B1900 vs. Metroliner
 

Does anyone know what the main differnces between the metroliner and the B1900 are(both 19 seat pressurized turboprop in passenger config.)? The 19's are still being used for commuters (domestic)but you dont see too many metro's anymore. I know some of the regionals used the metros back in the day and replaced them with saab, Bombar. etc. Is it age, efficiency, power, reliability, availability?? Just curious:)

-Bons

Im pretty sure the reason was safety and reliability. My understanding is the Metro is a handful to fly and didnt have the best of safety records, although that could be because of any number of factors.

The Metro a great airplane but defiantly a handful to fly, single pilot that is. The 1900 is basically a stretched Kingair, Which makes the transition very easy for previous beech pilots. The metro on the other hand is a brand new design. The Metro is a little faster, but the beech climbs better. Take your pick.

The Metro is basically a stretched Merlin.

A Metroliner's manueverability is also not as good as a 1900. The ailerons on the Metroliner did not reach all the way to the wing tips. In fact, it was about 5-6 feet short. On heavy crosswind days, there was some real work involved.

Ah....the San Antonio Sewer Pipe....... mostly being used in cargo ops now although I am sure there are a few here and there still being used in pax config. Saw several down in Haiti last time I was down that way in January.

Ah, the memories. We used to say that Mickey Mouse wore an Ed Swearingen wristwatch. A lot of little things would go wrong, and the Garrett (Honeywell) engines were a bit harder for a less experienced pilot to operate properly. It actually wasn't that hard to fly, and it would perform. It certainly wasn't comfortable for passengers to sit in.

Ultimately I don't think most of these factors mattered all that much; it's probable the 1900 was a bit less expensive to purchase and operate, and that's all that'll count to a suit.

I personally think the Metro is a better designed machine than the 1900.
But...
You have to have a good MX to handle those Garrett TPE-331s.
They are more temperamental than the PT-6 and also sip gas as compared to the PT-6.
The biggest draw back to the ole Metro was the noise....those Garretts really scream.

Bearskin Airlines in Ontario Canada uses 16 Metro's. Saw two at Ottawa's MacDonald Cartier International Airport

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.