MU-2 Crash - Tulsa, Oklahoma

[P-40]

I just watched an old episode of The Aviators a few days ago about the MU-2. I have always liked this aircraft for it's purposeful looks and near unbeatable "bang for the buck" performance. Very sad to lose another aviator in yet another MU-2 incident.

http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/acci ... mu-2-crash

[single_swine_herder]

Pretty unfortunate indeed.

The MU-2 is a superb aircraft ..... if flown by the numbers and in strict accordance with the SOPs developed by the factory with factory training. It never struck me as "a weekend pilots airplane," and when I was on course at Flight Safety the instructor Noel Springer told me the typical MU-2 textbook accident is to crash short of the runway in a high sink rate. That was driven home to me when we started doing night flying and as a demonstration, I had intentionally reduced power a little too much for the descent on an old style NDB approach at the beacon ..... we would have hit the ground 2 miles short of the runway with me not knowing the difference.

EDIT ...... should have added that after the intentional large inaccurate power reduction, the training pilot told me to just keep looking outside and forget the instrument panel ......

The MU-2 is in the family of aircraft with high wing loading, and constant speed engines where the only indication you have of something going wrong in the flight profile is the instrument indications ..... it feels the same at 2 knots above stall as it does at 2 knots below VMO. In the cockpit, it sounds pretty much exactly the same on takeoff as it does at approach power settings. The VSI can be pegged at 6,000 fpm down and it feels like everything is just fine and dandy.

I enjoyed my time on the airplane a great deal, it can give jet-like block to block times within minutes of a Citation for example. But ..... it needs to be flown regularly to maintain proficiency, based on factory training program, with strict adherence to the numbers very accurately and in trim at all times, and undergo serious recurrent training regularly, preferably in the simulator where you can see stuff that shouldn't be done in the air.

The main issue with "The Mits" is that early in its career, it's reputation was damaged by accidents like this one, the price drops because people have labelled it a "widow maker." Another crash ... (for whatever reason,) and the price drops some more .... before you know it, people who have no business going near a high performance aircraft get their hands on it, and then there's one more crash and the value of the remaining airframes drops even more in a vicious cycle.

It is not an aircraft that suffers fools lightly. Nor is it the hidden killer wolf in sheep's clothing it is sometimes represented to be.

[Colonel Sanders]

Moo Too is my kind of airplane

Ugly - I think it was designed by a bunch of engineers
who had never seen an airplane before

Weird - you can't even fuel it like a normal airplane

Noisy - "What?!"

Fast - You had me at Ugly

Dangerous - known as a "fire breathing dragon" by
pilots with weak stick & rudder skills. Has the wings
of a 172 and amazingly doesn't stall much faster.


I'd like to have a whole fleet of them. Like any other
aircraft that is bad-mouthed by crappy pilots (eg Pitts,
Beech 18, F-104) it is very good at what it was designed
to do.

[bobm]

This is only the second Mu-2 fatal accident since the implementation of the SFAR. The Mu-2 is currently rated the safest twin turbo prop but I am not sure how this accident will affect that. (Yes, that is a fact, ahead of King Airs, Conquests etc.) http://www.breilinginc.com/turbineaccidentreview.html

It should be noted that this aircraft had JUST been purchased by this individual and in fact, he was flying back from his training on the aircraft in Salina KS. He did NOT receive simulator training but rather went to another training organization. http://www.mu2training.com/

I would suggest his time on type was rather limited...this may have been his first flight on his own but I do not know that.

The aircraft was a -10 powered “K” model.

[Been_there]

I will not set foot in another mu-2. Decided that after my first 25hrs in a King Air. The MU is a design gone wrong, and offers no real advantages over its much more successful competitors, given its huge deficiencies.

[xsbank]

I like the MU2 and wish I had an opportunity to fly one. I disagree that it's ugly, if you want ugly, I think the Avanti looks like its mother was frightened by a suppository.

I flew the AC 690 and I really liked that one, I also flew a Tracker and it too doesn't talk to you, is totally unstable in all axes and likes to go straight up if you get too much thrust combined with a drop, but I digress... I think the Rice Rocket is a bastard offspring of a 690 and a Tracker...

[Flying Low]

I have about 2000 hours in a MU2 and it ranks as one of my favourite planes. Takeoff and land on 3500' gravel strips, maneuverable, and true out at 290 knots. I'll admit, fueling one isn't a lot of fun and I've heard a few mechanics swear while working on one but from this pilots point of view, what a blast to fly.

[spaner]

Again, the colonel has it right,

It is an elegant piece of equipment, and like the Katana, I see the beauty in the cut, where others see the fear.

[Old fella]

Correct me if I am wrong(and please do), didn't the LearJet 24 and 25 models have similar issues as the MU-2(high accident rate) and it was acknowledged(with both) the lack of proper training(GS and Sim) and non-compliance to procedures by inexperienced people was the culprit.

PS. For the record I have no experience on either type but understand both are fine airplanes if you take them seriously

[single_swine_herder]

All kinds of airplanes have been given that reputation and it was pilots that were later found to be the problem.

Those include the Martin B-26 which was a high wing-loading WW2 bomber,

Due to the B-26's small wings and high loading, the aircraft had a relatively high landing speed of between 120 and 135 mph as well as a stall speed of around 120 mph. These characteristics made it challenging aircraft to fly for inexperienced pilots. Though there were only two fatal accidents in the aircraft's first year of use (1941), these increased dramatically as the US Army Air Forces expanded rapidly after the United States' entry into World War II. As novice flight crews struggled to learn the aircraft, losses continued with 15 aircraft crashing at McDill Field in one 30-day period.

Due to the losses, the B-26 quickly earned the nicknames "Widowmaker", "Martin Murderer", and "B-Dash-Crash", and many flight crews actively worked to avoid being assigned to Marauder-equipped units. With B-26 accidents mounting, the aircraft was investigated by Senator Harry Truman's Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. Throughout the war, Martin worked to make the aircraft easier to fly, but the landing and stall speeds remained high and the aircraft required a higher standard of training than the B-25 Mitchell.

The Cessna Citation SP was labelled a killer for awhile after baseball player Thurman Munson smacked his in short of the runway at Akron. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... xJDZ0dDilc


If you were in the German or Turkish Air Forces the F-104 was a guarantee to end up as the room temperature guest at a full military honors funeral.

German service

The introduction of a highly technical aircraft type to a newly reformed air force was fraught with problems. Many pilots and ground crew had settled into civilian jobs after World War II and had not kept pace with developments, with pilots being sent on short "refresher" courses in slow and benign-handling first generation jet aircraft. Ground crew were similarly employed with minimal training and experience, which were the consequence of a conscripted military with high turnover of servicemen. Operating in poor North West European weather conditions (vastly unlike the fair weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying at high speed and low level over hilly terrain, a great many accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain or water, (CFIT). German Air Force losses totaled 110 pilots.[59] Also, a contributing factor to this was the operational assignment of the F-104 in German service: it was mainly intended for the fighter-bomber use, as opposed to the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor. This not only meant providing for the usual low-level missions, but also led to the installation of additional avionic equipment in the F-104G version, such as the INS system, whose additional weight hampered the flying abilities of the plane even further and was said to add far more distraction to the pilot. In contemporary German magazine articles highlighting the Starfighter safety problems, the aircraft was portrayed as "overburdened" with technology, which was considered a latent overstrain on the aircrews.[60]

In 1966 Johannes Steinhoff took over command of the Luftwaffe and grounded the entire F-104 fleet until he was satisfied that problems had been resolved or at least reduced. In later years, the German safety record improved, although a new problem of structural failure of the wings emerged. Original fatigue calculations had not taken into account the high number of g-force loading cycles that the German F-104 fleet was experiencing, and many airframes were returned for depot maintenance where their wings were replaced, while other aircraft were simply retired. Towards the end of Luftwaffe service, some aircraft were modified to carry an ADR or "black box" which could give an indication of the probable cause of an accident.[61] Erich Hartmann, the world's top-scoring fighter ace, commanded one of Germany's first jet fighter-equipped squadrons[62] and deemed the F-104 to be an unsafe aircraft with poor handling characteristics for aerial combat. To the dismay of his superiors, Hartmann judged the fighter unfit for Luftwaffe use even before its introduction.[63]

I'm sure that The Colonel will check in with more info on the 104 based on his family experience.

Although not pilot induced, the Lockheed Electra was supposedly carried a hex of some kind after in-flight breakups and bird ingestion. That airplane became the P-3 Orion and CP-140 Aurora.


Then there was the deHaviland Comet that after the window issue was fixed, went on to a useful service life and was transformed into the Hawker-Siddley long range maritime patrol Nimrod for the RAF.

The major fault in the majority of MU-2 accidents most often lays between the left and right sides of the pilot's headset.

I will grant you that an NTS failure is a really, really big handful though.

[Colonel Sanders]

Curtis Pitts once said, "There no squirrelly airplanes - only squirrelly pilots!"

I am rather fond of demanding airplanes. Generally
in some aspect, they are real performers. And they
function admirably at separating the steak from the
hamburger.

This is not rocket science ... all airplanes have strengths
and weaknesses. Try to strain your attention span out
a bit, and learn what they are. Use the strengths, and
avoid the weaknesses. Again, not rocket science.

I can see how for hamburger pilots that can't be bothered
to learn about their airplanes, that this could be a problem.

[Old fella]

"The Cessna Citation SP was labelled a killer for awhile after baseball player Thurman Munson smacked his in short of the runway at Akron.... "

Speaking of Thurman Munson, I was doing BE200 training at Flight Safety, Toledo Ohio in 1985 and there was a Citation Sim there at the time. I remember getting a look see inside and kinda joking with instructor if I won a big lottery and could buy one I would get you guys to train me. Instructor did say FS are real fussy about who they train as there was a lawsuit against them due the Munson crash, I thought he said they(FS) won't be dealing with low time pilots. I am not sure Munson's background in aviation, his licence and total time but I certainly remember the crash in 1979.

[Colonel Sanders]

The Cessna Citation SP was labelled a killer

Heh. Someone probably figured out a way to kill
themselves in a Beech Musketeer, too.

Cessna Citation. That's the one with two levers
and two pedals, right?

[Ki-ll]

I will grant you that an NTS failure is a really, really big handful though.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I figured I would ask. Is there any information about such event anywhere in English language? Accidents/incidents/in-flight events, studies, a research paper? I have found a wealth of information about geared turboprops, including flying with autorotating (windmilling) geared turboprop engine in foreign literature (they seem to be interested in this), however nothing western/recent on topic. Does such information exist at all? I have not seen it mentioned anywhere, including flight manuals or other standard study material.

[spaner]

NTSing, or being ON the NTS, is simply a non engine DRIVEN (running), and non committed-to, auto-feather system (failed).
The pilot may choose to attempt a restart of the engine in the windmilling condition, or feather it outright. Without it, a negative torque condition, and the engine will be DRIVEN during a dive at flt idle. For an engine failure, you have a 5 foot diameter air break (10 seconds). (BAD) So, feather it.

Make sure it works, before every flight. An inflight failure though is a non issue. Unless..

Watch that unfeathering pump inflight. If the engine fails to start to rotate within 3 seconds, suspend the use of the pump..duh

From 6 months ago good enough for you?

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/th ... ov.171734/

[rigpiggy]

the MU2 is an airplane that needs to be flown, this appears to be an issue with somebody who has more money than "flying" skills. Perry Inhofe, 52, an orthopedic surgeon

WRT the starfighter the vast majority of losses were due to assymetric wing blowing on approach, not because of the usage as a tac/nuc bomber.

[Ki-ll]

NTSing, or being ON the NTS, is simply a non engine DRIVEN (running), and non committed-to, auto-feather system (failed).
The pilot may choose to attempt a restart of the engine in the windmilling condition, or feather it outright. Without it, a negative torque condition, and the engine will be DRIVEN during a dive at flt idle. For an engine failure, you have a 5 foot diameter air break (10 seconds). (BAD) So, feather it.

Make sure it works, before every flight. An inflight failure though is a non issue. Unless..

Watch that unfeathering pump inflight. If the engine fails to start to rotate within 3 seconds, suspend the use of the pump..duh

From 6 months ago good enough for you?

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/th ... ov.171734/

Thanks!