Fairchild Merlin IV vs King Air

mjg407

mjg407

Well-Known Member
Anybody fly a Merlin regularly? We are looking at getting a turbo prop support aircraft and with the cargo door this bird may fit the bill better. Thanks in advance.
 
mjg407 said:
Anybody fly a Merlin regularly? We are looking at getting a turbo prop support aircraft and with the cargo door this bird may fit the bill better. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with this:
TDC-3.jpg
 
mjg407 said:
Anybody fly a Merlin regularly? We are looking at getting a turbo prop support aircraft and with the cargo door this bird may fit the bill better. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...


There are many metro drivers here including me! What do you need to know?
 
I don't know about the King Air, but it burns about 150lbs less an hour than a 1900. It burns about 800lbs/hr the first hour and 600lbs/hr after that. It cruises about 20+kts better than the 1900 in the mid to upper teens. With it's fuselage being round, the 1900 beats the metro along the lines of cargo capacity.

The weight of the cargo varies according to fuel load of course. It's safe to say that you can get close to 3000lbs of cargo with full fuel. You can cruise for 7+ hours with full fuel! I don't recommend this because the seats are really uncomfortable.:) The longest I've flown it in one leg has been 5.7hrs. My tailbone really ached.

It does best between 16000 and FL180 IMHO.
 
Okay I see that wiki calls the Metro II the same as the the Merlin IV. How is the single engine performance? Any major recurring problems? Thanks.
 
mjg407 said:
Okay I see that wiki calls the Metro II the same as the the Merlin IV. How is the single engine performance? Any major recurring problems? Thanks.
Click to expand...


Merlin and Metroliner names are used pretty interchangeably. For istance my company flies the Metro III's, Merlin IV's and Merlin IVC's. We just call them all metros. They pretty much perform the same. They just have a few subtle differences and have different maximum gross takeoff weights.

Single engine takeoff performance is really good in my opinion. V1 cuts are a pain due to the ailerons ending 3ft inboard of the wing tips. But the aircraft flies decently on one engine. It's no rocket ship by any means on one engine, but it will fly.

Another good thing about the metro is that high and hot takeoffs are not really a problem. The alcohol water injection system pretty much takes care of that!
 
Kingairs are slow, overpriced, and boring. I realize this isn't an aesthetics argument, but I thought I'd mention that. Don't know anything about the Merlin, but I'd rather fly a kite than a KA.

Ahem. No doubt you've considered the MU-2-60? Cheaper than a good night in Tijuana, fast as the dickens, and if cargo is an issue, there are tons of them recently idled with great big cargo doors.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Kingairs are slow, overpriced, and boring. I realize this isn't an aesthetics argument, but I thought I'd mention that. Don't know anything about the Merlin, but I'd rather fly a kite than a KA.

Ahem. No doubt you've considered the MU-2-60? Cheaper than a good night in Tijuana, fast as the dickens, and if cargo is an issue, there are tons of them recently idled with great big cargo doors.
Click to expand...

+1

If you don't go with the Turbo-3, the MU2 is awesome. Huge regret in my life is not being able to make it over to StL when Boris still had that deal. He said that for an undisclosed amount he would let me fly left seat while he slept.
 
What's wrong with "boring?" I guess if a busy cockpit with lots of opportunity for error is what you like, then a King Air is boring.

King Airs are honest planes, well built, fairly simple...That's why they've sold so many.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Kingairs are slow, overpriced, and boring. I realize this isn't an aesthetics argument, but I thought I'd mention that. Don't know anything about the Merlin, but I'd rather fly a kite than a KA.

Ahem. No doubt you've considered the MU-2-60? Cheaper than a good night in Tijuana, fast as the dickens, and if cargo is an issue, there are tons of them recently idled with great big cargo doors.
Click to expand...
Okay Boris, edumicate me on the MU-2. Capacity, speed, ceiling, SE performance. Not sold on any airframe type yet, looking for the best fit.
 
IF you do go with Moo 2's, then get a good one (I mean a cherry). If you don't, watch out you will want to blow your head off with MX bills. There are an untold amount of problems and nuiances with them if not well kept.
 
Have a good amount of PIC in both the SA227 and KA B200. To me kinda like apple and oranges, entirely different animals. The Metro is a great cargo hauler, it's ugly, flys a bit faster, round 600 lbs/hr, but our constantly had maintentance problems. I'm flying a B200 now in India and maybe the 350 is better suited for cargo with the cargo door but the B200 is not. Hard to load things, the door can't hold much weight. But starting is easier, you can fly it much much higher (metro get's squirrelly after 220 but I regulary take the B200 up to 270 no problem) You can get a good cruise at 550 - 500 lbs hours, no maintenance problems, flys so much nicer than the Metro which constantly needs trim adjustments and whatnot. Easier to start in extreme climates, if I had to go into a short field I would prefer the KA but short field take off I would prefer Metro. Just some observations.

=Jason-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top