MU-2 ownership experience?

I'm in the throes of a big decision on my next airplane. One airplane
in consideration is an MU-2, probably a short body version from the
early to mid 1970s. I have been able to find detailed information,
gossip, opinions, local pilots, and so forth on my other candidate
types (like a Cessna 421C) but beyond what I read in the Buyer's Guide
books, I have no "feel" for the ownership experience of an MU-2.

In many ways, an MU-2 is my ideal airplane. Long range, fast, but
capable of short and rough fields. I don't put much weight on the
MU-2s reputation as being difficult to fly or dangerous. I'll get the
training I need to be safe in the airplane. I can deal with its
"unique" qualities. The performance is worth it.

I don't have a very good feel for the various vintages and options of
each model year, nor for the operating costs. You clearly have to
find a specialized shop for the maintenance and that goes for
training, too. I've never operated or owned a turbine aircraft, but
my experiences so far with turbocharged piston airplanes has not been
great. I get the feeling that buying the "wrong" MU-2 is a major
mistake. I need to understand what it means to do a hot section
inspection, what tricks to keep the airplane in shape, what things to
look out for, etc. I'd rather use someone else's experience than go
broke getting my own. :-)

So, do we have any MU-2 gurus out there? Anybody willing to provide
guidance? I'd love to visit an owner, see their airplane, and have a
good heart to heart about it so I can fairly judge the cost and
hassles of owning an MU-2. If anyone has good long term actual cost
numbers, I'd be most interested.

--
Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101
CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax
255 S. Garvin St, Suite B
Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com

do we have any MU-2 gurus out there?

Mike Rapaport is active in the NG . . . he should be able to help you.


www.Rosspilot.com

A good site for MU-2 information is http://www.mu2b.com/
--
Ken Martin
N5888Q '65 M20C
Kingsport, TN KTRI

"Mike Ciholas" wrote in message
om...
I'm in the throes of a big decision on my next airplane. One airplane
in consideration is an MU-2, probably a short body version from the
early to mid 1970s.
--
Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101
CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax
255 S. Garvin St, Suite B
Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com

(Mike Ciholas) writes:

I have been able to find detailed information,
gossip, opinions, local pilots, and so forth on my other candidate
types (like a Cessna 421C) but beyond what I read in the Buyer's Guide
books, I have no "feel" for the ownership experience of an MU-2.

Yet there's certainly been substantial MU-2 chatter on Usenet,
especially in rec.aviation.*.
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=d... =mu-2&num=100

I appreciate that there's lots of fact and fiction about the MU-2.
(And I'm happy to have a more docile, forgiving twin for now.) It
is certainly something to research.

--kyler

"Mike Ciholas" wrote in message
om...
I'm in the throes of a big decision on my next airplane. One airplane
in consideration is an MU-2, probably a short body version from the
early to mid 1970s. I have been able to find detailed information,
gossip, opinions, local pilots, and so forth on my other candidate
types (like a Cessna 421C) but beyond what I read in the Buyer's Guide
books, I have no "feel" for the ownership experience of an MU-2.

I have an '82 Marquise and before this one, I have a '78 "N" model. The
airplanes offer a good combination of price and performance and are
extremely well built. One of the reasons that they have such a good price
performance ratio is the difficulty of getting insurance. This limits the
number of potential buyers. If you are going to insure the hull then you
should inquire about getting coverage as a fist step. The early airplanes
are cheap to buy but more expensive to own. Also there aren't really many
"really nice" early airplanes because it costs the same to replace all the
parts and the early airplane is not worth nearly as much in the end as a
late model airplane so people don't spend the money. I realized this when I
have the N model and decided to upgrade to a Marquise.

In many ways, an MU-2 is my ideal airplane. Long range, fast, but
capable of short and rough fields. I don't put much weight on the
MU-2s reputation as being difficult to fly or dangerous. I'll get the
training I need to be safe in the airplane. I can deal with its
"unique" qualities. The performance is worth it.

The only places that training is availible are TN and FL. Keep in mind that
you will HAVE to go once a year whether you have insurance or not. This may
or may not be a major PITA for you. It is for me since I live in the West
and the only MU-2 simulators are on the East Coast (Orlando).

I don't have a very good feel for the various vintages and options of
each model year, nor for the operating costs. You clearly have to
find a specialized shop for the maintenance and that goes for
training, too. I've never operated or owned a turbine aircraft, but
my experiences so far with turbocharged piston airplanes has not been
great. I get the feeling that buying the "wrong" MU-2 is a major
mistake. I need to understand what it means to do a hot section
inspection, what tricks to keep the airplane in shape, what things to
look out for, etc. I'd rather use someone else's experience than go
broke getting my own. :-)

In contrast to training, maitenance is availible in a number of places
throughout the US. It probably won't be local though. You are right in
saying that buying turbine lemon can be a major mistake. You need to use a
reputable broker and a MU-2 service center for the prebuy. Turbine
airplanes and the systems in them are very reliable. I have never had a
mechanical failure that caused me to cancel a flight. As for choosing a
model, basically each model was a substantial improvement over the previous
one. Usually there were a large number of small improvements between
models, more power, more preasurization, quieter, newer systems and better
avionics. The big items to check are engines, props, windshields and
windows, air cycle machine and boots. If these things are in good condition
you shouldn't have any huge disasters.

So, do we have any MU-2 gurus out there? Anybody willing to provide
guidance? I'd love to visit an owner, see their airplane, and have a
good heart to heart about it so I can fairly judge the cost and
hassles of owning an MU-2. If anyone has good long term actual cost
numbers, I'd be most interested.


In the 1200 hours over 5 1/2 years that I have owned/flown MU-2s I have
spent

$178,000 Fuel
$26,000 Training
$45,000 Insurance Some years I had no insurance, some years I had only
liability and some years I had full coverage. I buy insurance based on
whether I think it is a good deal or not.
$417,000 Maitenance I have included everything spent at a service center as
"maitenance" even though some of it was on improvements such as avionics,
interior or replacing parts that didn't need to be replace right then but
would in the next few years. Over an extended period of time interiors and
avionics need to be replaced so I accounted for it this way.
$48,000 Supplies. These include parts that I purchased and were installed
by others such as tires as well as parts that I installed myself like
batteries.
$42,000 Hanger and tiedown fees. This was before I had my own (owned)
hanger.
$5,000 Tools This includes $3,000 for a powertow.

This comes to $634/hr but not all of it is really nesessary expense. I
suppose that I should deduct $50,000 that I made on the sale of the N model.
$500/hr would be more typical. More if you fly less and less if you fly
more. Many people will tell you much lower figures but these same people
consider it an Act of God when they get a $35,000 bill for overhauling an
air cycle machine. They also consider new avionics to be an "upgrade" but
the fact is that old avionics fail and require maitenance that they would
have to pay for it they didn't "upgrade"

I approached the issue the same way you are approaching it. I needed an
airplane with more capability, decided that the MU-2 fit the role best and
went and recieved the nessesary training.

Mike
MU-2





--
Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101
CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax
255 S. Garvin St, Suite B
Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:48:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


The only places that training is availible are TN and FL. Keep in mind that
you will HAVE to go once a year whether you have insurance or not. This may
or may not be a major PITA for you. It is for me since I live in the West
and the only MU-2 simulators are on the East Coast (Orlando).

Hi Mike,

Your statement makes it sound like the training is mandatory. I am
curious why. Obviously, there are safety reasons to go, but if you
don't have insurance I didn't think the FAA made you.

Is this a type rating thing? Driven by what? Max weight over 12,500?
Turbine engines? Service ceiling?

Inquiring piston drivers want to know...

-Nathan

From a legal standpoint there is an icing AD which requires a lot of
equipment that none of the airplanes have (or need). It consists of an ice
detector, trim-in-motion sensor and and automatic autopilot disconnect.
There is also an AMOC (Alternate Method of Compliance) approved by the FAA
which requires satisfactory training at either Reese Howell's school or
Simcom. As a practical matter, if you think that you can get adequate
training localy, you are fooling yourself and are probably not ready for any
turbine airplane.

The issue of training really can't be stressed enough. Airline pilots, who
fly everyday, are required to attend simulator training every six months
(Perhaps it is annual, but you get the point). Virtually all (if not all)
corporate turbine pilots are required, as a condition of their employment,
to attend annual simulator training. This training is the major reason that
corporate (turbine) and airline flying has a fatal accident rate roughly 100
TIMES (10,000%) better than general aviation piston flying.

Ken Martin posted a link to Reese Howell's site www.mu2b.com . I encourage
you to go there an read the "History" and "Overview" articles. Having a
multi rating and some time in piston twins is not going to prepare you to
fly a 1500hp airplane with a 65lb wing loading, you need specific trainiing.

I am making my annual pilgrimage to Simcom on Thursday.

Mike
MU-2


"Nathan Young" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 02:48:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


The only places that training is availible are TN and FL. Keep in mind
that
you will HAVE to go once a year whether you have insurance or not. This
may
or may not be a major PITA for you. It is for me since I live in the
West
and the only MU-2 simulators are on the East Coast (Orlando).

Hi Mike,

Your statement makes it sound like the training is mandatory. I am
curious why. Obviously, there are safety reasons to go, but if you
don't have insurance I didn't think the FAA made you.

Is this a type rating thing? Driven by what? Max weight over 12,500?
Turbine engines? Service ceiling?

Inquiring piston drivers want to know...

-Nathan

Thanks for the scoop.

-Nathan


On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:12:00 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

From a legal standpoint there is an icing AD which requires a lot of
equipment that none of the airplanes have (or need). It consists of an ice
detector, trim-in-motion sensor and and automatic autopilot disconnect.
There is also an AMOC (Alternate Method of Compliance) approved by the FAA
which requires satisfactory training at either Reese Howell's school or
Simcom.

"Nathan Young" wrote in message


Your statement makes it sound like the training is mandatory. I am
curious why. Obviously, there are safety reasons to go, but if you
don't have insurance I didn't think the FAA made you.

Is this a type rating thing? Driven by what? Max weight over 12,500?
Turbine engines? Service ceiling?

Inquiring piston drivers want to know...

-Nathan

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message link.net...

The only places that training is availible are TN and FL.

I live about 3 car hours from Smyrna, TN where there is both an MU-2
shop and training center. So I have proximity to those resources.

The big items to check are engines, props, windshields and
windows, air cycle machine and boots. If these things are in good condition
you shouldn't have any huge disasters.

I'm trying to reconcile this statement with your maintenance figures
below.

In the 1200 hours over 5 1/2 years that I have owned/flown MU-2s I have
spent

$178,000 Fuel
$26,000 Training
$45,000 Insurance
$417,000 Maitenance
$48,000 Supplies
$42,000 Hanger
$5,000 Tools

Okay, very useful information. For an airplane with a reputation for
not breaking down, this seems like a lot of money to keep it flying
1200 hours. Totals $761K or about $140K/year to fly.

I'm curious about the $417K for maintenance. Unless you've done
engine overhauls or had bad hot section inspections, how could you get
to that figure? It feels like you should be able to replace
everything in the airplane for that. At almost $350 per hour for
maintenance (not counting "supplies"), I'm stunned. That is not the
overall reputation the airplane has regarding maintenance.

Cost per mile (assuming an average block speed of 300 MPH, consistent
with climb, headwinds, etc) works out to $2.12 per mile. This is
consistent with the cost per mile of smaller jets like the CJ1. If
they really can produce a jet that operates near $1/mile, that would
change the world!

Basically, if your numbers are correct, they are about 50-60% over
what my research led me to believe. If that's so, then an MU-2 is
just out of reach for me now.

Thanks for your guidance.

--
Mike Ciholas (812) 476-2721 x101
CIHOLAS Enterprises (812) 476-2881 fax
255 S. Garvin St, Suite B
Evansville, IN 47713 http://www.ciholas.com

"Mike Ciholas" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
link.net...

The only places that training is availible are TN and FL.

I live about 3 car hours from Smyrna, TN where there is both an MU-2
shop and training center. So I have proximity to those resources.

You are lucky! I will be flying 2017nm on thursday to get to Simcom.



The big items to check are engines, props, windshields and
windows, air cycle machine and boots. If these things are in good
condition
you shouldn't have any huge disasters.

I'm trying to reconcile this statement with your maintenance figures
below.

In the 1200 hours over 5 1/2 years that I have owned/flown MU-2s I have
spent

$178,000 Fuel
$26,000 Training
$45,000 Insurance
$417,000 Maitenance
$48,000 Supplies
$42,000 Hanger
$5,000 Tools

Okay, very useful information. For an airplane with a reputation for
not breaking down, this seems like a lot of money to keep it flying
1200 hours. Totals $761K or about $140K/year to fly.

I'm curious about the $417K for maintenance. Unless you've done
engine overhauls or had bad hot section inspections, how could you get
to that figure? It feels like you should be able to replace
everything in the airplane for that. At almost $350 per hour for
maintenance (not counting "supplies"), I'm stunned. That is not the
overall reputation the airplane has regarding maintenance.


Maintenance includes a
$60,000 interior see:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/rogue's_gallery_q_-_z.htm

NEW air cycle machine (an incredible bargain at $11,000 I bought it
immediately)
$25,000 windshield (one side)
$65,000 Garmin 430/530/GAD42/Shadin ADC2000 and a lot of stuff to make it
all fit and work in the panel
$15,000 Some of the boots
$10K four cabin windows

So there is $186K of the $417K and we haven't done any traditional
maitenance yet! The question becomes: was that $186k really nesessary?

The cabin windows had to be replaced. They had crazing at or beyond limits.
it is also cheaper, labor wise, to replace all suspect windows on one side
to avioid taking the whole interior apart several times.
If the air cycle machine fails, it is $35K to overhaul so proactively
replacing one with 4000hrs on it for $11K is a hell of a deal. If you don't
take advantage of something like this then you will end up paying the $35k
eventually (or sooner)
The windshield was going to have to be replaced in the next year or two.
All heated glass windshields have lifespans of 20yrs or so.
The avionics weren't strictly required but my home airport only had GPS
approaches, so I needed something.
Boots are always a judgement call but I have homes in the PNW and the Lake
Tahoe area in NV so icing is a major issue. I don't really care what they
cost and I don't want to hear about "refurbishing" old rubber.
The interior was excessive (but very nice).

It is not really a matter of "breaking down', I have never had a "break
down". These parts are common to all turbine airplanes, are often the exact
same part # (windshields), cost exactly the same and last the same length of
time. On the bright side 2003 was, by far, my least expensive year at $25K.
This is a sign that I have gotten ahead of the curve. In '04 I will replace
a few more boots, have the 530 upgraded with Garmin's TAWS (a new AD
requirement for all 6+ passenger seat turbines) and possibly get it
repainted.

Cost per mile (assuming an average block speed of 300 MPH, consistent
with climb, headwinds, etc) works out to $2.12 per mile. This is
consistent with the cost per mile of smaller jets like the CJ1.

Yes but I doubt that the opererating cost of that nearly new CJ1 takes into
account items that have 20yr lifespans like windshields. The cost to
replace the CJ1 windshields is going to be the same as on the
MU-2/Learjet/King Air ect. They are things that you are going to have to
replace on a 20-30 year old airplane. Same with the cabin windows. They
"dry out",start crazing and then the crazing starts fatigue cracks from the
preasurization cycles. All manufactures have specific limits on windshield
crazing and limit polishing. When you buy a new CJ1, the reason you pay
millions of dollars is to have all the parts NEW. If you buy an older CJ
you will be replacing all that stuff one thing at a time. This is also a
major reason why new airplanes depreciate and older ones don't (much). On a
new airplane the average part is getting worn out whereas the used airplane
average part is not.
By the time the airplane is 20yrs and 4000 hrs old, the average part is half
worn out. It is either just been replaced, just about to be replaced or
somewhere in between. So it isn't getting older like all the parts on a new
airplane. You can see this on the used value charts.

Also consider that the fixed costs on a new airplane will be higher because
of the high value. It is going to be a lot more expensive to insure and/or
finance a 3.5M airplane than one that costs a small fraction of that. If
you finance the airplane, that 2.5M extra will cost $150K more the first
year alone and insurance will probably be $50K more. This exceeds the total
cost of owning/operating a MU-2 for a 200hrs a year. The numbers only work
on new airplanes if you fly them a lot and ammortize the high fixed costs
over a lot of hours.



Basically, if your numbers are correct, they are about 50-60% over
what my research led me to believe.

I know that my numbers sound high. Because I expense these costs, I track
them carefully. The problem with most cost studies is that they take place
over too short a time frame. In a five year period, you may incur no big
expenses but the next year you may have a dozen. Ask any turbine operator
what his maitenance costs are. Then go over each inspection and what it
costs. Then ask the cost of the major parts and how long they last. When
you add up these things I can assure you that the number will be A LOT
higher than the one he gave you when you first asked what his maitenance
costs were.

Of course, if you could find an airplane where everything had been replaced
in the past five years....


Mike
MU-2