|
"The MU2's were intriguing also.
But the accident reports always seemed to read the same:
"The pilot had 5,000 hours in make and model"
"The wreckage was spread over a file mile radius"
Too unforgiving."
David, this was true before 2009 when initial and yearly recurrent training became required. Since then the MU2 has had a better than average safety record. Fly it like you train and it does what it should, get too slow for your wing configuration and you will have issues. You can't make this plane do what its design does not allow. It is different and has to be flown differently than piston and turbine twins with ailerons and more like a jet. You have to fly it by the profiles in the POH, all the time. Different flap configurations require different airspeeds. The good news is the airspeeds are essentially the same, one engine inoperative or with both engines so it is easy to remember. Speeds depend on flaps, not number of engines running. All of this is true for any airplane though. The Skymaster has a pretty lousy accident record too. I have owned a P337 and own an MU2 now, the MU2 is a much more capable plane and much better supported as well. They haven't made one since 1986 but you can still get factory service and factory parts from the factory owned service center in Tulsa, OK. Don't get me wrong, I liked my P337 but it was a quirky plane to work on and finding parts was a challenge ten years ago when I owned it, this isn't better today. Everyone has to make their own choices, but to say an MU2 is dangerous and takes super pilot skills to fly just isn't born out by recent history. I am just a typical guy flying for fun, but I found the training I took for the MU2 to be very good and feel better taking the MU2 on long trips in weather than I did the P337. It is just a more capable plane with many more tools to help deal with situations typically seen on cross country IFR flights. Besides, spooling up those Garretts brings a smile to my face every time I do it too :-)
|