Insurance

I know older pilots who NEVER fly alone, an option.

Yes, one can get ground coverage. Seems to me, a $2 Million plane is kinda high for a 100 hour pilot??
 
steingar said:
You got ten years. When you turn 80 they won't insure you anymore for a retractable. I know guys getting pushed out of Mooneys because the insurance companies are worried they're not going to flip a switch.
Click to expand...
10 years!! I’ll take that payout now god willing!
 
sourdough44 said:
I know older pilots who NEVER fly alone, an option.

Yes, one can get ground coverage. Seems to me, a $2 Million plane is kinda high for a 100 hour pilot??
Click to expand...

Of course. I’m exploring next steps on a long term plan. I’ve completed ppl, done some added. My next step is instrumentation. Then with added practice and training, I think I can aspire to say a Bonanza g63. That plane gives me much of what I want.
I’ve realized m350 gives you pressurization, a little more speed and range. But, it doesn’t compare to the benefits of something like an M600 or like. Of course that is at least $2 million.
After I reach proficiency with a Bonanza, I’ll evaluate whether there is any chance of mr safely flying an m600 (long shot because of my age). The alternative is to fly the Bonanza or like until I’m 80. Then god willing, we will have to find an alternative for any distance travel. Maybe buy a plane and pilot, time share etc. big plans
 
1) I'd be worried about liability. Lawyers - if something even minor happens, they will see a lot of "potential" in your estate / your assets. In addition to covering the cost of the plane, I'd think about how to protect my assets. "Extreme" liability insurance, etc.??

2) What is your mission, and why do you want to fly? If it is for fun, then get a fun plane and putz around. If you want to jump in a plane and travel, then perhaps charter a plane and pilot when you want to go somewhere. No reason why you can't do both now. Why wait?
 
I’ve already concluded that, for now, long travel is not an easy option flying myself. I’m leaning toward the Bonanza g63. Of course. I’ll have no idea until I fly one! Good g63 costs around $5-600k. With that plane, range loaded around 6-700 miles gets me a lot of places out of Atlanta. Our families are in MN and California. Seems like the trip to MN Should be easy, one stop. flying time around 6 hours. California, we can make an adventure! Something like net jets for needed faster domestic travel. International...commercial.
 
Larry benveniste said:
I’ve realized m350 gives you pressurization, a little more speed and range. But, it doesn’t compare to the benefits of something like an M600 or like.
Click to expand...

What benefits does an M600 have that the M350 is lacking, other than power potentially improved reliability?

Depending on how and where you fly the differences and advantages of an M350 over a bonanza can be significant, but it comes with a price tag. I see the differences between an M350 and an M600 as being significantly smaller.
 
Two things about the m350. First, As I’m learning about the safety history of the m350 I get nervous. Partly because it may be that the plane is pushing the engine technology to too much. The range on the 350 is a little misleading I’ve been told. Considering that, the range on something like a cirrus or bonanza aren’t far behind. 1000 range with weight would have made a big difference given where we travel.
The 500 is bigger, faster and more o powerful but it eats significantly more fuel than the 350 and I’ve been told, the range/weight isn’t much better.
The real jump in capability for the m class seems to be the 600. That is my learnings so far. Thanks for your input!
 
Larry benveniste said:
Two things about the m350. First, As I’m learning about the safety history of the m350 I get nervous. Partly because it may be that the plane is pushing the engine technology to too much. The range on the 350 is a little misleading I’ve been told. Considering that, the range on something like a cirrus or bonanza aren’t far behind. 1000 range with weight would have made a big difference given where we travel.
The 500 is bigger, faster and more o powerful but it eats significantly more fuel than the 350 and I’ve been told, the range/weight isn’t much better.
The real jump in capability for the m class seems to be the 600. That is my learnings so far. Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...
If you and all your passengers can safely and comfortably sit in a small airplane for 1,000 miles nonstop, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
You got me on that one! My wife reminds me of this every time the subject comes up. So it does come back to why make the pressurized jump? Comfort yes. Str you that much less comfortable at 12,000 feet in a Bonanza? We will only fly recreationally which means that any non surprise weather advantage is small. I’m trying to convince myself because the m350 is so nice!!
 
Larry benveniste said:
Two things about the m350. First, As I’m learning about the safety history of the m350 I get nervous. Partly because it may be that the plane is pushing the engine technology to too much. The range on the 350 is a little misleading I’ve been told. Considering that, the range on something like a cirrus or bonanza aren’t far behind. 1000 range with weight would have made a big difference given where we travel.
The 500 is bigger, faster and more o powerful but it eats significantly more fuel than the 350 and I’ve been told, the range/weight isn’t much better.
The real jump in capability for the m class seems to be the 600. That is my learnings so far. Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...

But you still didn’t say what you believe is so much better about the M600...

The Malibu/M350 will carry enough fuel to be aloft for 6ish hours. Not sure how long you really want to sit in an airplane for but that is longer than I want to. That said, I know guys who fly a Malibu from southern MN to south Texas non stop. That doesn’t seem to be misleading on range to me.

Most of the stories you hear about the engine durability problems are associated with the old Continental powered airplanes. Even those can be durable if taken care of. I know guys who make it to TBO without problems.

Remember that the piper M series was originally designed as a piston airplane. The 500 is not any “bigger” as far as I know.

It seems to me that you’re now discounting the Malibu/M350 simply because you can’t get insured in it at a rate that is acceptable to you. A turbine version certainly isn’t going to be cheaper in that department if comparing apples to apples.

I’m guessing you’ve never owned an airplane before. Here’s my suggestion - buy something like a g1000 equipped Diamond and get your instrument rating. You may find that the ongoing expenses of properly maintaining even a simple airplane are a significant undertaking both financially and time wise. Once you’re a little more versed in ownership and instrument flying you will be in a better position to step up to something more demanding.
 
There is a chicken-and-egg problem with defining your mission in general aviation. Flying your mission is the only good way to fine-tune what kind of airplane and ratings are necessary and appropriate. But you can't fly your mission if you don't have a plane capable of doing it. The normal route is to work your way up and redefine your mission as you go. You might find that your trips are often taken solo, VFR, to a distance of 200 miles, at 5,000 feet. Flying that trip with an M350 is like commuting to work in a motorhome. You would be spending a lot of money on fuel and maintenance to haul around a bunch of empty seats at an altitude where pressurization is basically meaningless.

That's not to say it's not a great plane for that trip, it just is not the most efficient choice. A Piper Arrow that costs 1/20 the acquisition price and much less in fuel and maintenance (not to mention insurance, the original topic of this thread), will take 1:32 to fly those 200 nautical miles when the winds are calm. The M350 will take about 1:04 for the same trip at a similar altitude. The Arrow will burn about $70 in fuel while the M350 burns closer to $125. Are your trips and your time so valuable that 32 minutes are worth 20 times the capex, probably 5 times the maintenance costs, and nearly double the fuel costs?

If you can afford the pay cash for a new Piper M350 or M500 and you're serious about buying one, you should be able to convince them to give you and some members of your family a demonstration ride in one. You might find that you all hate the plane or that it is a bad fit for your mission. Or you might find that you love it and that it's perfect for your mission. Then you can buy one and pay a CFII to fly with you for the first year or two.

The step-up options are probably better for most people, though. The cost of buying an M350 or M500 and hating it is much higher than the cost of buying a PA-32R and deciding to upgrade, even without thinking about insurance. Getting your instrument rating and 400 hours in a PA-32R will make you much more insurable in the bigger Pipers, and you can fly your mission in a PA-32R. Frankly, I find the PA-32R more comfortable than the PA-46 as a pilot and I'm not sure there is much difference for passengers. It's mostly a question of speed, as far as I can tell.

Consider this: JFK Jr. was happy to upgrade to a PA-32R for his mission. I don't know about your net worth situation, but I don't think the Kennedys have traditionally made decisions based on the price tag. So, even if money is no object, the PA-32R might be a better fit than the PA-46. Food for thought.
 
iamtheari said:
The step-up options are probably better for most people, though. The cost of buying an M350 or M500 and hating it is much higher than the cost of buying a PA-32R and deciding to upgrade, even without thinking about insurance.
Click to expand...

I agree with almost all of what you wrote but this part can be misleading. Depending on circumstances, many of which are out of the buyers control, he may be better off buying the M350, hating it and selling it.

My friend just took delivery of (another) new airplane. We expect that if he doesn’t like it he will be able to sell it for what he has into it without much trouble, because a brand new one will come with a 6-12 month waiting period while it is being built. Availability has a value...

All the PA32s, Bonanzas, etc. are now used and that opportunity for them has went away.
 
mondtster said:
I agree with almost all of what you wrote but this part can be misleading. Depending on circumstances, many of which are out of the buyers control, he may be better off buying the M350, hating it and selling it.

My friend just took delivery of (another) new airplane. We expect that if he doesn’t like it he will be able to sell it for what he has into it without much trouble, because a brand new one will come with a 6-12 month waiting period while it is being built. Availability has a value...

All the PA32s, Bonanzas, etc. are now used and that opportunity for them has went away.
Click to expand...
#firstworldproblems
 
I have not read the entire thread.

I think you are biting off more than you should for your stage of flying experience. I think you should get your private and then build time, as well as get your instrument rating, in something like a Mooney or Bonanza as a stepping stone toward a pressurized aircraft. You would be getting the experience as well as retract time.
 
Larry,

If thinking longer term. Cirrus is fixed gear, this will make insurance easier, also check with a couple insurance agents and see if Turbo still makes a difference. A few years ago, based on other's posts it does make a difference with age of the pilot and some insurance underwriters (turbo screams high altitude/complex flying over long distances is likely the thinking).
Second, from a fatigue standpoint, noise and vibration matter a lot. Go look at one of the Diamond Diesel planes, great safety record, still retract so consider that aspect for insurance, but incredibly smooth and quiet. Much less tiring for the pilot and passengers.

Good luck,

Tim
 
Larry benveniste said:
I’m considering buying an m350. I’m fairly new pilot 100 hours and I plan to hire a qualified pilot to fly with me for sometime. Here is the question. I’m 70 years old and in perfect health! When I did a preliminary quote, the results were outlandish. 50k a year! My question is, if I own the plane outright, should I self insure the plane and insure for only liability? The age thing is silly.
Click to expand...

$50k premium on an $800k airplane?
 
bnt83 said:
$50k premium on an $800k airplane?
Click to expand...
Not terribly surprising. That's 6.25% of hull value. For light to medium unpressurized twins, as a new twin pilot with ~600 hours of single-engine time, I was getting quotes hovering around 7.2% of hull value, plus oodles of training requirements.

Edit to add: With more time in type, my insurance quotes seem to converge on 1.5% of hull value per year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top