If I were to buy today I would get either the 300 in France or the IIIC in Australia. The one in France has the MT props and the one in Australia has HF with selcal.

I have had mine for a year and a half (350 hours). It is everything I hoped it to be.

Good Evening Craig,

1) I really don't think the plane is so much of a handful that you need a second pilot. In fact, I don't really think it's a "handful" what is it however; is less forgiving than a KingAir. I don't believe that they're an unsafe or difficult airplane to fly, but I do believe that there is less "fudge factor" built into them than some of the less heavily loaded turboprops.

Merlins tend to be heavy in roll and very light in pitch so you have to get used to that and adjust your handling accordingly. If you haul back on the yoke, or shove the nose over hard you're going to be heading in that direction FAST. On the other hand, if you roll the yoke 60 degrees to the right or the left you're going to have a second or two to think about what you just did and adjust for it before any significant roll gets developed.

The nose wheel steering system, whether it's the early electric tiller controlled version or the latest variable authority hydraulic system with rudder pedal control is a bit goofy. Frankly, I would rather have the early electric system and a tiller, but most of the planes out there are hydraulic. The system can be a bit twitchy and it's just something that you have to get a feel for. The NTSB reports are littered with planes that have had runway excursions due to improper activation (too fast generally) or malfunction of the nose wheel steering system. Having said that, the plane is perfectly flyable without any nosewheel steering at all. I typically turned the system off when taking the runway and then left it off till I had cleared the runway after landing.

All in all though, I really don't see it as a two pilot airplane. You just have to act as a pilot instead of a passenger and not expect the plane to fly itself out of a problem without you making your intentions clear.

2) For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that you're looking at a late serial number IIIA vs a IIIB. That means a plane with the variable authority hydraulic nose wheel steering, late style annunciator, and -10 engines (there were a number of changes in the early production planes, but by the time they got to the last 20 or so IIIAs, most of the major systems had reached their final designs)...

The A spins a 3 blade prop at 2000 RPM at 100% engine speed. The B spin a 4 blade prop at 1591 RPM at 100% engine speed. It's a double edged sword and frankly, the advantages to either wouldn't sway me in one direction or the other. The 4 blade is heavier, more expensive to overhaul and less efficient (lower TAS) BUT - thanks to the slower tip speed, it's also significantly quieter. The three blade is more efficient, but it's louder.

Essentially, the 3 blade vs 4 blade issue is about the only significant difference between the IIIA and the IIIB. Yes there were some changes to the ECS system, as well as the Rosemont vs Conrac SAS systems, but enough of the early airplanes have been modified in those departments that the planes really have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

John IV

Good Evening Jason,

I agree on all counts with one caveat - I would not send someone to train in a short body Merlin at either of the Flight Safety locations that have capabilities. The Flight Safety curriculums and simulators are VERY strongly geared toward the long body planes and I would venture to guess that the majority of their instructors have zero experience with the short body birds.

For what Flight Safety charges, it just doesn't make sense to go try to learn the plane in a simulator that is not configured correctly and then go get in your plane with an instructor and try to unlearn everything that you've just done at Flight Safety.

I wish there were another training company out there with a properly configured short body Merlin simulator, but I don't know of any. The only thing I know to do is use an approved in-aircraft training course and make sure the instructor really knows his stuff. And for crying out loud - get a good feel for the nose wheel steering on a wide open ramp before you even think about approaching a runway and taking things up to speed!

John IV

=======

They went to the Metro liner and hired some MBAs because it was in vogue back in the 80's. Plus people start thinking they look sharp in a Jet.
When people do not love what they do, they start looking at $$$$$ and invariably the business falters.

would like to add from own observation…

while any Cheyenne, also the most capable 400LS quite obviously could be flown by a competent owner as do the King Airs…

in regards to the Merlins though, and a friend of mine flew a nice IIIB for a corporation for decades, as capable as they are, these aircraft in my humble opinion do not easily lend themselves to the owner flown category..

those birds should better be operated by a professional two man crew who treat them as the very complex "mini airliners" which they are..

Good Morning Gerhard,

Reading your post, it seems like your thoughts on the Merlin are more based on a friend's experience than your own observation. That's certainly fine as all datapoints are of some value in a conversation such as this, but I'm hoping that you would be willing to expound on a couple of the statements you made with more specific information.

1. Why do you feel that Merlins "do not easily lend themselves to the owner flown category?"

and

2. What specific systems do you feel make the Merlin more "complex" than a KingAir or Cheyenne of similar vintage?

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but it seems that your experience with the Merlin has been quite different than my own and I'm curious to learn more about those differences.

Thanks,

John IV

Good morning John,

fair enough…

I actually had the pleasure, it is quite long ago to spend some hours in the right seat of that very fine IIIB.

well my thoughts woud be like this:

As long as everything is fine, weatherwise, ATC wise and in regards to technical matters, sure operating a Merlin should not be more difficult than other airplanes…

however, once it may get a bit tight, due to circumstances, the Merlin seemed to demand a very high degree of very precise airmanship from the pilot flying, which I think, to keep the stress level down in the cockpit, would dictate two folks up front, one doing the flying and the other doing the talking and reconfiguring of the plane…

that is a very personal observation from my side, but yes, the folks I know well and who have tons of Metro and Merlin time always seemed to agree…again all that was a while ago…

in regards to systems, well that was about 27 years ago now, and I had been on a Falcon 20 by that time, but the Falcon 20 seemed very easy compared to the Merlin…well in a way all jets are a tad "less complex" than a heavy turboprop..

what I am saying is I have great respect for the Metros and Merlins…superb performance, no doubt, and I think the good late Ed Swearingen had been a genius..

But I regarded Merlins always a bit like a heavy jet..( say B 707) in regards to operating one..may seem a bit farfetched, but that is how I felt about them…

I just say a Merlin is a very "serious" airplane ( all planes are..) which to get max performance out of, safely, on a day to day basis may dictate a crew who does nothing else but flying one…

happy landings

Gerhard

Do you need this plane for your business? If not I would say save your money, simplify your life, deal with one major change at a time. That means concentrate on your new business and eliminate distractions. When you're rolling in the dough and things are going smooth, then upgrade. Until then, fly what you have, fly commercial, or charter. Just my opinion.

Larry

I don't need the Merlin for my business yet, but I will shortly. I'm also going to be a lot more comfortable getting through frozen IMC with two turbines getting me up at 2k'/minute, and I know my dispatch rate will go up in the turboprop.

The Cheyenne would have been a stretch. I would have had to finance half of it, and I don't like to finance anything. The Merlin I can do comfortably, and I don't think single pilot ops in a Merlin are going to be tougher than single pilot ops in an Aerostar.

Thanks for all the comments folks, looks like I just need to find the right Merlin.

Craig, after training, a few hours with an experienced Merlin mentor pilot or instructor will be money well spent.

Yup, call me chicken, but after training I'll fly with a mentor until I'm wearing that airplane like a glove.

Worth every penny.

There is a very good review on march 1985 flying magazine on the 400 LS. I am sure its on the web somewhere.

Rgs

Patrick.

http://www.mullers.net/mike/cheyenne/

Some 400LS info here...

Maintenance cost were so high on the merlins when I was flying them under part 135 that FedEx put that idea on ice quickly.

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