Beechcraft Travel Air

[retailguy]

My partner and I are exploring the idea of getting one in the fall. I don't know very much about them and am looking for some information and some advice.

Affording a twin is no issue for him, and stretching it a bit for me. It meets my mission now, and will meet it into the future as far as I can see.

I have two teenage girls. The four of us need 700lbs, plus about 50-100 lbs for baggage. My wife has one request when we fly, and that's to not stay in the air longer than 3 hours. So, I don't need much more than 70 gals of fuel at the stated fuel burns.

From the limited information I've been able to gather, it looks like I can throttle back to about 45% power and burn about 13 gals per hour (that's book numbers, and I realize it could be different). At that fuel burn it's right around Cessna 182 speeds, which is fine with me today. I question whether or not I'll fly there :wink2:, but nice to know I can.

I'm in Texas, have family in Missouri (500 nautical miles), family in Wisconsin (only once a year at most), and have a lot of ideas for trips within the 3 hour radius. I don't plan much mountain flying, nor am I considering icing equipment.

I have no multi engine time, I am very close to being instrument rated, I have a high performance endorsement, but no complex endorsement.

I can handle the insurance costs, and have some savings beyond the purchase prices I'm seeing for some unplanned 1st year maintenance.

Pros? Cons?

Any parts that are hard to find? Airframes are getting pretty old.
Is the Twinkie a better choice? I know there are a lot more of them.
I read all sorts of horror stories about maintenance costs as compared to a single. I don't know what to believe. Your experiences would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[JHW]

We make exactly the same trips in ours. we have family in IL KS and TX. Economical plane, easy to fly and maintain.

Twin comanche is also a good choice. Pa30 has slight edge in efficiency. d95 has more baggage space. I intended to get a twinkie but we couldnt fit in it with the girl's stuff. Also much better prop clearance with the beech

d95's bacically fall into 3 groups:
1958-1960 carbeurated engines, shorter rear baggage. Lighter.
1960-61 have engines with simmons fuel injection, avoid these like the plague
1962-on, bendix injection, longer baggage

On all these the original steel hub props are a $21k check ready to be written to replace them. Look for one with the new props.

Usual bonanza cautions apply around corrosion, gear rod ends, etc. Get it inspected by a bonanza familiar a&p

1958 models like mine were 4000LB gross. Weight went up over the years but HP remained the same. I would strongly suggest using a 4000LB gross weight for any travel air if you want to fly on one engine after departure.

Mine does 163-165 ktas on 17-18gph at 10-12k ft at ~3800LB gross departure weight. But mine is also lighter and has a cleaner belly than most. Figure 158-160ktas as more typical.

There are a few with turbos, they will walk away from a 470 powered baron in the mid teens.

Be prepared to look at a lot of neglected junk. I bought the 13th one we looked at and then spent the next 5 years making it into what i wanted.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Non standard throttle, mixture, prop arrangement. Old airframe, expensive parts. Essentially a glorified Beech Bonanza. Don't believe all of the hype of "Beech Quality" as it's just that, hype.

The majority of the fleet is junk, finding a "good one" (oxymoron) is rare with these planes.

 

[CaptLabrador]

All I know is I got my multi done in one and have 25 hours in the travel air and it really is a beautifully flying airplane. Very stable, climbs decent, and super easy on instrument approaches. That said Im told they are underpowered, which I can see since their single engine service ceiling on a good day is 6000. I really enjoyed flying it though.

 

[poadeleted21]

Non standard throttle, mixture, prop arrangement. Old airframe, expensive parts. Essentially a glorified Beech Bonanza. Don't believe all of the hype of "Beech Quality" as it's just that, hype.

The majority of the fleet is junk, finding a "good one" (oxymoron) is rare with these planes.

This. You clearly should be looking for a Skymaster instead.

 

[Jthamilton]

This. You clearly should be looking for a Skymaster instead.

Well, that can just got opened.

Do some searches on this topic, it was quite the lively one last month.

 

[wabower]

What are you flying now?

 

[Ted]

Aside from Jeff, I have one other friend with a Travel Air who loves it. Mostly it's him and his wife, and they love it. OEI performance is not stellar at all, but it is going to be relatively inexpensive to operate. As Jeff pointed out, you'll probably have a "project" plane when you buy one. Barons with 470s won't be much more and might be a better airframe, even though the Lycoming 360s will be more reliable than Conti 470s.

I'd look at 310s. Better cabin, better OEI for your load. See which one you like better.

 

[retailguy]

What are you flying now?

We just sold our 59 Cessa 172 last month. My partner also has an S35 and a Citabria.

This would be my only plane. I have no interest in multiple planes, nor do i have the budget to properly maintain multiple planes. I think my budget would be stretched a bit in the first few years with a light light twin. I'm fairly certain that I do not want the operating expenses of a 310.

We'd been leaning towards a 182, but he really wants a twin. He's talking about a partnership with two others for a 58 Baron, I'm not interested in that at all. Too much plane for me. I'm somewhat ambivalent, I just want a plane where I can get all 4 of us in it, I don't really care what it is. I have, however, wanted a single engine Comanche since I first laid eyes on one as a kid. The twins are OK, but the real eye candy is the single engine.

Regarding a single engine, he's only interested in a 182 or 210. Cherokee's and arrow's are pretty much the same thing he's already got with the s35. Mooney's are not an option for either of us. Budget would be no more than 80k.

 

[Norman]

Based on your mission statement and load requirements in your first post it seems likely that a 182, possibly a retract, or a NA 210 would fill the bill sans the need for maintenance on two engines.

 

[JHW]

First you need to decide which class of plane you're lookimg for. Baron/310 or travel air / twinkie

If its the 4 cyl class you're after then they are equally good choices, each is well supported by owners groups, well built, and has reasonable parts availability. both have recurring AD's which are generally no issue to do.

So you just need to decide what features matter to you:

1. Nose baggage, all travel airs have it, twinkies dont.
2. Counter rotating props, Most twinkies have them, no travel airs do
3. Travel airs have substantially better prop clearance for grass runways
4. Twinkies have best MPG of any light twin

If none of these issues jump out at you as a must-have then you cant go wrong with either one. Buy the best example of either type that you can find.

 

[retailguy]

Based on your mission statement and load requirements in your first post it seems likely that a 182, possibly a retract, or a NA 210 would fill the bill sans the need for maintenance on two engines.

Yes, let's be clear. A single engine N/A plane is just fine for me. My partner wants a twin, and I'd rather keep the partnership than get the "exactly right" plane for me. We have a wonderful partnership that works great for both of us. He wants a "back up" plane and likes that it's my only plane and therefore it gets flown regularly without him worrying about it.

I don't see that much difference between a 182 and the Travel Air if i wanted to travel the same speed. Operating costs are higher, but not out of sight scary. Maintenance costs/annual are a different thing entirely and that's where my concern comes from. It's really the only concern I have.

We've toyed with 210's as well. Older pre 1970's ones. Those can eat you up in maintenance. Those big continentals are not cheap to maintain. But are two 4 cylinder lycomings cheaper? Not likely. But more expensive? Maybe, maybe not. I just don't know.

So, I think I'm willing to spend some extra money for a light light twin. I don't think I'm willing to consider a baron or a 310. Operating costs are just too much higher for me to be comfortable. I need 4 place capability for the next 5 years or so, after that it'll be just me and the misses.

 

[retailguy]

First you need to decide which class of plane you're lookimg for. Baron/310 or travel air / twinkie

If its the 4 cyl class you're after then they are equally good choices, each is well supported by owners groups, well built, and has reasonable parts availability. both have recurring AD's which are generally no issue to do.

So you just need to decide what features matter to you:

1. Nose baggage, all travel airs have it, twinkies dont.
2. Counter rotating props, Most twinkies have them, no travel airs do
3. Travel airs have substantially better prop clearance for grass runways
4. Twinkies have best MPG of any light twin

If none of these issues jump out at you as a must-have then you cant go wrong with either one. Buy the best example of either type that you can find.

I think I'm indifferent between the two planes. I don't care about the baggage issue. Grass runways are not in the plan except in an emergency and then i don't care. The best MPG issue does concern me. I want to fly it, not look at it in the hangar. I've been cruising at 100 kts for the past 2 years, so speed is not a big factor. Operating costs are. How much different are the two planes with regard to that?

Also, what about maintenance? My partner is a Beech guy, so the travel air would be his preference, but he likes twinkies too.

And yes, the 4 cylinder class is where I want to stay. Maybe, just maybe on a 4 way partnership i could get comfortable enough with a baron to consider it. But since it's my only plane, I'm not sure it would be that appealing.

 

[Fearless Tower]

So, I think I'm willing to spend some extra money for a light light twin. I don't think I'm willing to consider a baron or a 310. Operating costs are just too much higher for me to be comfortable. I need 4 place capability for the next 5 years or so, after that it'll be just me and the misses.

Just keep this in mind....a good well taken care of Baron or 310 will be cheaper to operate than a beater Travel Air that has been neglected. You need to decide what you really want/need in an airplane and find the best maintained one for sale that you can find if you don't want the airplane to eat you out of house and home.

 

[N747JB]

At the risk of being a wet blanket, your stated budget is $80k or less and you mention operating a Travel Air at 45% power, I think you need to look at the operating budget as well as the purchase price. A cheap twin isn't cheap. Fuel costs will be 1.5 times a big piston twin, maintenance costs will be 2-3 times the cost of a 182. I'm a fan of having two engines, but make sure you're ready for the associated costs, it's a lot more than more fuel and a few more spark plugs. You've got two props, retractable gear, a gasoline heater etc, plenty of potential costs to consider. I don't want to discourage you, just make sure you have both eyes open!
When you hear stories about people buying a plane, HP single or twin and not spending a lot of money on them the first year or two, they're lying.

 

[JHW]

...maintenance costs will be 2-3 times the cost of a 182. I'm a fan of having two engines, but make sure you're ready for the associated costs, it's a lot more than more fuel and a few more spark plugs. You've got two props, retractable gear, a gasoline heater etc, plenty of potential costs to consider.

mx is more like 1.5x. It's higher but nowhere the 2-3x number that people like to throw around. Also whenever you move to a more complex plane, twin or single, you need to stop thinking in terms of cost per hour. You are going faster so make your comparison in terms of cost per mile. In my case travel air all-in costs only 15-20% more per mile than our previous fixed gear Cherokee-6

That said, forget this attempt to rationalize the purchase by talking about flying at 45% power. The majority of times you touch the throttles are to push on them to make sure one didn't slip back from full-forward. If you want lower power, climb higher. 160 kts will feel slow to you soon enough.

 

[N747JB]

Jeff, you certainly have experience with these airplanes, my post was to make him aware that it's more expensive to operate a twin and potentially WAY more expensive. I just hate to see too rosy of a picture painted, if they buy he right plane and have a little good luck it's not too bad flying a twin or any airplane, but he needs to be prepared for the gotchas.

mx is more like 1.5x. It's higher but nowhere the 2-3x number that people like to throw around. Also whenever you move to a more complex plane, twin or single, you need to stop thinking in terms of cost per hour. You are going faster so make your comparison in terms of cost per mile. In my case travel air all-in costs only 15-20% more per mile than our previous fixed gear Cherokee-6

That said, forget this attempt to rationalize the purchase by talking about flying at 45% power. The majority of times you touch the throttles are to push on them to make sure one didn't slip back from full-forward. If you want lower power, climb higher. 160 kts will feel slow to you soon enough.

 

[JHW]

Jeff, you certainly have experience with these airplanes, my post was to make him aware that it's more expensive to operate a twin and potentially WAY more expensive. I just hate to see too rosy of a picture painted, if they buy he right plane and have a little good luck it's not too bad flying a twin or any airplane, but he needs to be prepared for the gotchas.

The main risk I would worry about is an antsy partner leading to a premature purchase. It takes patience to find the right plane. I looked for over 2 years for this one. It had warts but it was the right airframe for what I wanted to do.

 

[Jeff K]

mx is more like 1.5x. It's higher but nowhere the 2-3x number that people like to throw around. Also whenever you move to a more complex plane, twin or single, you need to stop thinking in terms of cost per hour. You are going faster so make your comparison in terms of cost per mile. In my case travel air all-in costs only 15-20% more per mile than our previous fixed gear Cherokee-6.

I went from a Cherokee-6 to an Aztec. I'd concur with Jeff as to the costs.

 

[Norman]

Yes, let's be clear. A single engine N/A plane is just fine for me. My partner wants a twin, and I'd rather keep the partnership than get the "exactly right" plane for me. We have a wonderful partnership that works great for both of us. He wants a "back up" plane and likes that it's my only plane and therefore it gets flown regularly without him worrying about it.

I don't see that much difference between a 182 and the Travel Air if i wanted to travel the same speed. Operating costs are higher, but not out of sight scary. Maintenance costs/annual are a different thing entirely and that's where my concern comes from. It's really the only concern I have.

We've toyed with 210's as well. Older pre 1970's ones. Those can eat you up in maintenance. Those big continentals are not cheap to maintain. But are two 4 cylinder lycomings cheaper? Not likely. But more expensive? Maybe, maybe not. I just don't know.

So, I think I'm willing to spend some extra money for a light light twin. I don't think I'm willing to consider a baron or a 310. Operating costs are just too much higher for me to be comfortable. I need 4 place capability for the next 5 years or so, after that it'll be just me and the misses.

Having recently completed a round trip from Iowa to Oregon in an R-182 with 600 pounds of pax and the baggage compartment crammed full I think that or a 210 would fit your mission well. With the above load, the plane had no problem crossing the big rocks at 15,000 ft.

The big bore Continentals are OK till you add the turbocharger. Then they become overworked and definitely require substantially more maintenance.

Considering that needed capacity will change in a few years I think going to a twin would be overkill. Just my two cents worth.

 

[wabower]

In this post you have addressed my concerns about buying the twin. A good deal with somebody you really like can be worth some extra money for the plane kitty, but as you and others have said the differences can be a bit breathtaking at first.

The first four twins I owned were because a co-owner wanted them and I went along with the deal even though I wasn't sure it made sense financially or that I would see any tangible difference in trip times. But during the entire time I retained ownership of the T-210 so I had the same "out" that your partner enjoys with his Bonanza.

You seem to have a good grasp of the issues, so I'd agree with others who advice to buy the best one with the best equipment you can find. The bells and whistles won't make it faster but will give you something fun to play with and look good in the shower.

Yes, let's be clear. A single engine N/A plane is just fine for me. My partner wants a twin, and I'd rather keep the partnership than get the "exactly right" plane for me. We have a wonderful partnership that works great for both of us. He wants a "back up" plane and likes that it's my only plane and therefore it gets flown regularly without him worrying about it.

I don't see that much difference between a 182 and the Travel Air if i wanted to travel the same speed. Operating costs are higher, but not out of sight scary. Maintenance costs/annual are a different thing entirely and that's where my concern comes from. It's really the only concern I have.

We've toyed with 210's as well. Older pre 1970's ones. Those can eat you up in maintenance. Those big continentals are not cheap to maintain. But are two 4 cylinder lycomings cheaper? Not likely. But more expensive? Maybe, maybe not. I just don't know.

So, I think I'm willing to spend some extra money for a light light twin. I don't think I'm willing to consider a baron or a 310. Operating costs are just too much higher for me to be comfortable. I need 4 place capability for the next 5 years or so, after that it'll be just me and the misses.

 

[retailguy]

At the risk of being a wet blanket, your stated budget is $80k or less and you mention operating a Travel Air at 45% power, I think you need to look at the operating budget as well as the purchase price. A cheap twin isn't cheap. Fuel costs will be 1.5 times a big piston twin, maintenance costs will be 2-3 times the cost of a 182. I'm a fan of having two engines, but make sure you're ready for the associated costs, it's a lot more than more fuel and a few more spark plugs. You've got two props, retractable gear, a gasoline heater etc, plenty of potential costs to consider. I don't want to discourage you, just make sure you have both eyes open!
When you hear stories about people buying a plane, HP single or twin and not spending a lot of money on them the first year or two, they're lying.

My skin is not that thin. Thanks for the warnings. I read and listened to your points.

One thing i want to clarify is my 45% comment. I don't anticipate flying cross country at 45% power. But I did routinely fly the 172 at 2200 rpm which was about 6 gals per hour. Why? It slowed everything down, especially early in my instrument training. Also, there is really no reason to go roaring into the pattern when all I'm going to do is land and get a cheeseburger. (Note the pun, roaring at 100kts...)

So, since most of my flying is local, I will throttle back frequently. I wanted to understand how throttling back compares to a 182. Since a 182 can't do 160kts (unless you've visited Keith Petersen), I wanted to understand if the Travel Air flew at those speeds how much more fuel did it burn? It seems to be relatively similar. yes, other operating costs increase, obviously oil changes will double. Obviously climbing out will burn significantly more fuel. Two Lycoming overhauls are more expensive than one IO-470/520/550 but not double the cost. Maintenance of the complex aircraft will be more than the 182, but that's as much of a reflection on the condition of the plane as it is the complex systems. It doesn't sound like annuals are much more expensive than a comparable 210 or Bonanza.

 

[retailguy]

The main risk I would worry about is an antsy partner leading to a premature purchase. It takes patience to find the right plane. I looked for over 2 years for this one. It had warts but it was the right airframe for what I wanted to do.

I'm not sure what I said that implied my partner was antsy. He's not, and we will be thorough in a pre buy.

We patiently waited six months to sell our 172 and were rewarded with both a pretty decent price and a very excited buyer who loves the plane as much as we did.

 

[retailguy]

In this post you have addressed my concerns about buying the twin. A good deal with somebody you really like can be worth some extra money for the plane kitty, but as you and others have said the differences can be a bit breathtaking at first.

The first four twins I owned were because a co-owner wanted them and I went along with the deal even though I wasn't sure it made sense financially or that I would see any tangible difference in trip times. But during the entire time I retained ownership of the T-210 so I had the same "out" that your partner enjoys with his Bonanza.

You seem to have a good grasp of the issues, so I'd agree with others who advice to buy the best one with the best equipment you can find. The bells and whistles won't make it faster but will give you something fun to play with and look good in the shower.

Thanks Wayne. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have concerns about this purchase. I don't really need a twin, but think I can afford it if the right one comes along.

Then again, my cross country flying is with my family so thinking about flying with two engines gives a measure of comfort perhaps even if it is all perception? I never worried about the single engine failing and it never even hiccuped so maybe it's just paranoia. But when I look at those girls.... Yeah, it's probably paranoia.

 

[wabower]

IME, most guys who have a good grasp on the airplane issues also seem to understand that maintaining pilot currency and awareness is the most important part of GA safety. You are obviously in the group of good thinkers who understand that keeping the girls safe requires more than simply buying bigger airplanes. My two have their own families now and I'm grateful that we were able to travel safely for ~25 years in our planes.

Thanks Wayne. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't have concerns about this purchase. I don't really need a twin, but think I can afford it if the right one comes along.

Then again, my cross country flying is with my family so thinking about flying with two engines gives a measure of comfort perhaps even if it is all perception? I never worried about the single engine failing and it never even hiccuped so maybe it's just paranoia. But when I look at those girls.... Yeah, it's probably paranoia.

 

[bbchien]

Retailguy, if you are SMART with appropriate under-loading and runway, wind and baro, you can close that window of vulnerability when after engine failure that exposes your girls to "no dad".

Think about it.

 

[retailguy]

Retailguy, if you are SMART with appropriate under-loading and runway, wind and baro, you can close that window of vulnerability when after engine failure that exposes your girls to "no dad".

Think about it.

Bruce,

That's what's really attractive to me with a Travel Air. I would make 90% or more of my flights lightly loaded. There should be no reason I couldn't stay aloft until I was able to safely land on the nearest runway.

That's worth some money to me, that's for sure. Jeff's comments about remaining under 4k gross were almost printed in bold text and capitalized for me when I read them. I think that's easily doable in the travel air. The twinkies seem to top out at 3600lbs. I'll have to do some research and math to figure out of that's possible with the lower gross weights.

Now, that being said, lots of folks are complaining about how difficult it is to find a quality, maintained travel air. So, while it may turn out to be the right choice for me, will I be on social security before I find one that meets the mission?

 

[DavidWhite]

Yes, let's be clear. A single engine N/A plane is just fine for me. My partner wants a twin, and I'd rather keep the partnership than get the "exactly right" plane for me. We have a wonderful partnership that works great for both of us. He wants a "back up" plane and likes that it's my only plane and therefore it gets flown regularly without him worrying about it.

I don't see that much difference between a 182 and the Travel Air if i wanted to travel the same speed. Operating costs are higher, but not out of sight scary. Maintenance costs/annual are a different thing entirely and that's where my concern comes from. It's really the only concern I have.

We've toyed with 210's as well. Older pre 1970's ones. Those can eat you up in maintenance. Those big continentals are not cheap to maintain. But are two 4 cylinder lycomings cheaper? Not likely. But more expensive? Maybe, maybe not. I just don't know.

So, I think I'm willing to spend some extra money for a light light twin. I don't think I'm willing to consider a baron or a 310. Operating costs are just too much higher for me to be comfortable. I need 4 place capability for the next 5 years or so, after that it'll be just me and the misses.

I don't fly 210s anymore. Almost had one kill me, and then I decided I'd give 210s another chance and within the first 3 hours flying it I had gear issues and a total brake failure on the runway at SAT.

 

[SCCutler]

The reason you see so many tapped-out Travel Airs is that they are very popular as trainers - real workhorses. It's just that some of them have had most of the horse worked out of 'em.

 

[Alexb2000]

Power is safety IMO.

With twin prices where they are why not have 600HP in a Baron or 310 class aircraft? You can always pull them back to Travelair speeds and fuel burn if you want. It might take a little while and some training to get used to, but I've never talked to anyone that wanted less performance.

 

[hindsight2020]

Op,

Have you thought about a Piper Lance? Early one, with the conventional tail, non-turbo. That cabin is a beauty. Good mill out the front, decent speed. Sweet climb performance when undergross. If I can ever afford a worthwhile step up from Arrow costs, the Lance is on my dream sheet.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Power is safety IMO.

With twin prices where they are why not have 600HP in a Baron or 310 class aircraft? You can always pull them back to Travelair speeds and fuel burn if you want. It might take a little while and some training to get used to, but I've never talked to anyone that wanted less performance.

Power is weight. Weight is higher speeds. The bigger the twin, the faster you're going to hit the ground if you can't hold altitude on one.

 

[Alexb2000]

Power is weight. Weight is higher speeds. The bigger the twin, the faster you're going to hit the ground if you can't hold altitude on one.

How about a B55? ~600 lbs. heavier, but even with 470's another 160HP. With 550's....cruise missile.

 

[wabower]

Is that what they taught during your M/E rating earlier this year?

Power is weight. Weight is higher speeds. The bigger the twin, the faster you're going to hit the ground if you can't hold altitude on one.

 

[denverpilot]

I don't fly 210s anymore. Almost had one kill me, and then I decided I'd give 210s another chance and within the first 3 hours flying it I had gear issues and a total brake failure on the runway at SAT.

The people maintaining those 210s tried to kill you. They just used the airplane to distance themselves from the crime.

Seriously though... Not the airplane's fault. Remember that. Properly maintained 210s don't typically have the problems the ones you've flown do.

 

[Jeff K]

Power is weight. Weight is higher speeds. The bigger the twin, the faster you're going to hit the ground if you can't hold altitude on one.

Not always. Piper Aztec's got over 2000lb's useful... 500hp between two IO-540's and with VG's has a VMC of <63kts and Vso of <52kts. In and out over a 50 ft obstacle <1800 feet (real numbers... book numbers are 1250). And the free market (I.E. insurance companies) say it's safer then a 310 or Baron for low time ME's.

And while it can't do the Travelaire fuel burn, they are quite happy to do 16-18 gal/hr at LOP at about 145-152kts TAS (> 10smpg). And ton's of used parts on the market for them.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Is that what they taught during your M/E rating earlier this year?

No, it's a generalization. Fact of the matter is, given the choice, I'd rather crash something with the lowest stall speed. Low time multi pilot, good luck insuring yourself in a 6 cylinder twin.

 

[wabower]

It's not even a generalization, it's nonsense and you know it. Trying to change the subject to stall speed and insurance is even more BS.

No, it's a generalization. Fact of the matter is, given the choice, I'd rather crash something with the lowest stall speed. Low time multi pilot, good luck insuring yourself in a 6 cylinder twin.

 

[Jeff K]

No, it's a generalization. Fact of the matter is, given the choice, I'd rather crash something with the lowest stall speed. Low time multi pilot, good luck insuring yourself in a 6 cylinder twin.

7 hours total time ME, 8 hrs total complex, 0 hours in type, $2200/yr my first year in the Aztec. Insurance company required 10hrs dual.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

It's not even a generalization, it's nonsense and you know it. Trying to change the subject to stall speed and insurance is even more BS.

So, you don't understand physics now Wayne? Seriously, that's what I'm getting at, that in anything that doesn't have a regulatory requirement to climb OEI, the slower you hit the ground, the better chance you have to get out alive.