compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
> instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
> is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
> conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
> should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
> compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
> accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.
>
> You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
> year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
> transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
> minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
> without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
> pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
>> thought about it?
>>
>> MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
>> After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
>> the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
>> specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
>> general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
>> in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
>> concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
>> about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
>> think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
>> John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
>> aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
>> characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."
>>
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

Mike,

What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the MU-2
so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a
piston
twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've always
heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.


Thanks,
Pete


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
> AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that
> none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
> compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
> instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved training
> is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you can
> conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The FAA
> should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
> compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
> accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.
>
> You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
> year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
> transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
> minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
> without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
> pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
> "John" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
>> thought about it?
>>
>> MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
>> After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
>> the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
>> specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
>> general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
>> in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
>> concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
>> about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
>> think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
>> John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
>> aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
>> characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
>> AD
>> on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane that
>> none
>> of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate method of
>> compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved" training
>> instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only approved
>> training
>> is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their enrollment, you
>> can
>> conclude that only about half the pilots are undergoing training. The
>> FAA
>> should get proactive and start grounding the pilots who aren't in
>> compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess they figure that each
>> accident eliminates one airplane and one out or compliance pilot.
>
>
> What does the AD require? what do they do? how does training replace it?
>

It actually make no sense at all. The AD requires auto ignition, tail boot
drain line, an ice detector, a trim in motion sensor and a system that
disconnects the autopilot if the airspeed goes below 140ktias in cruies
flight. I lieu of the ice detector, trim in motion sensor and the autopilot
disconnect you can get approved training once a year. The AD stems from an
accident where a pilot flew though ice for a long time, presumably with the
deicing equipment off and the autopilot holding altitude. They think that
he was reading a newspaper. Anyway, as the ice built up, the airplane
slowed until the autopilot exceeded its limits and diconnected. The FAA
decided to do *something* so they came out with this AD even though you
can't see the ice detector warning light if you are reading a newspaper.
The whole AD was going to cost about $30K so the owners fought it and the
AMOC was worked out. It is unclear to me how either the equipment or the
training would have saved the pilot reading a newspaper, but perhaps that is
just me. It is also unclear to me that if these things are needed in MU-2s
to save pilots reading newspapers why they aren't needed in other airplanes
as well?

There was another accident which caused the FAA to conduct a review of the
MU-2 in icing. A MU-2 took off *over gross weight* into *known severe icing
conditions* with *know inoperative deice boots* (the air lines were
disconnected). The plane crashed but since it had a politician on board
they had to do *something* and hundreds of thousands of dollars later they
concluded that if the deice boots are connected and working, that they work
just as well as they did when the airpalne was certified...surprise. I
suspect that if the muffler fell off a FAA car that they would spend $20K on
a really powerful stereo that got louder as you pushed on the accelerator
pedal.

You can make things foolproof but only idiot resistant.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:DXCxd.227260$V41.31999@attbi_s52...
> Mike,
>
> What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the
> MU-2
> so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from a
> piston
> twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've
> always
> heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Pete

I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same except
perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston twin than
a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference is that there
are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting training than are
buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because of the price. It is
interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem to have a higher
accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps this is because the
owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely to go to expensive
training? The training isn't particularly difficult to complete, it just
has to be done. I don't think it is much different from a pilot
transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a CitationJet to a
Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be accomplished in less
time and there are more emergency procedures to learn because there are more
systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who won't spend the money for
specilized training also doesn't go for specialized maitenance and are more
likely to have an emergency in the first place or an airplane that is harder
to fly because of engine or airframe (mis)rigging.

Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?

Mike
MU-2


>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
>> AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane
>> that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate
>> method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved"
>> training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only
>> approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their
>> enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are
>> undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding
>> the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess
>> they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or
>> compliance pilot.
>>
>> You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
>> year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
>> transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
>> minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
>> without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
>> pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>>
>> "John" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
>>> thought about it?
>>>
>>> MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
>>> After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
>>> the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
>>> specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
>>> general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
>>> in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
>>> concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
>>> about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
>>> think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
>>> John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
>>> aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
>>> characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't have it handy, you can look it up. It is the one requiring the ice
detector, auto ignition, trim in motion sensor and autopilot disconnect.

Mike
MU-2

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> Training as alternate compliance to an AD? I've never heard of that
> before. What's the AD #?
>
> Juan
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
>> AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane
>> that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate
>> method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved"
>> training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only
>> approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their
>> enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are
>> undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding
>> the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I guess
>> they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out or
>> compliance pilot.
>>
>> You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
>> year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
>> transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every year
>> minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a Baron
>> without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston airline
>> pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>>
>> "John" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
>>> thought about it?
>>>
>>> MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
>>> After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
>>> the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
>>> specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
>>> general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
>>> in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
>>> concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
>>> about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
>>> think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
>>> John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
>>> aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
>>> characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

Thanks for the feedback.


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:DXCxd.227260$V41.31999@attbi_s52...
>> Mike,
>>
>> What are the issues that make the transition from a piston twin to the
>> MU-2
>> so difficult. Are they separate issues than if I were transitioning from
>> a piston
>> twin to a Cheyenne or other twin turbo prop? Just curious since I've
>> always
>> heard the MU-2 was difficult twin turbo prop to transition to.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pete
>
> I don't think that it is all that difficult. The issues are the same
> except perhaps that the MU-2 has a bigger performance delta from a piston
> twin than a Cheyenne (unless it is a 400LS) or King Air. The difference
> is that there are a lot more guys buying an old MU-2 and not getting
> training than are buying Piaggio's and not getting training just because
> of the price. It is interesting to note that the older cheaper MU-2s seem
> to have a higher accident rate than the Marquise and Solitaire, perhaps
> this is because the owners of the more expensive airplanes are more likely
> to go to expensive training? The training isn't particularly difficult to
> complete, it just has to be done. I don't think it is much different from
> a pilot transitioning from a Apache to an pressurized Aerostar or a
> CitationJet to a Citation X. In each case there are more tasks to be
> accomplished in less time and there are more emergency procedures to learn
> because there are more systems to fail. I suspect that the same guys who
> won't spend the money for specilized training also doesn't go for
> specialized maitenance and are more likely to have an emergency in the
> first place or an airplane that is harder to fly because of engine or
> airframe (mis)rigging.
>
> Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
> MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
> and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
> training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Of course what Ralf Sorrells says is true for any airplane. There is an
>>> AD on the MU-2 that requires a bunch of modifications to the airplane
>>> that none of them have. The FAA decided to allow an AMOC (alternate
>>> method of compliance) where MU-2 pilots are required to get "approved"
>>> training instead of the modifications to the airplanes. The only
>>> approved training is from Simcom or Reese Howell and by looking at their
>>> enrollment, you can conclude that only about half the pilots are
>>> undergoing training. The FAA should get proactive and start grounding
>>> the pilots who aren't in compliance, but that would be too easy. I
>>> guess they figure that each accident eliminates one airplane and one out
>>> or compliance pilot.
>>>
>>> You can't buy a MU-2 and just go to a biannual fight review every other
>>> year and you can't get training from you friendly local CFI. The guy
>>> transitioning from a piston twin to a MU-2 without consistant (every
>>> year minimium) specialized training is like a Skyhawk pilot flying a
>>> Baron without a multi rating. The situation is analagous to the piston
>>> airline pilots transitioning to jets in the 50's.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "John" > wrote in message
>>> ups.com...
>>>> This was snipped from this morning's AvWeb and I wondered what you
>>>> thought about it?
>>>>
>>>> MITSUBISHI PILOTS NEED SIMULATOR TIME, COMPANY SAYS
>>>> After four fatal crashes of Mitsubishi MU-2 twin turboprops this year,
>>>> the manufacturer is recommending that pilots of its planes get
>>>> specialized training in flight simulators, Ralph Sorrells, deputy
>>>> general manager of Mitsubishi's aircraft product support division, said
>>>> in The Denver Post on Saturday. Sorrells said his company is "deeply
>>>> concerned, and we're in the process of trying to get the word out"
>>>> about the best training practices for MU-2 aviators, the Post said. "I
>>>> think it's a great airplane, but it has some unique characteristics,"
>>>> John Paul Jones of Colorado, who has logged about 4,800 hours in MU-2
>>>> aircraft, told the Post. "If you do not thoroughly understand those
>>>> characteristics, you're in a precarious flying position."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Juan Jimenez]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
> MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
> and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
> training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?

Maybe he didn't -- his insurance could have made that decision for him. :)

[Mike Rapoport]

Actually, he thought that he did.

Mike
MU-2

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
>> MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a Gemini
>> and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent simulator
>> training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of us?
>
> Maybe he didn't -- his insurance could have made that decision for him. :)
>
>

[john smith]

Mike, just how different is it flying spoilers vice ailerons?

[Mike Rapoport]

There is really no major difference except spoilers are more effective at
low speeds and don't "stiffen up" at high speeds. Spoilers also provide
effecive roll control in a stall and don't produce adverse yaw. On the MU-2
the relationship between control yoke movement and spoiler movement is such
that slightly more yoke movement is required than on most aircraft for the
same roll rate. It take people about 10hrs to get used to it. Also, In the
event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can
neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking up.

Mike
MU-2

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Mike, just how different is it flying spoilers vice ailerons?
>

[Scott Skylane]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
/snip/ Also, In the
> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can
> neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking up.
>
Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll
trim work on that thing?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane
N92054

[Mike Rapoport]

There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course, you
also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather the prop
then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five seconds of roll
trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are a few more things but
none of them are critical.

Mike
MU-2


"Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
> /snip/ Also, In the
>> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can
>> neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking up.
>>
> Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll trim
> work on that thing?
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane
> N92054

[Juan Jimenez]

We got an MU-2 driver here in San Juan, he does it too. :)

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Actually, he thought that he did.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> Several years ago, I spent three days in recurrent training with another
>>> MU-2 owner-pilot who was a former military test pilot as well as a
>>> Gemini and Apollo astronaut. If HE felt that HE needed recurrent
>>> simulator training to fly safely, what does that say about the rest of
>>> us?
>>
>> Maybe he didn't -- his insurance could have made that decision for him.
>> :)

[Juan Jimenez]

Spoilers instead of ailerons _and_ electrically controlled ailerons for trim
on the wing? Man, what were the folks at Mitsubishi smoking the day they
came up with that one? :) I knew the MU-2 was different but I never realized
just how unorthodox it truly is...

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course, you
> also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather the prop
> then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five seconds of roll
> trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are a few more things
> but none of them are critical.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> /snip/ Also, In the
>>> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you can
>>> neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler sticking
>>> up.
>>>
>> Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll trim
>> work on that thing?
>>
>> Happy Flying!
>> Scott Skylane
>> N92054
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

I guess they were smoking the good stuff! The design was dictated by the
desire to have both a high cruise speed and short takeoff and landing
distances. They way to get both was to have a small highly loaded wing (for
high speed) and full span, double slotted fowler flaps (for short
takeoff/landing). The full span flaps left no room for ailerons so they
used spoilers. I am pretty sure that the Mitsubishi Diamond (later became
the Beechjet when Raytheon bought the design.) used the same design. The
MU-2 was much faster than competing designs with the same fusilage size and
power. The new efficiency champ is the Piaggio with its three lifting
surfaces, (actually four since the fusilage provides lift too) and high wing
loading..

Mike
MU-2


"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> Spoilers instead of ailerons _and_ electrically controlled ailerons for
> trim on the wing? Man, what were the folks at Mitsubishi smoking the day
> they came up with that one? :) I knew the MU-2 was different but I never
> realized just how unorthodox it truly is...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course, you
>> also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather the prop
>> then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five seconds of roll
>> trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are a few more things
>> but none of them are critical.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> /snip/ Also, In the
>>>> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you
>>>> can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler
>>>> sticking up.
>>>>
>>> Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll
>>> trim work on that thing?
>>>
>>> Happy Flying!
>>> Scott Skylane
>>> N92054
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

Mike,

You seem to be a fan of the Piaggio. I don't know much about it but it
is different looking. What is it about the Piaggio that you like so much?
At it's price point you could get a jet. Does it have a higher useful load,
longer range than a comparable priced jet? Just curious.

Pete


"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>I guess they were smoking the good stuff! The design was dictated by the
>desire to have both a high cruise speed and short takeoff and landing
>distances. They way to get both was to have a small highly loaded wing
>(for high speed) and full span, double slotted fowler flaps (for short
>takeoff/landing). The full span flaps left no room for ailerons so they
>used spoilers. I am pretty sure that the Mitsubishi Diamond (later became
>the Beechjet when Raytheon bought the design.) used the same design. The
>MU-2 was much faster than competing designs with the same fusilage size and
>power. The new efficiency champ is the Piaggio with its three lifting
>surfaces, (actually four since the fusilage provides lift too) and high
>wing loading..
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Spoilers instead of ailerons _and_ electrically controlled ailerons for
>> trim on the wing? Man, what were the folks at Mitsubishi smoking the day
>> they came up with that one? :) I knew the MU-2 was different but I never
>> realized just how unorthodox it truly is...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course,
>>> you also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather the
>>> prop then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five seconds of
>>> roll trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are a few more
>>> things but none of them are critical.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>> /snip/ Also, In the
>>>>> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you
>>>>> can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler
>>>>> sticking up.
>>>>>
>>>> Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll
>>>> trim work on that thing?
>>>>
>>>> Happy Flying!
>>>> Scott Skylane
>>>> N92054
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

It is an elegent solution. Instead of having a horizontal stabilizer
producing downforce and the wing having to overcome that as well as the
weight of the plane, the Piaggio uses three "wing" surfaces that all produce
lift. In addition, the fusilage is curved over its entire length and
produces lift as well. Most pressurized fusilages are a tube with a couple
of cones riveted on. I don't think that there is a jet that has close to
the Piaggios cabin size for anywhere near the money. It is also very quiet.
It has more range, cabin room and consumes much less fuel than anything in
the same price range. The new Avanti II with glass cockpit, reduced empty
weight and increased gross weight will have even greater advantages over
comparable jets. It is also beautiful.

Mike
MU-2



"Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
news:doCyd.4870$k25.4775@attbi_s53...
> Mike,
>
> You seem to be a fan of the Piaggio. I don't know much about it but it
> is different looking. What is it about the Piaggio that you like so much?
> At it's price point you could get a jet. Does it have a higher useful
> load,
> longer range than a comparable priced jet? Just curious.
>
> Pete
>
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>I guess they were smoking the good stuff! The design was dictated by the
>>desire to have both a high cruise speed and short takeoff and landing
>>distances. They way to get both was to have a small highly loaded wing
>>(for high speed) and full span, double slotted fowler flaps (for short
>>takeoff/landing). The full span flaps left no room for ailerons so they
>>used spoilers. I am pretty sure that the Mitsubishi Diamond (later became
>>the Beechjet when Raytheon bought the design.) used the same design. The
>>MU-2 was much faster than competing designs with the same fusilage size
>>and power. The new efficiency champ is the Piaggio with its three lifting
>>surfaces, (actually four since the fusilage provides lift too) and high
>>wing loading..
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Spoilers instead of ailerons _and_ electrically controlled ailerons for
>>> trim on the wing? Man, what were the folks at Mitsubishi smoking the day
>>> they came up with that one? :) I knew the MU-2 was different but I never
>>> realized just how unorthodox it truly is...
>>>
>>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>> There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course,
>>>> you also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather
>>>> the prop then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five
>>>> seconds of roll trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are a
>>>> few more things but none of them are critical.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> MU-2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>> /snip/ Also, In the
>>>>>> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you
>>>>>> can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler
>>>>>> sticking up.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll
>>>>> trim work on that thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy Flying!
>>>>> Scott Skylane
>>>>> N92054
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Peter MacPherson]

Yes, it is a beautiful airplane. I saw one at ACK(Nantucket, MA)
this past summer and it drew quite a crowd.



"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> It is an elegent solution. Instead of having a horizontal stabilizer
> producing downforce and the wing having to overcome that as well as the
> weight of the plane, the Piaggio uses three "wing" surfaces that all
> produce lift. In addition, the fusilage is curved over its entire length
> and produces lift as well. Most pressurized fusilages are a tube with a
> couple of cones riveted on. I don't think that there is a jet that has
> close to the Piaggios cabin size for anywhere near the money. It is also
> very quiet. It has more range, cabin room and consumes much less fuel than
> anything in the same price range. The new Avanti II with glass cockpit,
> reduced empty weight and increased gross weight will have even greater
> advantages over comparable jets. It is also beautiful.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
>
> "Peter MacPherson" > wrote in message
> news:doCyd.4870$k25.4775@attbi_s53...
>> Mike,
>>
>> You seem to be a fan of the Piaggio. I don't know much about it but it
>> is different looking. What is it about the Piaggio that you like so much?
>> At it's price point you could get a jet. Does it have a higher useful
>> load,
>> longer range than a comparable priced jet? Just curious.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>I guess they were smoking the good stuff! The design was dictated by the
>>>desire to have both a high cruise speed and short takeoff and landing
>>>distances. They way to get both was to have a small highly loaded wing
>>>(for high speed) and full span, double slotted fowler flaps (for short
>>>takeoff/landing). The full span flaps left no room for ailerons so they
>>>used spoilers. I am pretty sure that the Mitsubishi Diamond (later
>>>became the Beechjet when Raytheon bought the design.) used the same
>>>design. The MU-2 was much faster than competing designs with the same
>>>fusilage size and power. The new efficiency champ is the Piaggio with
>>>its three lifting surfaces, (actually four since the fusilage provides
>>>lift too) and high wing loading..
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Spoilers instead of ailerons _and_ electrically controlled ailerons for
>>>> trim on the wing? Man, what were the folks at Mitsubishi smoking the
>>>> day they came up with that one? :) I knew the MU-2 was different but I
>>>> never realized just how unorthodox it truly is...
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net...
>>>>> There are electrically controlled ailerons for roll trim. Of course,
>>>>> you also trim out the rudder forces too. The basic drill is feather
>>>>> the prop then "357": three seconds of nose up elevator trim, five
>>>>> seconds of roll trim and seven "handfulls" of rudder trim. There are
>>>>> a few more things but none of them are critical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> MU-2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Scott Skylane" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>> /snip/ Also, In the
>>>>>>> event of an engine failure you want to use the roll trim so that you
>>>>>>> can neutralize the yoke because you don't want to have a spoiler
>>>>>>> sticking up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? Did you possibly mean *rudder* trim, or just how does the roll
>>>>>> trim work on that thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy Flying!
>>>>>> Scott Skylane
>>>>>> N92054
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>