"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond)
09/30/2013 at 10:58 • Filed to: mitsubishi monday
1
13|
"Grindintosecond" (Grindintosecond)
09/30/2013 at 10:58 • Filed to: mitsubishi monday | 1
| 13 |
See....Mitsubishi knows how to make things fly...since 1963 in the case of the MU-2. It cruises at 300mph.
vdub_nut: scooter snob
> Grindintosecond
09/30/2013 at 11:01 |
|
Pretty sure they've been making flying things since... well... at least 1941.
Jayhawk Jake
> Grindintosecond
09/30/2013 at 11:03 |
|
Interesting fact about the MU-2: It doesn't have ailerons.
Z_Stig
> Jayhawk Jake
09/30/2013 at 11:11 |
|
Weird...how does it bank?
TheLateApex
> Jayhawk Jake
09/30/2013 at 11:16 |
|
Another interesting fact...
It tends to crash a lot.
To be fair, this mostly stems from the fact of pilots getting to slow for the spoilers to have any effect. Can't fly these like a normal, aileron-equipped plane!
That said, I've always thought these were cool, even if they are absurdly loud.
KillerRaccoon - Group J's Sébastien Loeb
> TheLateApex
09/30/2013 at 11:18 |
|
Apparently, it's not that they were going too slow for the spoilers to work, it's that they would prematurely retract that much-more-effective than usual flaps, thus killing lift.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Z_Stig
09/30/2013 at 11:24 |
|
Spoilers on top of the wing. It has full span flaps to improve short field capabilities, and as a result there's no room for ailerons.
It's a perfectly legitimate way to bank, if you sit by the wing on a passenger jet you'll see that in high banking maneuvers or banking at low speed the spoilers deploy to assist the roll. Technically these are called 'roll spoilers' whereas spoilers used solely to slow the airplane down are usually referred to as 'speedbrakes'.
|
Grindintosecond
> vdub_nut: scooter snob
09/30/2013 at 11:25 |
|
Indeed. I consider war, pre-war things to be separated from post-war/today things. Three was probably a big shake up in the company after the war. Post war? This was the first project. Started design work in 1956 and it's still one of the most efficient business turboprops today.
|
Grindintosecond
> TheLateApex
09/30/2013 at 11:27 |
|
FAA looked into the crashing in 2005 and found that if it was flown as instructed by the manual, and properly maintained it is an extremely safe plane. When countries outside the US flew the plane according to these proper instructions, their safety record dramatically improved. It isn't the plane, it's the people who don't get proper training.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> TheLateApex
09/30/2013 at 11:29 |
|
What KillerRaccoon said is more accurate.
If you're going too slow for spoilers to work, you're going too slow for anything to work because you'd be in a stall, and the MU-2 spoilers are actually extremely effective in a stall.
The issues is the unusual engine out procedure, which has been remedied with specialized training
These spoilers are highly effective, even when the MU-2 wing is stalled. Some fatal accidents have occurred because normal engine-out procedures for light twin aircraft are not effective when flying the MU-2. The commonly taught procedure of reducing flap following an engine failure on take off leads to a critical reduction in lift in the MU-2 due to the highly effective double-slotted flaps. When pilots were taught to retain take-off flap and to reduce climb rate in the event of an engine failure, MU-2 accident rates reduced to almost nil.
The thing with crash rates is you always have to consider the bigger picture before jumping to a conclusion on what causes them. Honestly, if the crash rate of the MU-2 is higher than its competitors a good portion of that has to do with accessibility: MU-2's are cheap, so inexperienced pilots are more likely to fly them than their competitors. As a result, the number of accidents due to pilot error will naturally be higher.
Think about how many more people crash Toyota Camry's than Mitsubishi Lancer Evo's.
|
vdub_nut: scooter snob
> Grindintosecond
09/30/2013 at 11:32 |
|
Neat! Does not look like anything conceived in the fifties, or even early sixties. Looks quite svelte.
|
Z_Stig
> Jayhawk Jake
09/30/2013 at 11:49 |
|
Ah, cool. I think I've heard the term 'spoilerons' before?
Thanks
|
Jayhawk Jake
> Z_Stig
09/30/2013 at 11:52 |
|
EDIT: The term spoileron should be applicable here. I tend to think of spoilerons more as an aileron that acts a spoiler, but that's a result of too much RC flying. The B-2 has a different take on the 'spoileron' with the ailerons splitting to be used as a drag rudder.
As an aside, my all time favorite control surface name is the 'ruddervator' as seen on V-Tails.
|
TheLateApex
> Jayhawk Jake
09/30/2013 at 17:02 |
|
Agreed.
It is absolutely an issue with pilot training, as evidenced by the reduction since the new training was implemented. I've also subscribed to the notion that the pilot training issue stems from the fact that these planes fly much differently than other planes you can get for the same price. For $300k, you can get a 300mph turboprop that flies like a jet, or a Cessna Skylane that's a few years old. That's where it gets scary. The MU-2 flies like a jet due to it's spoiler system, and the majority of people who fly the MU don't have a lot, if any, jet experience.
Also, keep in mind the role of spoilers. Essentially, they work by killing lift. Unfortunately, they also cause a lot of drag. This is what I meant by the 'getting slow' issue. In low-speed situations, you don't have a lot of speed to play with.
Overall, though, I completely agree it's a pilot training/awareness issue. They're really great planes that get a bad rap.