staring the metroliner tpe331
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: france
Age: 51
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
staring the metroliner tpe331
hello everyone
i just bought a dvd over the net about a flite on the metroliner powered by two tpe331 engines.
the dvd doesn t provide any explanation about the startup procedure so i was wondering if anyone familiar with the beast would be willing to share his knowledge with us on how to start the garrett, which switch they press, the start up sequence, what to do if anything goes wrong and so on.
I am familiar with turbine engines but i never had the chance to fly any turboprop, sadly!!
if anyone care i can provide info about the cl604/605.
many thanks
baobab72
i just bought a dvd over the net about a flite on the metroliner powered by two tpe331 engines.
the dvd doesn t provide any explanation about the startup procedure so i was wondering if anyone familiar with the beast would be willing to share his knowledge with us on how to start the garrett, which switch they press, the start up sequence, what to do if anything goes wrong and so on.
I am familiar with turbine engines but i never had the chance to fly any turboprop, sadly!!
if anyone care i can provide info about the cl604/605.
many thanks
baobab72
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metroliner
I flew about 1,100 hours in Metroliner III aircraft in 1993 - 1994 which were equipped with Garrett TPE-331-11U engines. These engines were rated at 1,000 HP dry and 1,100 HP wet. They gave the Metro a TAS (for flight planning purposes) of 280 KTAS.
Starting was a very simply affair. There are 2 push-buttons on the skirt panel located slightly to the right of the left control column, one each for each engine.
You pushed the button and the engine began to spin up. At some point (I'd have to look at my old ops manual) the ignitor would light and the fuel would begin to flow. I recall this being around 20 - 30% RPM but could be wrong as it has been 16+ years. You could hear the fuel ignite and the RPMs would really begin to pick up. You would monitor the temperature gauge as the temp could go up to 770 degrees C but for only a few seconds. It should settle down below (again if I recall correctly) 650 degrees C. This number was based on the SRL (Single Red Line) computer being operational. Of course there was also an oil pressure gauge for each engine. If the start "hung" for any reason, there was a stop button just below the start button which shut off the fuel to that engine hence aborting the start process.
Also, after the engines were started you had to briefly pull each power lever over the gate to reverse the prop. This released the prop from the stops. These stops were mechanical devices which kept the prop from going into feather when the engine was shut down. As the TPE-331 engine is a single shaft turbine, the prop can not be in full feather or it will cause too much drag on start up which will overtemp the engine. If the shutdown was not done properly, there is a switch on the left side panel which will cause a pump to force oil into the prop hub thereby pushing the prop out of feather and back on to the stops.
On the center panel between the pilots and just below the power levers are 2 large red knobs. These are the "stop and feather" controls. They mechanically shut off the fuel, stopping the engine and cause the prop to go to feather. They are used in-flight if you have and emergency and need to shut down an engine.
I hope this helps!
Starting was a very simply affair. There are 2 push-buttons on the skirt panel located slightly to the right of the left control column, one each for each engine.
You pushed the button and the engine began to spin up. At some point (I'd have to look at my old ops manual) the ignitor would light and the fuel would begin to flow. I recall this being around 20 - 30% RPM but could be wrong as it has been 16+ years. You could hear the fuel ignite and the RPMs would really begin to pick up. You would monitor the temperature gauge as the temp could go up to 770 degrees C but for only a few seconds. It should settle down below (again if I recall correctly) 650 degrees C. This number was based on the SRL (Single Red Line) computer being operational. Of course there was also an oil pressure gauge for each engine. If the start "hung" for any reason, there was a stop button just below the start button which shut off the fuel to that engine hence aborting the start process.
Also, after the engines were started you had to briefly pull each power lever over the gate to reverse the prop. This released the prop from the stops. These stops were mechanical devices which kept the prop from going into feather when the engine was shut down. As the TPE-331 engine is a single shaft turbine, the prop can not be in full feather or it will cause too much drag on start up which will overtemp the engine. If the shutdown was not done properly, there is a switch on the left side panel which will cause a pump to force oil into the prop hub thereby pushing the prop out of feather and back on to the stops.
On the center panel between the pilots and just below the power levers are 2 large red knobs. These are the "stop and feather" controls. They mechanically shut off the fuel, stopping the engine and cause the prop to go to feather. They are used in-flight if you have and emergency and need to shut down an engine.
I hope this helps!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metro II-III-23
Almost complete, just one small point to add if my cells are not too grey....
You have a toggle switch on the left side panel with that one you could "turn" the shaft / engine and then above 20% about you push the start button, then the sequence as described before. Attention was always focused on the max. Start Temperature, hung / hot was always highly possible. Also when the Engine was shut down the "Metro-Pilot" spinns the props by hand to ventilate the heat off and lubricate the shaft and make sure the colling is equal over the full lengh.
Was my first Commercial Airplane back in the early 90īs. The memory getīs a bit rusty by the time. Another unique thing I remember: There is no real V1. The drag of the extended Gear on a 6.577 KG heavy Metro / Merlin is huge, so Engine failure between V1 and Gear up is critical.
Fly safe and land happy
NG
You have a toggle switch on the left side panel with that one you could "turn" the shaft / engine and then above 20% about you push the start button, then the sequence as described before. Attention was always focused on the max. Start Temperature, hung / hot was always highly possible. Also when the Engine was shut down the "Metro-Pilot" spinns the props by hand to ventilate the heat off and lubricate the shaft and make sure the colling is equal over the full lengh.
Was my first Commercial Airplane back in the early 90īs. The memory getīs a bit rusty by the time. Another unique thing I remember: There is no real V1. The drag of the extended Gear on a 6.577 KG heavy Metro / Merlin is huge, so Engine failure between V1 and Gear up is critical.
Fly safe and land happy
NG
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not a real technical briefing, but the engine you mention was originally an APU, then they started building airplanes around them, it is a single spool direct drive engine, where when one turns the propeller, all the bits inside move.
Because everything moves at once, they go through a lot of trouble to relieve the drag for starting, like venting the oil pump initially and by the pilot locking the propellers at a certain minimum drag position with the help of centrifugal pins on the previous engine shutdown.
On late model applications, a computer handles everything after reaching 10% provided batteries / GPU isn't an issue.
If you release the start button prior to 10%, the engine will just spin down to a stop.
As I mentioned, the props are locked into a fixed position for starting, so prior to taxiing, you will have to bring each thrust lever towards reverse slightly to relieve the pressure on the pin holding the props, an indication of this is a small spike on the oil pressure.
Cheers, D.L.
Because everything moves at once, they go through a lot of trouble to relieve the drag for starting, like venting the oil pump initially and by the pilot locking the propellers at a certain minimum drag position with the help of centrifugal pins on the previous engine shutdown.
On late model applications, a computer handles everything after reaching 10% provided batteries / GPU isn't an issue.
If you release the start button prior to 10%, the engine will just spin down to a stop.
As I mentioned, the props are locked into a fixed position for starting, so prior to taxiing, you will have to bring each thrust lever towards reverse slightly to relieve the pressure on the pin holding the props, an indication of this is a small spike on the oil pressure.
Cheers, D.L.
start button energizes the starter, thru 10% igniters, and fuel flow SRL will moderate temps for the start thru 50-60% the starter, igniters de-energize, and oil vent valve closes. on some aircraft at 10% + say 2 seconds the batteries switch from parallel to series. after start prior to taxi, take the props off the locks
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Complicated...
Sounds complicated..
A high-residual temp, generator assisted start goes as follows:
1. Hold 'starter test' switch (with left hand) on to motor engine
2. At 15% RPM, press 'start' button (with right hand) only until lightoff occurs
3. Release starter test switch, guard stop and feather control (with right hand)
4. Reset-on the generator on the (already running) other engine (with left hand)
5. Guard stop button (with left hand) and monitor that the start computer does it's job.
One got quite good at doing this due to doing it 4-6 times a day on the bank runs
Have since heard some people say that the generator assisted start was only really required on the earlier MIIIs due to reducing the risk of shearing the drive shaft of the operating gen, but that this wasn't a problem on later IIIs and 23s. Never have found a well documented answer for this though.
grade-3
Actually they're terrible - They don't have any redeeming features at all.
In another thread about the worse aeroplanes, I wrote this about them -
In another thread about the worse aeroplanes, I wrote this about them -
The cockpit was designed by a midget and anyone of even normal size is very uncomfortable in them. Especially if you have long legs as the pedals are simply far too close to the seat so you have to bend your legs so far that it's practically impossible to get your feet onto the pedals at anything like a comfortable angle.
Fortunately the brakes, although fitted, don't actually work; they are there for show only and to amuse the ground engineers. So it's really not that important to get your feet where you would normally have them.
The control column was designed by a personal trainer, to improve your fitness by means of a continuous physical workout whenever any movement at all is required as they forces needed to move any control surface is in the tens of kilograms. If you can't benchpress two or three hundred kilograms, forget it.
Fortunately again, the engineers that designed the Metro had a sense of humour and made the ailerons so they don't really work much. They will roll the aeroplane roughly as fast as an oil tanker can turn, but no faster.
Whilst on the subject of controls, I must mention the rudder; like most small aeroplanes it also control the nosewheel steering and this is where the Metro engineers must still be peeing their pants with laughter, with the nosewheel system being the result of something like ten completely unrelated bits of machinery all incorporated to make the Metro perform the complex tasks of .... left ..... and ...... right. The nosewheel system requires approximately two weeks to do a complete systems test on the taxi out to the holding point and so many Metros must return to be refueled before flight. Fortunately it works randomly but the aeroplane can be steered on the ground by means of futilely stabbing at the brakes (I use the term loosely) and moving the power levers to vary the noise left to right.
Then there's the stall detection and Stall Avoidance System, which is designed to kick in just before landing; to do this, it senses a completely normal airspeed in the landing configuration just before landing, and then activates the stick pusher without warning, thus making the Metro land on the nosewheel and bounce down the runway.
Normally this would be uncomfortable for the passengers, if you are carrying any, but they are probably still unconscious from the lack of pressuristation due to the Metro being fitted with door seals made from molten ear wax and the bleed source a small 12 volt hair drier fitted to each engine. Even though the door seals may keep a tiny fraction of the air in the cabin and they whistle a loud revelry to keep the punters awake, they are often wearing foam ear plugs to block the noise and are likely to be blacked out from the cabin being something like 1,000' below the cruise altitude.
Fortunately, the Metro engineers had already considered the dual problems of trying to keep the passengers subdued and also making the ailerons a mere amusement, so they gave the machine a tiny little thin wing that only works when you are travelling along at many hundreds of knots. The wing is also very handy for smacking your head into, to remind you how lucky you are to be in aviation .... in case you had forgotten.
Speaking of engines, again the Metro engineers excelled themselves by choosing engines that have the unique blend of being complete and utter p***ks to start unless you have a nuclear power station plugged in (good forethough again - the ground power plug is often on the side of the nacelle near the prop, to help keep the ground crew cool as they unplug you), they also make more noise than said nuclear power station blowing up, and they also take 1.2 weeks to complete a start cycle. So at least when flying a Metro you develop the ability to think ahead. The propeller is also capable of reverse pitch, and this is used to make more noise on landing with the noise reflecting on the airframe to slow it to taxi speed.
Back to the cockpit. Whilst it may seem great fun to blast around the skies in a semi-pressurised aircraft that can barely be controlled - assuming it'll start - you can't actually see where you're going due to the windows being too small. To be fair there's a large-ish window on the side, but it often vibrates so much that nothing useful can be seen from it. This is assuming you're lucky enough to be flying in warm weather, for in colder conditions that require window heat only the window directly in front of each pilot has a tiny section of it heated, so if you thought you couldn't see much before you will see even less now.
The various controls & instruments in the cockpit were strategically positioned by means of a very large shotgun and many cases of beer I suspect. Fortunately, most of them don't read very accurately or indeed at all. A large number of the switches were labelled by means of picking suitable-sounding words from a brown paper bag. The radar is merely a Nintendo Gameboy converted to black & white, yet still has the batteries removed so it doesn't work. Every internal light is designed to illuminate dimly and also burn you if you foolishly fiddle with it to make it brighter.
If you do decide to go attempt to commit aviation in one, you first have to tackle the front door. It's hinged at the bottom and has a single handle to open & close/lock it. Sounds simple, but again the trusty Metro engineers decided that the door should be fitted with a totally reliable lift-assist device that detects the strength of the person trying to operate it, and if the person is weak then the door is scheduled to get no assistance at all, and vice-versa. The chains fitted to either side to stop the door from (mostly) plunging deep into the ground when opening are also designed to fall to the side when closing the door to make it jam, with the bonus of also damaging the door seal. But the Metro engineers weren't finished there, they decreed that even if you'd managed to lift the heavy door up and grow another arm or two to get the chains out of the way, then it has just enough twist in it so it simply won't shut. Well some doors are scheduled to only shut when slammed for the 3rd or 4th time with at least a grunt and swear word. It's then impossible to visually sight if the door is close as the inspection ports for the door pins are made from cataracts extracted from the eyes of old pilots. Fortunately it works nearly perfectly every single time you shut it from outside, though it must be a member of the flight crew that shuts it, not any old person on the ground. Engineer humour again I suspect ....
I like the water/meth on takeoff.
Fortunately the brakes, although fitted, don't actually work; they are there for show only and to amuse the ground engineers. So it's really not that important to get your feet where you would normally have them.
The control column was designed by a personal trainer, to improve your fitness by means of a continuous physical workout whenever any movement at all is required as they forces needed to move any control surface is in the tens of kilograms. If you can't benchpress two or three hundred kilograms, forget it.
Fortunately again, the engineers that designed the Metro had a sense of humour and made the ailerons so they don't really work much. They will roll the aeroplane roughly as fast as an oil tanker can turn, but no faster.
Whilst on the subject of controls, I must mention the rudder; like most small aeroplanes it also control the nosewheel steering and this is where the Metro engineers must still be peeing their pants with laughter, with the nosewheel system being the result of something like ten completely unrelated bits of machinery all incorporated to make the Metro perform the complex tasks of .... left ..... and ...... right. The nosewheel system requires approximately two weeks to do a complete systems test on the taxi out to the holding point and so many Metros must return to be refueled before flight. Fortunately it works randomly but the aeroplane can be steered on the ground by means of futilely stabbing at the brakes (I use the term loosely) and moving the power levers to vary the noise left to right.
Then there's the stall detection and Stall Avoidance System, which is designed to kick in just before landing; to do this, it senses a completely normal airspeed in the landing configuration just before landing, and then activates the stick pusher without warning, thus making the Metro land on the nosewheel and bounce down the runway.
Normally this would be uncomfortable for the passengers, if you are carrying any, but they are probably still unconscious from the lack of pressuristation due to the Metro being fitted with door seals made from molten ear wax and the bleed source a small 12 volt hair drier fitted to each engine. Even though the door seals may keep a tiny fraction of the air in the cabin and they whistle a loud revelry to keep the punters awake, they are often wearing foam ear plugs to block the noise and are likely to be blacked out from the cabin being something like 1,000' below the cruise altitude.
Fortunately, the Metro engineers had already considered the dual problems of trying to keep the passengers subdued and also making the ailerons a mere amusement, so they gave the machine a tiny little thin wing that only works when you are travelling along at many hundreds of knots. The wing is also very handy for smacking your head into, to remind you how lucky you are to be in aviation .... in case you had forgotten.
Speaking of engines, again the Metro engineers excelled themselves by choosing engines that have the unique blend of being complete and utter p***ks to start unless you have a nuclear power station plugged in (good forethough again - the ground power plug is often on the side of the nacelle near the prop, to help keep the ground crew cool as they unplug you), they also make more noise than said nuclear power station blowing up, and they also take 1.2 weeks to complete a start cycle. So at least when flying a Metro you develop the ability to think ahead. The propeller is also capable of reverse pitch, and this is used to make more noise on landing with the noise reflecting on the airframe to slow it to taxi speed.
Back to the cockpit. Whilst it may seem great fun to blast around the skies in a semi-pressurised aircraft that can barely be controlled - assuming it'll start - you can't actually see where you're going due to the windows being too small. To be fair there's a large-ish window on the side, but it often vibrates so much that nothing useful can be seen from it. This is assuming you're lucky enough to be flying in warm weather, for in colder conditions that require window heat only the window directly in front of each pilot has a tiny section of it heated, so if you thought you couldn't see much before you will see even less now.
The various controls & instruments in the cockpit were strategically positioned by means of a very large shotgun and many cases of beer I suspect. Fortunately, most of them don't read very accurately or indeed at all. A large number of the switches were labelled by means of picking suitable-sounding words from a brown paper bag. The radar is merely a Nintendo Gameboy converted to black & white, yet still has the batteries removed so it doesn't work. Every internal light is designed to illuminate dimly and also burn you if you foolishly fiddle with it to make it brighter.
If you do decide to go attempt to commit aviation in one, you first have to tackle the front door. It's hinged at the bottom and has a single handle to open & close/lock it. Sounds simple, but again the trusty Metro engineers decided that the door should be fitted with a totally reliable lift-assist device that detects the strength of the person trying to operate it, and if the person is weak then the door is scheduled to get no assistance at all, and vice-versa. The chains fitted to either side to stop the door from (mostly) plunging deep into the ground when opening are also designed to fall to the side when closing the door to make it jam, with the bonus of also damaging the door seal. But the Metro engineers weren't finished there, they decreed that even if you'd managed to lift the heavy door up and grow another arm or two to get the chains out of the way, then it has just enough twist in it so it simply won't shut. Well some doors are scheduled to only shut when slammed for the 3rd or 4th time with at least a grunt and swear word. It's then impossible to visually sight if the door is close as the inspection ports for the door pins are made from cataracts extracted from the eyes of old pilots. Fortunately it works nearly perfectly every single time you shut it from outside, though it must be a member of the flight crew that shuts it, not any old person on the ground. Engineer humour again I suspect ....
I like the water/meth on takeoff.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of points about your attached article:
The flight deck is huge compared to other aircraft in that class such as the Cheyenne series or King Airs.
Never had any problems with the brakes on the rare occasion that I used them.
The forces needed to move the column? I admit the airplane handles a bit like a truck, but no force is required if you know how to trim it.
I see that steering is mentioned, it's a good system if you use it for what it's designed for, the only pilots having a problem with it are the ones that try to use it when they shouldn't, like on the takeoff roll or right after touch down.
You talk about the SAS system making the aircraft land on the nose wheel, that is laughable, and if the system isn't calibrated properly, who's fault is that?
The pressurization system is one of the best I've used, sounds like this aircraft was in bad need of maintenance.
I do understand your frustration with the door problems, but real Metro pilots can manage.
And the system you like is the CAWI system, are you kidding me? I shutter to think of your thoughts on the MU2.
I have time in all the different versions, Metro's, Merlin II's and III's and SA227's, as I mentioned before, a great aircraft in the right hands.
Cheers, D.L.
The flight deck is huge compared to other aircraft in that class such as the Cheyenne series or King Airs.
Never had any problems with the brakes on the rare occasion that I used them.
The forces needed to move the column? I admit the airplane handles a bit like a truck, but no force is required if you know how to trim it.
I see that steering is mentioned, it's a good system if you use it for what it's designed for, the only pilots having a problem with it are the ones that try to use it when they shouldn't, like on the takeoff roll or right after touch down.
You talk about the SAS system making the aircraft land on the nose wheel, that is laughable, and if the system isn't calibrated properly, who's fault is that?
The pressurization system is one of the best I've used, sounds like this aircraft was in bad need of maintenance.
I do understand your frustration with the door problems, but real Metro pilots can manage.
And the system you like is the CAWI system, are you kidding me? I shutter to think of your thoughts on the MU2.
I have time in all the different versions, Metro's, Merlin II's and III's and SA227's, as I mentioned before, a great aircraft in the right hands.
Cheers, D.L.
Last edited by Dream Land; 17th Oct 2011 at 03:33.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I enjoyed it a lot 18-Wheeler, reminded me of flying MU-2s.
Never flew a Metroliner, thank goodness, the MU-2 was bad enough.
Never flew a Metroliner, thank goodness, the MU-2 was bad enough.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dream Land
I don't think so. It was developed as a turboshaft engine (TSE331) for helicopter application, it didn't happen. So then Garrett added a gearbox and prop (TPE331) and it became a turboprop engine. It was first run in 1960. Still being produced. Early APu's were completely different in engineering design and concept.
TD
This is not a real technical briefing, but the engine you mention was originally an APU, then they started building airplanes around them, it is a single spool direct drive engine, where when one turns the propeller, all the bits inside move.
TD
