Glut of complex Aircraft

brien23

brien23

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,442
Location
Oak Harbor
Display Name
Display name:
Brien
Listings of complex aircraft seem up, is that due to insurance being hard to find for those over 70 and very hard to find for those over 80, to keep flying complex aircraft. The cost of feeding and care of single engine complex aircraft has gone up a lot over the past few years. Listings of 55 Baron and 58 Baron series and Cessna 310 series are up too, is now the time to get a real good deal on a twin with so many listed.
 
I’m of the opinion that when you get older your plane is likely paid off and insurance becomes optional. Maybe recommended, but certainly not mandatory. I understand some airports may require it for hangaring, but that would be non-motion coverage and age should not matter.
 
Som
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I’m of the opinion that when you get older your plane is likely paid off and insurance becomes optional. Maybe recommended, but certainly not mandatory. I understand some airports may require it for hangaring, but that would be non-motion coverage and age should not matter.
Click to expand...
older people I know are concerned about bankrupting their spouse if they have no insurance and they do something awful either by mistake or due to medical event
 
In addition to the difficulty of getting insurance when you turn 70, the cost of insurance for a retract in general is about 2X that of fixed gear from what I've picked up.

Less need for a retract as well. A lot of planes are coming on the market (Cirrus, etc.) that are fixed gear BUT have the speed of a legacy retract.

And fixing a legacy retract could bankrupt you. For example, saddles for a 182 retract - if you can find them - are expensive. 4 years ago our club paid out $40k to have a used set installed.
 
WDD said:
In addition to the difficulty of getting insurance when you turn 70, the cost of insurance for a retract in general is about 2X that of fixed gear from what I've picked up.

Less need for a retract as well. A lot of planes are coming on the market (Cirrus, etc.) that are fixed gear BUT have the speed of a legacy retract.

And fixing a legacy retract could bankrupt you. For example, saddles for a 182 retract - if you can find them - are expensive. 4 years ago our club paid out $40k to have a used set installed.
Click to expand...
What is the going rate for a Cirrus parachute re-pack? And how often required?
 
And if the light sport rolls like folks are saying how many pilots will be looking to trade out of a HP/Complex into a 172/PA28
 
I don't see any problems at all with specific segments of the complex aircraft market. Values for an A36, T206/210, Malibu/MIrage are through the roof. I think given the increase in operational expense mentioned above, the market is REALLY placing a premium on utility and bang-for-the-buck. A C310 or C340 is more capable than a C210 in just about every way, yet they are currently about equal in value. Could probably say the same for the A36/B58.

I also see a glut of aircraft out there with run-out engines. People just don't want to deal with the extra expense and downtime right now. If you're trying to move a twin with high-time engines, you're really over a barrel.

C.
 
Randomskylane said:
older people I know are concerned about bankrupting their spouse if they have no insurance and they do something awful either by mistake or due to medical event
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but from my understanding, getting liability only insurance is still possible, even over 70 and even on a complex aircraft. I think what the insurance providers deny coverage for is hull coverage. Couldn't an older complex aircraft owner who owns the plane outright simply get liability? That would protect the spouse from getting bankrupted in a worst case scenario, as the only loss would be their own airplane. Or are you saying that 70+ year old pilots don't even get liability coverage? I know that's definitely not the case up here in Canada. Older people have a hard time getting hull coverage but no problem getting liability coverage.
 
I’ve seen a number of twins considerably cheaper than a single, they are more expensive to maintain and appeal to a smaller group of pilots, so if someone wants to sell and doesn’t have the best of the best, they have to reduce their price.

Couldn’t pilots or POA group together to create their own insurance bucket? Remove prop strikes and ground loops from coverage, require airplanes to be in a hangar during storms, and claims will be very limited.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Fair enough, but from my understanding, getting liability only insurance is still possible, even over 70 and even on a complex aircraft. I think what the insurance providers deny coverage for is hull coverage. Couldn't an older complex aircraft owner who owns the plane outright simply get liability? That would protect the spouse from getting bankrupted in a worst case scenario, as the only loss would be their own airplane. Or are you saying that 70+ year old pilots don't even get liability coverage? I know that's definitely not the case up here in Canada. Older people have a hard time getting hull coverage but no problem getting liability coverage.
Click to expand...
Or join a club? Or have a younger pilot get the insurance policy (son or daughter)? Open pilot insurance coverage are based on experience, not limited to the pilots age.
 
mandm said:
Or join a club? Or have a younger pilot get the insurance policy (son or daughter)? Open pilot insurance coverage are based on experience, not limited to the pilots age.
Click to expand...
Open Pilot Warranties only cover the owner of the aircraft, not the person flying it. You're thinking of a named insured, which of course needs to be underwritten.
 
camorton said:
I also see a glut of aircraft out there with run-out engines.
Click to expand...
Must be models I don't look for, or regional. Every broke down, ran out and derelict plane around here has been sucked up at prices that blow me away.
 
Last edited:
Did the complex/twin thing for years. Now that I’m older I’ve downsized to a single/fixed gear and the insurance is still reasonable and manageable.
 
You can get a 182 RG for the same price as a fixed gear 182, but the cost of an RG saddle repair would be beyond the risk I want to take.
 
WDD said:
You can get a 182 RG for the same price as a fixed gear 182, but the cost of an RG saddle repair would be beyond the risk I want to take.
Click to expand...
And soon enough, available at any price. Yet some people think it's 100LL that's gonna turn their airplanes into overpaid paperweights.
 
I guess it is possible they the price of an RG could drop enough to make it attractive even with the higher insurance and cost of the risk of a bad maintenance bill. That would be quite a discount though.
 
Twins are cheaper because the pools of pilots insurable in a piston twin has evaporated over the past thirty years. Once they were the next and often terminal step after the Bonanza or 210, now it’s Cirus to SETP.

Twins go about 20-30% faster for double the fuel burn. And at least three times the maintenance bill. Obviously they can haul more, but as they approach gross, the utility of a second piston engine rapidly diminishes. Even more so for the non-turbo twins (most Barons).

Example, the 340 has a 12 year AD on the exhaust. Suspect it’s a least 25k to comply. And that assumes it makes it through the intermediate progressive inspections.

A well sorted Bonanza or 210 will haul 2-3 people up to 1000 nm in block times competitive with the airlines for most city pairs that aren’t LA to Denver. If you need more than that on a regular basis, SETP beckons.

However, if a fan quits at cruise below the SE ceiling life might look very nice in a piston twin.
 
asicer said:
Cirrus would have you believe that it is SR22 to SF50.
Click to expand...
It's probably in the ballpark, not something that most small fry on here will ever have to worry about.
 
When comparing performance/fuel burn between SETPs and the SF50, the only reason to go with an SF50 seems to be bragging rights at parties about your “jet”.
 
Steamflyer said:
Twins go about 20-30% faster for double the fuel burn. And at least three times the maintenance bill. Obviously they can haul more, but as they approach gross, the utility of a second piston engine rapidly diminishes. Even more so for the non-turbo twins (most Barons).
Click to expand...

I know I've been broad-brushing in some other threads, but what nonsense is this? :)

I would say my Baron is 15% faster than my Bonanza was (both are IO-550 upgraded variants -- S35 vs D55), burns 80% more fuel, and has 50% more mx cost, most of it due to the extra engine and a few other redundant necessaries.

I agree with the rest of your points though. Casual twin pilots are scarce right now. I think anyone who can fog a mirror and knows how to do "the drill" correctly 3 times out of 5 has had epaulets and a dental plan slapped on them by one of the majors. :D
 
schmookeeg said:
I know I've been broad-brushing in some other threads, but what nonsense is this? :)

I would say my Baron is 15% faster than my Bonanza was (both are IO-550 upgraded variants -- S35 vs D55), burns 80% more fuel, and has 50% more mx cost, most of it due to the extra engine and a few other redundant necessaries.

I agree with the rest of your points though. Casual twin pilots are scarce right now. I think anyone who can fog a mirror and knows how to do "the drill" correctly 3 times out of 5 has had epaulets and a dental plan slapped on them by one of the majors. :D
Click to expand...
I ran turbo twins so my mx was higher than a Baron. In the other hand, I could stay aloft on one engine (in theory, luckily never had to test it) at a higher MSL altitude than the highest mountain in the lower 48. I may have exaggerated the differences overall, but 80% increase in fuel burn is effectively double. The Baron is probably the most practical and "best" of the light twins, but many don't fit in it and it won't haul like some of the Cessna twins.
 
My 421 MX costs are not triple or even double what my Baron or 303 were. Does it cost more? Sure, but you get a lot more for that extra cost.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top