Let's all kick the cr@p of the Metro thread
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melboune
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's all kick the cr@p of the Metro thread
We have all heard the names and snide remarks.
San Antonio sewer pipe, Death Pencil, Meatro …… yeah yeah
However, a better more suited aircraft for the Australian regional market I cannot find.
Yes, a Q400,Q300, even Saab 340B et al are reasonable gear for a 30 seat port, but the 19 seat operators have a bone yard cemetery full of aircraft types that well just could not cut the job out like my namesake.
The Metro has carried more Australians to and from regional centres than any other aircraft. Moved more mega TNT tones of boxes than any other. All done (not so) quietly and efficiently with a minimum of fuss.
And all without a death that can be reasonably be attributed to the aircraft, its certification or ability. Australian Metro deaths have come from poor judgement of the smallest of small minority who fcked up bigtime.
No failing crankshafts. No “self” destructing props. No poorly designed fuel system.
Ah yeah-as, then the Heckle and Jeckle of Dunnunder, Gaunty and swh will scream the certification boogy man will hang, draw and quarter all the passengers who dare to look the beast between the eyes! Well, they have more words than Tolstoy and a better grasp of life saving certification requirements than the FAA and JAR put together (hell they tell the FAA and JAR how to certify). But all their commentary is grounded by the proof in the pudding………..aviation survival.
And Before You Start……. I am not the “God” referred to in other posts. V1 cuts in Metros are for clowns. A mate of mine proved that to us all years ago.
It has been suggested in another thread that we (in jest) kick off a lets kick the crap out of the Metro thread.
Well in Jest maybe, but I know for a fact that some want the free kick.
Well I say…………………BRING EM ON. Your “we hate the Metro’s harka” does not scare me.
Go ahead, have a swing. Go on, I dare you. You soft belly Beech/”M”Braer boofheads. Swing at me. Have a go you mugs……………..
San Antonio sewer pipe, Death Pencil, Meatro …… yeah yeah
However, a better more suited aircraft for the Australian regional market I cannot find.
Yes, a Q400,Q300, even Saab 340B et al are reasonable gear for a 30 seat port, but the 19 seat operators have a bone yard cemetery full of aircraft types that well just could not cut the job out like my namesake.
The Metro has carried more Australians to and from regional centres than any other aircraft. Moved more mega TNT tones of boxes than any other. All done (not so) quietly and efficiently with a minimum of fuss.
And all without a death that can be reasonably be attributed to the aircraft, its certification or ability. Australian Metro deaths have come from poor judgement of the smallest of small minority who fcked up bigtime.
No failing crankshafts. No “self” destructing props. No poorly designed fuel system.
Ah yeah-as, then the Heckle and Jeckle of Dunnunder, Gaunty and swh will scream the certification boogy man will hang, draw and quarter all the passengers who dare to look the beast between the eyes! Well, they have more words than Tolstoy and a better grasp of life saving certification requirements than the FAA and JAR put together (hell they tell the FAA and JAR how to certify). But all their commentary is grounded by the proof in the pudding………..aviation survival.
And Before You Start……. I am not the “God” referred to in other posts. V1 cuts in Metros are for clowns. A mate of mine proved that to us all years ago.
It has been suggested in another thread that we (in jest) kick off a lets kick the crap out of the Metro thread.
Well in Jest maybe, but I know for a fact that some want the free kick.
Well I say…………………BRING EM ON. Your “we hate the Metro’s harka” does not scare me.
Go ahead, have a swing. Go on, I dare you. You soft belly Beech/”M”Braer boofheads. Swing at me. Have a go you mugs……………..
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A Kitchen in Southpark
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with you 23 metros, great aircraft that has stood the test of time and continues to perform to a great standard. If the metro is so bad, then where are all the replacements???
The Chef
The Chef
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you might be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree.
I don't recall ever saying the Metro was a "bad" aircraft, there is rarely such a thing.
I've said it here before the test of a "good" aircraft should not be, as some ego's would have it, that it takes a "real man" to fly it, my old granny will do just nicely thank you.
It was a product of its time and does the job for which it was intended.
Its just that it's reached the end of its product cycle and inevitably, is being replaced by new technology.
Over 1003 produced at the last count, can't argue with that even got up to FAR23 Amendment 34 I think.
It can stand proudly in line with the DC3, Convairs, F27s and the like.
But like it or not the sun is setting and it's time to move on with more efficient types.
Its really simple, were they not so cheap in capital terms in the marketplace relative to more modern types they would not now be economic. The "megatonnes of TNT freight" is a damning with faint praise.
Your regional customers will not thank you if you do not.
I don't recall ever saying the Metro was a "bad" aircraft, there is rarely such a thing.
I've said it here before the test of a "good" aircraft should not be, as some ego's would have it, that it takes a "real man" to fly it, my old granny will do just nicely thank you.
It was a product of its time and does the job for which it was intended.
Its just that it's reached the end of its product cycle and inevitably, is being replaced by new technology.
Over 1003 produced at the last count, can't argue with that even got up to FAR23 Amendment 34 I think.
It can stand proudly in line with the DC3, Convairs, F27s and the like.
But like it or not the sun is setting and it's time to move on with more efficient types.
Its really simple, were they not so cheap in capital terms in the marketplace relative to more modern types they would not now be economic. The "megatonnes of TNT freight" is a damning with faint praise.
Your regional customers will not thank you if you do not.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oz -Sometimes
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
23 Metros In a Row
Ever heard of an aircraft called Raytheon 1900D? Given he choice I doubt any punter would want to fly the noisy, bend ya head towards the middle, “pencil d1ck” in lieu of a 1900D, seeing we are talking 19 seat aircraft. Just my 2 cents.
Cockpit from the stone age, the noisest aircraft i have ever heard, cant even stand up inside, i could go on forever. junk!
However, a better more suited aircraft for the Australian regional market I cannot find.
Cockpit from the stone age, the noisest aircraft i have ever heard, cant even stand up inside, i could go on forever. junk!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The J31/32 kicks the crap out of the Metro.
Stand-up cabin, much stronger, much more stable aerodynamically, etc etc etc.
Ever wonder why the scrapyards are full of Metros, whilst the J32 soldiers steadily on?
The Metro (or more accurately, the Merlin from which it was developed) was designed for speed, not strength or longevity. They are fast, but you pay for it eventually.
Personally I would far rather have the stand-up cabin, toilet and galley that the Jetstream comes with.
Ding ding... round two...
Stand-up cabin, much stronger, much more stable aerodynamically, etc etc etc.
Ever wonder why the scrapyards are full of Metros, whilst the J32 soldiers steadily on?
The Metro (or more accurately, the Merlin from which it was developed) was designed for speed, not strength or longevity. They are fast, but you pay for it eventually.
Personally I would far rather have the stand-up cabin, toilet and galley that the Jetstream comes with.
Ding ding... round two...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well personally I hate Metro's but then I have good reason to.
But putting that aside from a passenger's point of view and having flown on them to Merimbula in the past, they are noisy, uncomfortable and I think they should be used for freight only!
It also disturbs me that Metro's from countries such as Mexico end up flying RPT in Australia.
Cheers,
Fiona Norris
But putting that aside from a passenger's point of view and having flown on them to Merimbula in the past, they are noisy, uncomfortable and I think they should be used for freight only!
It also disturbs me that Metro's from countries such as Mexico end up flying RPT in Australia.
Cheers,
Fiona Norris
My comments come from one who has been lucky enough NOT to fly a Metro, how ever I have been unfortunate enough to be a passenger in one, and a worst aircraft for passengers I cannot think of.
Prior to this post I had been wondering which aircraft had been involved in more fatalities in Australia, and I reckon the Metro would be right up there.
choices in that range??
B1900, E110, Metro, J31/32, Twin Otter(a bit specialised to really compare)
Prior to this post I had been wondering which aircraft had been involved in more fatalities in Australia, and I reckon the Metro would be right up there.
choices in that range??
B1900, E110, Metro, J31/32, Twin Otter(a bit specialised to really compare)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I loved flying the Metro(23).
It is a challenge, and a rewad when you are flying it properly. It will kick the cr@p out of a J31/32, will outclimb a Saab or Dash, is cheaper to run than the 1900, and lets not even talk about piston a/c!
Insofar as freight goes, the "Spider net" system works well, and if packed properly, can uplift 1900kg SYD-BNE!
Pax wise ??? OK. they might be a bit small, but at least you get a window AND an aisle seat. Rarely did we have to leave baggage behind , even with 19pax!
Do you REALLy need a galley if you don't have a F/A ??? or does the poor old F/O have to do yet ANOTHER role ? A toilet on board a plane like the M23 or J31? No thanks!
And insofar as a pax point of view - let's face it, Every a/c they turn up to they whinge about!
The best thing about the M23 being noisy ??? well you can't hear the two ladies in row 1 yakking and yakking and yakking... all the way thru check in, boarding, briefing, climb, cruise ,descent, landing and disembarkation! and some of them women can talk!!!
The only thing it needs is a DECENT aircon system, and pax who don't make stupid comments when they board
It is a challenge, and a rewad when you are flying it properly. It will kick the cr@p out of a J31/32, will outclimb a Saab or Dash, is cheaper to run than the 1900, and lets not even talk about piston a/c!
Insofar as freight goes, the "Spider net" system works well, and if packed properly, can uplift 1900kg SYD-BNE!
Pax wise ??? OK. they might be a bit small, but at least you get a window AND an aisle seat. Rarely did we have to leave baggage behind , even with 19pax!
Do you REALLy need a galley if you don't have a F/A ??? or does the poor old F/O have to do yet ANOTHER role ? A toilet on board a plane like the M23 or J31? No thanks!
And insofar as a pax point of view - let's face it, Every a/c they turn up to they whinge about!
The best thing about the M23 being noisy ??? well you can't hear the two ladies in row 1 yakking and yakking and yakking... all the way thru check in, boarding, briefing, climb, cruise ,descent, landing and disembarkation! and some of them women can talk!!!
The only thing it needs is a DECENT aircon system, and pax who don't make stupid comments when they board
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This arguement needs to be looked at from 2 different perspectives.
1 - The passenger
2 - The operators and crew.
I am sure we would all agree that from a passenger comfort point of view, the Metro is lacking. In this regard the J31 and B1900 are far superior.
But from an operating point of view, the reliability, operating costs, speed, payload, by far outway that of any other type in the same class.
From a pilot's perspective, the Metro is a great aircraft to fly. It does what you tell it to do when you tell it to do it. Apart from being a bit of a ground hog, the performance is second to none, especially on a cool day. Not many others can climb out at MTOW at 3000-4000 fpm.
The proof (as per AA 9/2005) - Aircraft numbers in Australia. 8 B1900C/D's, 6 J31/32's, 62 M2/3/23.
MM
1 - The passenger
2 - The operators and crew.
I am sure we would all agree that from a passenger comfort point of view, the Metro is lacking. In this regard the J31 and B1900 are far superior.
But from an operating point of view, the reliability, operating costs, speed, payload, by far outway that of any other type in the same class.
From a pilot's perspective, the Metro is a great aircraft to fly. It does what you tell it to do when you tell it to do it. Apart from being a bit of a ground hog, the performance is second to none, especially on a cool day. Not many others can climb out at MTOW at 3000-4000 fpm.
The proof (as per AA 9/2005) - Aircraft numbers in Australia. 8 B1900C/D's, 6 J31/32's, 62 M2/3/23.
MM
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iwas just about to make the same comment , comparing the numbers of each aircraft in Oz. Pax will whine no matter what aircraft turns up at the gate, especially in regional centres. In my experience pax seem to compare every aircraft to a 747 or 767, I have heard pax complain about 737's, the comment being "oh no not the small one again" . Metros do a brilliant job, they can carry max payload up to about 700nm (metro23), yes they can be noisy and no you cant stand upright, however over a 1 hour flight how many of you really need to get up and walk around, use the toilet etc etc (if you cant hold your bladder in that time something is wrong -metros were designed for short sectors up to an hour maybe an hour and a half, even though they can stretch this quite easily). The older metros , ie 2's and 3's, maybe be getting a bit ragged around the edges however the 23's which are only 10-15 years old still have alot left in em(young for australian aircraft).
JarJar
JarJar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melboune
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
"The sun is setting on the Metro".
Captain, the sun might go down over Rotto each afternoon, but 'twill shine on the Metro on regional 19 seat ops for many more moons, and still be there in the golden morning sun getting ready for another run.
Can't be replaced, because there is nothing (in your words) more efficient that can replace it. Noting on the drawing board either.
The Beech babies and GenX J32ers are gone from production together with the peace pipe.
But oil prices will stay high and the Pratts even emptied the deep tight pockets of SQ!
Unless we see a liquidation of Raytheon's fleet at reasonable prices, the Beech will not get a look in.
Regional centres who currently have a Metro cannot support a Bras or Saab......both of which, too, are out of production and as old (generally) and safe as the Metro in the hands of our next generation.
Then again, Meeka or Birdsville might have population explosions......but then again, not.
As for the others,
Not many Metro's come from Mexico, not that it is relevant. Not sure why Mexico gets a kick in this regard.
Passenger's perspective ..... yeah so you can stand up when you get in and out in the Beech. But you cant stand up during take off or landing, Metro or Beech. More relevantly, passengers want an air service........all of the routes the Beech were on, well they're not anymore. It is the same argument as putting a Bras or Saab into a port with five paying nothing backsides.....It is only temporary. Then hey presto no service or back to the Metro.
How many deaths (pax or crew) is the Metro responsible for in Australia.............none. Pilots are TOTALLY responsible for them not the aircraft.
J31/32 in service and metro's in the bone yard.............wrong china. Other way around. And don't start me on 31's. Poms could never do anything that made money in aviation....
"The sun is setting on the Metro".
Captain, the sun might go down over Rotto each afternoon, but 'twill shine on the Metro on regional 19 seat ops for many more moons, and still be there in the golden morning sun getting ready for another run.
Can't be replaced, because there is nothing (in your words) more efficient that can replace it. Noting on the drawing board either.
The Beech babies and GenX J32ers are gone from production together with the peace pipe.
But oil prices will stay high and the Pratts even emptied the deep tight pockets of SQ!
Unless we see a liquidation of Raytheon's fleet at reasonable prices, the Beech will not get a look in.
Regional centres who currently have a Metro cannot support a Bras or Saab......both of which, too, are out of production and as old (generally) and safe as the Metro in the hands of our next generation.
Then again, Meeka or Birdsville might have population explosions......but then again, not.
As for the others,
Not many Metro's come from Mexico, not that it is relevant. Not sure why Mexico gets a kick in this regard.
Passenger's perspective ..... yeah so you can stand up when you get in and out in the Beech. But you cant stand up during take off or landing, Metro or Beech. More relevantly, passengers want an air service........all of the routes the Beech were on, well they're not anymore. It is the same argument as putting a Bras or Saab into a port with five paying nothing backsides.....It is only temporary. Then hey presto no service or back to the Metro.
How many deaths (pax or crew) is the Metro responsible for in Australia.............none. Pilots are TOTALLY responsible for them not the aircraft.
J31/32 in service and metro's in the bone yard.............wrong china. Other way around. And don't start me on 31's. Poms could never do anything that made money in aviation....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Metro is the king of the 19 seaters based on fuel burn. With the price of fuel heading for orbit these aircraft will be here until there is no more fossil fuel to pump. Those PT6 powered aircraft need the soot washed off them every night. Those stand up cabins just add drag and make the aircraft look stupid. The only truly 19 seat Jetstream the Poms made is the 41. The rest are junk and have the reliability / performance that goes with it. Never get caught in a Metro departing behind a J31.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTMIAR
Once again you may be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree.
Like most pilots you seem make the mistake of believing that this business is about flying aircraft and how far, fast, difficult "pilot" stuff, about how can I run a service that will give me a job.
It's actually exactly around the other way.
You see the notion was never about the "aircraft", Metro, Jetstream (we actually placed an order for some of those in the late sixties when they were powered by Aztazous,
weren't we lucky they went broke), Beech 99 yet, Cessna 404, B1900 etc.
It is about a pragmatic certification status that was born out of expediency at the time.
you can bet your bippy on that and why do you think that is so.
By the time you meet all the current requirements in this modern world (or the past for that matter) the economics demand that you wind up with either the Dash 8/ATR42 types or small regional jets breaking out all over.
That is an equation the manufacturers have never been able to satisfactorily resolve. Swearingen/Fairchild may have come as close as any to it.
They even studied a "stand-up body" but the inexorable and immutable laws of certification economics said if ya gunna do that you need to start from scratch and if ya gunna do that the ultimate market is not there in that seat range at the sort of dollars required.
You dont need to be a rocket scientist or do the numbers to know that it doesn't cost all that much more to build a 30 pax airframe as a 19 pax one.
And if we were talking in the world of real costs the modern efficient 30 paxer can happily service routes down to break evens of maybe 10 pax.
Now it aint gunna happen over night, but it will happen, who's gunna pay for it remains moot.
The next five years will pass in a blink.
I really dont care what they use in freight as long as they aren't sacrificing young pilots.
Neither do I care if you choose to ignore my advice.
If you are a big time Metro operator (any sort really) and have your "profit" predicated on the low capital costs of any of these types, IMHO you've got maybe 5 years at the best to get your revenue up to the point where you can afford to replace them with the new types or you plan your exit strategy on very high operating profits for the period, there wont be any realisable capital assets.
I would also be talking carefully and quietly to the Government about the return of subsidy to those areas that cannot hope to support modern equipment.
It used to be the way and remote areas recieved relatively equitable and state of the art services, but somewhere along the way some really clever operators convinced the Government that by using written down, no longer economically viable or surplus equipment they could do without subsidy. Really clever businessmen these guys?
Well that bird is coming home to roost.
Once again you may be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree.
Like most pilots you seem make the mistake of believing that this business is about flying aircraft and how far, fast, difficult "pilot" stuff, about how can I run a service that will give me a job.
It's actually exactly around the other way.
You see the notion was never about the "aircraft", Metro, Jetstream (we actually placed an order for some of those in the late sixties when they were powered by Aztazous,
weren't we lucky they went broke), Beech 99 yet, Cessna 404, B1900 etc.It is about a pragmatic certification status that was born out of expediency at the time.
Noting (sic) on the drawing board either
By the time you meet all the current requirements in this modern world (or the past for that matter) the economics demand that you wind up with either the Dash 8/ATR42 types or small regional jets breaking out all over.
That is an equation the manufacturers have never been able to satisfactorily resolve. Swearingen/Fairchild may have come as close as any to it.
They even studied a "stand-up body" but the inexorable and immutable laws of certification economics said if ya gunna do that you need to start from scratch and if ya gunna do that the ultimate market is not there in that seat range at the sort of dollars required.
You dont need to be a rocket scientist or do the numbers to know that it doesn't cost all that much more to build a 30 pax airframe as a 19 pax one.
And if we were talking in the world of real costs the modern efficient 30 paxer can happily service routes down to break evens of maybe 10 pax.
Now it aint gunna happen over night, but it will happen, who's gunna pay for it remains moot.
The next five years will pass in a blink.
I really dont care what they use in freight as long as they aren't sacrificing young pilots.
Neither do I care if you choose to ignore my advice.
If you are a big time Metro operator (any sort really) and have your "profit"
predicated on the low capital costs of any of these types, IMHO you've got maybe 5 years at the best to get your revenue up to the point where you can afford to replace them with the new types or you plan your exit strategy on very high operating profits for the period, there wont be any realisable capital assets.I would also be talking carefully and quietly to the Government about the return of subsidy to those areas that cannot hope to support modern equipment.
It used to be the way and remote areas recieved relatively equitable and state of the art services, but somewhere along the way some really clever operators
convinced the Government that by using written down, no longer economically viable or surplus equipment they could do without subsidy. Really clever businessmen these guys?Well that bird is coming home to roost.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's my breakdown:
Metro: Cheap to buy; passenger appeal zero; good speed but with handling issues. Payload range first class, but with light airframe that turns to junk ; economic fuel burn. Cheap to lease/buy
J31/2: passenger appeal high; Speed good; airframe built like brick-sh1t house and resultantly payload range with limitations, particularly for Aussie market; just behind Metro on fuel burn. Cheap to lease buy
B1900C: Fast, but passenger appeal zero; high fuel burn; mid price to buy/lease
B1900D: Fast, passenger appeal good just behind J31/2; high fuel burn; costly to buy/lease
So whatever you operate you end up with a compromise. My choice would probably be for the J32; with nobody building pressurised 19-seaters any more the J32 has the longevity of airframe that I would want.
Metro: Cheap to buy; passenger appeal zero; good speed but with handling issues. Payload range first class, but with light airframe that turns to junk ; economic fuel burn. Cheap to lease/buy
J31/2: passenger appeal high; Speed good; airframe built like brick-sh1t house and resultantly payload range with limitations, particularly for Aussie market; just behind Metro on fuel burn. Cheap to lease buy
B1900C: Fast, but passenger appeal zero; high fuel burn; mid price to buy/lease
B1900D: Fast, passenger appeal good just behind J31/2; high fuel burn; costly to buy/lease
So whatever you operate you end up with a compromise. My choice would probably be for the J32; with nobody building pressurised 19-seaters any more the J32 has the longevity of airframe that I would want.
Last edited by privateer; 2nd Sep 2005 at 23:12.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: two feet AGL or wherever there's smoke
Age: 47
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it's too slow and not pressurised, but cheaper than a caravan
http://www.let.cz/leteckezavody/en/l...data_tabs.asp#[IMG]
[/IMG]
http://www.let.cz/leteckezavody/en/l...data_tabs.asp#[IMG]
[/IMG]
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly respectable second segment too, but the 14,000 max operating level is a bit of a worry.
Looks like a great aircraft for rattling around Eastern Europe over 100-150 mile sectors.
I suspect you'd find anything beyond ISA would be a real test. WAT gets em every time. But they were designed for the conditions ISA+20 has half the population in hospital with heat stroke while we're just taking our cardies off.
Looks like a great aircraft for rattling around Eastern Europe over 100-150 mile sectors.
I suspect you'd find anything beyond ISA would be a real test. WAT gets em every time. But they were designed for the conditions ISA+20 has half the population in hospital with heat stroke while we're just taking our cardies off.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a metro load up with the local basketball team on charter once. Poor buggas, I could only see their knees in the windows. Should have put them horizontally in a cargo version instead.
Should have put them horizontally in a cargo version instead.