Hello Craig,

There is no issue with parts or support for the Merlin fleet. There are numerous airlines worldwide operating Metros at over 1000 hours a year. Same parts mostly between the two aircraft.

Good Afternoon John,

As Charles and Erwin have already answered, parts availability for the Merlin series (III on up) is pretty easy. The factory (currently owned by Elbit Systems - though if history is any indicator that could change twice before I get done typing this message) still produces parts, maintains technical publications, etc. They really do a good job of supporting the aircraft, the down side is that they are geared toward commercial operators and are priced accordingly. As an example, I wanted a copy of the original avionics wiring diagrams for my old IIIA - these are drawings which were specific to only my serial number - they would be of zero use to anyone else. The factory charged me $600 for a pdf copy. In comparison, I requested the same drawings (with updates) for my Citation from Cessna and the charge was something like $45.

The salvage yards are full of old Merlins & Metros (probably 90% parts interchangeability between the two series) so they are another good source. In addition to the factory and the salvage yards there are several shops that specialize in supporting the fleet, one of which (SATAC) that is actively producing and developing PMA replacements for some of the more common and typically overpriced parts.

Even the old IIB series Merlins aren't difficult since those parts that aren't shared with the later III series are typically sourced from the T-Bone and QueenAir fleets.

I've owned both a IIB and IIIA and we still have one IIB under management. I can't recall a time where we were in a situation where we couldn't get a part in hand within 24 hours.

John IV

Friend of mine flies a Merlin for his business and absolutely loves the plane. He regularly flies non-stop from Western North Carolina (KRHP) to Los Angeles with fuel to spare. Giant cabin, flushing toilet, impressive big ass airplane. I don't remember the specifics but it seems the engines have a very high TBO, something like 5000 or more hours.

TBO on the -10 Garretts can be either:

1. 5000hr TBO with 2500hr HSI
2. 5400hr TBO with 1800hr HSI

Those are standard factory TBOs. Some of the maintenance program providers have approvals for longer TBOs provided certain components are installed and SBs complied with. For example, Propulsion International's GMP will allow for a 7000hr TBO with 3500hr HSI!

John IV

I just spoke to a guy about his MSP payment on the Cheyenne- it's close to double that of the Merlin. It's not twice the airplane though. It also seems like the Merlin has longer legs, and that's important to me.

I need to fly a Merlin again.

Thanks everyone!

====


I'd get the Merlin for one thing its fast for another its a sharp looking bird. Noisy inside near the props.

Buy at least a B model and then throw an extra 80k at it by adding the 5 blade MT props. Pireps say those Merlin are quieter than the jets of the same vintage. In my C no one uses headsets in the cabin, and I take mine off in the cruise. Unteathered is the way to go.

Talking with a few guys who have the MT props, they have all mentioned that one of the biggest advantages is quicker / cooler starts. The MTs have significantly less mass to get spinning, especially compared to the big 4 blade props on the B, C, & 300 models.

We didn't use headsets in the back of my A model (3 blades) and it was quiet enough that the pax used a bluetooth "JamBox" for movies and music. Always used them in the cockpit though.

John IV

I flew in a 400LS several years ago. I could not believe the speed and climb capability. It has great range and useful load. Why did this plane not survive?

I've been wondering the same thing.

Single pilot, 2000nm range, and 300ktas or better. Those are just mind blowing numbers... Fantasy land almost. Nothing new that I can think of will do that. Only 2, maybe 3 airplanes in existence and they all more or less failed in the marketplace. Why

I don't know why the 400 wasn't a screMing success. Maybe the fact that it has props turns some people off? I dunno. I can tell you this much- I think the Merlin is going to better suit my needs for a lot less dough.

The search is on.

A few questions for those in the know-

1) what makes the Merlin such a chore when there a problem such that you need two people to fly it (I know the law says single pilot, but there was comment I heard saying you really need two to fly it safely)?

2) John, thanks for your help; the information is invaluable when it comes from a first hand owner/operator. John says a IIIA is the one to get because it's the best performer, someone else says get at least a IIIB. Assuming I'm never going to sit in the back, which is a better bird?

Thanks everyone!

You should definitely go fly one. I've flown the II and III's and they are a great airplane. Fortunately, I've got to fly quite a few corporate/airline planes over the years and I would put the Merlin in second place as the hardest to fly, only behind the JetStream 32. The Westwind comes in a solid third place.

Don't get me wrong, the Merlin is probably in second place again with pax comfort as well. And with the speed and range, it wins out for what you are looking to do.

I found it rather heavy on the controls, awkward landing with the tall gear and if it has a tiller, you will have your hands full on takeoff and landing.

BTW, insurance companies used to hate Merlins, I don't know about how they look at them now. Check into training as well. You will want and need training annually in this plane I believe.

Cheers.

I have about 3000 hours in the "long body" Merlin/Metro, with about 1/3 of that as dual given or administering 135 proficiency checks. About 1/2 of my total time in the series was single pilot. I only flew about 10 hours in one that had an autopilot. I trained many pilots that were upgrading from large piston twins or Caravans. We (company) required between 40 and 100 hours of Initial Operating Experience (IOE) with another qualified Captain. For full disclosure, I have not flown the short body models.

Compared to the closest aircraft I've flown to the series (AC690, C441, etc.), I found that the airplane was one in which you needed to fly on a normal basis to stay proficient (duh) and preferably in some type of structured environment (i.e., oversight of training, procedures, and using IFR system, etc.). If you were going to fly it 50-100 hours a year, you need to have a SIC that knows what s/he is doing (IFR wise) to reduce the workload and allow the flying pilot to concentrate on flying the aircraft. I was more comfortable sticking a low time pilot (i.e., less that 1200 hours required by Part 135) in the 441 than this series.

The airplane is not a hard airplane to fly. I found it to be as easy to fly as any turboprop that I've flown. It is a busy airplane because as someone above said, the controls are heavy. Typically the systems are more complex than what an upgrading pilot is used to managing, but with very few things that would bite you. It also has a small sweet spot where it was stable airplane control wise, and once outside that area, increase in the workload to lower experienced pilots in the airplane. To safely fly the airplane, I told everyone that they had to go into it with the though that they were flying a swept wing jet single pilot.

You will typically hear that either pilots love or hate the airplane. The ones that loved it, truly learned how to fly it and understood it. The ones that hate it never learned to fly it and were a passenger waiting for it to "bite" them.

One of the other problems I found in the past was training. The only simulators that I'm familiar with is owned by FlightSafety. In the past, the San Antonio instructors had experience in the airplane and knew it. St. Louis, when they had a sim there were "book trained" instructors and while well trained, didn't really understand how the airplane operates in the real world. Previous FSI operational profiles were, well an operational disaster. The new profiles designed in the early 2000's are much more inline with current industry standards. This is not an airplane that you will complete you simulator training, and walk out the back door, jump in it and fly it home, at least not safely.

I loved the long body models. There still isn't a comparable replacement with the speed, and efficiency. The 1900 is similar sized, but much higher fuel burn, and acquisition cost.

You will need a maintenance facility that knows the airplane, and the engines. There are a few particularities to the airplane that easy cost a small fortune in repairs. The door is one of them. Proper setup of the engines can make or break your experience in the airplane.

Just my $0.02 worth..

Jason

I've got turboprop time, maybe 400 hours, in Cheyennes (IA, IIXL). I always felt the systems and operation of light, fiki, pressurized piston twins like the pbaron I had and the Aerostar I now fly were a lot more work than turbines. I'm not worried about the insurance so much, because if it's unobtainable or unreasonable I'm ok with self insurance.

I flew one a little in the 90's. I remember that it drove like a school bus, but I found it reasonable. It also seemed rock solid in turbulence and was a stable IFR platform. About the only thing I didn't like was bitching Betty constantly yelling at me to "pull up, caution" and the like on landing, but I bet 'ol Betty has a circuit breaker I can pull, lol. I'm going to fly one again, hopefully this week.

I hear what you're saying about flying it like it's a swept wing jet; truthfully, I fly everything that way. I always fly by the numbers; I was trained that way and one of flying's true joys for me is demonstrating precision.

Now my only question is which model is optimal for me and where I'm writing the check.