Help me spend up to 165k

wheaties said:
It's not the 2 extra seats, it's the 210. Too many gear up issues in the fleet. Yes, more seats will add cost but the model itself is cursed as far as insurance is concerned.
Click to expand...

I pay about $3200/year insurance on my T210F. 4 Seats. The airplane isn't cursed for insurance any more than another high performance retractable is. It's the cost of doing business.

Parts availability and cost are factors. So are the effects of runaway inflation. Number of seats is considered due to potential liabilities. Geography is considered; i've got little chance of hull damage or water damage from hurricanes in Maine. Not so in Florida. Operating from a grass or gravel strip is considered. I don't fly regularly in real mountains. I don't regularly fly with 6K+ DA's. According to my insurance guy, these companies factor in many variables.

The age and experience level of the insured obviously have a great deal to do with insurability in any airplane, but especially in any retractable.

A lot of big, new money without proportional levels of experience has flooded the market recently. The underwriters factor those very wealthy, very low experience pilots flying very expensive airplanes into the mix. Even if they have their own parachutes. Insurance is a risk sharing enterprise.

Sorry, but 250 total hours with a fraction of that in actual IFR over maybe 5 years of flying does not make you an experienced pilot in the eyes of any insurance underwriter. 4 hours average per month is a bare minimum for currency and recency, considering a big chunk of that time would have been dual received chasing some rating or another. So, expect to pay more

Being a young pilot can also work against you, just like being a geezer. I suspect that when I turn 70 I'll have a very hard time finding (or paying for) insurance.

I'm no happier than anyone else here that insurance costs have skyrocketed. Do your homework before you buy. If you can't afford it, don't ***** about it. Don't blame the airframe. Just buy something you can afford.
 
pnancoz said:
I know a bunch of others mentioned this - CHECK THE INSURANCE on the various models that have been suggested. You may consider getting a plane that is somewhat less than your ideal plane in order to build time. Then once you have several hundred hours and your IR, you can look to upgrade.

I have something you may consider for a "Starter plane" (which is ABSOLUTELY not for sale) - C172N with 180 HP Airplanes conversion. Useful load is about 1,110 pound and over 870 with full fuel. Solid IFR stack since I'm assuming you will be working on your instrument rating. It doesn't have the range you're looking for. But, that would only mean a fuel stop on your longer trips. I usually plan for 115 knots. I'm 250+ lbs and my most frequent passenger is a family member that also my size. I've done 2 NJ to OSH trips with him and there were no issues with comfort.
Click to expand...

An awful lot of folks, including here, “disrespect” a c-172, but they are very capable airplanes, fairly inexpensive to operate (if there is such a thing in aviation!), less expensive to repair and maintain than a lot of airplanes, and with a 180 hp can motor right along.
 
Seems nobody else brought this up, so I will.

What about buying the minimum insurance, like 3rd party, and not hull insurance, if you're feeling that insurance rates are outrageous. If you bend something, pay out of your pocket to fix it. If you fly and drive for 40 years, and put the minimum insurance on your vehicles, and planes, even if you do bump something, its likely cheaper to fix, that would have cost you all those years in extra insurance costs.
If you are not actually buying it, but getting a loan, then you will need full coverage, as most financial institutions consider that the minimum insurance.
Just something to consider.
 
Whitney said:
Seems nobody else brought this up, so I will.

What about buying the minimum insurance, like 3rd party, and not hull insurance, if you're feeling that insurance rates are outrageous. If you bend something, pay out of your pocket to fix it. If you fly and drive for 40 years, and put the minimum insurance on your vehicles, and planes, even if you do bump something, its likely cheaper to fix, that would have cost you all those years in extra insurance costs.
If you are not actually buying it, but getting a loan, then you will need full coverage, as most financial institutions consider that the minimum insurance.
Just something to consider.
Click to expand...
One can always go naked.
 
I don't carry full coverage on vehicles, planes, snowmobiles, ATVs, or boats. My house is fully covered, so if it burns down, technically they should replace it, but hope that never happens, or the hassle I'm sure will be involved.
 
Supereri said:
Ok, soon to be newly minted PPL. Looking to buy my, obviously, first airplane. My budget is up to 165k. I'm not looking to spend it all, but willing to if the right plane comes up. I know insurance will be high. I would consider a less expensive retract possibly.

My mission/desires
  • 8-10 times a year 450nm flights.
  • I'm a big dude 5'10 300 currently. Working on it though.
  • My oldest son is quite tall 6'3, although he has a full time job these days.
  • total payload of about 820 plus fuel.
  • I live in Phoenix and fly to CA quite a bit.
  • Air conditioning would be awesome - a nice to have, not required
  • Turbo for high density altitude - not sure about this. Scared of high mx costs
I really liked the idea of a Mooney, until I sat in one. Cheaper to operate and relatively quick.

Planes currently on my interesting list
  • Cessna 182N+ - prices quite high these days
  • Piper Cherokee 6 260/300 - higher prices and a bit slow for the burn
  • Socata TB-20 - really nice cabin width, concerned about parts costs
  • Bonanza of some sort - so many to choose from. Worried about ruddervators. Some are very affordable
  • Dakota 236 - sat in Cherokee 235 and it felt small. Back seat was tiny. Dakota might be better?

Would love some feedback, maybe even some planes I haven't thought about.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Don't have the numbers to support it, but here's an idea: You can get a time builder plane for a fraction of that budget (won't be that comfy, nor fast, and you'll probably be the only one flying it for some time). Say a Globeswift: Is both tailwheel and retractable. That will build you retractable time that will save you a lot on insurance when you move into a big bird. In the meantime, you can rent a bigger plane for those sporadic 450nm flights.

You can save the money left (and keep adding more to the peggy bank) and maybe once the market cools down you'll be able to buy your dream plane with out having to sell the Globeswift :p
 
Just a followup to this thread. I closed today on a 1963 Cessna 182F with a Dynon Skyview HDX and Garmin GNC355 panel for less than originally planned.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0870.JPEG
    IMG_0870.JPEG
    113.9 KB · Views: 60
  • IMG_0871.JPEG
    IMG_0871.JPEG
    274.1 KB · Views: 58
pnancoz said:
I know a bunch of others mentioned this - CHECK THE INSURANCE on the various models that have been suggested. You may consider getting a plane that is somewhat less than your ideal plane in order to build time. Then once you have several hundred hours and your IR, you can look to upgrade.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Yes, your first year's insurance will be brutal.

However, more time in a 172 won't help you with retract, tailwheel, high-performance or whatever causes your high rates.

Get good dual instruction, get competent and comfortable, and fly what you want to fly. Get your IR and instruction in that plane.

Avoiding a $5k hit on insurance by buying an intermediary plane you don't really want and have to feed and care for until you get a reasonable insurance quote seems counterintuitive.
 
Supereri said:
Just a followup to this thread. I closed today on a 1963 Cessna 182F with a Dynon Skyview HDX and Garmin GNC355 panel for less than originally planned.
Click to expand...
Looks super clean (the panel). Does it have an AP?
 
Apparently a little late but a commander 114 was just listed on barnstormers today.

It sounds like the Dynon autopilot approval is imminent. Lucky SOB.
 
MountainDude said:
Looks super clean (the panel). Does it have an AP?
Click to expand...

Not yet. The previous owners had it all prepped for the Dynon autopilot, but the FAA approval is taking longer than expected. It "seems" to be in the final stages, so hopefully soon.

I wish it had a little bit more useful load and it has no NAV radio, but I'm tickled pink. We'll see how far in the first annual that lasts....
 
Congratulations, Supereri! And I saw your other post where you said it does have a NAV radio also. You should be good to go! Have fun.
 
Supereri said:
Just a followup to this thread. I closed today on a 1963 Cessna 182F with a Dynon Skyview HDX and Garmin GNC355 panel for less than originally planned.
Click to expand...
Cool. Ya stayed under budget. Now ya have some money to start filling in all that blank space in the panel. Have fun.
 
somorris said:
Congratulations, Supereri! And I saw your other post where you said it does have a NAV radio also. You should be good to go! Have fun.
Click to expand...

It does not have a NAV radio, just 2 COMs
 
luvflyin said:
Cool. Ya stayed under budget. Now ya have some money to start filling in all that blank space in the panel. Have fun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I want to see what it would cost to add the second 10" HDX. Maybe I'll just flat mount a large IPad over there... More than likely I'll just fly it for now and give it some time. I'm sure with more time in it I'll have stronger opinions on what it needs.
 
As a vfr pilot, I don't think I've ever used a nav radio outside of training or checkride. Trying to think of an exception to that, but I can't. I don't operate in areas where gps jamming is common, though, or over water or flat terrain, so I might be not the normal case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top