There are indeed a number of odd accidents with no particular pattern. I
have read all the reports. Seven died after taking off over gross into
known severe icing with non-functioning boots (they knew this when they
departed). They didn't get very far. Another was lost after a NTS inflight
test failed. Why they tried it at night(!!!) is beyond me. Another flew
into the ground at Martha's Vineyard. He was 800' below the GS at the outer
marker. The fatal accident rate is about the same as the King Air 90 series
according to the last data I saw, so I guess that not all the bonehead
pilots are flying MU-2s.

Mitsubishi stopped making the airplanes in 1982 when the bottom fell out of
the aircraft market although they called planes built in 1982 and sold in
1985 "1985 models". The MU-2 enjoys excellent support from Mitusbishi even
though it has been out of production for 18 yrs.

The airframe was built in Japan and shipped to Texas where it was assembled
with US made engines, props, avionics and virtually everything else. The
plane had 70% US content. The airplanes are really well built, much better
than the competition. The MU-2 offers the best price/performance in its
class by a wide margin. It is substantially faster AND substantially
cheaper than comparable King Airs or Cheyennes.

Mike
MU-2


"Big John" wrote in message
...
Mike

OT-- Can you give us a short disseration on the MU-2. I have seen a
lot of odd accidents with it and Japan quit making it years ago vs
correcting some of the problems as I recall????

Big John

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:05:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. com...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
om...
(Kirk Stant) wrote in message
. com...
"K.P. Termaat" wrote in message
...
My experience is that it works, especially on days with very
low
humidity,
but no boomers and only low.


"Mike Rapoport" schreef in
bericht
ink.net...

You will find less lift over water of any kind, even if it is
contained in
vegetation. The best lift is always over the highest,
dryest,
darkest
surface around. The water vapor idea is...well...it is hard
to
find
a
place
to start...but it won't work

Mike
MU-2


Have to disagree with you, Mike - out here in Arizona, in the
desert
areas that are not irrigated, we often find good lift directly
over
small cattle "tanks" - small shallow ponds that are scattered
around.
A lot of us have noticed this and compared notes, and it works;
if
too
low to get to high, dark ground, I'll head for the nearest pond
and
it
will usually turn up a nice thermal. We think it may be due to
the
fact that the ponds are in a natural low spot, and coupled with
the
little bit of moisture, could be the necessary trigger for a
thermal.

Now obviously, large irrigated farm fields or river basins are
death
to thermals - but a local lake (reservoir) seems to have little
effect
on thermal activity - could it be all the drunk boaters?

What's the old saying about never saying never?

Kirk
LS6-b


The adiabatic rate of moist air is about 1.5C/1000ft. For dry air
it
is 3C/1000ft. Therefore, assuming that the water temperature is the
same as the surrounding ground (which would be true if the water is
shallow), I could see how one will experience greater lift above
water.

Not for unsaturated air it isn't. The moist rate only applies to
saturated
air (ie in clouds)

Mike
MU-2


OK, 1.5C/1000ft applies only to 100% RH air. But a 50% RH air must
still have a lower lapse rate than dry air, no?

No. The reason that saturated air lapses at a slower rate is that latent
energy is being released as the water vapor changes to liquid, that is
the
only reason.

Mike
MU-2