The Great Ongoing Aviation Thread (general and other)

I’ve never flown an MU-2, but I’ve been around them a bit and know some people with a lot of experience. The book on them is that there’s nothing wrong with the airplane - it’s that pilots (particularly in the beginning) didn’t understand them.

When they first came out people thought it was just another turboprop, to be treated like a King Air. Um, no. First, the MU-2 has no ailerons. Spoilers only, which means no adverse yaw and that’s a good thing. But it also means very different handling at low speeds. It’s also a very fast airplane for a turboprop. A friend who used to sell them said you had to think of it and fly it like a jet, not a turboprop.

So call this a training issue, an information issue… I don’t know. But the MU-2 needs to be well handled. Very sorry to hear about the six people in New York.

How does that work with an engine failure? Can it be cross-controlled?

As I said, I’ve never flown one, so I don’t know. But I think that’s the point - supposedly quite a few pilots thought they DID know, despite not having a lot of experience with the plane. All the MU-2 pilots I’ve met say they love the airplane, but it has be treated right.

Hopefully, we’ll find out what happened in New York. All judgements withheld until we do.

Google AI’s answer to the question of stability was that the MU-2 did well with an engine failure vs other aircraft.

Why would the use of spoilers (instead of ailerons) make any difference for single engine operations? Wouldn’t the drill still be rudder to control the yaw and then a slight bank into the good engine to take out the side slip?

I was thinking out loud because I don’t know. There are benefits to spoilers for roll control but I don’t know how that works in a cross control situation.

Spoilers are pretty much all negative performance (extra drag + less lift from the extended spoiler) so you might be wanting to accept some drag from sideslip and maintain lift from both wings instead of drag AND lift reduction from a spoiler. But I’m just guessing, I’ve never flown one.

Re: last week’s helicopter crash in NYC -
New York Helicopter Tours shuting their operation immediately; sounds like it was because the FAA demanded it & not that they did it on their own; though it’s unclear if the FAA mandate is temporary or permanent.

On a related note, Sen Shumer blasted one of the other helo tour companies for running a 70% off promotion. What percentage of global warming can be attributed to politicians bloviating; I’m sure it’s not insignificant!
I’ve flown with the other company, a couple of times. I’m on their emailing list. That 70% off deal is something they’ve been running for quite some time. They running it enough that it’s borderline a scam, as in if I want to sell something for $100 I can advertise it for $100 or advertise it for $200 but with a 50% off sale. In both cases I’m getting $100 for the sale. Anyone who doesn’t know about their somewhat regular sales & pays full price is a sucker.
They also sell flight cxl insurance. If they can’t fly for any reason, TFR, weather mins, etc. they will rebook you for a later date. If you happen to be a tourist & can’t come back, oh well, you lose the cost of your flight unless you’ve paid extra in extortion bought the ‘optional’ cxlation insurance. I’m still kicking myself for walking away from the checkin desk for a minute. There were two tourists that were going home the next morning & were going to lose their flight & all money that they paid. I wanted to talk to them (once they walked away from the desk) - “Rebook & let me use it rather than giving these rat bastards your money for free.” but they managed to leave before I could get to them. Damnit!
Me on the other hand, I was actually hoping for them to cxl because it would have been shitty with the low cloud covers & what I wanted to shoot. Had to wait 365 days to go back, though.

What is “cxl” in this context?

cancel / cancellation

Here’s a picture of some of the retrieved wreckage from the NY helicopter crash. The rotors, mast and transmission are intact as a single unit. If I understand the commentary, the piece that the transmission is still bolted to is a good chunk of the roof of the helicopter. That seems like an exceptionally unlikely failure mode but I’m surely no expert.

The MU-2 has a unique history.

As a matter of general regulations, FAA requires a “type rating” to fly any airplane over 12,500 lbs. That is aircraft-specific training and a checkride and an endorsement on your license. When this reg came into effect eons ago (1950s?), the idea was that this weight cut-off was a decent dividing line between airplanes simple & slow enough that any pilot could jump into it and fly it safely, versus ones where there was so much complexity and performance that you needed specific schooling on it to be safe.

Of course since then several things have changed. Manufacturers got real good at building 12,400lb airplanes to avoid their model being saddled with extra expense for the operators.

Also, the overall complexity of high end GA airplanes and especially avionics has skyrocketed as has the performance. Mostly due to the advent of the larger ICE engines and especially the advent of turboprops.

And last of all, starting in maybe the 1970s insurance companies became very interested in pilot proficiency. The FAA may allow any yokel who has flown 1 kind of light twin just few hours to jump cold turkey into a different manufacturer’s medium twin & go for a flight. But the medium twin’s insurance company will nullify the insurance unless the would-be pilot attends some airplane specific school. Not to the level of a formal type rating, which cannot exist without FAA involvement, but most airplane owners will balk at letting some yokel take their now-uninsured airplane for a spin. Manufacturers of fancy airplanes also got into the act, insisting that buyers of their new planes take specific training before being allowed to take possession.

The MU-2 fell into a crack in that evolution. It weighed less than 12,500 lbs, so no type rating. But it was hot and it was unusual and it came out before the insurance companies and manufacturers had twigged to it being in their own interests to ensure only well-trained people ran risks with their stuff.

So after enough MU-2 accidents, the FAA came up with a special FAR amendment just for MU-2s. Which mandated a type rating to fly them, despite the fact they weighed lass than the magic 12,500. The MU-2 has the distinction of being the only such airplane.

Certainly many other complicated and performant high-end GA airplanes below 12,500 lbs have been invented since. But they all came out after the insurance companies & manufacturers got wise. So they enforce the quality of the pilots & training. So the FAA doesn’t have to. Which suits FAA just fine.

AIUI, type ratings are required for turbojet aircraft. So something as small as a BD-5J would require one.

Sounds familiar. Thanks for the correction / addition.

That’s a heck of a threshold! Even something like a Bonanza is more plane than “any pilot could jump into it and fly it safely”, and that’s 2x the gross weight of a Bonanza. Where did they come up with that number?

It was 1950s thinking, so before my time. But ISTM they were trying to differentiate between light GA planes, that they wanted to encourage massive growth of hobbyist pilots to fly, versus the meatier machines with big radial engines that professionals used to haul cargo or whatever.

Over time, like late 1960s to early 1970s the FAA added a little bit of training requirements to separate the Cherokee 140 / Cessna 150 level of airplanes from the e.g. Bonanza level of airplane. Which as you say, are quite different beasts. But that too was a bolt-on and is arguably not specific or extensive enough.

But again what’s really changed between 1950 and 2025 is the primacy of aircraft insurers as the arbiters of pilot training and experience and recency requirements within the GA non-bizjet space.

FAA does not have a statutory obligation to control everything. They have an obligation to ensure safety. If they can outsource that to the insurance industry and observe that it’s working well enough, that’s a perfectly cromulent solution.

All right. I suppose they wanted a bright line and they could draw one that was well below a DC-3 and well above a Cessna 150. Without thinking too hard about how aircraft manufacturers might optimize for that threshold.

That is interesting how the insurance aspect played out. Agreed that there’s no need for the FAA to control everything if private industry can align properly.

Apologies for the Facebook ‘reel’, but this is a nifty animation of a fully-articulated rotor system that shows flapping, feathering, and lead-lag.

Sadly, he wasn’t allowed to do a steep dive, as the upper dive brakes were inop. This particular Dauntless has a Type Certificate rather than an Experimental Cert. When the type was granted, one of the provisions was that the upper brakes are locked out and inoperative in flight. They occasionally open them on the ground to exercise the jackscrews and for demo purposes. The lower ones still work in flight as flaps, and it’s surprising how quickly they extend and retract.

Closer view of the hardware, if anyone’s interested:
Imgur

You’re mostly correct. The stick is removed, but the rudder pedals and throttle still remain, along with a very rudimentary set of instruments.
Imgur

Imgur

As long as I’m here, I’ll respond to @Llama_Llogophile as well (about Sun N Fun) :slightly_smiling_face:

I agree that it’s overwhelming, but I think more to inexperienced pilots than the rest. I’m not in your “league” being GA only (just a smidge over 1K dual given), but think the biggest danger was the close, non-standard pattern and tight turn to final, then landing on a taxiway. Everything was unfamiliar all at once, and it seems that could overwhelm inexperienced or barely current pilots.

But… I really enjoyed Sun N Fun, as it was more like Spring Break with Airplanes than a typical airshow. I commented to pullinSon it was the only place I could wander across an active taxiway with a beer in my hand and not get arrested. Flying in was one of those experiences like hiking the Grand Canyon: Amazing and glad I did it, but once is enough. Next year I’ll be in my RV in the campground on the field. It’s as close as “plane camping” but with facilities and A/C if I want a break during the day. Our step counters were showing nearly 5 miles of walking per day – and I’m too old for that.

Just learned about this American pilot who stole a warplane and defected to the Nazis in Oct. 1944: Martin James Monti - Wikipedia