control authority
I flew the Metro 2a, Metro 3. and Metro 4.
while one might complain a bit about heavy controls, the plane is completely flyable at all normal speeds.
there are also expressions about going to idle and losing speed quickly. this shows a misunderstanding of the engine prop system. Suffice to say, this plane, when properly maintained and properly flown is adequate (though not one of my favorite planes) for its mission.
Indeed, there is a version of this plane flying for the USAF in an odd sort of electronic role. (at least last time I checked).
flying fast to maintain control authority just tells me that someone doesn't have a clue. (granted, flying fast requires smaller control inputs) Mind you, I've seen pilots make big mistakes in understanding this type of plane. I am not saying that is the case here.
When the throttles are placed to idle (assuming properly trimed and rigged) the plane will lose speed...if placed to idle and the prop /throttle rigging is incorrect the plane can lose speed very quickly as the props go to flat and basically become discs creating drag. But pilots know this...it is quite handy going into mountainous airports ( I flew this type into KTVL...over 6000'msl).
BUT I DON"T THINK ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CRASH.
Not all planes ''feel" like a cessna 182...a metro feels like a metro, a 737 like a 737 (which somehow reminds me of a C182) and the MU2 feels very disharmonious...but is flyable.
Shaking my head. Hope some more facts come to light.
I would also like to know what position the flaps are in and what was selected. Can't determine from photo.