The noise is in the prop design. The old square-tip, four-blade props on the C-130H were SUPER loud. The six-blade, cimitar props on the "J" model are much quieter. And quiter still are the eight-blade NP2000 props by Collins Aerospace. Collins claims that their NP2000 props reduce the prop noise by 20 dB. 20dB is the difference between night and day.
I remember a Metroliner one cloudy day in 1998. It could only have been a Metroliner because the national carrier serviced regional centres at the time with them. On the day in question it was 8/8ths with a base at about 2500' so dark and cloudy. Anyhow I was having a picnic with my family and the noise was eye watering in this small river valley even though the Metroliner was likely climbing through ~10,000' where we were picnicing. You could not hold a conversation, if you turned your head sideways it made it worse - I miss those days LOL.
Nice to see that specific individual N462MA. I have flown it about 650 hrs when it was based at Bromma, Stockholm, Sweden. I loved the aircraft. Took my training in Houston, TX Fly Safety every year 1997 - 2001. Noel Springer and Frank Sandoval were my excellent instructors.
Always thought MU-2s were weird turboprops. Refueling airplanes at the FBO during my early college years in the early 70s, I learned really quick not to place the ladder under the tip tanks when topping off. One day I watched an MU-2 belly in off the end of the runway because the pilot shut down the wrong engine when one failed. Found out later that the engine instruments had been cross wired during maintenance. The pilot forgot the dead foot dead engine drill we all learned in multi-training.
Thanks for sharing these observations. As with Lancairs I find the MU2 exciting yet also humbling. You should not even consider them IMO unless you are honest about your willingness and ability to develop and then maintain the required attitude and performance.
Optmus Prime yeh they look fine they just kill lots of their pilots. not the little mu2 so much but the bigger one killed a fare few of my friends over the years. Their nickname in Australia was " The widow maker".
@@stephenhammond1656 You are absolutely right. It's a piece of cr.. I flew it and I hated it. And it killed two of my colleagues. Experienced and well trained pilots. Greets from the left seat, 747-8. If you own a MU-2, sell it ! Seriously.
@@Renato.Stiefenhofer.747driver If you fly it by the numbers it’s an incredible airplane. Yes more demanding than a KingAir and your 747. I survived two engine failures with 4500 hours in them.
@@stevez6499 If you are capable of flying it by the numbers... good luck. I am not, after 20'000 hours flight time, from P-51 Mustang to helicopters, from small jets to the 747-8. I had a few engine failures, too. On jets and turbo props. And I was lucky, too. To be honest: The Mitsubishi MU-2 is a sexy airplane. It sounds terrific. But it is a dangerous airplane, if you don't have the experience required. Safe flights! Greets from Switzerland. R
Used to watch them being assembled at the Midland-Odessa airport back in the 60s when they were Mooney MU-2s ... always wanted to fly one, but never got the chance ...
dude, reach out to one of the owners on youtube, there are several of them posting videos on their channels. i'm positive someone near you will give you a ride. the mu2 is an amazing airplane.
Shared that and the Vintage Aero Fab drop-in stick replacement with a couple Super Cub guys at KCOE. Great to see y'all at the Round Engine Roundup! Next year, follow up with a tour of north Idaho microbreweries? ...time to get to work on the July Cd'A airport association newsletter... Next up the EAA huckleberry pancake breakfast at Bonners Ferry!
Guys,the old,British,Vicount,will,rip your ear drums out!Ray Charles,the great singer,use to fly in to Chicago,Midway airport,back,in the day!I worked their for,46 years,1970,thru 2016!The old Hawker Sidley,jet,was a loud one,along with the Gulfstream 1,turbo prop!I am surprised,at 75,years old I can still hear!
Care to elaborate and back up those statements? It was a clean sheet design, and in usual Japanese fashion they optimized it as much as they could. Most (all?) other twins in this class evolved from piston engine airframes. The MU-2 is no more or less unforgiving than a jet. It demands to be flown by the numbers. If you can do your part to fly it by the numbers, you'll be rewarded with cruise speeds better than a Cirrus jet and that narrow, highly loaded wing penetrates turbulence as smoothly as a Lear Jet.
You're correct on 1.5 counts. The Mits does not forgive, but it's also not that hard to fly if you know what you're doing and listen to what the airplane is telling you. The safety "issues" were never airframe issues, they were training and pilot/operator issues; in fact the plane has been certified by the FAA three separate times thanks to these perceived "issues". It's a wonderful plane and 91 subpart N has made it safer than most other cabin class twins and turboprops on the market.
@@milleRC51 yes, but thanks to the internet spreading the word, a nice MU2 now goes for about the same price as a used PC-12, and add in the fact that most of the ones I've seen on the market are right at 7,500 hours, they no longer have an operating cost advantage. The inspection schedule is pretty light up to 7,500 hours, at which point the airframe has to be stripped and all major components and frames inspected for cracks and fatigue, then there's the 8,500 hour inspection, and so on. Before 7,500 hours they're super light on inspections and are built like tanks, so very light on maintenance, too. I ran the numbers and a PC-12 just makes more sense nowadays. Sure, it's not quite as fast, but over 800nm the difference between cruising at 290ktas and 270ktas is about 10 minutes. Is it really worth going deaf to shave 10 minutes off a 3 hour flight? And if you can afford a shiny new PC-12 NGX then you can cruise just as fast, or even faster, than the MU-2. And if 6 seats is adequate, a TBM will get you there even faster. Both the PC-12 and TBM are also easy to sell and have historically had very predictable depreciation. Cost of acquisition is a very small factor in the very big picture that is plane ownership.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn You bring up some good points, when I bought my Marquise they were half the price of a clean F90 or B200, much less a low-ish time /47 (I wanted 2 engines, despite several hundred hours flying PC-12's). The 7500 hour inspection is a big one, but once it's done you're good for another 7500 hours which is far beyond what us 91 operators are going to fly in our lifetimes. Also, add up all the savings in the previous recurring intervals compared to other airframes and you've already got enough mx money in escrow to cover it. Speed is not the be-all end-all deciding factor. Hell, I cruise at 96% every time only doing about 265-285 depending on the season. Fly it like you own it, right? What I love about the Mits is that I know, every single time I show up, it's going to be airworthy. In 7 years and 1,000 hours of ownership I've had to cancel 1 flight for a maintenance issue. I can't say the same thing for any other airframe I've flown in 16 years of 91, 135, and 121 operations. The plane is just plain reliable. The only people going deaf are the poor folks on the ramp- the mits is surprisingly quite in the cabin- and I carry extra ear plugs to pass out through the message hatch for the unsuspecting rampers that show up without ear pro before startup. Yes, the Garrett's are obnoxiously loud, but some common sense and courtesy like taxiing to a vacant ramp spot or even just turning away from the terminal mitigates that. They'll also eat rocks and spit out gravel without a hiccup. There are plenty of other good options out there, and the MU-2 community is fiercely loyal to their planes, for a reason. Any schmuck can go from a Baron to a King Air, it takes a pilot to bond with the Mits. And it's a very rewarding relationship.
I was just thinking what would happen if a twin had an engine failure at about 60 kts? On a grass strip I imagine it would go sideways pretty quickly. A pilot would have to be pretty quick in the rudder and to reduce power on the other engine to avoid disaster.
@@brianclintone308 well, at least at V1 there is a chance of keeping it straight with rudder. At slower speeds the nose tires would mostly be used to stay near the centerline. On a grass strip? Doesn’t seem likely.
280k$ for "turbines" ? Assuming 2 turbines for that price ? Can you pls send me your dealer address because it's a bargain at this price. @@ParadigmUnkn0wn
The early ones had crap Autopilots and pilots who got lousy training did stupid stuff with them at relatively low speeds. A properly trained and competent pilot had zero issues with them.
@@mike73ng Most folks that say the MU2 is a death trap have never been near one let alone flown one. There are plenty of myths out there that age simply not true. It does not have high wing loading when properly configured with flaps for arrivals and departures, but yes high wing loading clean, but 100% of high performance aircraft (jets, props, lifting bodies) are not to be flown with flaps 0 at slow airspeed or at high angles of attack any of them will bite you because your mishandling them. The full span Spoilers on the Mu2 are extremely effective in roll, better in many cases than ailerons but you have to use more yoke deflection than a typical aileron aircraft, they also provide next to zero adverse yaw. 99% of MU2 crashes were from poorly trained pilots doing the wrong actions in very survivable situations. If you do your homework everyone will come to the same conclusion.
