http://www.controller.com/listingsdetai ... 162740.htm?

Just stumbled across this, seems interesting. Anyone know these planes?

Merlins are known as a collection of spare parts flying in close formation.
the dash 10 is a good engine and more efficient than Pratt.
The Merlin III is a good old airplane, but like others its age will have relatively high mainenance, probably offset by the low acquisition cost. This one is selling for near the engine value.
We have one based near us and it flies regularly, it and our -10 king air are the loudest beasts on the airport.

Engine times are virtually identical to what we have on our Mu2.
Will need Hot Section and Gearbox inspection at 3600 hours.

The guys here at Deer Valley in Phoenix operate a few and really like them.
Relatively speedy, roomy and efficient.

Some of them have massive fuel capacity of nearly 650 gallons.
If you are tankering fuel or want fly mega distance this is a great choice.

Tj

Most of what I have read about the Merlin III, IIIB and IIIC is positive. The speed, comfort, and range are unbeatable for the price. They are mostly 30-40 year old airplanes, so maintenance is to be expected. The airframe itself has no life limited parts.

They do have a relatively short and small wing, so there are reports that they can be a handful to fly in some conditions.

There is a very long thread over on jetcareers that has great information on the Merlins and Metros. A lot of the freight dogs have posted with their experiences. Swearingen and then Fairchild did not seem to have much rhyme or reason in their model designations, so you need a cheat sheet to figure out the models and when they were built. Here is a model list from a post from the above mentioned thread;

Metros:

SA-226TC (aka Metro and Metro II)
SA-227AC, -BC (aka Metro III)
SA-227CC, -DC, (aka Metro 23)

Merlins:

SA-226T (aka the Merlin III-A)
SA-226TB (aka the Merlin III-B)
SA-227TT (aka the Merlin III-C)
SA-226AT (aka the Merlin IV-A)
SA-227AT (aka the Merlin IV-C which was a corporate version of the Metro III or Expediter which was a cargo version of the corporate version)

The Merlin III's, are under the 12.500 limit, while the IV is above.

The IIIC with a 2400nm range, is my dream machine for the range alone, lol

http://www.merlinonesa.com/acft-performance.html



Interesting paragraph out of this report.

http://www.planecrashmap.com/plane/co/N950TT

Five airline pilots, who each had 3,000 to 5,000 hours in Swearingens, were interviewed by the IIC and made the following statements about the airplane. They each stated that they believed "Swearingen airplanes are two pilot airplanes, because the work load is too high." They all did report to the IIC that they knew it was FAA certified for single pilot operation, but one pilot stated that "such a pilot [who flies Swearingens single pilot] should fly it all the time [full time], very regular." Another one of the five airline pilots interviewed stated that "the airplane has a lot of systems, so it's difficult for one pilot to keep up with it." Two of these pilots reported that they believe that Swearingens have "undesirable stall characteristics, and it may take between 8,000 and 10,000 feet of altitude to recover from an actual stall."

I see a lot of Metros shuffling around air-freight for an outfit out of Sioux Falls (Encore/Business Aviation Courier). They must have some redeemable qualities in that role.

According to a girl who flew as FO on one of them, they seem to have pretty rustic handling and high control forces during takeoff and landing.

Now that's just greedy Raymond. You can have one, but not all three! for pete's sake

I've heard similar comments about the Mu2 and other airplanes and it just seems comical to me.
How are any of them really all that different?
Avionics: mostly all the same.
Autopilots: Pretty much all the same.
Pressurization: They all work the same.
Putting the gear up and down, basic flying - Mostly the same - few nuances.

Sometimes I think a lot of pilots get intimidated by starting and stopping the 331. It takes a little training and attention.

Can't be all that different, can it?

I have flown the IIIC (SA-227TT) and can vouch that it is a very capable airplane.

If memory serves it trues out at about 315, can lift about anything you can stuff inside and can far outrange your desire to be in the airplane.

Most of them were equipped with an alcohol/water injection system allowing for max performance in hot/high conditions.

The IIIC weighs 13,200 and thus requires a type rating.

It is a bit of a handful and though my company operated them single-pilot on occasion they regarded it as a two pilot airplane.

Though a challenging airplane I don't remember thinking it any harder to fly than an MU-2 and if you are comfortable operating that type of airplane SP than the Merlin would probably be an acceptable ride.

It is heavier than the MU-2 though and a bit more complex.

It also had a few quirks. The door was secured by locking probes called click clack locks that were expensive to repair if broken. I believe the door was integral to the fuselages strength and it had to be closed and locked before towing the airplane.

I was told you also had to taxi straight for a certain distance BEFORE opening the door. Don't know how much truth there is to that, but I did hear of one being moved with the door open, and that it wouldn't shut afterwards....

I believe that the reputation for being a flying pile of spare parts (Frankenplane) stems from the Merlin II series - Queen Air Wings & Tail with T-Bone Landing Gear and a Swearingen build fuselage. I believe that all of the III series airplanes are fully purpose built (no spare parts used in the making of this aircraft).

Despite the mish-mash of parts, I really love the Merlin IIB from a bang-for-your-buck standpoint. Obviously it doesn't have the speed or range that a III series plane has, but it's still a great machine and also a very forgiving plane to fly, thanks to that fat old Queen Air wing. If you can manage taxi and takeoff with the tiller for steering you won't have any trouble once you're airborne.

John IV

I'm not aware of any requirement to taxi forward a certain distance before opening the door, but you are correct about the requirement to close the door before towing or taxiing the plane. The door is structurally integral to the fuselage and it is possible to "torque" the fuselage if you move the plane with the door open.

John IV

Interesting


Chris I

I'm typed on the SA-227 and flew the 16,000 mgw plane (Expediter). My type is for single pilot and have a bit over a 1000 hours in type.

They are very robust airplanes. Like any high performance aircraft it must be flown by the numbers and operated professionally.

Not sure about the comment about stalls and taking 10,000 feet to recover, I suspect that's BS.

I thoroughly enjoyed flying them.

Ahhhh, the good o’l San Antonio Sewer Pipe !!!!