Merlin III question

[Groundpounder]

How are Merlin III's as far as performance, passenger comfort and operating costs, versus something like a King Air 200?

 

[Valkyrie]

I think that the main advantage of the Merlin is the range, while having a good speed.It may be less reliable though.

 

[V2plus25]

It fly's fast, fly's not that high (teens to low 20's), burns a fraction of the fuel as other turboprops, and is a real b!tch to sit and move around in (either up front or in back) for anyone over 5 feet. Oh yeah, and they're kinda noisy (II's are more so than the III's).

 

[some_dude]

I've never flown a King Air, so I can't compare it. However, the Merlin is pretty fast (280kts) and efficient. It has long range, but if you fill the tanks you can't carry any payload, and who wants to go 1000+ miles in a turboprop anyway?

Runway performance is not great, especially hot and high. If you have any plans to go to hot and high airports, get one with water injection-- that can make a big difference.

Also, try to stay away from anything earlier than a IIIB-- the performance without dash 10 engines is a bit scary. Of course, they have probably put dash 10 engines on the old airplanes by now, so maybe this isn't an issue.

They are reliable airplanes as long as you have someone working on it who knows Merlins. There are a lot of quirks.

All in all I liked the Merlin quite a bit. However, the last time I flew one regularly was 10+ years ago, so take all of the above with a grain of salt...

 

[THE Flying Ace]

I don't know a thing about the Merlin, but you can't beat the King Air. The 200, depending if you get a straight 200 or a B model, will go 270- 290 kts. The Straight 200 will do around 260 kts. You can fly 1500 miles, fly out of short strips and take your choice of paved or unimproved runways. You can load the 200 up and almost take full fuel.

The last time I looked, the prices of King Air 300's were the same or cheaper than later model 200's. With the 300 you can go 1500 miles, load all the seats and full fuel. Also, fly 310 kts all day long, or faster and climb like a rocket. The type rating covers both the 300 and the 350.

 

[cvsfly]

The B200 (my experience a 1996 B200) can not fill up the seats and fuel. Full fuel outboard and inboard is 544 gal/3546 lbs. Our BEW is 8533. With 2 pilots and 1 pax you are at max gross (12,500). Typically we are full outboards - 386 gal/2586 lbs, 2 pilots and 6 normal pax (less if they are fat) 270-275 kts @ 25,000', 3:45 endurance, about 800nm range with :45 min resv. in still air (less to be conservative).

 

[THE Flying Ace]

That is correct regarding the fuel, that is why I said almost fuel fuel, but in the 300 you can fill 'er up.

You take the 200 up high into the 30's and you can go from Minneapolis to Marco Island in FL non stop.

 

[cvsfly]

That is correct regarding the fuel, that is why I said almost fuel fuel, but in the 300 you can fill 'er up.

You take the 200 up high into the 30's and you can go from Minneapolis to Marco Island in FL non stop.

Ok. Almost full fuel meaning 1000 lbs less. And high in the 30's meaning low 30's since it is only certified to 35,000, which you can't do anymore unless you spend $100,000 + to get RVSM.

 

[400A]

Yuck

I hated flying the Merlin. I flew the IIB, III (-3) powered and IIIA (-10).

Our IIIA was fast, I think the highest true I saw was 308. It was easy on fuel, but everything other than that stunk.

Speed switches (for starting) were always failing. Having to constantly prime it to keep the start going. Very unstable. Horrible in Icing (read about the Hooters crash that killed the race car driver) Single engine performance on even the -10 was awful. The door will drive you crazy (click-clacks). and lets not forget the SAS / 2 system. Nose wheel steering sux. Our IIIA was so heavy that 1 pilot and full fuel was over gross.

Dont even think about a budget, you can't predict it and it is going to be alot.

I even had one loose the center windshield in flight. (left the aircraft, not shattered)..... now THAT was LOUD.

Cabin was ok but noisy.

It will make a pilot out of you though.... I felt like everything flew easy after the Merlin.

I have flown all models of the King Air except the B-100, and the King Air is a far superior aircraft. It also flys nice and is very reliable.

 

[Skaz]

reviving an old thread here ....

anybody got some gen on the IV-C model? Quirks the plane has, recurring problems, nice things, operating SOP's and where to get a type trating, since it doesnt seem that Flightsafety, SimCom or Simuflite offer it?

thanks

 

[Headwind]

I went to FSI St Louis for the IV. It was a 1973 year model with water-alcohol and -10 conversion. It's been about 10 years, but I'll tell you some of what I remember:

The gross was 12,500 with BOW about 9500. Fuel capacity 5000# (you never top it with fuel). The wings were shorter than a Metro and we usually flew between 16,000 and FL220 with TAS of 250. Speed & fuel flow about the same as a Cheyenne II. It was BIG and had a large baggage area that was pressurized.

The ailerons don't do much below 140KIAS. Cross wind landings are a challenge.If the temp is warmer than +20 you need alcohol for take off. You need a very tall ladder to fill the distilled water & alcohol. If you lose an engine on an ILS it will not stay on glide slope with the gear down. Never land at an airport without a GPU.

It handles more like a midsize jet than a King Air or Cheyenne. If you master this beast you have a feeling of pride and confidence.

HEADWIND

 

[V2plus25]

Yeah, flying it without autopilot makes "reviewing" the paperwork a little more of a challenge inflight. Ahh, how I miss autopilots and getting to catch up on my newspaper reading...