MU2 accident

Mike

NTSB accident report. See another MU2 went in 25 March near
Pittsfield, MA under strange circumstances.

As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

Big John

"Big John" wrote in message
...
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not true for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other aircraft not
still in production?

Pete

Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not true for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other aircraft not
still in production?

Pete

"Big John" wrote in message
...
MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

So? The 152 still has a finite supply. Keep crashing them, they will
eventually disappear from the fleet.

[...]
I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Why would you post a jab at Mike? Why shouldn't he stand up "for the bird"?
There are many types of aircraft that require specialized training and
careful handling. I've heard nothing about the MU2 that suggests it's
anything other than a high-performance airplane that requires close
attention. The same things could be said of the P-51, but I don't see you
posting jabs at the folks who fly them.

Not all airplanes are as docile as a Cessna. That doesn't make them bad
airplanes, nor does it justify crowing about accidents that occur in them.

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

I hate to see any kind of accident. But when a type crashes that is the
same as that flown by someone I know of, I don't go poking them in the face
about it.

Pete

I live near Pittsfield. The article I saw mentioned that he was hauling
screws, I think. I was thinking that possibly some of the load shifted in
flight and went aft. One witness said he looked like he was coming down
backwards. Another said he was in a flat spin. Figure screws are a pretty
dense cargo. If they somehow shifted back, do you think it could make him
tail heavy enough to get him in trouble even at cruise speed? He had fuel as
the wreckage was burning. Said last contact was at 17K feet and radar showed
him losing 12k feet in 60 seconds.

mike regish

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not true
for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue
to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other aircraft
not
still in production?

Pete

Hard to imagine that the cargo shifted far enough back to cause a problem in
cruise flight. Hard to imagine that a cargo operation would overlook
something like fastening down the cargo.

Mike
MU-2

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:Sskcc.192973$Cb.1733899@attbi_s51...
I live near Pittsfield. The article I saw mentioned that he was hauling
screws, I think. I was thinking that possibly some of the load shifted in
flight and went aft. One witness said he looked like he was coming down
backwards. Another said he was in a flat spin. Figure screws are a pretty
dense cargo. If they somehow shifted back, do you think it could make him
tail heavy enough to get him in trouble even at cruise speed? He had fuel
as
the wreckage was burning. Said last contact was at 17K feet and radar
showed
him losing 12k feet in 60 seconds.

mike regish

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John


`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not
true
for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue
to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be
gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other
aircraft
not
still in production?

Pete

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...
Hard to imagine that the cargo shifted far enough back to cause a problem
in
cruise flight.

And yet, with relatively high-density cargo, this certainly can happen,
especially if the airplane was already near the aft CG limit.

Hard to imagine that a cargo operation would overlook
something like fastening down the cargo.

And yet, it does occasionally happen, and it does occasionally cause an
accident, usually fatal.

Yes, in a perfect world, the people loading the cargo would ensure the cargo
is secured, and the pilot would double-check that it's secured. But we
don't live in a perfect world.

I don't know if that's what happened in this accident, but it certainly
could be a possibility, absent any other information.

Pete

I don't know any more than anybody else that wasn't there. The one that
crashed near Napa, CA apparently was a CFIT into the bay. I've never flown
there but supposedly Napa is a "black hole" approach at night. Another MU-2
was recently "landed" on the nose hard enough that it is "unrepairable".

There always ends up being a relatively simple explanation for all these
wrecks but it is surprising to see three in a couple weeks.

Mike
MU-2


"Big John" wrote in message
...
Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not true
for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue
to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other aircraft
not
still in production?

Pete

Mike

All the accident pilots were commercial rated that I recall. Could
these be low time pilots trying to build time flying in a hot aircraft
that is difficult to fly safely in certain circumstances?

Could explain some of the accidents.

On Pittsfield, as I said, there was some icing reported/forecast in
the area. How does the MU2 fly with ice on the wings? They had some
commuter birds (at lest one around Chicago) that held in icing and
bird stalled with ice on wings and went in. How touchy is the MU2
airfoil?

This was a night flight. What do you have to see (or will tell ou) if
you have ice on the wings?

Fly safe and stay lucky.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:49:48 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

I don't know any more than anybody else that wasn't there. The one that
crashed near Napa, CA apparently was a CFIT into the bay. I've never flown
there but supposedly Napa is a "black hole" approach at night. Another MU-2
was recently "landed" on the nose hard enough that it is "unrepairable".

There always ends up being a relatively simple explanation for all these
wrecks but it is surprising to see three in a couple weeks.

Mike
MU-2


"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John

````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````
````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not true
for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue
to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other aircraft
not
still in production?

Pete

There is nothing particularly unusual about a MU-2 wing. The airfoil is the
same as other aircraft that fly in the same speed range. The deice system
is virtually identical to other turboprops as well. The wings and tail have
boots inflated by bleed air, the engine inlets are heated with bleed air and
the windshields, pitot/static, props and oil cooler inlets are electrically
heated. There is an ice light that illuminates the leading edge of the
wing. The plane flys well in icing. Mitsubishi actually flew through
thunderstorms in NM to get severe icing data.

I am really interested in hearing the NTSB's conclusions on thePittsburg
accident.

Mike
MU-2


"Big John" wrote in message
...

Mike

All the accident pilots were commercial rated that I recall. Could
these be low time pilots trying to build time flying in a hot aircraft
that is difficult to fly safely in certain circumstances?

Could explain some of the accidents.

On Pittsfield, as I said, there was some icing reported/forecast in
the area. How does the MU2 fly with ice on the wings? They had some
commuter birds (at lest one around Chicago) that held in icing and
bird stalled with ice on wings and went in. How touchy is the MU2
airfoil?

This was a night flight. What do you have to see (or will tell ou) if
you have ice on the wings?

Fly safe and stay lucky.

Big John

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
```````

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 23:49:48 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

I don't know any more than anybody else that wasn't there. The one that
crashed near Napa, CA apparently was a CFIT into the bay. I've never
flown
there but supposedly Napa is a "black hole" approach at night. Another
MU-2
was recently "landed" on the nose hard enough that it is "unrepairable".

There always ends up being a relatively simple explanation for all these
wrecks but it is surprising to see three in a couple weeks.

Mike
MU-2


"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John


````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
`
````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not
true
for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they
continue
to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be
gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other
aircraft
not
still in production?

Pete