I have about 3000-3500 hours in the long body Merlin/Metro, and have trained 40-50 pilots to fly it. I have not flown the short body, or a King Air. The crews that I have trained that later flew the 1900 said the 1900 is an easier airplane to fly. The Merlin was obviously designed by an engineer that wasn't a pilot. The systems are virtually bulletproof, but somewhat complex. The lack of good training materials was a big problem in training. Even FlightSafety's manuals were poorly written, and in some cases taught by guys that had zero time in type.

Once you learn, and I really mean learn the airplane, it's a heck of a bird. The OWT's that you hear about how bad it flies are generally spewed by pilots that never really learned to fly the airplane, but went for a ride in in for hundreds of hours. It's also not an airplane that you can fly once a month and stay proficient in. It's an airplane that has to be flown in a professional mindset, or like any airplane it'll bite you.

If I had a use for one, I'd have no qualms about purchasing one long before the comparatively inefficient King Air line. I've heard a descent long body Merlin can be had in the $600-750 range. That's a large, fast and efficient airplane for that price.

Jason

Jason

Is the long body a single pilot ship?

Craig - not everyone has the resources you have. You can go in and buy a solid airplane and immediately launch into a dual turbine overhaul for $500K+. I'm happy you can do that. That does not mean an alternative way of doing it is necessarily less safe.

I've always bought bottom end planes and then upgraded them as I went along for money I can afford and make. I long time ago figured out that that saves money compared to buying the mint or tricked out plane with a huge loan. Much cheaper. And an added benefit of that is that you also then get the plane you want, not someone else's panel or interior.

I hate banks and I hate owing money. Learned it the hard way when I was young and dumb and my first business went bankrupt. Today, all my cars and planes are paid for, and I'm very proud of that. If I could just find a way of building my own house for money I make and come out of it mortgage free, then I would be even happier...

Off topic, but a friend pointed out the best you can end up with is renting your house from the government i.e. taxes. Stop paying rent and see how long you get to keep your house. I found it a little depressing.

Vince

Off topic, but a friend pointed out the best you can end up with is renting your house from the government i.e. taxes. Stop paying rent and see how long you get to keep your house. I found it a little depressing.

Vince

Wait a minute Adam. I wasn't calling you out. But so long as you mentioned it...

We have differences in our approach to buying airplanes, that's for sure, but those differences are not about our respective net worths. I too went broke years ago. It made me far more conservative than I was in the 90's before I got my ass handed to me, and you and I both are averse to borrowing money as a result. I live in modest home in Raleigh; I prefer to live in a town where I can live in a 250k home and it's still a good neighborhood surrounded by good working class folks because I'm a little afraid to have a mortgage (not to mention I love my neighbors). Sure, I make good money...now...but that could change one day, so I save more than I spend. I'm not special and I'm not so ever loving brilliant that I can't get crushed by any of a number of things out of my control and I damn well know it.

What I often see around me at airports, and I'm not saying this is you, is guys getting in over their heads because they buy an airplane they can afford to purchase but not afford to maintain properly. That often creates a safety issue because people in that position put off MX that needs to be done because the airplane they got a "deal" on is eating them out of house and home. That gives you but two choices: fly an airplane plagued by neglected MX done on the cheap, or let the airplane sit unflown. Neither of these is an acceptable circumstance for me. Adam, we bought our turboprops at the same time. I've put hundreds of hours on mine. How many hours have you put on yours? Given the hours you fly, are you current in your bird? If so, can you honestly say the aircraft is well maintained? Be honest with yourself- is operating under your current standards in line with the high degree of safety that should be accorded to (especially) highly complex ships that carry many pax at high speeds in hostile environments? These are not accusations, simply questions, and I'm not even asking for the answers; it's not for me to ask. But if you're not asking yourself these questions, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

I'm not what I would consider wealthy. I'm a regular jerk trying to get ahead by working my ass off and taking calculated risk. I own the airplanes I bought because I use them to do my job. I wouldn't be able to afford them if I didn't have a business use for them. I fly 350ish hours a year, and maybe 15 hours of those are personal R&R; I don't have time to fly more than that because my business owns me, I don't own it. I need to have reliable transport to make my daily bread, so I can't play the buy a "deal" game. That said, even if I was in a position to play the "deal" game, I wouldn't. I won't get involved if the potential exists for me to have to compromise on safety or dispatch vis-a-vis cost. I'd rather just buy something cheaper that I can afford. If I couldn't make it work to my standards, I would bow out. I would bitch and moan and cry because I want to be able to play in the space, but I would exit just the same. This is, by the way, why I don't own a jet yet. I'm simply not a big enough boy to play the jet game properly in a bird that would take me to the next level, so I'll just read Allen Wolpert's posts and wonder what it feels like to go 450KTAS for 1800NM. I won't go looking for a project.

You do it your way, I'll disagree because I think it's overreaching and presents serious potential for safety risk; I think "slumming it in the turboprop world" is insane, that's no place to be slumming. I'll do it my way, you'll think it's unnecessarily spendy and overly cautious. Intelligent minds can diverge in ethos and opinion.

After much searching and looking for a way to do what I wanted in a more "economical" way, I found that buying the latest aircraft with everything top notch and ready to go was the cheapest way forward. As a result I have had no troubles to speak of and many hours of enjoyable family time in the Merlin IIIC, beating the airlines while we do it.

Yes, all Metros/Merlins were single-pilot certified, except for a few oddballs with a joystick for the nose wheel steering. I won't confirm or deny that they have been flown for years single-pilot.

Some airlines have their pilots a type rating that required a SIC for the aircraft over 12,500.

Jason

I'm 6'2" and I can turn sideways and kick my feet up on the copilot seat.

At 6'5" I would expect no problems with headroom but you may or may not find your legs cramped. It sits kind of like a kitchen chair.

Craig - I've put no time on my new bird because she's still in the damn shop getting fixed! It's a glacial pace and I just had another fit the other day asking them why everything is taking so long. But agree, there are planes that are not well kept. Mine don't have the latest paint or interior or panel, but I always make sure they're in good shape mechanically. Which is why it's still in there.

I have been Miami to Cali Columbia twice in a IIIB, landed with more than an hour of fuel. But we could only carry one passenger. Granted this was in the day of a fairly heavy VLF Omega nav system. With a lightweight GPS maybe carry 2 passengers.

The Garretts are very efficient especially at altitude, and I know people who flew them single pilot...I think I am in the 2 crew camp though.

And...bring a GPU if it is cold out, we used a Series start even in W.Palm. Dash 10s need a lot of current for start.