Cheyenne 400 LS vs. MU-2

SuperDave · Post by **SuperDave** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:08 pm

Hello folks!

Considering that these two (along with maybe the Conquest 2) are some of the worlds fastest turbo-props in their class on paper I'm looking for a comparison along with some first hand information.

I'm wondering which one of these two planes would be more viable in a charter environment, covering distances of over 1000NM one way with 6-8 pax. Which one, in your opinion is the better 'complete package' after factoring maintenance costs, utility, payload, performance, ease of operation etc.
I know there are some of you out there with experience on one, or perhaps both of these machines. Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Dave

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:20 pm

Wow

I happen to have flown both of these types but have more time in the MU-2. I can say for sure that the MU-2 will need to be a Marquis model to get 6-8 pax 1000 miles with reserves. The Solitaire will be too small and the L and N models may get you 600 to 700 miles only. The Marquis cruises nicely at FL290 to FL300 while the N or L model is limited to FL250. They do not like icing conditions but are built like tanks.

The Cheyenne will cost quite a bit more, but also will fly faster higher and farther than the Mitsubishi. It will also likely be in nicer shape as many MU-2s are now used in night freight operations. Your clients will likely prefer the ergonomics of the 400. The Conquest II gets similar performance to the 400 at a cost between the two.

All three of your options utilize Garrett power plants with the 400LS being the most thirsty. If you seriously want consistent 1000+ IFR range, the MU-2 comes in at number 3 for sure. My vote would be for the 400LS but you are going to pay more for it. If it is too costly, then the Conquest II would be my second choice.

Sulako · Post by **Sulako** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:31 pm

The MU-2's are cheap, they are built really strong and I think a Marquis will do what you want it to, even going into short gravel strips if you need to. You'll get just under 300kts outta a decent one, but I agree that you'll have to do some searching to find one that isn't routinely ridden hard and put away wet. Contrary to popular belief the cabin isn't that noisy on the inside and an executive configuration would probably be pretty comfy.

Fuel burn is 700lbs for the first hour, 560 lbs for every hour after that, as far as I remember.

I'd go for the MU-2, but I'm a little biased as I fell in love with the airplane a few years back. If I ever won the lottery and bought a turboprop to go with my Gulfstream V and Twin Otter 400 on floats, I'd buy the MU-2.

I guess the only caveat I'd have is make sure the pilots are proficient because the plane is particularly unforgiving toward pilots who disrespect it. With a skilled crew flying the plane the way it was meant to fly, the MU-2 will do things that most others just can't.

If AvCanada member Bobm is around I'm sure he'd be happy to give you more technical info on the mighty beast that is the MU-2. He has a bit of a history with them...

goingmach_1 · Post by **goingmach_1** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:38 am

Interestingly all three have the Garrett engine. Without a doubt the Cessna Conquest II is the only airplane that can do your mission. It can fly over 2000nm on a tank of gas. Further it can carry a ton of people, has short field performance, and can climb right to altitude. One little snag though, there is a life time limit on the airframe.

fougapilot · Post by **fougapilot** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:21 am

I haven't flown either type, so I can't really comment on either.

However, since you should buy an airplane for 80% of the flight need, I would seriously consider a Jet. 1000nm with 6 to 8 pax is somewhat a serious load. Now a days, there are plenty of good Jets available for great prices. If the client is serious and has the financial ability to make a move there are GREAT deals out there.

My 2 cents

F

Handsome B. Wonderful · Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:40 am

I seem to recall hearing the 400 could go to FL410...Any truth? If so, I bet fuel burn vs TAS would be pretty good with the Garretts.

SuperDave · Post by **SuperDave** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:58 am

Yes, apparently it's certified to FL410:

http://www.fsd-international.com/projec ... rmance.htm

Thank you so far for all the responses, it's always nice to get first hand information when comparing hot planes like this on paper compared to what it will actually do. Maybe I will add the Conquest 2 to the poll for the hell of it.
Jaques, thanks for your info, very interesting. I agree with you Sulako, although I've only worked around the MU-2, but have yet to fly one. But it's one of my favorite planes for sure; it just looks so badass...just all engine, prop with two little wings...and the fold-out landing lights look awesome for sure!
I assume the 400LS would be similar to the MU-2 as far as training is considered? Sim-session in the states, followed by some serious line-indoc and ongoing training...

MrWings · Post by **MrWings** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:07 am

Sulako wrote:I guess the only caveat I'd have is make sure the pilots are proficient because the plane is particularly unforgiving toward pilots who disrespect it.

They don't call it the Widow Maker for nothing.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:36 am

Love the MU-2 but it doesn't sound like enough airplane for you. And yes, proficiency is key. I have a client who flies his own and he goes to Flight Safety every six months.

For you guys out there that know the Cheyenne 400, is it the same maintenance nightmare as the Cheyenne 3?

Conquest II. Fouga, I think this is an idea for a charter machine, not a private client.

mrsbitchy · Post by **mrsbitchy** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:07 pm

An MU-2 would only be able to carry around 800 lbs with full fuel, so barely 4 pass. no baggage, and with IFR reserves no more than 900 nm

bobm · Post by **bobm** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:08 pm

The Mu-2 is a great machine in my opinion but I am probably slightly biased. To go that distance constantly would be a push depending on the individual machine’s empty weight.

The Cheyenne 400 isn’t operated by too many commercial operators so that probably speaks for itself ($$$$$$$$) but nice aircraft. It has -14 engines which are considerable different than other TPE 331s. Hot section comes off whole. LOTS of power too.

The Conquest II has range and speed and they fixed the initial glitch of the stab falling off.

You will need to balance your budget of course. There ARE some nice Marquis still around that are low time that have not been freighter. No matter how you look at it though, the Mu-2 will give you the biggest bang for the buck.

I should also mention that Mitsubishi now has a program where they are taking airframes and rebuilding them totally; includes a complete refit, glass cockpit, modern soundproofing, interior, paint and engines. The new aircraft is called the “Limited Edition”. You get pretty much a “new” aircraft for a fraction of what you might pay for a 400. You best check out the Mu-2 web site; it has a fair bit of information including stats, accident myths etc. There is a link to the “LE” aircraft as well. http://mu-2aircraft.com/

Isis · Post by **Isis** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:42 am

*wipes the drool off of her keyboard*

SunWuKong · Post by **SunWuKong** » Fri May 01, 2009 7:39 pm

Considering that these two (along with maybe the Conquest 2) are some of the worlds fastest turbo-props in their class on paper I'm looking for a comparison along with some first hand information.

If you want a fast turboprop, you should consider the King air B200. It is faster than the MU 2 or the Cheyenne.

I'm wondering which one of these two planes would be more viable in a charter environment, covering distances of over 1000NM one way with 6-8 pax.

Over 1000NM with 8 pax, fast speed? King air 200.

I know this aircraft is not on the list, but with what you ask, 8 pax, long distance, and the fastest turboprop, only the King air 200 comes to mind.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat May 02, 2009 5:42 am

SuperDave

I assume the 400LS would be similar to the MU-2 as far as training is considered? Sim-session in the states, followed by some serious line-indoc and ongoing training...

That depends on what you mean by similar. Simulator training is about the only thing in common. I highly doubt anyone will insure your crew on the MU2 without mandatory training from a reputable company such as FlightSafety or Simuflight. The airplane has garnered an unwarranted reputation due to its' unusual flight characteristics, combined with low time pilots and inadequate training in the past.

With the flaps retracted, it has the same wing area as a C172 yet weighs in at 11,500 lbs. The wing loading is very high. The aircraft was originally designed as a STOL and if you choose to land with full flap, Vapp is below VMC. ( another reason for high fatality rates among Doctors and Dentists ) It is dimensionally, a box. As wide as it is long, so your hands are very rarely off the trims. Icing conditions need to be treated almost like volcanic ash because as the airplane picks up ice, performance can drop off drastically in a very short time frame as the belly is very prone to ice accretion creating a perpetual ice trap as the speed comes back and the nose continues to rise. The Cheyenne is much much more conventional and stable in comparison.

Don't get me wrong, I have 3000 hrs in the MU2 and loved every minute of it but I really do not think it fits the profile you have described. If you were needing 500-700 mile missions into unimproved fields then It would be your machine, hands down. Also, although the Marquis has a certified ceiling of FL310, you will rarely fly it above FL290 ( because I doubt you will find one that is RVSM certified ). Not high enough to really get around weather, further compounding your already limited range on a 1000+ mile mission, carrying 6-8 passengers. The Cheyenne will easily get you above weather but for the price tag, as someone else mentioned, you could get into a jet.

bobm · Post by **bobm** » Sat May 02, 2009 5:55 am

If you want a fast turboprop, you should consider the King air B200. It is faster than the MU 2 or the Cheyenne.

Sorry, but the Marquis is most definitely faster than a B200. Even Beech acknowledges that. The brand new B200GT would be faster though…..

SunWuKong · Post by **SunWuKong** » Sat May 02, 2009 8:18 am

Sorry I don' t have the number for this particular airplane, the Marquis.

MU 2B:

General characteristics
Crew: 1 or 2 pilots
Capacity: 7 passengers
Length: 10.13 m (33 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 11.94 m (39 ft 2 in)
Height: 3.94 m (12 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 16.5 m² (178 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,422 kg (5,340 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,050 kg (8,930 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Garrett TPE331-25A turboprops, 430 kW (575 shp each) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 500 km/h (313 mph)
Range: 1,930 km (1,206 mi)
Service ceiling: m (between 29,000 and 31,000ft, depending on model.)
Rate of climb: 331 m/min (1,086 ft/min)
Wing loading: 245 kg/m² (50.1 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.106 kW/kg (0.129 hp/lb)

King Air 200:

General characteristics
Crew: 1-2
Capacity: 13 passengers
Length: 43 ft 9 in (13.34 m)
Wingspan: 54 ft 6 in (16.61 m)
Height: 15 ft 0 in (4.57 m)
Wing area: 303 ft² (28.2 m²)
Empty weight: 7,755 lb (3,520 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 12,500 lb (5,670 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-42 turboprops, 850 shp (635 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 339 mph (294 knots, 545 km/h) at 25,000 ft (7,600m)
Cruise speed: 333 mph (289 knots ,536 km/h) at 25,000 ft (max cruise)
Stall speed: 86 mph (75 knots, 139 km/h) IAS (flaps down)
Range: 2,075 mi (1,800 nm, 3,338 km) with maximum fuel and 45 minute reserve
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (10,700 m)
Rate of climb: 2,450 ft/min (12.5 m/s)
Wing loading: 41.3 lb/ft² (201.6 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.14 hp/lb (220 W/kg)

According those numbers, the regular king air 200 cruise speed is 20 mph faster than the regular MU 2 maximum speed.

So the cruise speed may be 30 or 35 mph higher, which is not nothing.
The King air 200 is definitely faster than the MU2. It would be interesting to get the Marquis performance.

Handsome B. Wonderful · Sat May 02, 2009 9:42 am

SunWuKong wrote:
Considering that these two (along with maybe the Conquest 2) are some of the worlds fastest turbo-props in their class on paper I'm looking for a comparison along with some first hand information.
If you want a fast turboprop, you should consider the King air B200. It is faster than the MU 2 or the Cheyenne.

I'm wondering which one of these two planes would be more viable in a charter environment, covering distances of over 1000NM one way with 6-8 pax.
Over 1000NM with 8 pax, fast speed? King air 200.

I know this aircraft is not on the list, but with what you ask, 8 pax, long distance, and the fastest turboprop, only the King air 200 comes to mind.

The 400 LS trues around 350kts if I'm not mistaken...The only way a B200 would do that if it was going straight down...With the wings folded back...

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat May 02, 2009 10:05 am

Sorry I don' t have the number for this particular airplane, the Marquis.

MU 2B:

General characteristics
Crew: 1 or 2 pilots
Capacity: 7 passengers
Length: 10.13 m (33 ft 3 in)
Wingspan: 11.94 m (39 ft 2 in)
Height: 3.94 m (12 ft 11 in)
Wing area: 16.5 m² (178 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,422 kg (5,340 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 4,050 kg (8,930 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Garrett TPE331-25A turboprops, 430 kW (575 shp each) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 500 km/h (313 mph)
Range: 1,930 km (1,206 mi)
Service ceiling: m (between 29,000 and 31,000ft, depending on model.)
Rate of climb: 331 m/min (1,086 ft/min)
Wing loading: 245 kg/m² (50.1 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.106 kW/kg (0.129 hp/lb)

These are not the specs for the Marquis, MU2 B-60 they look more like the Solitare, MU2 B-40.

The Marquis has a gross weight of 11,575 and TPE 331-10 engines.

SunWuKong · Post by **SunWuKong** » Sat May 02, 2009 12:50 pm

No that is not the Marquise specs, it is the MU 2B, as mentionned. The MU 2B is the "standard" MU2, so I compare it to the "standard" king air 200.

Concerning the "standard" cheyenne III:
General characteristics
Crew: One or two
Capacity: 6 to 9 passengers
Length: 13.23 m (43 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 14.53 m (47 ft 8 in)
Height: 4.50 m (14 ft 9 in)
Wing area: 27.2 m² (293 ft²)
Empty weight: 2,900 kg (6,285 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 5,080 kg (11,200 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-41. 3 constant speed propellers, 535 kW (720 hp) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 537 km/h (285 knots)
Cruise speed: 415 km/h (235 knots)
Range: 3,015 km (1,630 nm)
Service ceiling: 9,090 m (33,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 512 m/min at sea level (2,2/35 ft/min)
Wing loading: 166.8 kg/m² (34.2 lb/ft²)

So as you see, the "standard" piper cheyenne is much slower than the standard king air 200. It carries less pax, it goes not as far as the king air.

As for the cheyenne 400, only 45 have ever been built... I am not sure it is even possible to find one to buy right now.

If we compare the conventionnal Cheyenne, conventionnal MU2, and conventionnal king air 200, the king air is much faster, carry more, go further, more available then easier to buy, easier to find pilots trained on it. I think the king air B200 is the most successful small turbo prop ever built, and the only one still built in 2009.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat May 02, 2009 3:27 pm

No that is not the Marquise specs, it is the MU 2B, as mentionned. The MU 2B is the "standard" MU2, so I compare it to the "standard" king air 200.

I see what you mean but there is nothing "standard" about the MU2 B designation. There are so many variants of the MU2 B ranging in combination of fuselage size, engine size, number propeller blades, service ceilings, range and speeds. Each one different from the other depending on whether it is an N, L, J, P, model etc etc.

You are correct about there not being many Cheyenne 400's around but that thing will out climb a Citation and pass it along the way, so to replace the comparison with a Cheyenne III is apples and oranges really. At about 1.5 million USD for a 20 year old Cheyenne 400LS, you can buy 3 MU 2s, so again, apples and oranges really but by far, a better airplane.

Handsome B. Wonderful · Sat May 02, 2009 3:54 pm

Looks like the title of the poll says Cheyenne 400...I don't see where it says III.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:12 pm

If we compare the conventionnal Cheyenne, conventionnal MU2, and conventionnal king air 200, the king air is much faster, carry more, go further, more available then easier to buy, easier to find pilots trained on it. I think the king air B200 is the most successful small turbo prop ever built, and the only one still built in 2009.

You would have to compare them to the 'conventional' C90 then, not the bigger and more powerful 200. Here are the specs for the Marquis.

Mitsubishi Marquis:

Powerplant: Two 715-shp Garrett TPE331-10-501M turboprops.

Performance: Maximum cruising speed 309 knots at 16,000 ft; economic cruising speed 296 knots at 20,000 ft; service ceiling 29,400 ft; range with maximum fuel and 45 minute reserves 1,396 nautical miles.

Weights: Empty 7,650 lbs; maximum takeoff 11,575 lbs.

Dimensions: Wing span over tiptanks 39 ft 2 in; length 39 ft 5 in; height 13 ft 8 in; wing area 178 sq ft.

bobm · Post by **bobm** » Sat May 02, 2009 5:17 pm

Sorry, but “Mu-2 B” is the type designation. In fact, there are 15 different models of Mu-2 and there are numerous King Air ones as well. Don’t compare Apples to Oranges. (DID I SPELL THAT WRONG????)

The Marquis and Solitaire both have dash 10 engines but the Solitaire is considerably lighter so faster.

The Marquis IS faster than the B200 or B200B; it is not faster than the B200GT. As I have said; if you want the MOST aircraft for your dollar, nothing will compare to the Mu-2.

I will leave it at that.

SunWuKong · Post by **SunWuKong** » Sat May 02, 2009 10:02 pm

Alright, if someone wants to buy a Marquise or a 400 LS to set a new charter company to carry 8 pax over 1000nm, somebody has to tell him something... I did it. Good luck.

Conquest Driver · Post by **Conquest Driver** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:02 am

distances of over 1000NM one way with 6-8 pax

There are a couple of machines nobody's mentioned.

First is the King Air 350. You want range/payload, that's your machine. I know it's expensive but leasing one might be an option.

The other one is a Metro. The mission is right on the edge of a Metro II capabilities. With Dash 10 engines I think it would work most of the time. I suspect a larger version of the Metro would work fine. These machines are quite inexpensive and as fast as a King Air 200.