Fairchild Metro

[Icywings2]

To fly it under 135 or 121 you must have an SIC check ride. [pass it of course ] If you are under part 91 [non revenue] you can log it as PIC if you have a type rating in the airplane, the company dispatches it to you and you are flying in the left seat. I know many guys that flew the Metro outbound with freight as SIC and flew it back empty as PIC. That is a nice way to log turbine PIC time if you get lucky and can find a run like that.

The Metro comes as a SA227 a/c and SA227 A/t. Basically it is a Metro III and a Merlin IV. They are the same airplane, except the AT or Merlin has a different landing gear making it possible to increase your weight.

It is a great plane to fly. If you hear people complain about it, they simply couldn't handle it. It can fly through just about any **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** you through at it. It does fly like a pig. I have been told turning a B-52 takes less work then turning the metro. Who knows if that is true!

The AWI is in almost all of them I think. If you fly out of any airport with altitude you need it or you won't be able find a torque setting to get you out of there. I am not sure what FearlessFreep was doing, but we didn’t have to jump on the throttles like that ever. The AWI switch is on the center console and all you do is flip the switch and you can move your hand right up to the throttle if needed. However, we never needed to move the throttle. Especially so real quick. It is not like the airplane was going to drop out of the sky. You have more than enough airspeed by the time you turn off the AWI. Not to sound negative towards FearlessFreep, we just never had to do anything like that in ours. It is a weird feeling though to hit the switch and watch your torque drop around 30%. However, you get used to it quickly.

Here is some interesting trivia for you about the Metro. It was first designed with jet engines. In fact, the Never Exceed speed on the airplane is around 250, but that has nothing to do with the actual airplane. It is due to the engines and air intake I was told by our mx. guys. I was told if it had the original engines on it, the speed would be more like 400. If anyone knows the truth on this, I would love to hear it. That is just what I was told by our mx guys.

Anyway, sorry to be long winded. It is a great plane, tough to fly at first as it is easy to get behind it. I flew a BE1900 while I was flying the Metro, the BE1900 is like a toy compared to the Metro. Not to sound like I am bagging the 1900. I loved flying it, but the Metro feels like a larger airplane and the systems are much more complicated.

Good luck and Enjoy!!!!!

 

[Icywings2]

Well this huge Censored thing, we just one word. Sorry, it starts with and "s" and ends in a "t". I didn't even think about it. sorry!

It is a great plane to fly. If you hear people complain about it, they simply couldn't handle it. It can fly through just about any **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** you through at it. It does fly like a pig. I have been told turning a B-52 takes less work then turning the metro. Who knows if that is true!

 

[Rick1128]

Icy,

The Metro III was certified in two different versions. a 14,500 GTOW and a 16,000 GTOW. At 16K, you do need to advance the power when you turn the water off. But you don't have to jump on it.

After several years of flying the beast on scheduled, on demand pax and cargo flights, it is way more efficent that the 1900. It is more difficult to fly that a Lear, but it also has a much better accident record than the JS or the 1900. Only a handful of Metros have had a autopilot and/or flight director in them, I have flown four of them. But they tend to be very heavy and you run out of payload rather quickly.

The biggest problem I had with them was the brakes are a joke. The power anti-skid brakes are an even bigger joke. And the Apple II computer joystick nosewheel steering control that Fairchild came up with is a pain in the tail.

 

[Otter]

I have to agree with icywings, the airplane is very predictable, and is a descent performer in cruise. Not for the timid in a abnormal or emergency condition. I flew them over 1200 hours, all single pilot and enjoyed every minute. Except the nighttime freight thing.

 

[Icywings2]

Rick,

I am totally aware of the weight differences. I was just trying to make it simple for others that don’t know about the plane. The reason the Merlin can carry more than the Metro is due to the gear. I am sure you know that though.

Yea, you do have to tweak the power when shutting off the AWI, but he made it sound like the airplane was going to crash if he didn’t hold the yoke with one leg, while moving the throttles quickly at the same time. I just don’t think that is true at all. You know what I mean?

I think the metro rocks over the 1900. It is a more complicated system to understand at first, but it is a much better one. When you sit in the 1900 your shoulders are practically touching in the cockpit. The Metro gives you so much more room. You get a feeling of flying a true airliner when cruising around in that thing. The 1900 is like a C-182 to fly.

We were lucky that all the metros we had were set with autopilot and flight director. I think they got most of them from American Eagle and Messaba.

The brakes are pretty weak. I have to add one more thing that makes me a bit uneasy. The NWS (nose wheel system) is so unpredictable. We had a few planes just shoot off the runway. Did you guys run into similar problems? Don’t get me wrong tt is an awesome system. You can turn around so easily with it, but we had that slight problem. I think that is where the nick name Texas Lawn Dart came from.

Besides that, “the beast” is great. It is so efficient. I love the fact that with one engine you have enough to do what ever you need. That thing can fly great on one engine. I honestly, enjoyed every second in the thing. Next time you see one, stand in front and look at how big props are in comparison to the fuselage. The props are actually bigger.

Where did you fly it by the way?

 

[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.