Watched a SA-227 takeoff, cargo door open in flight, cargo falling out, return and land. Guy is lucky to be alive.

Here is a sweet IIIB;

http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 201795.htm?

1300 hours and fresh Dash 10 engines

I was typed in SA-227 in late 80's. My type required a second in command- I was glad too. The Metro was a handful, iirc, busses did not transfer automatically if a starter/generator failed. Flight instruments were dc or ac. Much was going on during engine failure.
Flight controls were heavy. Could carry lots of ice. CG could be a issue if using all the water meth.
After 1900 hours in II's and III's, had 2 precautionary engine shutdowns and 1 complete hydraulic failure. A pilot's plane.

Okay, how about some Merlin / Metro trivia?...

You walk into the parts room at your favorite (male) A&P's shop and amongst the normal stores notice a box of tampons sitting on the shelf. Your A&P is a superstitious old codger who will not allow any women to come in or near his shop so you know the tampons must have some aircraft related application. Being well versed in various aircraft types you surmise that he must have recently serviced a Merlin or Metro in his shop.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Bonus Question: What was the make and model of the tampons?

John IV

What, nobody even want's to take a guess? Okay, how about a clue...

Think windows.

John IV

The tampons are the air filter/water separator for the air conditioning system...

I have around 2000-2500 hours in the long body Merlin IVA, Merlin IVC, Metro II and Metro III's. I'm also a Instructor and Check Airman in a schedule cargo 135 operation with them. I flew the last one as late as this morning. I have not had the opportunity to fly any of the short body versions of the Merlin, but I hear they fly similar, yet more of a sports car feeling.
The Merlin/Metro airplanes are a good airplane. They are built like a tank. On *some* of the aircraft, the doors are structural, and I understand towing the aircraft with the structural doors can damage the airframe significantly. You can tell which ones are structural by the installation of click-clacks (structural) or bayonet (non-structural) latches on either door.
I've done test flights while maintenance adjusted the Stall Avoidance System (SAS-pusher) about ten years ago. While I found high rates of descent during the stall, there were no undesirable characteristics otherwise. I had to work at it to keep the aircraft on the edge of the stall with a forward CG.
While the Garrett/Allied Signal/Honeywell engines are loud, they will take you home. Don't quote me on this, but I heard the other day that there has not been a failure of the core on this model engine. It is (based on our companies experience) much more reliable than a PT-6, but required more knowledge/labor to set it up properly.
Airplane systems are not too difficult for the class of aircraft. The training manuals are horrible. The AFM is very indept and fills a 4" binder. The electrical system has been modified to *help* prevent the problem Jim mentioned on all our aircraft, and possibly all aircraft by AD? I had a full hydraulic failure yesterday (accumulator split open and blew all the fluid out), and the landing was a non-event. Complete the Emergency Checklist, Emergency gear extension, and land the aircraft without flaps or nose wheel steering.
One note is that the aircraft requires a maintenance that knows how to work on a Merlin/Metro. The doors can be a PITA if maintenance doesn't know how to adjust them, or the pilot abuses them. Fuel leaks seem to be the next biggest problem, usually caused by hard landings with a large amount of fuel onboard.
The aircraft I fly have a ton of fuel (actually, 4342#). With today's winds, I can't quite make LAX-JFK nonstop, but pretty close. One Merline IVA that I flew had less fuel, 3572# sticks in my head, but it was 10 years ago when I last flew it.
Most of my experience in the aircraft has been single pilot. We do between 50 and 100 hours of IOE in the aircraft before setting a new Captain loose by himself. If your looking for a simple airplane to fly, this isn't it. If you understand the airplane, are well trained, and fly it by the numbers, it will be one hell of a bang for the buck. I wasn't impressed with FlightSafety BTW, but they are about the only training vendor.
The previous company that I flew them for looked at replacing the fleet with Beech 1900's. We found the cost of the 1900's to operate were significantly higher, not to mention acquisition cost. My current company has a couple 1900C's. I'm not involved with that fleet, but I understand the findings from the previous are reasonably accurate. Our concern now is lack of a suitable replacement for the Metro's as many fleet wide (including ours) are accumulating high airframe times.
That's all for now...
Jason

Jason,

That's very close! The tampons (Tampax Super for the bonus question) serve as the filter element for bleed air in the "window purge system".

For those less familiar with the Merlin / Metro design... the side cockpit windows and in some planes the center windshield are double pane plexiglass assemblies with an airspace between the panes. Condensation sometimes forms between these panes and it's a real pain to get rid of that condensation if this system isn't installed. The window purge system takes bleed air from the door seal inflation system, routes it through a water separator and then through a filter assembly, inside which is the replaceable Tampax Super filter element, dried, filtered air is then injected into the space between the inner and outer window panes to prevent condensation from forming.

The one thing which I find truly amazing about this system is the fact that Swearingen / Fairchild / M7 actually admits to using a tampon as the filter element, rather than repackaging the "element" as some proprietary piece and charging $500 for replacements!

John IV

Jason,

It sounds like you've spent some serious time around these planes. I have to agree, that they really are well built and most of the rumors about poor handling characteristics are over exaggerated.



What are your thoughts on the IV-A? I'm not sure I'll ever make the move, but the itch to step up to a long-body catches me once in a while and my understanding is that the IV-A is about the only one a person can get written in (insurance) for single pilot / owner flown ops.

John IV

About ten years ago, I was the Director of Training for a company that had Six SA-227-AC's (Metro III, one of which was converted from a SA-227-AT), 11 SA-226-TC's (Metro II's) and the one SA-226-AT (Merlin IVa). At that time, the airline industry was hiring lots of pilots, so turnover was high. I taught more ground schools that I can remember, then rolled right into the flight training and checking for the operation.

Here I am ten years later, two airlines later, and furloughed. That operation was sold off to a different company, and they were local, needed a pilot, and I fit the spot... We not only have four of the SA-227's left.

I don't know exactly which S/N's the door's were changed from click-clacks to the bayonet latches. Two of ours have been converted, and two are original. The bayonet's are simply a steel pin that extends into the forward and aft sides of the fuselage. The door frame is beefed up for the mod. There is no structural connection between the door frames as the click-clacks do.

All of the 227AT/AC's have the SRL (Single Red Line) system for the engine's. It takes all the though out of starting and operating them. The 226's that I flew didn't have the SRL system, and you had to know what you were doing or you could easily toast an engine. The SRL system makes powerplant operation very simple to say the least...

The Training Manuals that we used were from Flight Safety. For the 226's, the were absolutely horrible. They had to have been written by an engineer, as they even included skin thickness' on some pages... The 227's were much better. If the crew was flying both models, I'd teach the 227, then afterwards the differences of the 226. If they were only going to fly the 226, it was difficult to teach. I have PowerPoint presentations that I used to teach from, and I usually told the students not to read the book until after each days classroom training. Typically, I had 40 hours into a ground school, 12-15 hours of flight training into a IFR proficient twin piston engine Captain transition, and another 10 or so hours into cockpit procedures including normal/abnormal/emergency procedures, pre-flight inspection, etc.

I liked flying the IVa. Ours was a weird aircraft though, and I later heard Fairchild used that S/N for much of it's flight testing. There was nothing in the cockpit similar to the Metro II, even though it was nearly identical otherwise (fuel quantity and one window being the exception as ours were cargo configured). It flew exactly like the Metro II. For a freighter, nothing competes with it to this day from a combined cost/speed/capacity standpoint. I did fly a corporate Metro IVc once, and found it to be a very capable, comfortable aircraft for the investement.

I've been fortunate that I personally have never had to work on the aircraft. I've observed a lot of maintenance and asked a lot of questions. Resealing the fuel tanks looks like a miserable job.

Jason