Should I get a retractable gear airplane?

Morne

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name
Display name:
Morne
Eventually I will get a 6-place twin (and all of them are retractable), once I can afford to feed and care for it. According to my financial plan that is about 3.5 years from now. My goal is to get the insurance for that leap as manageable as possible. I currently have PP-ASEL, HP, Complex and IR.

The year before I am in a position to purchase I will get my Multi rating. Depending upon exactly which twin, I may go for some sim training in that model and/or get some instruction in that actual model.

Over the last 1.5 years I have owned and flown a straight-leg 182, and I love it! Even got her a new paint job so she looks as good as she flies. She satisfies both my 85% mission and those rare times when I fill the back seat, too. I have about 200 hours in the 182, including tons of real cross-county (OH to CA, FL and New Orleans). Sure, I'd like more speed but that's not what this is about.

I understand that part of the insurance ramp up is due to the retractable gear issue. So I am wondering if I shouldn't be building complex time, too? I figure an older 210 will have comparable useful load and interior room to my current bird. Should I move up to the 210 to build comlex time over the next few years?

Alternately, I could just bite the bullet and go for an "entry level twin" like a Beech 95 Travel-Air or a Piper Apache/Geronimo. Certainly not what I want to end up with, but it might work.

Thoughts/suggestions/critiques?
 
If you know you're heading in the retractable direction, then start building retract time as soon as possible. I started renting Mooneys at 100 hours total time, then I flew a friend's TB-20 Trinidad for 8 years. By the time I bought my Mooney I had 800 hours of retract time and the insurance wasn't a big deal. I how have 1,500 hours of retract time and I pay less for my insurance than my hangar mate does for his Cirrus, even though our hull values are almost identical. It's all about racking up the hours without landing on the belly.
 
If your goal is to get a 6 place twin, ME time is far more important than retract time for insurance purposes. Depending on what you can afford, your best bet is likely to buy a 4 seat twin and start building the twin time now. You can either shoot for a dirt cheap beater Apache or go for something a little more usefull, but more expensive like a Duchess or Twinkie.

If the need for six seats is more important in the near term, I'd recommend a 210 and get your MEL sooner than later to start building that twin time whenever possible.
 
Morne said:
Eventually I will get a 6-place twin (and all of them are retractable), once I can afford to feed and care for it. According to my financial plan that is about 3.5 years from now. My goal is to get the insurance for that leap as manageable as possible. I currently have PP-ASEL, HP, Complex and IR.

The year before I am in a position to purchase I will get my Multi rating. Depending upon exactly which twin, I may go for some sim training in that model and/or get some instruction in that actual model.

Over the last 1.5 years I have owned and flown a straight-leg 182, and I love it! Even got her a new paint job so she looks as good as she flies. She satisfies both my 85% mission and those rare times when I fill the back seat, too. I have about 200 hours in the 182, including tons of real cross-county (OH to CA, FL and New Orleans). Sure, I'd like more speed but that's not what this is about.

I understand that part of the insurance ramp up is due to the retractable gear issue. So I am wondering if I shouldn't be building complex time, too? I figure an older 210 will have comparable useful load and interior room to my current bird. Should I move up to the 210 to build comlex time over the next few years?

Alternately, I could just bite the bullet and go for an "entry level twin" like a Beech 95 Travel-Air or a Piper Apache/Geronimo. Certainly not what I want to end up with, but it might work.

Thoughts/suggestions/critiques?
Click to expand...

My suggestion is that the OMG OMG OMG HIGH HIGH HIGH insurance premiums for retracts is overblown. It might be more pronounced if you're buying new 3/4 million dollar G36 vs a new SR22. For reference on my 25k hull value Cherokee 150 insurance was 800/year. For 75k hull on the bonanza it's 1600 year. I was a ppl with no IR, 300hrs TT with zero complex and zero HP when that quote was given.
 
Fearless Tower said:
If your goal is to get a 6 place twin, ME time is far more important than retract time for insurance purposes. Depending on what you can afford, your best bet is likely to buy a 4 seat twin and start building the twin time now. You can either shoot for a dirt cheap beater Apache or go for something a little more usefull, but more expensive like a Duchess or Twinkie.
Click to expand...

I was afraid someone would say that.

Thoughts on a Beech 95? Basically an early Baron with a pair of 4-bangers, right? Gotta be less expensive to operate than the sixers (both in cylinders and passengers).
 
colojo said:
If you know you're heading in the retractable direction, then start building retract time as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Concur. The insurers are more afraid of low retractable time than they are of low ME time. When we were looking at getting my wife her ME rating to fly the Grumman Cougar we owned at that time, they said, "25 hours in the Cougar including her ME training and rating, and she's good to go -- she does have 100 hours of retractable time already, right? No? Well, call us back when she does unless you want to pay three times the premium."

Y'see, the problem is that a gear-up landing in a twin costs the insurer twice as much as a single, and gets close to totalling the plane if it's an older twin worth less than $100K or so (2 engines + 2 props = $60-80K).
 
Morne said:
Thoughts on a Beech 95? Basically an early Baron with a pair of 4-bangers, right? Gotta be less expensive to operate than the sixers (both in cylinders and passengers).
Click to expand...

If you want to end up in a Baron, a Travel Air is a good place to build time. That said, if you can buy a Baron in 3.5 years but you won't be able to buy the Travel Air until 2.5 years from now, there's not much point IMO. If you can get a Bonanza now, great! Go for it. Flying a similar single to the twin you want can't be a bad thing. For example, if you're into Piper products instead, look at a Lance, it's basically a single-engine Seneca.
 
I agree with the HP retrack but might want a low wing since the twin will be low wing...start getting used to that.

Whenever I call insurance about twin insurance costs for me, they are always confident in getting me several good quotes with 300 hrs of Complex Hp Turbo time.

I think it also has something to do with relative speed and being less likely to let a faster twin get ahead of you the first 100 hrs. Not just the 175 knots true but the time to begin your decent and be a traffic pattern in time for an easy entry with eyes outside the cockpit.
 
Skylane81E said:
Find a R182, Similar to what you have and a retract.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I did my complex endorsement in a 182RG, it feels quite different. Plus, the baggage area is less. I figure that a 210 will have all the performance plus plenty of room.

@Flyingcheesehead,

What if I want to end up in a Cessna 337? Sticking with high wing is probably best, true?

Honestly, it is between the 337 and a Twin Bonanza. Barons, 310s and the like just don't turn me on that much. I like oddball planes...
 
I looked into 337's and I love the idea of them. They are cheap too. Check to see that they have the STC to keep the engines cool they have heat problems. I think there is a book about the 337's which would be a good read and could save you money if you buy one. I saw a good specimen which was a turbo but the heat/maintenance scared me away. If the economy had not just hosed me I would have probably bought it anyway. What is a little extra maintenance when you got a plane you absolutely love?
 
Decide what you want, then get a 210 or Bo.


Or just buy the 337 or twin Bo
 
Morne said:
Yes and no. I did my complex endorsement in a 182RG, it feels quite different. Plus, the baggage area is less. I figure that a 210 will have all the performance plus plenty of room.

@Flyingcheesehead,

What if I want to end up in a Cessna 337? Sticking with high wing is probably best, true?

Honestly, it is between the 337 and a Twin Bonanza. Barons, 310s and the like just don't turn me on that much. I like oddball planes...
Click to expand...

There is a chance you'll get a break on having low Multi time in a 337 because of the centerline thrust thing.

You can probably buy a skymaster for less than a 210...
 
dell30rb said:
There is a chance you'll get a break on having low Multi time in a 337 because of the centerline thrust thing.

You can probably buy a skymaster for less than a 210...
Click to expand...

Yep, if I could afford the care and feeding of a twin I would have a 337 in a heartbeat.
 
Find some way to get the 100 hrs of retract time.

The Extra $1,500 premium for not having it, though is just about the added cost of one more a/c transition- fixing this and fixing that. So a straight monetarist would say, bite the bullet the first year. Keep it cheap until then.
 
Last edited:
Skylane81E said:
Yep, if I could afford the care and feeding of a twin I would have a 337 in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

And see, THAT is the point. I read about 337 owners routinely having $8k annuals (more than double my 182). Then there are 12 cylinders to care for. Their fuel burn really isn't that bad, ditto the purchase price, but I could see one trying to break me on the OPEX side of the equation.

T-Bones have old, unsupported geared engines. Plus, they don't fit in a tee hangar with their 46' wingspan. There are some well known specialists who have spares for these old ladies, but otherwise parts are rare.

My home field has folks familiar with working on the 337, which is nice.
 
Skylane81E said:
You suspect right, care I can handle, but my 182 is thirsty enough!
Click to expand...

See, I have it backwards. I think the 337 fuel burn rate is acceptable, but I fear the big hit maintenance.
 
Morne said:
And see, THAT is the point. I read about 337 owners routinely having $8k annuals (more than double my 182). Then there are 12 cylinders to care for. Their fuel burn really isn't that bad, ditto the purchase price, but I could see one trying to break me on the OPEX side of the equation.

T-Bones have old, unsupported geared engines. Plus, they don't fit in a tee hangar with their 46' wingspan. There are some well known specialists who have spares for these old ladies, but otherwise parts are rare.

My home field has folks familiar with working on the 337, which is nice.
Click to expand...

337s have expensive annuals because being cheap people who can't afford to take care of a twin buy them. These folks defer more maintenance than others. Just because it is a 60k plane doesn't mean it is the same cost to take care of as a 172
 
The open pilot policy on my Navion requires 25 hours of retract time. My U-2 pilot buddy wanted to fly it. I asked if the wheels fall off your airplane if that counts as retract time.
 
Ron Levy said:
The insurers are more afraid of low retractable time than they are of low ME time. When we were looking at getting my wife her ME rating to fly the Grumman Cougar we owned at that time, they said, "25 hours in the Cougar including her ME training and rating, and she's good to go -- she does have 100 hours of retractable time already, right? No? Well, call us back when she does unless you want to pay three times the premium."
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what year was that?

My personal experience with insurance quotes in the last 5 years has been much more in line with what Rusty described- that all the talk about retract insurance was way over-hyped. I had no trouble getting reasonable quotes on 4 seat retracts with ~150 TT and ~25 complex.

If he ultimately wants a twin, that is why I'd recommend building the twin time since it gets you both. I have gotten quite a few quotes on twins in the last couple years. Once I went over 100 hrs ME, twins started to become affordable from an insurance standpoint.
 
flyingron said:
The open pilot policy on my Navion requires 25 hours of retract time. My U-2 pilot buddy wanted to fly it. I asked if the wheels fall off your airplane if that counts as retract time.
Click to expand...
That reminds me of something funny....the Navy helo pilots I know who fly fixed wing GA on the side all got ME credit for their helo time towards the fixed wing insurance requirements.
 
flyingron said:
The open pilot policy on my Navion requires 25 hours of retract time. My U-2 pilot buddy wanted to fly it. I asked if the wheels fall off your airplane if that counts as retract time.
Click to expand...

How would they view a long-ez?

Log 1/3 the time as retract?

I'm lucky that our flying club turned me loose in the mooneys with 5 hours dual.
 
dell30rb said:
How would they view a long-ez?

Log 1/3 the time as retract?

I'm lucky that our flying club turned me loose in the mooneys with 5 hours dual.
Click to expand...

Long EZ is not a complex. Retractable gear does not a complex airplane make
 
Morne said:
Yes and no. I did my complex endorsement in a 182RG, it feels quite different. Plus, the baggage area is less. I figure that a 210 will have all the performance plus plenty of room.

@Flyingcheesehead,

What if I want to end up in a Cessna 337? Sticking with high wing is probably best, true?

Honestly, it is between the 337 and a Twin Bonanza. Barons, 310s and the like just don't turn me on that much. I like oddball planes...
Click to expand...
If a 337 is what you want eventually, a 210 would be the best choice -- very similar systems and flight characteristics. If it's the T-bone, a Beech product like a Bonanza would probably be a better choice for similar reasons (although less commonality than the 210/337).

So, which do you really want?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Just out of curiosity, what year was that?
Click to expand...
Maybe 10 years ago.

My personal experience with insurance quotes in the last 5 years has been much more in line with what Rusty described- that all the talk about retract insurance was way over-hyped. I had no trouble getting reasonable quotes on 4 seat retracts with ~150 TT and ~25 complex.
Click to expand...
I didn't say a 4-seat retract, I said a twin. That's a very different situation because, as I said, a gear-up landing in a twin costs the insurer twice as much, and pushes it towards a total constructive loss.

If he ultimately wants a twin, that is why I'd recommend building the twin time since it gets you both. I have gotten quite a few quotes on twins in the last couple years. Once I went over 100 hrs ME, twins started to become affordable from an insurance standpoint.
Click to expand...
I suspect that you'd have found them equally affordable if you went into the twin with 100 hours of retractable time and 25 hours ME in type or 50 hours ME/5 in type.
 
This thread is making me excited to renew my insurance. Went from no retract time to 125 hours (and climbing).

I'd recommend a 182rg. Probably because I own one. But also because their mx is typically cheaper than a 210 of the same vintage and condition. They're cheaper to fly too, or you could slow the 210 down and be good.

I'd like to add that I recommend getting your mel is a standard twin, or else your certificate will limit you to centerline thrust.
 
Ron Levy said:
I suspect that you'd have found them equally affordable if you went into the twin with 100 hours of retractable time and 25 hours ME in type or 50 hours ME/5 in type.
Click to expand...
That would be where you are wrong. My numbers and statements in this thread come from actual discussions with the brokers. I did look at twin insurance with 100 complex and less than 100 ME
 
Fearless Tower said:
That would be where you are wrong. My numbers and statements in this thread come from actual discussions with the brokers. I did look at twin insurance with 100 complex and less than 100 ME
Click to expand...
:sigh: Yup -- it's that 100 complex I'm talking about. If you've got it, twins aren't hard once you have minimal ME time (typically 25 all in type, or 50 ME with 5 in type). If you don't, it's bloody expensive unless you have 100 hours of ME time (which is all retractable unless you're flying Partenavia P68's or Champion Lancers, in which case they won't care about retractable time).

BTW, you did understand that by "retractable" time I was saying the same as you are with "complex" time, right?
 
Morne said:
Yes and no. I did my complex endorsement in a 182RG, it feels quite different. Plus, the baggage area is less. I figure that a 210 will have all the performance plus plenty of room.

@Flyingcheesehead,

What if I want to end up in a Cessna 337? Sticking with high wing is probably best, true?

Honestly, it is between the 337 and a Twin Bonanza. Barons, 310s and the like just don't turn me on that much. I like oddball planes...
Click to expand...

If you want a 337, a 210 would be a great place to start. Again, similarities between the two birds are a good thing! A 182RG would also be an option. Like you noticed, there are differences between the 182 and the 182RG, but they're still substantially similar. I did my commercial in a 182RG after flying a straight-leg 182 a bunch, and my landings were flat at first due to the longer cowl and I skidded on a couple of short-field landings due to the smaller main wheels, but in flight they were very similar except for the speed!

The T-bone, well, I dunno - There wasn't really a single-engine equivalent to it, despite the name "Twin Bonanza" - It's a much larger airplane than the Bonanza, and I would bet the flight characteristics are quite different as well. There are probably quite a few things it has in common with an older Bonanza, but I doubt it'd make a huge difference in terms of learning time on the T-Bone whether you used a Bonanza or something else with retracts to get that retract time.

So, maybe a 210 is the way to go...
 
bartmc said:
Just buy the T-Bone... I mean.. it has a couch!!!
Click to expand...

And a Freight compartment.

But now we are not worried about feeding it at all with twin GO480's.

If I couldn't afford to annual/fuel fly it, I'd wheel it out and sit in front of it on a lawn chair with some beer and talk to people who walk by to admire it. :)
 
Ron Levy said:
:sigh: Yup -- it's that 100 complex I'm talking about. If you've got it, twins aren't hard once you have minimal ME time (typically 25 all in type, or 50 ME with 5 in type). If you don't, it's bloody expensive unless you have 100 hours of ME time (which is all retractable unless you're flying Partenavia P68's or Champion Lancers, in which case they won't care about retractable time).
Click to expand...
You missed what I was saying....I already had 100 complex and only about 25 ME with or without time in type and it wasn't until I got to 100 ME that I had any chance of getting insurance for a 6 seat twin.

The OP said he ultimately wants a 6 seat twin, so he might as well build the complex and the ME at the same time. If he follows your advice, and just focuses on the complex alone, then he is going to be rather unhappy when he tries to get quotes on those twins.
 
Skylane81E said:
Crazy thought, get a 336 and this is a moot point.
Click to expand...
They are strictly a collector's item in my book.

I mean maybe, MAYBE, if I had a bushplane mission that also involved trips over open water then I would want the 336. Or if I had my own grass strip, MAYBE. But I fly off of a mile of glistening pavement and the 337 has more than adequate short field performance for where I need to go.
 
Why would insurance be more expensive on twins? Isn't the 2nd engine a safety feature? and don't even say hull value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top