How much cheaper is a fixed gear compared to a retractable as far as insurance goes?

In many cases, older pilots cannot get insurance for a retract at any price.

In many cases, older pilots cannot get insurance for a retract at any price.

I've posted this photo before, but try this in a Cirrus:

4 or 5 oriental rugs, ceiling fans, cushions, miscellaneous stuff, and Henry, at a 2900 ft strip that I use less than half of. If you're going to cary a lot of big stuff and big dogs (we have another larger dog), you can't beat big doors and loading from the ground instead of over the wings. In common aircraft in the US, that pretty much limits you to the Cherokee six/Saratoga variants, a 206, or a Bonanza. The Bo gets you there faster, with a much nicer ride. Of course you can put floats on a 206, so there's that. . .

Henry looks pissed. Where is he supposed to nap?

He was a bit surly after a three and a half hour flight. The alternative would have been 15 hours in the car, so he didn't know how good he had it.

But if you can no longer insure a Bonanza, it doesn't mean anything.

And speed isn't what it seems. Even a "lowly" Cherokee six, a full 30 knots slower than the Bonanza, can make a 500 mile trip in 3.5 hours versus 3 for the Bonanza. A trip the OP could make because he could get the Six insured, but a trip he could no longer make in the Bonanza at any price.

This is a bigger problem as the pilot population ages. At 65, you have to plan ahead a bit, at 75, you have to give up complex planes, and by 80 you hope someone will write you a policy on a Skyhawk for less than ten grand.

We all have to make compromises, and sensible ones that keep us flying a few more years, safely, are the best compromises.

But if you can no longer insure a Bonanza, it doesn't mean anything.

And speed isn't what it seems. Even a "lowly" Cherokee six, a full 30 knots slower than the Bonanza, can make a 500 mile trip in 3.5 hours versus 3 for the Bonanza. A trip the OP could make because he could get the Six insured, but a trip he could no longer make in the Bonanza at any price.

This is a bigger problem as the pilot population ages. At 65, you have to plan ahead a bit, at 75, you have to give up complex planes, and by 80 you hope someone will write you a policy on a Skyhawk for less than ten grand.

We all have to make compromises, and sensible ones that keep us flying a few more years, safely, are the best compromises.

Trade down to a cheap old (and light) Bonanza and ignore hull insurance.
Other threads here show the short-field abilities of the Bo.
You are safer in a familiar airplane, in terms of pilot-error.

That's "zero wind" thinking.

Now add 50 knot headwinds and the speed difference gets pretty significant. You spend most of your time flying in headwinds.

There is no substitute for speed.

Mike C.

That's "zero wind" thinking.

Now add 50 knot headwinds and the speed difference gets pretty significant. You spend most of your time flying in headwinds.

There is no substitute for speed.

Mike C.

For me, loading bikes would be either the 36 or PA32. While you can get bikes in other models, it tends to be a pain. With the PA32 I used to put a pair of bikes in just taking the front wheel off. It's been a while, think I just folded the seat beck forward to get them in. The fixed gear Saratoga was good for about 150-155 KTAS.

Airplanes are by design... trade offs and compromises in missions and abilities.

Most pilots tend to think of the 36 series as one group of six seat aircraft. Short field performance wise they are almost three distinct groups.

1. The early models that are light weight and have great short field abilities. 68 to mid 70's model years.
2. The middle years that got fat and heavy with the parts commonality with the barons to save beechcraft $'s in parts inventories.
3. The latest models that got obese!

The OP's A36TC is in that second group performance wise for short field work. Some of the group 2 & 3 airplanes often have empty weights 500 to 600 pounds more than the group one airplanes.

IF everybody could own multiple airplanes... we would have a X-country machine plus a non paved short field (camping aircraft).

We had to compromise and make one airplane do all our missions..... and while not the best at every mission our mid '70's A36 is pretty darn good at most. I stated 20 years ago... when we purchased it....this was the newest model bonanza we would ever own, because any newer model year came with too much performance penalty due to higher empty weights.

We can "almost" keep up with the 182's and Scott N.'s S35 in the backcountry.... yet have the ability to haul a big load long distances at 160 knot speeds and the double doors for loading ease.

I'm definitely biased toward.... them and I understand the OP's concerns about long term insurance....but going from that A36TC to an early light weight A36 is a big step up in short field ability. If his mission involves X-country, loading ease, big payloads...and the occasional camping trip to semi rough fields... the early stretch debonairs really shine.

Leldon

Weight is everything. We have the same wing and I'll assume we both have the 550. I'm at 2000 pounds empty with two seats in. With 40 gallons or less it's a rocket.