Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flight Following' started by WDD, Mar 23, 2021.
After reading Kathryn's report, I'm thoroughly convinced that fixed trigear is the way to go.
Yikes. That’s bad news
Meh. Self insure. Don't hit a daycare center.
I've had a couple friends forced out of their Mooneys, but they were UFO members. Even then, right record and right insurance company and you'll be OK. A pilot recently took off in his his Mooney to celebrate his hundredth birthday.
Assuming you can pay cash. There's a discussion of this on beechtalk recently. Don't know if they'll write liability only, but I think that thread had some people who did it. Tbh the 1mm standard liability limit is a joke, too.
United Flying Octagenarians.
Hah! That’s great -
Yes, I would pay cash for plane. Would be nice if another option would be full insurance EXCEPT if I crunch things because I forgot to drop the gear.
Skylanes don't seem to be that expensive to run, and it has a cabin volume that can comfortably meet the OP's specs and an engine capable of lifting that payload and moving it along at a reasonable pace.
I didn't see anywhere where the OP said he was "frightened" of a retractable...but a retractable gear airplane, any retractable, is more complex than fixed gear, and thus has more failure modes, and will almost certainly add to the cost over any reasonable ownership time span. Those would seem worthy reasons to explore options, which is what it appears the OP is trying to do. Unfortunately, his price point makes finding a reasonable example of a Skylane rather difficult in this market.
"Not in motion" coverage would cover most of the things that are out of your control. Of course the one big risk is an engine failure in flight. In that case though even if you're fully insured you still foot the bill for the engine, which is half the cost of the airplane.
A gear up landing exclusion would be a great idea. I'd take it if it would get me the same rate as the fixed gear equivalent. Insurance on the lance is double that for a 6/300.
Not in motion - “hey, the plane wasn’t in motion after it hit the ground.”
Called an insurance guy. His answer is - “hard to tell about insurability. 2 years ago they (underwriters?))didn’t care about age. Now they do. Who knows in 10 years.” He did say that if you have a retract and are under 70 they’ll probably keep you when you pass 70. Probably won’t write a new policy for a new guy who is over 70.
The "135 knots" requirement seems oddly specific to me.
It would seem the the OP can have everything he wants and have a lot of options if he was willing to accept the 120-130 knot range. In the total time of a trip (to/from airport, preflight, fueling, etc) this would result in an almost negligible time difference.
I think I get what the OP is wanting - he wants to save time, just like all of us.
It took me a while to figure it out myself but in my case I thought I wanted speed but really needed fuel range. Being able to go non stop saved me an hour door to door.
Unfortunately, when I do the math for my mission now, I need at least 185kts in order for a different plane to make sense.
Amen. The least expensive upgrade or "speed mod" tends to be long range tanks.
It’s a good place to reference, based on my trips in a rented Tiger and C182 straight leg, vs when I did the same trips in a 172.
My mission with the wife would be 2 maybe 3 hours max - regardless of the remaining fuel / range. The passenger “range” is driving factor here. She is the boss after all .
A whole lot more choices are available if you drop your desired cruise to 125 instead of 135. 400 nm ÷ 125 = 3.2 hrs. 400nm ÷ 135 = 2.96 hours. You only save 14 minutes. If fixed gear is what you really want, 135 kts is a pretty tall order.
Last checkout I did for a new retract pilot was 5 dual required, but we did 10 because he was rusty. According to him, the ownership group added him with high time but no retract, then a low time gal with some retract time a couple months later. Covering him added 10% to the insurance premium, the low time gal another 30%.
I like your POV. Here is what I'm looking at. Assume calm wind, to go from Atlanta to Louisville to see my daughter:
1) Arrow at 135 kts - 2h04m
2) Plane X at 124 kts - 2h11m
What 125 kt fixed leg would you recommend?
An Archer would do that...
Another airplane worth considering would be a fixed gear Cardinal.
As you see, the time spent or saved with a speed increase or decrease is small unless the delta between desired and actual is considerable. Loosening up on 135 knots as a must have opens things up a bit but so would having four seats. If two seats is an option there are quite a few experimentals that would easily surpass the 135 knot requirement and have fixed gear and be under $100k.
The other thing I impressive about this cabin design isit’s headroom in the back seat!
As above, I think the difference of 20nm in 2 hours is pretty negligible.
However, you said it is mostly for travel with your wife. If that is the case, it seems like an RV-7/9 would be perfect for the mission. The speed difference would be substantial over a 172/Cherokee, and they can easily haul 2+luggage.
Need the back seat for the “kids” on occasion (who are all grown adults)
Gotya. Well depending on how often the "occasion" is, I'd either get the RV and rent for the kids, or just live with 120-130kts and the standard options. Which will satisfy your mission the greater percentage of the time?
The number of rv 9a’s on the market is close for most of the time 0 unfortunately. Archers (and Arrows) seem to be available. I guess it’s a side effect of a popular model used in schools.
Just as a data point, three years ago I added a 72-year-old pilot as a name pilot my insurance for my piper arrow two. Upon renewal this year I was told that if I ever dropped him I could never bring him back. So from what I’m hearing is if you are already with an insurance company at a younger age and as you get older you need to stay with that insurance company.
SO.... will an Archer II really do 125 kts?
Not the archer I flew.... well not in level flight anyway.
I flight planned 110. It would do 115 firewalled at 7k ish. It doesn't have wheel pants. Book says they're worth 3 knots iirc.
Piper Arrow (and all the PA-32 variants) have stone simple gear. Extended by gravity, and raised by simple hydraulics.
Firewalled, and on a high pressure day (30.6") and cold, too. I wouldn't count on more speed ever:
Well that won’t work for what I need. Wonder why I keep reading “125” - hence my question of “will it really”.
Edit - 110 indicated or true?
Realistically, a clean and well rigged archer is probably more in the 120 knot range. It could probably be pushed a little higher with some airframe cleanup. There was an article a few years back on the "fastest Cherokee 140" that got 120kts after a bunch of speed mods.
They are more rare, but you might stay in the market for a 235hp model which would get you closer to your targeted airspeed.
As previously mentioned, a Tiger would still seem to be one of the best fits, but probably more expensive.
Will a 180hp FG Cardinal do 125kts?
Dakota's are pricey and lost a little useful.
73-77 Pathfinder/Charger. Post Fuselage stretch, still have a good useful load. But not a crazy price....if you can find one. It's what I'm looking for
Probably as much as the archer II would, as they both list 125 as the cruising speed.
Well, some POH/AFM authors were more honest than others...