Mitsubishi MU-2 Part 3 (Dangerous Airplanes or Dangerous Pilots?)

Posted: March 31, 2009 in AVIATION

Dangerous Airplanes or Dangerous Pilots?

By Jay Hopkins
May 2008

In the history of aviation there have been a number of aircraft that
were considered dangerous, including the Learjet 20 series, the
Aerostar and the Twin Comanche. More recently the airplane some people
seem to love to hate is the Mitsubishi MU-2. There are numerous
websites that detail what the authors consider to be the dangerous
attributes of this airplane, making statements like, “How many more
people need to die … in order for Mitsubishi to recall this
aircraft?” Representative Tom Tancredo from Colorado even introduced
legislation to ground the MU-2.

On the other hand, there are many people who love the MU-2. One
corporation has operated a series of MU-2s in the New England area for
three decades. You have to wonder if the MU-2 is so dangerous, how
could someone operate the airplane under such difficult conditions for
that many years without an incident or accident? How could another MU-2
successfully accumulate over 22,500 flight hours, and 141 MU-2s fly
10,000 to 20,000 hours without becoming an accident statistic?

A quick look at the accident data on MU-2s shows that this airplane
does have a higher than average accident rate. Bob Breiling
( has been compiling and analyzing business turbine
aircraft accidents since bizjets were introduced in the 1960s.
According to the data he sent me, 27.7 percent of all MU-2s delivered
have been involved in an accident. This accident rate is exceeded only
by the Merlin series at 30.2 percent, but the MU-2 has a higher fatal
accident rate.

In order to try to understand why the MU-2 might have such a high
accident rate, I contacted Scott Sobel, who handles the public
relations for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHIA) in the United States.
He referred me to Pat Cannon, chief pilot of Turbine Aircraft Services,
which serves as MHIA’s representative in the United States. It turns
out that Pat is one of the most knowledgeable pilots on the MU-2, as he
has operated MU-2s for many years and was the pilot for the special
certification testing conducted by the FAA. Scott and Pat offered to
give me an opportunity to experience the MU-2’s flight characteristics
myself and form my own opinion.

I have to admit I approached the airplane with a mixture of
anticipation and trepidation. On the one hand, it is always exciting to
fly a high-performance airplane you have never flown before. On the
other hand, based on the many warnings I had read about the MU-2, I had
to wonder if I would be able to handle an airplane with such high wing
loading. Could I adjust to the differences caused by the use of
spoilers rather than ailerons? Would we somehow trespass into the
so-called “hidden corner” in the flight envelope that some people say
makes it impossible to control the airplane after an engine failure?

I was surprised to find that the MU-2 was one of the most solid,
easy to fly airplanes I have ever had the pleasure to fly. Right out of
the chocks I felt completely comfortable. Steep turns, slow flight,
stall recovery from the shaker, single-engine approaches—we did it all.
My first landing was acceptable. The last one was about the best
landing I have ever done—one of those landings when you are not sure if
you have actually touched down yet. So much for the “every landing in
an MU-2 is a controlled crash” theory!

Of course I did experience one problem that Pat had warned me about.
With no ailerons, there is no adverse yaw, so there is no need to add
rudder as you initiate a turn. I could not believe how hard it was to
break myself of that habit. I finally decided to pretend that a yaw
damper was engaged, but I still found the appropriate foot pushing on
the rudder despite my best intentions.

What I did not experience was any significant difference in how the
MU-2 flew compared with the high-performance airplanes I am experienced
in. That was the first hint of why the MU-2 might have a high accident
rate. I have type ratings in Learjets and Westwinds, and spent many
years as an instructor for both FlightSafety and SimuFlite. I simply
flew the MU-2 like I would fly a jet. But of course, the MU-2 is not a
jet, it is a turboprop that weighs less than 12,500 pounds. As such,
there is no requirement for a pilot new to the MU-2 to get any training
or pass a check ride. Any multiengine rated pilot can legally fly an
MU-2 without so much as a checkout.

Adding to this problem is the fact that the MU-2 provides about the
most performance for the dollar of any airplane available today. For
around $500,000 you can purchase an airplane that will carry seven to
eight passengers, takeoff from a 3,000 foot runway, climb at 2,000 fpm,
cruise at 30,000 feet for 1,000 nm at 300 knots and then descend at up
to 4,000 fpm. It can be very tempting for a pilot on a tight budget to
buy an MU-2 and go fly it with only a cursory checkout, or for a night
freight operator to hire pilots and send them out with only minimal
in-house training.

For further insight into this situation, I visited SimCom
International in Orlando and flew the MU-2 simulator with Tom Goonen,
the MU-2 program coordinator for SimCom. Once again, I had no
difficulty accomplishing various normal and engine out maneuvers. Still
thinking there must be something about the MU-2 that made it
more difficult to fly, I asked Tom if there was any particular problem
that pilots new to the MU-2 had in learning to fly this airplane. He
said that the biggest problem he encountered was a lack of basic
instrument skills.

Click here to Read Mitsubishi MU-2 Part 1->

Click Here to Read Mitsubishi MU-2 Part 2 (What”s Wrong With the MU-2?)->

  1. Bill Evans says:

    I flew MU2s from 1977 till 1980 . I was a sales demo pilot for Mitsubishi Aircaft International’s European Office in Brussels Belgium . I made two sales flight to Africa flying from Brussels to Losoto and to Ivory Coast . I flew a short model MU2 out of the mountain airport at Bolzano Italy for seven months . I collected an MU2 J model from Kinshasa Zaire that sat untouched for four years in the corner of a hangar . After cleaning out the insects and cleaning the cabin in which soldiers had been sleeping I flew the airplane to Gabon . The flaps would not extend below the take off position
    and i could not reduce power below fifty percent on the right engine when landing. After a mechanic from Zurich arrived and cleaned and serviced the fuel control units and fixed the flaps we flew to gether to Zurich . The paint on the transponder indicator
    had flaked off and the autopilot was inop otherwise the little turbo prop flew us without trouble over a thousand miles .

  2. roberthenryfischat says:

    lets go and clear the bakas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s