Fairchild Metro

[LearAv8r]

It is more difficult to fly that a Lear

I flew both and I have to disagree with you on that claim......


each to their own I guess.....

Lear-

 

[Rick1128]

The 1900 originally used the same system as the Metro, but after about 20 or so aircraft Beech went back to the old reliable bungee system. The Metro 1s and 2s had a different steering system and it was more reliable than the 3's. Fairchild can up with a 'fix' that rewired the steering control into what looks like an Apple II computer joystick on the left cockpit wall. It wasn't much better. In a crosswind it can be come a zoo.

As for being more difficult than the Lear, it depends on which Lear. the 20's most definately. 35's and 36's close. A 31 is easier to fly. I went from the Metro to the Lear. The training and type ride went very smoothly. Had no difficulty transitioning.

I was told by a Fairchild factory pilot many years ago that you had to fly it like a jet. It was strictly a numbers and pitch attitude aircraft.

In my opinion, the biggest reason that the Metro has a better safety record than the 1900 is the fact that everyone thinks the 1900 is a KA200 on hormones and EVERYONE knows that the Metro is a squirrilly thing. And the approach each aircraft in that manner.

As for single engine, at 16K the Metro doesn't do too well. And a little temperature, the mix is not good. You have to remember that the Metro is NOT a Part 25 aircraft, it is a Part 23 aircraft that was bumped up with SFAR 41. I flew them in California, Texas and the North East.