skiingpilot
New Member
For those of you who have flown both the 1900 and the Metro, which one is easier and more fun to fly?
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.
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.
If I had the choice, Id choose the 1900, only because I dont want to end up deaf
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