BE1900 vs Metroliner

Baronman

Well-Known Member
Never flew either, although I imagine a King Air is similar enough to the nineteen hundo. I think the 1900 is the more straight forward of the two, the metro being a little more quirky. Flew as a passenger on the metro a bunch of times as a kid, it really was such a distinct looking plane that I could always identify.
 

DavCo

Well-Known Member
I currently fly the 1900D and I absolutely love that plane... its not called the mighty beech for nothing. But my CFI instructor flew for Keyslime as a metro driver and he seemed to think that that plane was under powered and oddly built... but fun to fly in good wx. My vote goes toward the 1900 just because I have never heard bad things about it.
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
No Metro time, but I've been around enough of them, and talked to enough crews to know that they aren't really that fun to fly. Just look at how far the ailerons are inboard on the wings, and how small the tail is. Whereas the Hondo has ample control surfaces, a big tail with a big rudder and plenty of power.

The gear are also kind of spindly looking, and I wouldn't even consider taking the metro into the same fields we used to take the 1900 into just for purely mechanical reasons. The 1900 is a great airplane on gravel and wet mud for example, I'm not entirely confident in the metro's ability to perform under similar conditions, and you don't see them operating in the same way up here as the hondo.
 

gomntwins

Well-Known Member
I've got a couple thousand hours of single pilot metro time. It's really not that bad. The general consensus among most pilots that have flown both is that the 1900 was built better and is easier to fly. Also, the 1900 systems are a lot less quirky (beech sure knows what they're doing). But, at the same time, it's the quirks that make the Metro so much fun to fly. I work with a number of pilots that have flown both and find the 1900 single pilot to be boring. The metro, especially when you're new in it, is not a boring aircraft. The metro is arguably underpowered with the handling of a mack truck (the metro II's aren't that bad... shorter wings with the ailerons actually extending the the wind tips whereas the III's have a random 3 foot of wing added outside of the ailerons) and the rudder is about the size of a 152's. Also, Hydraulic nose steering that will send you off the side of the runway in a heartbeat and a poorly designed heating system that tends to make the wings overheat can make life interesting. And of course the placement of any switches in the metro is counter-intuitive to what any sane/logical person would think. All that being said, I absolutely love the metro. So do the people I work with that have flown both- they love the metro. It's the metro's quirks that make it so much fun. The first 100 hours of flying one alone is pretty damn interesting... but once you get beyond that steep learning curve and start getting comfortable, it's not that bad. In fact, it's an absolute pleasure to fly one.
 

Number1atNumber2

Tries to keep it fun.
I've got a couple thousand hours of single pilot metro time. It's really not that bad. The general consensus among most pilots that have flown both is that the 1900 was built better and is easier to fly. Also, the 1900 systems are a lot less quirky (beech sure knows what they're doing). But, at the same time, it's the quirks that make the Metro so much fun to fly. I work with a number of pilots that have flown both and find the 1900 single pilot to be boring. The metro, especially when you're new in it, is not a boring aircraft. The metro is arguably underpowered with the handling of a mack truck (the metro II's aren't that bad... shorter wings with the ailerons actually extending the the wind tips whereas the III's have a random 3 foot of wing added outside of the ailerons) and the rudder is about the size of a 152's. Also, Hydraulic nose steering that will send you off the side of the runway in a heartbeat and a poorly designed heating system that tends to make the wings overheat can make life interesting. And of course the placement of any switches in the metro is counter-intuitive to what any sane/logical person would think. All that being said, I absolutely love the metro. So do the people I work with that have flown both- they love the metro. It's the metro's quirks that make it so much fun. The first 100 hours of flying one alone is pretty damn interesting... but once you get beyond that steep learning curve and start getting comfortable, it's not that bad. In fact, it's an absolute pleasure to fly one.
That's about the same thing I've heard from most people about the metro.
 

KLB

Well-Known Member
Gomntwins is 100% correct. I haven't flown the 1900, but I have flown the 99. The cockpit layout is the same and I hear the performance characteristics are the same. It pretty much does what you think. You think 30 degree bank and its there. In the metro, it's more like think 30 degree bank, turn the yoke about 60 degrees to get it, and wait 5 seconds. Then you're in a 30 degree bank.:) With that being said, the 99 got real boring after a while. Its just real easy aircraft to fly. At one point I was happy when instructed that I would have to fly the chieftan instead of the 99. The fun with the metro comes when you try to get it to perform as if it was a 99. It's really hard to do.
 

Avalon781ML

Well-Known Member
I love the metro.... would jump at the chance to get back in one.... if you can fly the metro you can fly anything!
 

chris

Well-Known Member
No Metro time, but I've been around enough of them, and talked to enough crews to know that they aren't really that fun to fly. Just look at how far the ailerons are inboard on the wings, and how small the tail is. Whereas the Hondo has ample control surfaces, a big tail with a big rudder and plenty of power.

The gear are also kind of spindly looking, and I wouldn't even consider taking the metro into the same fields we used to take the 1900 into just for purely mechanical reasons. The 1900 is a great airplane on gravel and wet mud for example, I'm not entirely confident in the metro's ability to perform under similar conditions, and you don't see them operating in the same way up here as the hondo.

I used to fly the metro up in northern manitoba, canada. We operated out of gravel strips all the time, between 2900-4000ft long. The plane is known for being "squirly," but Im not really sure what that means, but it does require hands and feet and your full attention. The plane handles really well in icing conditions and is very easy to slow it up when you need to.

If I had the choice, Id choose the 1900, only because I dont want to end up deaf :)
 

gomntwins

Well-Known Member
If I had the choice, Id choose the 1900, only because I dont want to end up deaf :)

Hahaha! Yeah, the metro is loud! Noise canceling changes more from a luxury to a necessity flying Metro's! I flew for a year in the Metro with my old david clarks (without noise canceling) and needless to say, my hearing isn't as good as it used to be. The perk is that at the bar loud music doesn't bother me as much anymore! It's really too bad though-- my mistakes will cost me forever. I've got a bose x now, and that's made the difference. I had to send my bose in a couple months back for some work and went back to the D.C.'s... I had forgotten exactly how loud those garretts are- even inside the airplane. The Garrett is an awesome engine though. TBO is about twice that of a Pratt and if you need power with a garrett it's instant! No lag at all! A few bad things though: the starting a garrett is hard on the batteries (she ain't no free turbine so when you start it everything's spinning) and they have a tendency to want to hot start with weak batteries or a bad GPU. They are cool though. It's fun watching everybody glaring at you and plugging their ears as you roll by!
 

KLB

Well-Known Member
I used to fly the metro up in northern manitoba, canada. We operated out of gravel strips all the time, between 2900-4000ft long. The plane is known for being "squirly," but Im not really sure what that means, but it does require hands and feet and your full attention. The plane handles really well in icing conditions and is very easy to slow it up when you need to.

If I had the choice, Id choose the 1900, only because I dont want to end up deaf :)
Did you work for Bearskin Airlines? I always see them going in and out of CYOW whenever I'm up there. I hear that they fly into smaller airports in the northern territory.

To add to what Chris has said, landings get real hairy whenever it's gusty or there is a stiff x-wind. The hydraulic nosewheel steering is just screwy. I haven't had the pleasure of defering the nosewheel steering yet. That could be fun!:sarcasm:
 

E_Dawg

Moderator
Flown very little, a few hrs in each aircraft.

The metro is much more fun to fly because it flies like a mack truck. Switches everywhere, and not very intuitive. To fly it well is to really know the plane and it's quirks which I think is why it's a love it or hate it airplane.

The 1900 is a basic airplane, pretty well built and does what it's supposed to. A little boring maybe, but overall probably safer in its design.
 

chris

Well-Known Member
I wasn't at Bearskin, but a company called Perimeter. If you fly into YWG you'll see the metros with the green tails all over the place.
 

LOGS

Well-Known Member
The flying truck is the best description. If you can fly a King Air, you can fly a 1900, but I have yet to fly another aircraft that handled like the Metro. I miss those garretts and the hot starts and the pressurization problems and the nose wheel steering and the.......

=Jason-
 

Avalon781ML

Well-Known Member
Oh snap! He had to mention the CAWI.... wasn't going to bring that up till the last second but there it is.:rawk:
 
Top