NZFF

The Swearingen Metroliner makes its first flight.

A stretch of the Swearingen SA-26 Merlin it was designed to be stretched to seat 22 passengers and was called the SA226-TC Metro. Because FAA regulations limited an airliner to no more than 19 seats if no flight attendant was to be carried, the aircraft was optimized to carry 19 passengers but the name remained.

Swearingen Aircraft was in financial difficulties however, and late in 1971 Fairchild (which was marketing the Metro and building its wings and engine nacelles), bought 90% of Swearingen and the company was renamed Swearingen Aviation Corporation. It was at this point that the previously cash-strapped company was able to put the Metro into production.

The first airline to fly the new aircraft was Commuter Airlines based at Greater Binghamton Airport, Maine, New York.

Interestingly almost 20% of the total numbers built of various model Metroliner's has operated in Australia. New Zealand has had a number operating here too.
If my files are correct the first in NZ was ZK-SWA - a Metro II - for Air Albatross registered Dec 5 1983. SWB/SWC/SWD also served with AA until they collapsed in December 1985. Air Nelson, Eagle, Air Chathams and Airwork have also operated the Metroliner.

Today there are 3 passenger version; CIC/CID with Air Chathams and POB with Airwork, and 2 freighter versions POE/POF with Airwork, still flying.

At the 1987 Paris Air Show, Fairchild released details of proposed developments of the Metro designated the Metro V and Metro VI. These versions would have featured a longer fuselage with a taller "stand-up" cabin providing 69 in (180 cm) of interior height for passengers; a redesigned, longer wing; engines moved further out on the wing from the fuselage; a "T-tail" and various system improvements. A Merlin V corporate version of the Metro V was also planned. The Metro V was to be fitted with the same engines as the Metro 23 and the Metro VI was to be fitted with more powerful TPE331-14 engines. The Metro VI was shelved within months of being announced due to a lack of customer interest, but Fairchild did not proceed with the Metro V either.

One version that did see the light of day was the Metro 25, which featured an increased passenger capacity of 25 at the expense of the baggage space found in earlier models; the deletion of the left rear cargo door and the addition of a passenger door on the right-hand rear fuselage; and a belly pod for baggage. A Metro III was converted as a Metro 25 demonstrator, it flew in this configuration in October 1989. Also mooted but not built was the Metro 25J, which would have been another jet-powered aircraft with TFE731s in over-wing pods.

The 25 seat capacity was achieved by transferring baggage from the rear-fuselage area to an underbelly pod and installing six additional passenger seats. An extra five windows, a new door on the rear right-hand side, and the introduction of more, powerful engines make up the changes from the Metro III. The large rear cargo door was also deleted.

To meet FAR 25 regulations larger emergency exits, flight recorders, emergency lighting, cockpit "eyebrow" windows, flight-control redundancy, new nose wheel steering system, and strengthened wing spars were designed in.

1053 short + long body Merlin + long body Metroliner's were produced.

And for those who flew it, a reminder of the Metroliner's pre-flight checks!












Courtesy of Grayson Ottoway

I was living in Racecourse Rd 1982 when I saw my first Metro as climbed and leveled out at a very low alt turned directly towards me , obvious not in airline service yet, it came ripping over my place and shot across the city, two years later I had a good looksie at the new Air Albatross Metro , it did look quite the snazzy machine, this was a cold wet night on the ramp at Christchurch, never got to fly in one tho.

You haven't missed much Ian. From a pax point of view not a great machine but fun to fly and a real challenge in a good crosswind.

In San Antonio I met the pilot who test flew ZK-NSS/CID he could remember every mod that had been allied to the airframe for UK certification.

Hey Andrew, yeah we see some classic old footage coming into Windy Welly , I guess for an airline pilot they would have felt like a rocket ship.

One of the captains I flew with in Eagle flew them, hated them as he claimed they tried to kill you every day you flew them.

Loads of lights that meant different things. Flashing on one was one thing then solid on the same light ment something completely different.

Also the turbines aren't as friendly as at PT-6 either

Back to the ole real McCoy seat of the pants know ya plane rather the plane knowing you .. they weren't exactly designed with passenger comf

One of the captains I flew with in Eagle flew them, hated them as he claimed they tried to kill you every day you flew them.

Loads of lights that meant different things. Flashing on one was one thing then solid on the same light ment something completely different.

Also the turbines aren't as friendly as at PT-6 either

You certainly don't want to fly a Metro slowly otherwise it will kill you. The original Metro 3 nose wheel steering could also be an issue but that was modified on the 23 and subsequently modded on the 3.

As for the TPE331 it is a great engine. Accelerates faster than a PT6, has automatic temperature and torque limiting depending on the model and burns less fuel than a PT6.

The other great thing with a Metro was the fuel it could carry. 2000kg payload and 3hrs 30 gas was the standard on Post. On the ambulance I could fly Auckland to Invercargill and carry Auckland as an Alternate.

Of course nothing out there is better than an F27!

SA227 wrote:Of course nothing out there is better than an F27!

.. I knew someone may bring this up

Well, the F27 is a Classic, is it not? Even if it is a vacuun cleaner

emfrat wrote:Well, the F27 is a Classic, is it not? Even if it is a vacuun cleaner

The Friendship , I was very surprised the world did not take to the well proven airframe with the F-50 , some did due to the engineering side/aspect but in come the bean counters and course other we will sell these cheaper mentality , that is the same with any company 20/30 years back and today , frankly the Boeing to the ARBUST is better but in come the bean counters again .... under table deals ..

Yep, these days it is all about seat/mile costs.. The BAC 1-11 and the DC-9 were the DC-3 replacements of the jet age, but fuel costs went through the roof and that caused the return to turbo-props like the ATR and Dash-8. The Fokker just couldn't compete.

The Ole BAC 1-11 really chews up the runway ... DC- 9 was in the same class, was the good old Classic 737-200 that nailed it specifically because off the wing design, all the little fancy lets make the wing move really come into it own , the biggest thing was most off the based theory was from the B-29 Superfortress , but the gap between the two was only twenty so years.