Everything I have heard about the Duke is consistant with your statements
and certainly a turbine Duke is better than a piston Duke. Piston twins
have some of the high reliability systems of the turboprops, but the factory
turboprops have *all* of them. I would even go so far as to say that the
factory turboprops that started as pistons (King Air 90, Conquest, Cheyenne
and Meridian) are inferior in a number of ways to the airplanes that were
designed for turbine power from the beginning. Ultimately airplanes are
flying sets of compromises between cost, weight, robustness and utility and
designers choose different compromises when the airplanes are powered by
turbines instead of pistons.
Mike
MU-2
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news
zfnf.28446$QW2.15610@dukeread08...
The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot windshield
and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems were
designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot more
cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is heavy
and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But doing a
conversion when there are a number of "better" turboprops on
the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible to
buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it with
interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will be
as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the best
looking Beech aircraft built.
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi
Solitaire and go faster
| with
| a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems
|
| How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an
MU-2, but I've
| heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB
reports on
| Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking
into the recent
| accidents with these planes. May very well be related to
training
| issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the
Aerostar did
| years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with
a conventional
| aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems
reliability, not sure
| why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?)
|
| Wooly
|
|
| The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS.
What is the
| accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are
going to have the
| same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown
aircraft. The problem
| is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad
weather and often
| don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually
has the worst
| accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who
just paid over $2
| million for their TBM get failed in initial training
(zero). They get
| signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could
try flying Learjets
| single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s
and they would
| all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers
lose a few more
| lawsuits this may change (hopefully).
|
| There is no difference in handling between ailerons and
spoilers except that
| spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot
crews of Beachjets
| aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their
airplanes. The
| MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record
is middle of the
| turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political
(the FAA
| acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up
landings and even a
| crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole
notion that an 18
| month spike in accidents with no common cause could be
attributed to the
| design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is
crazy since the
| design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will
be (again) that
| the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator
training have
| accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my
government wouldn't
| waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the
accidents whether
| Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error.
The more capable
| airplanes get flown into more weather over longer
distances and are often
| flown for business where there is pressure to get there
and back on time.
| The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these
increased risks but
| no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance
aircraft don't get
| flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm
complexes by tired
| business people at the end of a long day. My own
situation is that every
| flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW
where the weather
| is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio
at night and only
| once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I
*have* to get there.
|
| Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed
for turbines will
| have better *everything* from structure to avionics to
systems like heated
| glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full
dual-bus systems,
| remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect..
It isn't just the
| engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a
whole host of
| improvements.. They can incorporated these things because
the airplane has
| so much more power that some weight can be traded for
better, higher
| reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a
piston airplane
| with turbine engines. I am certainly not against
conversions, I am
| contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am
thinking about it is
| that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If
there where, I
| would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution.
|
| BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be
radial engined
| airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying
boats and DC3s.
| The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the
draggy radial
| overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they
don't sound as
| good....
|
|
| Mike
| MU-2
|
|