10 Jun 2025, 17:49 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Talk me off the ledge Posted: 14 May 2015, 13:56 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 03/09/11 Posts: 1764 Post Likes: +825 Company: Wings Insurance Location: Eden Prairie, MN / Scottsdale, AZ
Aircraft: 2016 Cirrus SR22 G5
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Seems counter intuitive this way...if I am the owner of say a PC-12 but have a pro pilot on staff and occasionally (or always) want to sit up front but never want to fly SP the above statement would imply it would be cheaper to insure, and thus safer, for me to stay out of the cockpit and only have one set of eyes, hands and feet operating the airplane.
Last question, can an insurance policy effectively specify and two-pilot crew for aircraft certified for one pilot? The counter school of thought is that the second pilot (owner) can potentially take away from the pro-pilot in terms of having to 'baby sit' an inexperienced crew member. Again all situation are different but generally speaking if the owner wants to be SIC (really no such thing in the PC12 as it doesn't require one per the type cert) then generally a good policy can be put in place with higher limits and aggressive premiums - with an owner listed as 'SIC'. It definitely helps if the owner commits to doing Simcom or formal PC12 school even if he is lower time as then he should be able to contribute to the safe operation of the aircraft in a 'crew' environment and not just be swinging the gear and working radios. Second question the answer is yes - a policy can require 'two crew only' flight for an SP airplane. Very common with Cessna CJ's for instance which might be used for charter or P91 where the company wants two-crew all times and very high limits of coverages. The policy would be written two-crew only in lieu of SP. The difference in premium however for a two crew policy vs SP will not pay for the co-pilot's salary - won't even come close. So generally the two-crew is implemented if the aircraft owner wants very high limits or it is mandated due to charter ops or something like that.
_________________ Tom Hauge Wings Insurance National Sales Director E-mail: thauge@wingsinsurance.com
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Talk me off the ledge Posted: 14 May 2015, 19:35 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 10/11/14 Posts: 558 Post Likes: +124 Company: Retired Location: mostly airborne
Aircraft: Twin Bonanza
|
|
Username Protected wrote: After 14 years with my A36, I've had a spate of niggling little issues this year that have seriously hurt dispatch reliability. The lower upfront cost vs. higher maintenance tradeoff is fraying. So much so that I'm seriously considering pulling the trigger on a SETP, despite flying only about 100 hours a year, all of it pleasure travel, no business use (I'm retired). It makes no financial sense for me to own ANY plane, much less a turbine.
To make it even worse, the SETP I'm considering is Experimental, a Lancair Evolution. About the same cost as a 90s TBM but hella cheaper to maintain. But will I spend all the savings on insurance? And will any E-AB, even a turbine, have the dispatch reliability I want?
Am I totally nuts? The solution seems to be a more capable mechanic, not a new airplane..... 
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Talk me off the ledge Posted: 15 May 2015, 10:59 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
If you can afford a SETP then I'd say do it. I wouldn't be afraid of selling an Evo either. They are selling. I had one that I all but had it paid for and someone came along and wanted it more and offered over the asking price. Will it sell as well as a TBM or Pilatus? Probably not, but nothing does.
A TP spoils you. Your Bo is a great airplane but once you go TP you will never want to go back (at least that's the effect it had on my brothers and I).
Also, don't listen to people when they say you can't operate a TP within 2x the cost of your Bo. It just isn't true.
Your Bo probably burns 17gph at 200ktas? Am I close? So that means it goes 11.7 nm per gal. Avgas local to me is $5.19. So it costs you $0.44 per nm in your Bonanza. Annual costs are around $10-15k I'm guessing? So if you travel 15,000nm/year then your rough fixed costs for the year are $16,600-$21,600 (and have spent roughly 83 hours in the plane)
The Evo (with the -42) can fly 300ktas on 38gph. That's 7.89 nm per gal. Jet A local to me is $4.26. So it costs $0.54 per nm in the Evo. Annual costs are going to be around $3-4k. So if you travel 15,000nm/year then your rough fixed costs for the year are $11,100-$12,100. (and have spent roughly 53 hours in the plane, or 36% less than in your Bo)
There are other things to consider as well like TP reliability, pressure, speed and range, high altitude flight to get around weather, smooth running thus less fatigue, etc. The Evolution is really an incredible airplane. I just wish it had 6 seats.
Biggest differences in costs will be purchase price.
I didn't add in insurance because I haven't looked into that yet for the Evo. That could be the equalizer. I for one plan to not get hull insurance and just go with liability. But that's me, I can afford to do that. From what I understand, there are a lot of people that fly experimental that do the same thing.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Talk me off the ledge Posted: 15 May 2015, 16:30 |
|
 |

|
|
 |
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1626 Post Likes: +276 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: sold on it- but it's the cost of capital that makes the acquisition so difficult. the time will come when there are enough SETPs on the market to drive the costs down to the "twin" realm. (maybe I'm wrong, but I'm speculating because the SETPs are earlier in their product evolution than the pistons).
also- on the certified TPs, it sounds like more people follow manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedules (including cycle items, in addition to hours) which makes them much more expensive to maintain (when was the last time anyone followed the Beech recommended items for an A36?) I'm not sure why they say a hot section has to be at 1850 hours and overhaul at 3500 or 3600. I had someone tell me once that those are actually set by the FAA during certification and not Pratt and that the engines can actually go a whole lot longer. Again, I don't have any way to back that info up. As far as items on the airframe and the rest of the airplane itself it's not any different in the experimental world. Parts just cost a fraction of the price of a certified plane.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|