Metroliner III data

[MHN_pilot]

Hi!

I've been offered a job in this aircraft but i've to attend a selection process first, I would like to go with some culture about the a/c. I wonder if you could share any link about fcom, procedures or whatever. I already looked at smartcockpit but there's nothing about it.

Thanks for your input!!!!


Best regards.:}

[Checkboard]

High wing loading, noisy engines, pencil thin cabin, complicated fuel system, cheap to operate for the performance.

[18-Wheeler]

Everything you need to know - http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/390968-aircraft-you-love-hate-fly-2.html#post5229411

You'll thank me later ....

[Centaurus]

I've been offered a job in this aircraft but i've to attend a selection process first, I would like to go with some culture about the a/c

If the interview panel conclude by asking if you have any questions, ask them to give their opinion on the weather radar installed in the aircraft. If they say no problem it is excellent radar, then regard their reply with a hefty dose of cynicism and that means the rest of what they have told you in the interview may be bulls..t.

Because many operators of Metros are on shoe-string finances, radar defects are seen as low priority and a faulty radar is accepted as the norm. This is not a good thing since the medium altitudes at which Metros typically fly are smack in the middle of thunderstorm build up's.

The radar may be working but poorly maintained due cost cutting measures. The Metro radar will work well provided it is maintained regularly but many pilots are reluctant to snag defective radar in the maintenance release for fear of `making waves`

By asking that simple question and gauging the reply, you may obtain some clue on the company culture towards pilots writing up snags where these will cost money..

[Jane-DoH]

Weird, it's wing-loading isn't all that high from the figures I looked at. Wing loading is in the 50 lb/sq ft area.

[galaxy flyer]

JaneDoH

Not high for a jet, but for an underpowered, poor handling turboprop, 50 Lb/Sq Ft is astronomical. How long have you have been a pilot? I mean not counting yesterday.

GF

[ironbutt57]

Complicated fuel system??:confused:

[Jane-DoH]

galaxy flyer

Not high for a jet, but for an underpowered, poor handling turboprop, 50 Lb/Sq Ft is astronomical.

I'm not sure I grasp what you mean by underpowered. Each engine produces 1,000 hp (total of 2,000) and maximum weight depending on exact sub-variant is 14,500 to 16,000 pounds fully loaded. That gives you a similar power loading to a fully loaded F4U or F6F Hellcat and those were fighters.

Granted, both of them had lighter wing-loadings, but the P-38 had wing-loadings that were roughly that high and while it wasn't the best maneuvering fighter, I don't recall it ever being referred to as horrendous (except maybe in dives)

As for poor-handling characteristics, do you mean like unresponsive?

How long have you have been a pilot? I mean not counting yesterday.

I'm not a pilot... however most jetliners have wing-loadings well over 100, and some large propeller driven airliners in the 1940's and 1950's had wing-loadings in the 70's.

[Caboclo]

I have 3000 hours PIC in the Metro, most of it single pilot. :{ While it is certainly a challenging aircraft, it will only embarrass you, not kill you. (Unlike, say, the MU-2.) On the plus side, if you can fly a Metro, you can fly anything.

Regarding the previous posts, I suppose the fuel system might be considered complex while you're learning systems in ground school, but operationally it works very well. All you do is turn on the boost pumps and forget about it.

Control forces are very high, except in the flare. At that point it becomes extremely pitch sensitive, you have to force yourself to limit corrections to 1/8" yoke movement or less.

My pet peeves were very limited visibility in bad weather, due to poor defog and de-ice systems; a tendency for the roll trim to freeze up during the climb if it was raining on the ground; and the poor reliability of the nose-wheel steering, compounded by the fact that someone bribed the FAA to approve a clause allowing said steering to be deferred for up to 10 days. Taxiing with only differential thrust and differential brakes is quite entertaining, especially with a quartering tailwind. Just remember that you have reverse thrust as well as forwards, and try to stay off the brakes, or else you'll over-heat them and the thermal fuses in the wheels will melt. On long straight-aways it's actually much easier to taxi at 40 kts when the steering is inop, so your rudder is effective.

The most serious issue is that the engines never respond symmetrically, either on take-off or in reverse. There are two ways to deal with this problem; either you can use nose-steering or be very aggressive with the differential power. The problem with the nose steering is that it becomes extremely over-sensitive above 50 kts, and it can put you into the ditch even faster than asymmetric engine power. On T/O you reach 50 very quickly, and on landing of course you're still at 90 when you reach for the reverse. For that reason, SOP at my company was to never use steering for T/O or landing. We all thought that was crazy when we were initially getting checked out, and I left the steering armed at all times for the first 500 hours or so until I got my confidence up. Once I got used to it though, I decided that differential power is probably the preferred method. You just have to be aggressive with it. On take-off, move both throttles up an inch or two, and be prepared to instantly bring one back to idle, or even into reverse for a moment before bringing it slowly back up. And don't be afraid to abort the T/o entirely, get lined up again and try again. And don't get carried away with the rolling take-offs; make sure you're lined up on center-line with the nose-wheel centered before you hit the power. Once you get to know a particular airframe, you'll learn which throttle to advance first. Same thing on landing; initiate the reverse gently and be ready to bring one side back out. When you find yourself holding full reverse on one side with the other side forward of flight idle to keep it straight on roll-out, then you can write it up. That all probably sounds like terrible engineering (and it is) but again, the consequences of getting it wrong are merely running off the runway, which is embarrassing, but not life-threatening. I'll guarantee you that every Metro in the world has been in the weeds multiple times, but they're built like a tank, you just taxi back onto the pavement and keep going. :}

Oh yeah, the landing gear is very stiff; it's impossible to land smoothly on a consistent basis, which is kind of hard on the ego.

The OP was a couple weeks ago; did you get the job?

[aerobat77]

@mhn pilot : if you are real forgot all the hints and statements of the self named chair internet experts and go for the job. the selection will surely be based on general knowledge and not specific metro systems. this you learn in the type rating and further exprience.

be prepared for airlaw, navigation and human resources.

[Jane-DoH]

Caboclo

So the problem isn't so much the wing-loading; it's the fact that it has a number of bad handling characteristics, reliability issues with the nose-gear steering, and a tendency for ice to jam the aileron trim-tabs?