B1900 vs. Metroliner
07-04-2011, 09:49 PM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Fifth floor, window
Posts: 290
Another clever feature of the Metroliner, at least as I remember it on the III - correct me if I'm wrong - was where the GPU plugged in; on the outside nacelle of the number two engine. Walking between the leading edge and the horrible maw of the propeller to unplug that after a start wasn't for the faint of heart.
07-04-2011, 10:02 PM
#52
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Some III's had the rt. eng. nacelle plug and some below the fuselage next to the right flap.
About 1/4 of ours were nacelle and the rest fuselage.
There was a ramper who walked into one, but don't remember the year or airline.
Yanking that GPU connector semi paid for college.
About 1/4 of ours were nacelle and the rest fuselage.
There was a ramper who walked into one, but don't remember the year or airline.
Yanking that GPU connector semi paid for college.
08-19-2015, 04:09 AM
#53
New Hire
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 1
Not only was the Metro III and 23 faster it had a higher service ceiling. Not sure of the 1900D's design life but through an SID program the Metro can make it to 50,000 flight hours. Last estimate shows that of the 1053 Metros/Merlins built some 600+ are still in service.
08-20-2015, 08:41 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: CA
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by mtp59
Not only was the Metro III and 23 faster it had a higher service ceiling. Not sure of the 1900D's design life but through an SID program the Metro can make it to 50,000 flight hours. Last estimate shows that of the 1053 Metros/Merlins built some 600+ are still in service.
08-20-2015, 10:49 AM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Seat 0B
Posts: 2,300
Originally Posted by chazbird
Metro, the weed eater, sewer pipe, etc. etc.
Weed eater term came from strange transient impulses to the hydraulic steering, say during the takeoff or landing roll...made the pilot look silly since there was no way to prove it happened by itself.
Sewer pipe, well it is a small round tube....
The brakes are crap. Static run-up? Good luck staying in one place.
Sort of spindly gear with small high pressure tires which was fun on wet, or snowy and of course wind swept runways.
It has the infamous SAS system (stick pusher). Went off on me on short final, it pushed at up to 260 lbs for 7 minutes, couldn't disable it.
If loaded it would pitch hunt above FL190.
The ailerons were never relocated out further on the Metro III from the shorter wing-span of the II because they didn't want to bother, thus leading to the high roll effort.
Very annoying pitch trim in motion beeper. MEL stickers fit perfectly over the small speakers.
To its benefit:
It really is only annoying loud on the ground, and then just outside, not inside.
It would do 280 kts and carry 19 passengers 400 nm easy with good reserves and burn something like 450 lbs an hour above FL220. Good 7.0 PSI.
It was sturdy as all get out, maybe over built. The San Antonio people would brag that when one crashed in afield the wings stayed on after hitting something. Not what I wanted to hear, I'd rather have the wings frangible. Fun to fly, in its way. Once you got 100 hours in it and understood it, it was fun to fly and certainly was a great stick skills builder.
Never flew the 1900, so I just don't know how groovy it is or isn't.
Weed eater term came from strange transient impulses to the hydraulic steering, say during the takeoff or landing roll...made the pilot look silly since there was no way to prove it happened by itself.
Sewer pipe, well it is a small round tube....
The brakes are crap. Static run-up? Good luck staying in one place.
Sort of spindly gear with small high pressure tires which was fun on wet, or snowy and of course wind swept runways.
It has the infamous SAS system (stick pusher). Went off on me on short final, it pushed at up to 260 lbs for 7 minutes, couldn't disable it.
If loaded it would pitch hunt above FL190.
The ailerons were never relocated out further on the Metro III from the shorter wing-span of the II because they didn't want to bother, thus leading to the high roll effort.
Very annoying pitch trim in motion beeper. MEL stickers fit perfectly over the small speakers.
To its benefit:
It really is only annoying loud on the ground, and then just outside, not inside.
It would do 280 kts and carry 19 passengers 400 nm easy with good reserves and burn something like 450 lbs an hour above FL220. Good 7.0 PSI.
It was sturdy as all get out, maybe over built. The San Antonio people would brag that when one crashed in afield the wings stayed on after hitting something. Not what I wanted to hear, I'd rather have the wings frangible. Fun to fly, in its way. Once you got 100 hours in it and understood it, it was fun to fly and certainly was a great stick skills builder.
Never flew the 1900, so I just don't know how groovy it is or isn't.
. Over built maybe, but definitely over engineered (SRL system).
08-20-2015, 11:39 AM
#57
Are we there yet??!!
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by mtp59
Not only was the Metro III and 23 faster it had a higher service ceiling.
From what I remember the certification standards changed when the 23 came out.
08-20-2015, 11:41 AM
#58
Are we there yet??!!
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,010
Originally Posted by TheFly
What he said, plus in the Metro III anything below 270kts your roll authority was cut in half. Fun airplane to fly, but it kept you on your toes...you really had to watch it! At AMF we flew it single pilot and on occasion operated it with the nose wheel streering system deferred . Over built maybe, but definitely over engineered (SRL system).
. Over built maybe, but definitely over engineered (SRL system).270???
Wasn't the barber pole 246 kts?
At least that is what I remember from the 23.
Place I worked, we had the NWS deferred on a semi-regular basis and would go into certain high elevation airport and have to shoot the water with no NWS. That could get interesting and required a little finesse.
08-20-2015, 12:24 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Seat 0B
Posts: 2,300
Originally Posted by Thedude
270???
Wasn't the barber pole 246 kts?
At least that is what I remember from the 23.
Place I worked, we had the NWS deferred on a semi-regular basis and would go into certain high elevation airport and have to shoot the water with no NWS. That could get interesting and required a little finesse.
Wasn't the barber pole 246 kts?
At least that is what I remember from the 23.
Place I worked, we had the NWS deferred on a semi-regular basis and would go into certain high elevation airport and have to shoot the water with no NWS. That could get interesting and required a little finesse.
08-20-2015, 01:43 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Fifth floor, window
Posts: 290
Don't forget the main cabin door being a structural part of the airframe. 7 "click-clack" pins. I am not sure if this was a good thing or a bad thing, but it of course increased the aircraft's complexity.
This thread got me to go back and read up on the SAS failure/stick pusher incidents, one of which happened to me. One, NTSB AAR 88-10, covers a Metro III that went down in low vis at night immediately after takeoff. They surmise that at least a SAS fault occurred, since the switch was turned off and the bulb indicated it was illuminated, but not neccesarily that the stick pusher went off. The findings indicated they crew were distracted by this and the plane rolled not a 45 degree bank and descended into the ground. Maybe yes, maybe no, but even if they were distracted by a SAS alert and that brought them down, they did not say what the outcome would have been if the pusher had activated during initial climb out. It almost certainly would have been the same outcome, except making ground contact straight ahead. Sort of an interesting omission, esocially since there they include a table with listing all the SAS malfunctions in the
previous few years, which were quite a few. Of all the peculiarities of the Metro, the SAS system, I feel, is the least funny.
This thread got me to go back and read up on the SAS failure/stick pusher incidents, one of which happened to me. One, NTSB AAR 88-10, covers a Metro III that went down in low vis at night immediately after takeoff. They surmise that at least a SAS fault occurred, since the switch was turned off and the bulb indicated it was illuminated, but not neccesarily that the stick pusher went off. The findings indicated they crew were distracted by this and the plane rolled not a 45 degree bank and descended into the ground. Maybe yes, maybe no, but even if they were distracted by a SAS alert and that brought them down, they did not say what the outcome would have been if the pusher had activated during initial climb out. It almost certainly would have been the same outcome, except making ground contact straight ahead. Sort of an interesting omission, esocially since there they include a table with listing all the SAS malfunctions in the
previous few years, which were quite a few. Of all the peculiarities of the Metro, the SAS system, I feel, is the least funny.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
