At the Metro Operators conference, like previous ones, there was much heated debate over the prices that M7 charges (for everything). If you want an earfull on the topic, contact Mark Jones over at World Class Aviation 770-631-1961. He's a supplier that is also doing a significant number of PMAs to offset the parts costs to the owners.
To briefly sum up the pricing situation with M7 .......... "gouge" fits well.

Fuel leaks are also a nightmare with those wet wings.

Best wishes in deciding.

The enclosed picture is from the Flying Magazine airplane buyers guide 1983. It shows the nice performance of the Garrett powered Merlins, low fuel burn, high speed and endurance. Interestingly, there was one Metro made, and only one, with the P&W PT-6, due to customer demand (the last Metro IIIA) one in the picture - because "everyone" wanted the PT-6's. The person I talked to, and who showed me the comparison stated that the customers for the PT-6 version evaporated after the first test flights - it burned too much fuel for similar speed performance, but much less endurance, compared to the Garrett versions (notice the endurance numbers are transposed on the slide).

Btw, in my 331-10 powered 441 (184VB) I typically cruise around 295 to 300 KTAS around 430 lb/hr at FL270/280. Taking off with enough fuel to go 1000NM it can climb to FL270/280 in around 15 min. Flies like a glorified 421 - no bad habits. Useful load of 4100 lbs, 900 lbs with full fuel and range of 2200NM. I do not really care who makes the engines, but these are nice performance numbers, and the overhaul cost of S160K for one engine and $190K for the other engine just 170 hours ago, with 4830 hours left until next overhaul, means the combined fuel flow and overhaul expense is comparable to one larger single turbine....so why not have two then?

Max, can your 441 enter RVSM airspace? What is your longest leg in the 441?

No, can not enter RVSM yet. I updated the panel with dual air data units (g600's) and Stec2100 autopilot. The setup is currently waiting approval for RVSM, being done by West Star in Grand Junction. Could happen any day....



The longest flight to date is from KFCM Minneapolis to Scottsdale, 1100 N m in 4hr30mins and 2000 lbs FL280.



Hope to get RVSM approved before Xmas, and planning new year in Cancun. That would be 1550NM, 5hr20 mins, fL350, and just under 2000 lbs fuel, leaving reserves of around 1200 lbs and 900 lb payload, or 600 lb reserves and 1500 lb payload.

I have enjoyed this thread because for me the Merlin III, Cheyenne 400LS and Cessna 441 are the great twin turboprops from the 'golden age'.

I think the 441's combination of speed, range and payload is pretty unbeatable in single pilot aircraft, let alone aircraft under 12.5. Imagine a 2014 model 441 with G3000......

BTW, the 331-10 engine that power these (except the -14 in the Piper) and also the MU-2 is now used in the Predator UAV, giving it 24 hours in the air on approx. 3200 lbs.

Congratulations Max, that is the nicest 400 series panel I've ever seen - better than the Alliant Avidyne IMHO.

Your 441 might arguably be the best personal turboprop in existence. No King Air can match the performance, the Avanti is faster but uses a lot more runway and has shorter range and the PC12 and TBM900, whilst they outperform the King Airs, are no match for the best 331-10 turboprop twins.

I just love the idea of a 2200nm range.

Ummm... Ditto! I'm a jealous 421 owner! The range in the 441 has always impressed me, especially since a normal mission for me is 1400nm or so.

Georgous airplane Max.

Robert

Thanks. I loved my 421: the wife was the one that insisted a buying a "safer" turboprop. Besides being a glorified 421 (easy to fly with 1 or 2 engines and no bad habits), the largest difference I have found is when pulling power on short final. On a 421 I would pull the power to idle, glide, and flare. The same techniques in the 441 is not good: when pulling the power to idle the airflow will keep the RPM at 100%, driving the big compressor is like putting the brakes on HARD - it feels as if the airplane stops in mid-air! My technique now is to flare with say 300 ftlbs to torque. Once the wheels touch down, the engine is already at 100% RPM, and full reverse power is available as fast as one can move the power levers over the stops to full reverse - no spool up required. BTW, the effect is similar on takeoff: move condition lever to 100% RPM, and after that full power is available as fast as the power lever can be moved

I thought the 425 is basically a turbo-propped (glorified) 421. Isn't the 441 a different fuselage/cabin?

Yes, the 425/441 are analagous to the 90/200.

421 and 425 share a cabin layout. 4 person club with cockpit ahead of it and potential for 2 kiddy seats aft. 441 (same airframe as piston 404) is stretched and can seat 8 adults + 2 kids easily.

425--PT6A
441--Garrett's

The 425 is based on the 421. The 441 is based on the 404 Titan, which has a 35" longer cabin that the 421.

Max I fly C441-0116 and am looking into RVSM. Do you mind sharing your experience and costs with me
thanx
ali

So far, so good.

After the large panel install it took some tweaks to get everything working again. Just came back from a phase 2,3 inspection at West Star, and they tweaked the throttle and prop potentiometers and engine computers, fixed some pressurization leaks, and got the prop sync to work reliably (a computer set-up issue!). Now the cabin can hold 10000 feet on only one engine at 28000 feet. Normally on two engines, I get right close to 6.3 psi differential for a cabin of just over 7000 feet at 28000 ft altitude.

West Star is doing the RVSM STC for the STEC2100 with dual G600 (dual air data computers required), and I just talked to them about the approval. Right now it looks like December, so I do not have any data on RVSM cost yet.

Normally, the plane is around 2% slower than book at 96% RPM, but the fuel burn is 6 to 10% below book. At 98% RPM the plane performs as the book numbers, but the fuel burn is still at least 3 to 6% below book! At 100% RPM, which is OK for continuous use, the speeds tend to be better than book, and the fuel burn is a couple of percent below. I installed strakes as soon as I got the plane, so I do not know what effect they have on the performance. Typically I see 290 to 305 KTAS and fuel burns of 410 to 450 lbs/hr at FL270/280.

When I bought the plane it had a camera window and a camera window door that was a couple feet wide and hung down several inches below the belly - reminiscent of an air inlet scoop.... With that setup the plane appeared to be around 15 knots slower than book (before strakes). As part of the avionics update EAM removed the complete camera window setup, weighing 120 lbs, and installed a smooth riveted aluminum plate aligning perfectly with the fuselage bottom

As far as the operating cost of the airplane I have been pleasantly surprised: The fuel burn is more than my old 421 (only marginally more on longer trips), but since I purchased a hangar with a fuel farm the fuel is now $3.50/gallon, and hence the fuel cost on the 441 is below the 421! In addition, with the 441 range of 2200NM, I am able to fly 1000NM trips and only take on minimal "FBO" fuel for the return trip, effectively cost averaging the fuel cost. In retrospect, it was a good decision to buy a cheaper turboprop and use the left-over money to buy a fuel farm with a hangar

Since I usually fly the plane much below gross, it can climb to FL 270/280 in less than 15 minutes (more like 12/13 minutes), and hence I thought it would be efficient to be able to climb to FL340/350 on longer trips or where the tailwinds are strong. Anyway, it seems the cost of RVSM will be largely recouped when selling the airplane.

I am enclosing the performance tables for the -10 conversion, and will update once I know more about the RVSM certification.