These old tprops have very intriguing performance, massive cabins and compelling purchase costs but I take one look at the panel and think there would be little joy flying a bird like this...

I have a Cheyenne III for sale. FL 280 85 gph 275-280 KTAS, 6 people, 800 nm with IFR or 2 people almost 2000.

Way under your 600K budget.

https://www.controller.com/listings/air ... eyenne-iii

This part of the ad sounds expensive...

A,B,C,D, Checks are due. Estimates are available . Please call.

That's what I think when I see a Cirrus. Different strokes.

And you would be very wrong.

I had the spar AD done shortly after I purchased. I was concerned it would be pricy but it turned out to be the cheapest mx line on the bill. I can look up the details but it is not to be compare to other spar AD’s of types where the wings fell off. IIRC there are some holes in the spar for wires to pass through and these get inspected for cracks propagating...which I have been led to believe only rarely do. It is not a yearly check but once at some number below 10000 hrs then checked after another 5000. Had mine checked by an airline that ran dozens of Metros and they said it’s a minor thing.

Merlin is the only twin I’ve flown apart from getting the multi. On a demo flight I hand flew it through some low level cumulus and was blown away by how steady it stayed through the chop compared to my C182. It may not be for everyone...but it sure is right for those who know it. Kind of like Texas...where they were built.

I flew the Metro 3 many moons ago and it was a great airplane. However, parts were hard to come by back then, I can only imagine how the supply chain is in today's market.

And you would be very wrong.

Don, you're in good company. If you consider the declining number of buyers for older aircraft and the rate at which the older aircraft are leaving service, it's a basically a wash.

Then there is a huge segment of new(er) aircraft owners / pilots who are looking to become turbine aircraft owners / pilots. These folks primarily come out of the Cirrus and are looking for the next step, depending on their experience the next step may be a TBM-850, an M600, a King Air, a Mustang or a Citation M2 but one thing is a strong probability, that a Garmin Gxxx panel is going to be up front.

Very wrong. My antique 1969 MU-2 is incredibly reliable and its old panel is an absolute blast to fly. I enjoy flying steam, it's a nice break from glass and makes you a sharper pilot.

I've been flying for 12 years now and ~2,000 hrs. 8 of those years and about 1,200 of those hours were in birds with very conventional and rather crummy panels. Back then, that didn't bother me one bit. I enjoyed every bird I flew for different reasons: C172, C182, C206, Cher Six, Seneca II, C340 and a handful of others. When it came to considering upgrades, panel considerations were very low on my priority list. It just didn't matter to me. I was comfortable flying behind anything.

Today after (4) years behind G1000 and the GFC700 autopilot, I find myself with little desire to go back. The situational awareness, rock solid autopilot, everything you need right at your fingertips and the fact that it just all plain works all the time has begun to impact my perspective. Even if it meant waiting a couple more years until I could afford a bird equipped with Gx000 instead of moving up immediately into something that's more capable but with poor avionics, that's probably what I'd do.

Apart from the panel advantages, the other thing I wouldn't want to go back to is the endless list of squawks that seemed to accompany the older, more complex birds. 98% of my flights today are entirely squawk-free and headache-free. I know tprops aren't quite as bad but in the piston twins I flew 98% of my flights had multiple squawks. Any older airframe is going to have its fair share of issues. I'm sure for many that's not a big factor but when you're flying 300+ hrs / yr as I am, you just want the dang thing to work all the time.

Perhaps I'm just lucky but the Mitsubishi hasn't had a single squawk and I've been flying the heck out of it.

You sound like mike ....

In 750hrs over 3.5 yrs in my relatively "new to me" 1974 -10K (Mits) I've had a flat tire and a cracked window. Other than that, most everything like pumps/generators/flap microswitches etc. that required replacement were done on a scheduled basis.
But on the panel, I'm an absolute convert to glass...synthetic vision with the whole instrument scan on one panel is a safety boon, especially "when the chips are down" in bad weather and mountainous terrain.
Held 314TAS and 404GS at FL250 today on my way home from an away clinic; at 97% RPM and 20deg cool of max EGT. IMC almost all the way there and back with LPV approach x2 and anti-icing equipment doing its thing...a whole other world than my experience with piston twins trying to do the same thing in the snow. You don't have to be a flight engineer to manage idiosyncratic systems/instruments/engines etc...just fly the plane. It's a beautiful thing.

In your experience, does that list change for the poor schlumps flying a Bo with either steam or maybe steam and an aspen (like me) that are looking to move to TP, rather than coming from an SR-22? Or do most want some kind of glass if they're going to Jet-A?

Matt