Hard to imagine that the cargo shifted far enough back to cause a problem in
cruise flight. Hard to imagine that a cargo operation would overlook
something like fastening down the cargo.

Mike
MU-2

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:Sskcc.192973$Cb.1733899@attbi_s51...
I live near Pittsfield. The article I saw mentioned that he was hauling
screws, I think. I was thinking that possibly some of the load shifted in
flight and went aft. One witness said he looked like he was coming down
backwards. Another said he was in a flat spin. Figure screws are a pretty
dense cargo. If they somehow shifted back, do you think it could make him
tail heavy enough to get him in trouble even at cruise speed? He had fuel
as
the wreckage was burning. Said last contact was at 17K feet and radar
showed
him losing 12k feet in 60 seconds.

mike regish

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Pete

MU2 had a relatively limited production run not like the 150/152 which
has been built for ever and in the thousands.

MU2 is a relatively high performance turbo prop and not normally seen
as plane of the average GA pilot. You will find them in commercial
service of some kind.

Some general specs.

580 built (1963-1986) That's about 25 a year average during production
life.
About 500 on books in 2000.
300 mph normal cruise
7 passenger two pilot pressurized. (Some with big fuselage could carry
11 passengers)
Listed on market today for about $300,000.+/-

Accident in question, pilot had routine communication with ATC and 9
minutes later came out of clouds in flat spin and hit ground with no
forward movement.

There was some icing in clouds but may or may not have been at his
cruising altitude? Pitot and Stall heat were on. Rest of 'heat'
switches were off.

All of airframe was at crash site.

I posted as a jab at Mike (MU2) who stands up for the bird even with
these 'strange' type of accidents. Flying one, he may have some feed
back on this accident?

Hate to see these accidents both for crew and A/C (

Big John


`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
````````````````````


On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 13:26:33 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
[...]
As I said prior, if you keep breaking they will be all gone before
long.

What do you fly? Is it still in production? If not, how is it not
true
for
that type of aircraft that "if you keep breaking they will be all gone
before long"?

Even the Cessna 152 has a finite number in the fleet, and they continue
to
be involved in accidents now and then. Eventually they will all be
gone
too.

What's your point? How is the MU2 any different from any other
aircraft
not
still in production?

Pete