So, there is a local -10 upgraded IIIB with four partners (two law firms, a doc, and a retired airline guy). Two of the partners wants out, and I was asked if I have any interest in acquiring 50%. I went for a ride with them to the doc's ranch to get some more info - The law firms use it on occasion, say 2-3x/mo for a day trip to NM or West TX, both of whom want out. The Doc uses it most weekends to go to his ranch. My mission is mostly 750-1250 nm trips for work during the week. I like my Cirrus, but most of my missions require at least 1 fuel stop, which is annoying.

Let's assume the following:
1) I can afford it
2) I'm cross shopping other -10 powered turbine twins. (I am/was/had a short-body MU2 lined up that someone paid more than I was willing to for the airplane, sight unseen)
3) I'm insurable and committed to remaining proficient
4) I'm going to be flying 125-175h/yr.

Other than it being different, and built like a brick s#!thouse (see Cirrus/Metro attempted mating, also not positive any of its peers are any different), are there any compelling reasons to pick a IIIB over say, an MU2/980V/441?

They have a reputation for being a handful, and rewarding if you really learn and commit to flying them by the book.

Unlike most of the "This or That" threads on here, I'm not looking for affirmation. I'm looking for a "what am I missing?" (If you reply with common sense, my wife would agree with you, but she wants (and is not going to get) an SF50)

Craig Hili had both an MU-2 then later a Merlin. You might be able to search for his posts. As I recall both were about the same speed, the Merlin was bigger if you need the room. I'm not sure where one goes for training in a Merlin, there are a few places for the MU-2.

The IIIB is roomier than the others and has a higher pressure diff. The potty is behind a closed wall and you can do whatever smelly business you need to there no one in the cabin will smell a thing as the outflow valve is in the tail cone.

There are no big inspections due every X years like some others types have. Did you fly it at all? Very stable. If you fly it right it flys itself.

I did. Once I had it trimmed, it was stable as an old Cadilac. Quite an enjoyable experience.

I can only speak from seeing one in the shop 8 months out of the year. It leaks fuel everywhere, the floor in the airplane is honey comb (sound really strange when you walk on it) the AC leaks and never seems to work long term, the windows are about as expensive as a MU2's. It looks like it would be much slower, the electronics on it are very difficult to repair, it takes up a lot of hangar for the same effective carrying capacity as a MU2, and it uses a tiller to taxi. I also think it has less support from a parts perspective, so plan for much more downtime.

Mat

You asked for compelling reasons. To my knowledge no Merlin has come apart in the air so there’s that. My mechanic flew through the Joplin Missouri tornado storm with a customer. He thought they were done for but they made it back in one piece. He carried out some inspection that the manual called for in such an event and the aircraft made it through without damage. What happened there was not intentional obviously but just shows the robustness of the airframe.

Are you talking about the -10 Short Body MU-2 that Mike C use to own?

The IIIB does not use a tiller to taxi. Looks like the aircraft you saw, whichever model it was, needed a more knowledgeable shop.

No. I'd have jumped on that had I been in the market at that time.

Just one (Metro) around 1978 or so... But you can force any airplane to come apart in a thunderstorm if you try hard enough (or screw up)...

there is one being flown for a corporation near here. out of KRNH They really like it , If you want, I will hook you up with the mechanic/chief pilot that keeps it running etc.

PM me if you want

The "straight" III had a tiller. All the later short-body airplanes (the A/B/C) had pedal controlled hydraulic nose steering. I owned and operated a IIIB for some time in the 90's.Loved it to death....hell of an airplane.

To your question... or downsides unique to a Merlin are the scarcity of expert shops familiar with the type and maybe parts availability, but I've heard that hasn't rely been a problem. 98% parts commonality with the old Metroliner, lots of those in the 3rd world and scrapyards.

Reliable as hell if taken care of properly.

Why wouldn't you just buy 1/3 and they buy an additional 8% so you're all even?

I love the idea of a Merlin but I have no idea how they are supported. Cessna support is annoying because they pay attention enough to add inspections and parts but not enough to make the parts easy to get or remotely affordable (well beyond what they should cost in inflation adjusted dollars for most things). Not sure where the Merlins stand.

I will say the -10 engines are on enough airframes that should be a non-issue.

The other potential problem is I do not believe Garmin is making many of the new toys (AP, EIS, PFD) STCd for that airframe.

Elbit systems, which purchased M7 Aerospace, is now the factory support for the series. I have never once needed to contact them. Since the majority of the fleet is in commercial service the aircraft get used hard and issues that arise are noticed. In my ownership there have been some AD’s added, none have been significant enough that I could tell you what the cost or downtime was. I have never waited nor had to look very hard for any parts.

Personally I am happy with my avionics setup. I have factory training in the G1000 NXi/GFC700 system as well actual time with it. It’s nice for sure but not something that I would pay the large sums and downtime for. I have had zero issues with my autopilot and only minor issues with the other avionics. I have G430/530/GMX200 with georeferenced charts.

The only major AD that I remember was the cracked spar. The company that I worked for would repair one of their spar's on a Metroliner (600 man hours, two weeks), then take in a customer airplane for repair, then alternate until our 18 aircraft fleet was done. It's been 20+ years, but it seems like there were very few, if any short body aircraft that had cracks. I seen an 11" crack in a Metro II. Again, it's been a while, but it seems like most Metro's were cracked. It was quite a project just to do the inspection.

I was on the flight department side, so I wasn't involved directly in the inspection.