14 replies to this topic

[dosco]

We were having a discussion regarding adverse yaw a while back. IIRC Brian Glover brought up the Mitsubishi MU-2.

One of these aircraft crashed this morning at Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

http://www.thewbalch...806&dppid=68701

Preliminary reports indicate it made a hard bank on approach and then dove to impact. I wonder if the pilot screwed the pooch with the spoiler-roll control system and stalled?

Interesting, nonetheless.

[miniman]

The MU-2 doesn't have a stellar safety record, it is too "hot" for some pilot's capabilities, nice ship though. I hate to comment so soon after a crash, most of the time a lot of relevant information has yet to be uncovered. At first glance it does seem like a stall/spin event

[Keith Young]

I hate MU-2's. They are incredibly loud, ugly, and inconvenient to fuel. Worst off is when they want a GPU. Holy ****. The plug us right behind the engine, to reach it, you basically have to put your face right behind the turbine outlet. HOT FAST AIR KAPOW. The worst plane to fuel however must be the caravan. Not fun. I have seen a few plane crashes, but everyone has been ok so far, mainly crippled landings, besides the one time a plane hit the house next door. One guy did an airshow in an L-39 and crashed 8 days later in Alabama. Hit a flock of birds, the plane swept to the right, he ejected and hit the ground. Where could one find an L-39 or F-5 etc?

[Chevy II Nova]

I always LIKED the Mitsu for it's looks.

[Bill Sherwood]

They're not taht bad, you just have to know how to fly the damn things.
They're similar to a Metro 2 or Aerostar, in that at low speeds you must not turn or load up the wing. With some speed up they're fine.
They're also okay in icing, you just have to not try to climb out of it and add more power to get the nose down so the ice doesn't build up on the upside of the wings (behind the deice boots) and on the belly.
It's poor training & discipline that get the pilots of them into trouble.

[BRNDLL]

My dad was an avionics engineer on several MU-2's for lots of years. I never took to the plane myself and was glad when he moved on to maintaining Gulfstreams. Interesting to hear talk about them as I havent heard mention or seen one in over ten years.

I continue to be amazed at the variety of the group here on Atlas.

bb

[BRIAN GLOVER]

It's frightening to think that there are as many bad pilots as there are bad drivers out there. We don't want to jump to any conclusions, but it sure looks like the actions of the classic Darwin Award winning aviator.
The MU-2 has a very high loaded wing, that's how it gets it's performance. It is very light and therefore spoilers were chosen instead of ailerons for structural integrity of the wing.
The engines are de-rated Garrets single shaft turbines. The thrust is at the structural limits of the design. Just like Michael Schumacher doesn't want slower F1 cars, there are a few pilots that prefer this type of high performance aircraft. It has a high wing design which produces some odd airflow patterns over the root of the outside wing in slow flight and yaw conditions with full flaps and gear down. Without its tip tanks it cant fly.
Nearly all MU-2 crashes have been on final approach and side step maneuvers and usually in turbulent weather and not in the ideal conditions that this aircraft was in.. Flown properly it can fly in all conditions and can be landed in high x wind conditions. .
Anything below 1.3 VS0, only the rudder should be used.
They were last made in the early 80s in the same place that the last F4s were made in Japan and can be purchased cheaply now because of their unwarranted reputation.
Flight schools including Flight Safety teach approaches at far too slow speeds. Speed limit for turbines are 200kts and 156 for piston and you should not be below this, gear permitting. The MU-2 gear lowering speed is 180kts and gear down is 200kts. Depends on where you want to turn off on the run way, but I'm carrying that speed on short final, but that's just me. If the tower asks you to slow it down or side step to another runway, just say you are unable. Don't be intimidated by ATC at high congested airports. Fly the damn plan.
What speed are you at between the markers in your 747, Bill?

Originally posted by Bill Sherwood
They're not taht bad, you just have to know how to fly the damn things.
They're similar to a Metro 2 or Aerostar, in that at low speeds you must not turn or load up the wing. With some speed up they're fine.
They're also okay in icing, you just have to not try to climb out of it and add more power to get the nose down so the ice doesn't build up on the upside of the wings (behind the deice boots) and on the belly.
It's poor training & discipline that get the pilots of them into trouble.

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by BRIAN GLOVER

What speed are you at between the markers in your 747, Bill?

At light weights (~200 tonnes) about 120 kts, at heavy weights (~285 tonnes) 152kts.

Totally agree with your other comments. At low speeds, you do not turn in such a plane. Get the speed up and they're fine.

[fester82]

Brian, it sounds like your old F-4 days when rudder was your friend at slow speeds. Being a Safety school grad and having picked thru a few broken parts, I have learned to not make rash assumptions without investigating all the facts like miniman mentioned. However, past history can't be ignored. Pilots growing up thru the civilian ladder don't always get the chance to experience the high-wing load performance characteristics that some aircraft have. Training is key to operating any a/c safely and adding a couple knots for mom and the kids on final is not necessarily a bad thing if you've enough runway or can bleed it off in the flare.

[dosco]

Originally posted by fester82
Being a Safety school grad and having picked thru a few broken parts, I have learned to not make rash assumptions without investigating all the facts like miniman mentioned.

I also attended the USAF safety school. Fortunately, never had to pick through any wreckage.

That class was simply excellent.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

That's why I said that I didn't want to jump to any conclusions. I did come pretty close to accusing the pilot of poor piloting skills though, didn't I? You are quite right.

Originally posted by fester82
Brian, it sounds like your old F-4 days when rudder was your friend at slow speeds. Being a Safety school grad and having picked thru a few broken parts, I have learned to not make rash assumptions without investigating all the facts like miniman mentioned. However, past history can't be ignored. Pilots growing up thru the civilian ladder don't always get the chance to experience the high-wing load performance characteristics that some aircraft have. Training is key to operating any a/c safely and adding a couple knots for mom and the kids on final is not necessarily a bad thing if you've enough runway or can bleed it off in the flare.

[soubriquet]

Sadly, there's another one down.

"TOKYO — An Air Self-Defense Force rescue plane crashed Thursday on a mountain in Niigata Prefecture after leaving Niigata airport shortly after 1 p.m., killing all four crew members aboard, the Defense Agency said.

The four were identified as Capt Minoru Kawazu, 32, the pilot; Capt Hiroshi Fujita, 32, the copilot; Master Sgt Kazuhito Takayama, 37, a rescuer; and Technical Sgt Koki Yamada, 43, a radio operator. They belonged to the ASDF Niigata rescue team and were on a training mission. (Kyodo News)."

I don't have more detail than this, but from the TV coverage, it seems to have been flown straight into the side of a mountain in good visibility. I wonder about the wisdom of using a design which is (presumably) optimised for high cruising speed, for mountain search and rescue?

S

[BRIAN GLOVER]

The JADAF Rescue Training Squadron uses highly modified versions of this aircraft for search and rescue. The MU-2S is equipped with a Doppler Radar antennae in the large extended nose. It has large flaps and has excellent slow flight characteristics. Its door can be opened in flight and it can be flown safely at 100kts and can be operated within a 200mile radius for 6 hours with its larger fuel tanks.
Sounds like a pressurization problem to me and the consequent incapacitation of the crew. Sometimes at sustained, reduced power slow flight at high altitude, there isn't sufficient pressure from bleed air from the compressor stages to maintain cabin pressure. The environmental system underwent modifications in the stretched versions of the Marquise and the Solitaire. Early Garretts had negative torque sensors that shut down pressurization systems below 100hp to prepare for a landing. Sometimes they weren't adjusted right. Same problems in Commander 690s and 840s which was fixed in the 900s and 1000s.

Mitsubishi approached the FAA, when the plane was released way back in '63 and requested that the plane require a type rating. The FAA put it into a category in FITS (FAA- Industry Training Standards Program) FAA part 61:31 which requires special training in aircraft with unusual flight characteristics. This was for commercial purposes only but when the prices came down in the industry slump of the late 80s, such a high performance aircraft became available to inexperienced private pilots.
In the right hands, the MU-2 is a truly wonderful plane and I was shown what it can do when I chartered one from Johannesburg to Namibia on a hunting trip a few years ago. It can land on short bumpy dirt runways because of the high wing and the rugged gear that came from some US Navy plane, I forget which. The German pilot ( South West Africa was a German colony before the 1st world war.) We flew really slow over the African plains. The company also has Commander 1000s which I have flown extensively in the States. I repossessed a new 840 from Columbia in the late 80s. The environmental system failed and I had to land in Venezuela. I was really worried that I was not going to be paid.
Last year, we chartered a Falcon 20 with the same pilot and the same company but landed in Windhoek and drove over some really **** roads to the lodge. He said he misses the MU2. After the bouncy trip in a Landcruiser, I missed it also.
The Falcon can fly pretty slow also. I was coming back from the Bahamas in a Beach Baron and looked out my widow. There to my surprise, was a Coast Guard Falcon 20, flying maybe 15 ft from me at 10 000ft. I looked straight down into their cockpit which was just behind my left wing. I was indicating 168 KTS.
Incidentally, I flew that plane from Florida to Johannesburg and sold it to a dude in Botswana. I flew it to the same hunting lodge that I flew to a few years later in the MU-2.

Originally posted by soubriquet
Sadly, there's another one down.

"TOKYO — An Air Self-Defense Force rescue plane crashed Thursday on a mountain in Niigata Prefecture after leaving Niigata airport shortly after 1 p.m., killing all four crew members aboard, the Defense Agency said.

The four were identified as Capt Minoru Kawazu, 32, the pilot; Capt Hiroshi Fujita, 32, the copilot; Master Sgt Kazuhito Takayama, 37, a rescuer; and Technical Sgt Koki Yamada, 43, a radio operator. They belonged to the ASDF Niigata rescue team and were on a training mission. (Kyodo News)."

I don't have more detail than this, but from the TV coverage, it seems to have been flown straight into the side of a mountain in good visibility. I wonder about the wisdom of using a design which is (presumably) optimised for high cruising speed, for mountain search and rescue?

S

[soubriquet]

Thanks Brian. It's reassuring that they had an appropriate version of the MU-2. I was surprised because the JSDF seem to have plenty of kit.

My experience of these planes is fly in/fly out to various mines in Western Australia, where of course, they land on short bumpy dirt strips. One was lost near Kalgoorlie a few years ago, completely decapitating a small mining company. Another similar aircraft (not sure if it was an MU-2) suffered the environment failure you describe, and went from Perth to Western Queensland before crashing.

Thanks for the anecdotes. My only experience of note was having Hamersley Iron provide a Bell Jetranger for a week when working in the Pilbara. Canyonland, and arguably the most spectacular landscape in Australia.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Got to get to Ausie one day. My brothr says they are the nicest people in the world. He is a rugby fanatic and follows the world cup tour. Since I was a kid, I wanted to buzz the Grand Canyon and Monument Valley in Utah. I did. I'm planning a trip in SE Asia and hope to island hop all the way down to Australia. The plane of choice for this trip, is the Cessna Conquest with the same Garrett engines.

Originally posted by soubriquet
Thanks Brian. It's reassuring that they had an appropriate version of the MU-2. I was surprised because the JSDF seem to have plenty of kit.

My experience of these planes is fly in/fly out to various mines in Western Australia, where of course, they land on short bumpy dirt strips. One was lost near Kalgoorlie a few years ago, completely decapitating a small mining company. Another similar aircraft (not sure if it was an MU-2) suffered the environment failure you describe, and went from Perth to Western Queensland before crashing.

Thanks for the anecdotes. My only experience of note was having Hamersley Iron provide a Bell Jetranger for a week when working in the Pilbara. Canyonland, and arguably the most spectacular landscape in Australia.