Should I get a retractable gear airplane?

bartmc said:
Why would insurance be more expensive on twins? Isn't the 2nd engine a safety feature? and don't even say hull value.
Click to expand...
Because, unfortunately, a lot of low time twin pilots have made a lot of costly and fatal errors.
 
Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seems like that would come with a "centerline thrust" limitation.:yes:
 
flyingron said:
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...
Somehow I suspect that anyone qualified to fly a U2 would have plenty of retract time in airplanes that usually have the same amount of wheels when they land as when taking off.

Perhaps a more realistic question would be do hours in a floatplane with amphibious floats count as retract time if the plane is only flown to/from water?
 
gismo said:
Seems like that would come with a "centerline thrust" limitation.:yes:
Click to expand...
C/L thrust is a regulatory limitation. Insurance company apparently didn't care as far as counting the ME time. The pilots in question did have FAA AMEL certificates without the limitation (obviously obtained in an appropruate fixed wing aircraft)
 
Fearless Tower said:
C/L thrust is a regulatory limitation. Insurance company apparently didn't care as far as counting the ME time. The pilots in question did have FAA AMEL certificates without the limitation (obviously obtained in an appropruate fixed wing aircraft)
Click to expand...
I was mostly yanking your chain but I'm pretty certain that some underwriters require more time in type for pilot transitioning to a "conventional" twin from a Skymaster than they do for one with the same experience in a different conventional twin.
 
bartmc said:
Why would insurance be more expensive on twins? Isn't the 2nd engine a safety feature? and don't even say hull value.
Click to expand...

I never realized what a pot stirrer you are:).

OH Crap! Let me go get some popped corn!

Be right bac.....
 
Fearless Tower said:
Because, unfortunately, a lot of low time twin pilots have made a lot of costly and fatal errors.
Click to expand...

I think that was tonge in cheek. Bit battle awhile back on red boards as to whether a twin is safer or not when you compare the much higher death rates over singles.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Long term, I'm looking at a PA-28 Arrow or Mooney, but I'm flying rental PA-28s now with fixed gear. I guess the question is, if I were to start renting a retractable, how many hours would it take to make the break-even point? How much more a year would someone with 0 retractable time pay in insurance vs someone with 100hrs retractable time?
 
Since 2007, insurance rates and underwriting hoop-jumping have improved significantly for pilots seeking coverage. The change has been due to the overall slump in the market rather than by favorable pilot performance. Trying to forecast the future market is futile, as it could be great and it could be more like 2006 and prior. I wouldn't spend a dime on any flying activity with such a high degree of uncertainty until it was necessary. The cost differential in premiums then vs flying hours now won't amount to squat anyway.

Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I think the main issue is that a twin is more complex and more possibilities for a equipment failure. Safe it the pilot is properly trained, prepared and current.

Insurance rates are the evidence that there may be a discrepancy in what many assume and what may be the truth.

Then you have real world where the average pilot actually fly's less than 100 hrs a year, actually last I heard it was between 19-23 hrs a year.

While it might be possible for an experienced pilot of 1000+ hrs to maintain proficiency in a SEL, it gets murky when he climes into a HP Complex and murkier yet when he climbs into a twin. Add to that the higher chances of equipment failure due to having twice as much equipment and where does that leave you?

Now add FIKI and watch insurance rates climb. I suppose that is why you see annual re-currency training for some twins.
 
Last edited:
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...

We used to have the NASA U2 at our base in Eielson every summer. Saw some funny stuff with those leaf springs and lawnmower wheels.
 
gismo said:
Somehow I suspect that anyone qualified to fly a U2 would have plenty of retract time in airplanes that usually have the same amount of wheels when they land as when taking off.

Perhaps a more realistic question would be do hours in a floatplane with amphibious floats count as retract time if the plane is only flown to/from water?
Click to expand...

I tried counting time in a glider with retractable gear toward insurance minimums for renting a retractable gear airplane. FBO wouldn't let me do it :(
 
wabower said:
Since 2007, insurance rates and underwriting hoop-jumping have improved significantly for pilots seeking coverage. The change has been due to the overall slump in the market rather than by favorable pilot performance. Trying to forecast the future market is futile, as it could be great and it could be more like 2006 and prior. I wouldn't spend a dime on any flying activity with such a high degree of uncertainty until it was necessary. The cost differential in premiums then vs flying hours now won't amount to squat anyway.
Click to expand...
That makes alot of sense based on my experience with brokers.

When I started flying (8-9 years ago) I remember folks complaining about the ridiculous cost of insurance for retracts. I first started looking at owned aircraft insurance in 2007 and found it really wasn't a big deal. That's why I asked Ron when he had his twin insurance quote for his wife. I suspected something changed in the insurance world.

Saw a similar thing with Beech 18 insurance. When I was a brand new Private Pilot, I daydreamed about BE-18s and spent time hanging around the twin beech forum. I remember hearing guys with 2000+ TT and over 500 hrs TW moaning about paying $8-10k premiums for their planes. I recently got a quote for a Twin Beech for well under $5k with only 500+ TT, 100 hrs TW and 140 ME.
 
I own an old Commander twin and here's my story:

I also wanted a 337 (great aircraft), but then I found my old 1953 Commander on Ebay and ended up being the only bidder. Not what I had planned, but I'm glad she found me.:):yesnod:

Everyone thought I was crazy as I was low time pilot and didn't even have my multi rating yet. A big twin as your first aircraft? Unheard of. And when I got my multi, nobody wanted to insure us. They hated me, they hated Commanders, they hated her age. So I flew her about 50hrs uninsured. But then I finally called up AOPA insurance brokerage and they placed it with an underwriter almost immediately. All they wanted was 15hrs with an instructor and that was it. Done. The trick is to not get hull insurance, then they don't care as much anymore. I know this feels weird, but on an old airframe like this I don't give a d*mn if something gets bent - either one repairs it (plenty of spares around) or parts it out. You will have recouped that hull insurance premium in no time. On a newer plane - then it's another matter. I pay $2000 year as a low time multi pilot. That's pretty cheap.

As for ownership - I'm not going to say it's all been smooth sailing with her maintenance, but all considering, she's been pretty reliable. She's only left me stranded twice and we've done some serious traveling. Actually, I'm writing this from a hotel room in Nashville, where we flew to from LA earlier this week. I put over 250hrs on her last year and my costs were roughly around $220/hr. Sure, she's got a ratty paint job and interior, a panel that used to be horrendous (just upgraded it) and very basic, but she'll out-climb, out-range and out-speed any fancier glass cocpit Cessna 182RG for roughly the same hourly cost.

Here's my one cent: if you want a twin eventually, then get it now and upgrade it and mold it into what you want. In these depressed twin times, buying an 'interim' twin will only end up costing far more as you will have to sell it at a huge loss. Same goes for an interim single, although their market is slightly healthier. You can get into a Baron for the same money as a higher end single, so just go for that. You'll be glad you did.
 
Last edited:
To their credit, the insurance guys don't try to kid anybody about the reductions in premiums and the loosening of pilot-training requirements. They smile and summarize the current situation by saying "we recognize that we are in a market-driven business."

For twin-rated pilots moving into pressurized turbo cabin-class ships, the training hours have dropped ~50%. I don't have a current handle on piston premium rates, but they were down by ~40% that last time I checked. Last week I obtained single-pilot coverage for a Citation 550 (II) with 800k hull and 10 mil liability for $8,448.


Fearless Tower said:
That makes alot of sense based on my experience with brokers.

When I started flying (8-9 years ago) I remember folks complaining about the ridiculous cost of insurance for retracts. I first started looking at owned aircraft insurance in 2007 and found it really wasn't a big deal. That's why I asked Ron when he had his twin insurance quote for his wife. I suspected something changed in the insurance world.

Saw a similar thing with Beech 18 insurance. When I was a brand new Private Pilot, I daydreamed about BE-18s and spent time hanging around the twin beech forum. I remember hearing guys with 2000+ TT and over 500 hrs TW moaning about paying $8-10k premiums for their planes. I recently got a quote for a Twin Beech for well under $5k with only 500+ TT, 100 hrs TW and 140 ME.
Click to expand...
 
Fearless Tower said:
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.
Click to expand...
One last time -- he's not going to get insurance in any twin at a reasonable price without 100 complex no matter what, so he'd better build that up front. OTOH, if you have 100 complex, you can get reasonable rates in twins with as little as 25 ME (all in type, and you'll need most of that for your ME rating anyway).
 
bartmc said:
Why would insurance be more expensive on twins? Isn't the 2nd engine a safety feature? and don't even say hull value.
Click to expand...
The second engine won't prevent a gear-up landing, and if it happens, that second trashed engine and prop doubles the cost of the accident to the insurer. And gear-up landings are probably the #1 source of claims with retractables.
 
Ron Levy said:
One last time -- he's not going to get insurance in any twin at a reasonable price without 100 complex no matter what, so he'd better build that up front. OTOH, if you have 100 complex, you can get reasonable rates in twins with as little as 25 ME (all in type, and you'll need most of that for your ME rating anyway).
Click to expand...
And since you are so focused with your myopic vision of complex time, I'll say again, if he wants a twin he might as well build his complex time IN a twin because he is going to need more than 25 hrs ME to get any kind of decent rate on insurance in a 6 seater.

As Wayne pointed out, your experience may jive with what was going on in the market 10 years ago, but I have been getting quotes on 6 seat twins in the last two years.
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
And since you are so focused with your myopic vision of complex time, I'll say again, if he wants a twin he might as well build his complex time IN a twin because he is going to need more than 25 hrs ME to get any kind of decent rate on insurance in a 6 sweater.
Click to expand...
Sure. But the cost of insurance will be staggering if s/he doesn't have 100 hours of retractable time. OTOH, if s/he gets 75 hours of complex time in a single first (at a much more affordable insurance rate), then after 25 hours of initial training and checkout in a twin, the twin will be insurable at a reasonable rate. And with 25 ME all in type, I think you'll find it doesn't matter whether the twin has six seats or four.
 
Last edited:
I think that if you already own an airplane you're happy with, keep it and don't worry about the "time building" aspect so much. The cost of renting a retract "from time to time" or selling your airplane and buying another stepping stone aircraft would likely be much higher than whatever the difference in insurance would be.
 
Morne said:
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).
Click to expand...

Sorry I got derailed in the banter with Ron that I missed this.

The Travel Air is a nice airplane (like anything, assuming you don't get a worn out, neglected beater). Stable in the air, easy to land, comfortable interior...etc.

A Travel Air is basically an early model BE-35 with two engines. I seem to recall cruise speed around 150, similar to the Duchess. The advantage of a Travel Air over a Duchess is parts support. Very little parts support for the BE-76, so when you need something, is a lot more expensive. The BE-95 on the other hand shares a lot of commonality with the Bos, so it is usually easier to find what you need. Downside is that they are older and like Apaches, Twinkies and some of the other early trainers, there are a lot of poorly maintained airplanes out there for sale, so you really need to do your due diligence.

If you want to know more about Travel Airs, Henning used to have one before he got the 310.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
What constitutes "staggering" in your view of aircraft own/op costs?How much can it be? And for how long? I'm constantly amazed by the ongoing myopia regarding insurance premiums, most of which are voiced by pilots who never mention other acquisition-related costs such as sales tax on cars and other known expenses that are routinely incurred.



Ron Levy said:
Sure. But the cost of insurance will be staggering if s/he doesn't have 100 hours of retractable time. OTOH, if s/he gets 75 hours of complex time in a single first (at a much more affordable insurance rate), then after 25 hours of initial training and checkout in a twin, the twin will be insurable at a reasonable rate. And with 25 ME all in type, I think you'll find it doesn't matter whether the twin has six seats or four.
Click to expand...
 
stratobee said:
You can get into a Baron for the same money as a higher end single, so just go for that. You'll be glad you did.
Click to expand...

This is the reality that a hangar neighbor I just met found. He and his wife wanted the 6 place for all the usual reasons and as usual, they shopped for a Bonanza. They ended up with a '70s Baron with two 500 SNEW engines and props and an Aspen in the panel, nice overall for $80K. A comparable Bo would be over $100K. In the end, they ultimately wanted a twin, but weren't sure they could afford it, but decided that life was short and the time was right, so they went for it.

Folks, they are dumping twins of all types right now for the cost of the engines and scrap metal value. If you ever wanted a twin, go get it now!

To the OP- If you think you can handle the fuel burn and the annuals, get that 337 now! Skip the in between bird.
 
Id do a bonanza, travel air or even a turbo seminole.
 
Dav8or said:
Folks, they are dumping twins of all types right now for the cost of the engines and scrap metal value. If you ever wanted a twin, go get it now!
.
Click to expand...

True, the only catch is that there is a reason there are so many dirt cheap twins flooding the market - many of their owners can't afford to take care of them. You have to be willing to spend the time and money to research them thoroughly and do an annual for your pre-buy....don't try to get by with a shady tree pre-buy inspection.
 
jpower said:
Does it?
Click to expand...

He points out that the main wheel (and the tail wheel) do retract. Only the pogo wheels on the wings fall off.

My daughter who is an atmospheric scientist had an instrument on the ER-2 (NASA U-2) recently. She has some neat shots of the U-2 as she rode in the chase car during landing.
 
Keep in mind that insurance will be high for the first year/100 hours on your new twin about no matter what. It will end up costing you less money to just buy the plane you want than to buy an intermediate plane.

If you like the 337, then go for one.
 
I always thought T-bones were neat, but I figure the only thing worse than one geared lycoming was two geared lycomings.
 
flyingron said:
I always thought T-bones were neat, but I figure the only thing worse than one geared lycoming was two geared lycomings.
Click to expand...

As I view it, the biggest issue with geared Lycomings is the lack of support they receive from the factory. The GO/GSO/IGO/IGSO series are known for having a good gearbox. The TIGOs are the ones known for having issues.
 
stratobee said:
Here's my one cent: if you want a twin eventually, then get it now and upgrade it and mold it into what you want. In these depressed twin times, buying an 'interim' twin will only end up costing far more as you will have to sell it at a huge loss. Same goes for an interim single, although their market is slightly healthier. You can get into a Baron for the same money as a higher end single, so just go for that. You'll be glad you did.
Click to expand...

You guys are really swaying me. Called a T-Bone owner yesterday who has his bird up for sale. Depending upon how I finance the deal, and I sell my 182 first, I can keep a large enough maintenance reserve fund to make me comfortable.
 
Morne said:
You guys are really swaying me. Called a T-Bone owner yesterday who has his bird up for sale. Depending upon how I finance the deal, and I sell my 182 first, I can keep a large enough maintenance reserve fund to make me comfortable.
Click to expand...
As long as you have the reserves and don't need a hangar, a Twin Bo might be a pretty good deal.
 
Fearless Tower said:
As long as you have the reserves and don't need a hangar, a Twin Bo might be a pretty good deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am actively inquiring about hangar space at neighboring airports. Right now my home field cannot shelter such a massive beast. Although, a 337 would fit in my tee-hangar.

Ultimately that might make the choice between the models, if I can't find hangar space for the big bird.
 
Trading planes is incredibly expensive. Buy the plane you want to keep then deal with the insurance. If that plane is a B58 then buy it now and get your multi rating in it. A couple years of 10k insurance premiums is a bargain compared to taxes and repairs on an additional airplane purchase and sale.
 
JHW said:
Trading planes is incredibly expensive. Buy the plane you want to keep then deal with the insurance. If that plane is a B58 then buy it now and get your multi rating in it. A couple years of 10k insurance premiums is a bargain compared to taxes and repairs on an additional airplane purchase and sale.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if it was even $10k premiums, but it does depend on hull values. In the Aztec with a $60k hull the first year it was about $4k, which went down to $3k the second year. This was with 225 total time, 0 multi, 80 complex the first year.

I second jeff's thoughts on not trading planes. Twin Bos are cheap for a reason. But, if that would satisfy your desire for an oddball twin and you'd want to keep onlong term, it might make sense.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Bos are cheap for a reason. But, if that would satisfy your desire for an oddball twin and you'd want to keep onlong term, it might make sense.
Click to expand...
Excellent point - only buy a Twin Bo if it will meet your mission long term and you can find one that hasn't been neglected. In other words, be willing to pay more up front for the right bird.
 
Morne said:
Yeah, I am actively inquiring about hangar space at neighboring airports. Right now my home field cannot shelter such a massive beast. Although, a 337 would fit in my tee-hangar.

Ultimately that might make the choice between the models, if I can't find hangar space for the big bird.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Twin Bo has wingspan of 45'. Biggest T-hangar around here is 44' door, so you either have to park it on the ramp, find someone with a huge box hangar that will rent you space or pay a fortune for your own box hangar.

I have had found the same issue with the Beech 18. 46' wingspan. I could just make the numbers work financially to maintain it and park it on the ramp, but the cost for a hangar for the beast puts it out of my budget. Living in Norfolk, the last thing I would want to do is park the thing on a ramp year 'round.
 
Morne said:
Yeah, I am actively inquiring about hangar space at neighboring airports. Right now my home field cannot shelter such a massive beast. Although, a 337 would fit in my tee-hangar.

Ultimately that might make the choice between the models, if I can't find hangar space for the big bird.
Click to expand...
Here's the thing.....Just looking at the Twin Bos on T-A-P, the prices range from dirt cheap to around $120k for the nicer ones. Generally speaking, the dirt cheap ones will likely be the most expensive to maintain. You can get a solid 310 ( that will haul more than a 337, will cost less to maintain than a Twin Bo, go faster, AND fit in a T-hangar) for under $120k.

Go with JHW's advice on the costs of trading up, find the best 310 you can get, pay the high insurance premium up front and be happy.
 
There's a reason B58's cost more to buy. They'll go faster than a Seneca and will cost less over the long term than a 310. And the barn doors in back are really nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top