Why turbo normalizer?

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article et, Mike
Rapoport wrote:
...get somewhere for maitenance. The math works out to one hour of
maitenance/training overhead for every productive flight hour which means
the plane is effectively only half as fast. It has also pushed the
cost/effective flight hour to well over $1000.

The thing is - is there an aircraft that WON'T have that overhead that
will give you the reliability of the MU-2? Anything turbocharged/piston
is likely to need more maintenance and just as much recurrent training.

If it's not a high end pressurized turboed piston twin, you end up
stooging around at low altitude like the rest of us and that kills your
mostly all-weather capability.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Agreed, it is not a problem with the airplane, it is a problem with low
utilization, need for specialized maitenance and trainig (neither availible
locally).. I would not get another airplane to replace it, the plan is to
charter.

Mike
MU-2