Aviation Insurance

[Mark]

I remember a couple of years ago doing a
search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
is required for small plane owners, and it
revealed that only 3 American states had
mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
one, and I don't remember what the other 2
states were.

Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
day, I was telling him that the insurance for
a new low wing plane was going to eat me
alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
too.

This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > writes:

> He then told me to look into a Delaware
> offshore LLC

Delaware is "offshore"...as in, it's now an island?
Well, see, Usenet is useful. I had no idea.

[Mark]

On Nov 14, 10:39*pm, wrote:
> Mark > writes:
> > He then told me to look into a Delaware
> > offshore LLC
>
> Delaware is "offshore"...as in, it's now an island?
> Well, see, Usenet is useful. *I had no idea.

I believe the "offshore" either refers to a large number
of foreign entities that use Delaware as homebase,
or...it's a designation that gives your LLC a status
such that it is beyond the reach of the typical liabilities
of a traditional corporation.

I'd like to just have a "property" insurance on a hanger,
same as a homeowner's policy. This would cover the
contents of the hanger against tornados, fire, theft,
vandlism, etc. That's where the craft is most the time
anyway. I don't want the mandatory state policy that
governs my flying time. I believe many of those policys
limit your travel range too.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Nov 15, 5:14*pm, Mark > wrote:

> That's what I'm saying, is that in at least 3 states I remember
> even if you pay cash for the plane, they will still saddle you
> with that mandatory policy if your plane is based in their state.

Oh, alsothis...

The insurance company can say, "Well, your experience and
hours are going to make you too big a risk, so, we're not
insure you to fly retractable right now, or, we're not gonna
insure you to fly a Lancair, Glasair, etc., or...since you're
stepping up to a new plane, we're stepping up your premiums.

See what I mean? They can prevent you from flying or at
the least, extort the premium they want.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 12:45*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> Plane insurance is still a fairly competitive field which means that
> they keep each others rates inline *but* if they get a hardon for a
> certain plane, type or certification, you can find yourself with a
> gobful of insurance $$$ to expend.

That's what I'm saying. So, if you own the plane outright,
then you can circumvent the insurance requirement by
basing it out of a state that doesn't require coverage, or
better yet, have the craft owned by a tax exempt, limited
liability corporation. That's the proposed theory anyway.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 12:45*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:

> Sure can which is a very good reason to match your plane purchase and
> your insurance carrier from the beginning.

Don't you read for comprehension? I've already said
I'm paying cash. Also, my point is to determine how
to avoid the insurance racket.

Your responses smack of imagination.

> Plane insurance is still a fairly competitive field which means that
> they keep each others rates inline *but* if they get a hardon for a
> certain plane, type or certification, you can find yourself with a
> gobful of insurance $$$ to expend.

Cite reference please.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 16, 7:30*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:45*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> > Sure can which is a very good reason to match your plane purchase and
> > your insurance carrier from the beginning.
>
> Don't you read for comprehension? I've already said
> I'm paying cash. Also, my point is to determine how
> to avoid the insurance racket.
>
> Your responses smack of imagination.
>
> > Plane insurance is still a fairly competitive field which means that
> > they keep each others rates inline *but* if they get a hardon for a
> > certain plane, type or certification, you can find yourself with a
> > gobful of insurance $$$ to expend.
>
> Cite reference please.
>
> ---
> Mark

The phrase JB typed -- "I rent. :)" says all you need to know about
his direct experience. There are the statutory reasons for buying
insurance, but also and importantly the real reason, namely to protect
your assets. I own my airplane, just as you intend to own yours. If
you're PIC and in some cases even if you're not, in the case of an
'adverse event' it's you who will be sued (and usually everyone else
connected, including, if he has deep pockets, the line boy who
directed you to visitor's parking). My suggestion is that you first
of all decide on the kinds of flying you're apt to do, then shop the
policy. A few hours work will uncover a reasonable deal.

I can't speak for most states, but many are alert for 'out of state'
registrations of cars, boats, and airplanes. Boats swinging around a
mooring are a lot less obvious than airplane owners who are renting
tie downs or hanger space.

[Darkwing]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
>I remember a couple of years ago doing a
> search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
> is required for small plane owners, and it
> revealed that only 3 American states had
> mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
> one, and I don't remember what the other 2
> states were.
>
> Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
> day, I was telling him that the insurance for
> a new low wing plane was going to eat me
> alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
> offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
> He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
> too.
>
> This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.
>
> ---
> Mark


If you're an AOPA member call their legal services line, it's free to
members.

[Ross]

Darkwing wrote:
>
> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I remember a couple of years ago doing a
>> search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
>> is required for small plane owners, and it
>> revealed that only 3 American states had
>> mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
>> one, and I don't remember what the other 2
>> states were.
>>
>> Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
>> day, I was telling him that the insurance for
>> a new low wing plane was going to eat me
>> alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
>> offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
>> He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
>> too.
>>
>> This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.
>>
>> ---
>> Mark
>
>
> If you're an AOPA member call their legal services line, it's free to
> members.

You will get advice, but the real legal services plans are extra. I
carried during the 12 years I owned an airplane for that "just in case".
I also carried insurance even though I owned it outright from the git go.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 12:28*pm, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:30:59 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 12:45*am, Jeffrey Bloss > wrote:
>
> >> Sure can which is a very good reason to match your plane purchase and
> >> your insurance carrier from the beginning.
>
> > Don't you read for comprehension? I've already said
> > I'm paying cash. Also, my point is to determine how
> > to avoid the insurance racket.
>
> > Your responses smack of imagination.
>
> >> Plane insurance is still a fairly competitive field which means that
> >> they keep each others rates inline *but* if they get a hardon for a
> >> certain plane, type or certification, you can find yourself with a
> >> gobful of insurance $$$ to expend.
>
> > Cite reference please.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> Here's one.
>
> ....................... ./´¯/)
> ......................,/¯..//
> ...................../..../ /
> ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`•¸
> ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
> ........('(...´(..´......,~/'...')
> .........\.................\/..../
> ..........''...\.......... _.•´
> ............\..............(
> ..............\.............\

No, you're doing it wrong. See, when someone
asks for references, you prove you know what
you're talking about by supplying the data. That
gives you credibility.

If you just show a picture of your finger, we
assume you just pulled it out of your ass,
like the rest of your information.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

<cough, cough>

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Ok. whew. Carry on.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 12:48*pm, Ross > wrote:
> Darkwing wrote:
>
> > "Mark" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> I remember a couple of years ago doing a
> >> search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
> >> is required for small plane owners, and it
> >> revealed that only 3 American states had
> >> mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
> >> one, and I don't remember what the other 2
> >> states were.
>
> >> Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
> >> day, I was telling him that the insurance for
> >> a new low wing plane was going to eat me
> >> alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
> >> offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
> >> He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
> >> too.
>
> >> This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.
>
> >> ---
> >> Mark
>
> > If you're an AOPA member call their legal services line, it's free to
> > members.
>
> You will get advice, but the real legal services plans are extra. I
> carried during the 12 years I owned an airplane for that "just in case".
> I also carried insurance even though I owned it outright from the git go.
>
> --
>
> Regards, Ross
> C-172F 180HP
> Sold :(
> KSWI
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't get me wrong. I realize that insurance is the prudent
way to go, but a CFI I spoke with said they might not write
me in a high speed experimental, and if they do, it's going
to be very expensive.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 16, 4:25*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:48*pm, Ross > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Darkwing wrote:
>
> > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > ....
> > >> I remember a couple of years ago doing a
> > >> search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
> > >> is required for small plane owners, and it
> > >> revealed that only 3 American states had
> > >> mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
> > >> one, and I don't remember what the other 2
> > >> states were.
>
> > >> Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
> > >> day, I was telling him that the insurance for
> > >> a new low wing plane was going to eat me
> > >> alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
> > >> offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
> > >> He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
> > >> too.
>
> > >> This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.
>
> > >> ---
> > >> Mark
>
> > > If you're an AOPA member call their legal services line, it's free to
> > > members.
>
> > You will get advice, but the real legal services plans are extra. I
> > carried during the 12 years I owned an airplane for that "just in case"..
> > I also carried insurance even though I owned it outright from the git go.
>
> > --
>
> > Regards, Ross
> > C-172F 180HP
> > Sold :(
> > KSWI
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Don't get me wrong. I realize that insurance is the prudent
> way to go, but a CFI I spoke with said they might not write
> me in a high speed experimental, and if they do, it's going
> to be very expensive.
>
> ---
> Mark

Mark, that gets back to my point. If the history of the experimental
is bad you'll be paying a lot of money. I'm not especially worried
about hull insurance (if you can an airplane you may be in a position
to self insure the hull) but liability is the issue. You want to not
be in a position where a bodily harm accident can lead to a suit that
may take everything you own. It's not just you being a pilot that puts
you at risk if someone thinks your pockets are deep. a lawyer may
suggest moving some liquid assets out of reach just as a matter of
prudent financial planning.

It's possible (thinking about it made my wine come out of my nose!)
Bloss may have a reasonable suggestion. Yeah, and I have a bridge
that's for sale.

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 5:41*pm, a > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 4:25*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 12:48*pm, Ross > wrote:
>
> > > Darkwing wrote:
>
> > > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> I remember a couple of years ago doing a
> > > >> search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
> > > >> is required for small plane owners, and it
> > > >> revealed that only 3 American states had
> > > >> mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
> > > >> one, and I don't remember what the other 2
> > > >> states were.
>
> > > >> Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
> > > >> day, I was telling him that the insurance for
> > > >> a new low wing plane was going to eat me
> > > >> alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
> > > >> offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
> > > >> He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
> > > >> too.
>
> > > >> This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.
>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> Mark
>
> > > > If you're an AOPA member call their legal services line, it's free to
> > > > members.
>
> > > You will get advice, but the real legal services plans are extra. I
> > > carried during the 12 years I owned an airplane for that "just in case".
> > > I also carried insurance even though I owned it outright from the git go.
>
> > > --
>
> > > Regards, Ross
> > > C-172F 180HP
> > > Sold :(
> > > KSWI
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Don't get me wrong. I realize that insurance is the prudent
> > way to go, but a CFI I spoke with said they might not write
> > me in a high speed experimental, and if they do, it's going
> > to be very expensive.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> Mark, that gets back to my point. *If the history of the experimental
> is bad you'll be paying a lot of money. I'm not especially worried
> about hull insurance (if you can buy an airplane you may be in a position
> to self insure the hull) but liability is the issue. You want to not
> be in a position where a bodily harm accident can lead to a suit that
> may take everything you own. It's not just you being a pilot that puts
> you at risk if someone thinks your pockets are deep. a lawyer may
> suggest moving some liquid assets out of reach just as a matter of
> prudent financial planning.

Well, see, this goes back to my original point about the Delaware
LLC. According to my research most of the fortune 500 companies
are based there due to the extreme level of personal liability
protection
that is offered. All states are legally bound to recognise your legal
entity there, and are bound by law to do business with your legal
corporation. It just makes sense not to own anything in your own
name that can be owned by a corporation, especially one that isn't
even bound by courts to turn over records.

See...http://www.incnow.com/

So I'm not looking to skirt the law, but to just play by the same
rules
as the big boys. They're untouchable and we can be too.

Insurance is a good idea, but if there is an incident I think it would
fall
into 2 categories.

1- I break something which is gonna come out of my pocket
anyway, given a high deductable, ie, $5000.00. So why not
just figure on being self insured?

2- I total the plane and am not around to worry about the pieces.
I figure any damage over 50,000 is unsustainable anyway.

Other than this, I want the plane insured in the hanger for the
typical unattended hazards.

I don't mind paying $125,000 one time for something i can put
my hands on, as opposed to paying $300 - $500 a month for
years for something I may never need, or like I said, being
told that I cannot fly my plane because they don't want me to.

I called a couple of companies today, but it was a "leave a
message and we'll call you back" deal. I figured if they want
my premium, they should make themselves available for my
call.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 16, 7:19*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:41*pm, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 4:25*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 12:48*pm, Ross > wrote:
>
> > > > Darkwing wrote:
>
> > > > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> I remember a couple of years ago doing a
> > > > >> search of where mandatory Aviation Insurance
> > > > >> is required for small plane owners, and it
> > > > >> revealed that only 3 American states had
> > > > >> mandatory requirements. South Carolina was
> > > > >> one, and I don't remember what the other 2
> > > > >> states were.
>
> > > > >> Well, talking to a fellow at the airport the other
> > > > >> day, I was telling him that the insurance for
> > > > >> a new low wing plane was going to eat me
> > > > >> alive. He then told me to look into a Delaware
> > > > >> offshore LLC status to buy my plane through.
> > > > >> He said I could also circumvent paying taxes
> > > > >> too.
>
> > > > >> This Delaware LLC thing looks for real to me.
>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> Mark
>
> > > > > If you're an AOPA member call their legal services line, it's free to
> > > > > members.
>
> > > > You will get advice, but the real legal services plans are extra. I
> > > > carried during the 12 years I owned an airplane for that "just in case".
> > > > I also carried insurance even though I owned it outright from the git go.
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > Regards, Ross
> > > > C-172F 180HP
> > > > Sold :(
> > > > KSWI
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Don't get me wrong. I realize that insurance is the prudent
> > > way to go, but a CFI I spoke with said they might not write
> > > me in a high speed experimental, and if they do, it's going
> > > to be very expensive.
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > Mark, that gets back to my point. *If the history of the experimental
> > is bad you'll be paying a lot of money. I'm not especially worried
> > about hull insurance (if you can buy an airplane you may be in a position
> > to self insure the hull) but liability is the issue. You want to not
> > be in a position where a bodily harm accident can lead to a suit that
> > may take everything you own. It's not just you being a pilot that puts
> > you at risk if someone thinks your pockets are deep. a lawyer may
> > suggest moving some liquid assets out of reach just as a matter of
> > prudent financial planning.
>
> Well, see, this goes back to my original point about the Delaware
> LLC. According to my research most of the fortune 500 companies
> are based there due to the extreme level of personal liability
> protection
> that is offered. All states are legally bound to recognise your legal
> entity there, and are bound by law to do business with your legal
> corporation. It just makes sense not to own anything in your own
> name that can be owned by a corporation, especially one that isn't
> even bound by courts to turn over records.
>
> See...http://www.incnow.com/
>
> So I'm not looking to skirt the law, but to just play by the same
> rules
> as the big boys. They're untouchable and we can be too.
>
> Insurance is a good idea, but if there is an incident I think it would
> fall
> into 2 categories.
>
> 1- I break something which is gonna come out of my pocket
> * *anyway, given a high deductable, ie, $5000.00. So why not
> * *just figure on being self insured?
>
> 2- I total the plane and am not around to worry about the pieces.
> * * I figure any damage over 50,000 is unsustainable anyway.
>
> Other than this, I want the plane insured in the hanger for the
> typical unattended hazards.
>
> I don't mind paying $125,000 one time for something i can put
> my hands on, as opposed to paying $300 - $500 a month for
> years for something I may never need, or like I said, being
> told that I cannot fly my plane because they don't want me to.
>
> I called a couple of companies today, but it was a "leave a
> message and we'll call you back" deal. I figured if they want
> my premium, they should make themselves available for my
> call.
>
> ---
> Mark

I'd be surprised, Mark, if having the airplane's LLC is located in DE
that it will protect you individually should you hurt someone in CT.
What I worry about least is the hull insurance. That as you correctly
point out is something you may be able to comfortably self insure.
Your other assets would be fair game though -- your lawyer can tell
you about that.

I have no argument with the notion of using every tool available. We
concluded a sizable liability umbrella policy, including a rider that
includes GA related issues, is right for us, but I fully agree that
one size does not fit all. My point was simply for you do decide which
risks were to be self insured, and which wanted other protection.

What airplane are you considering?

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:

> What airplane are you considering?
>
> - Show quoted text -

I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
2) Sportcruiser.

I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
as the better idea.

Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 16, 9:01*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > What airplane are you considering?
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
> and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
> category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
> there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
> and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
> 2) Sportcruiser.
>
> I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
> a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
> as the better idea.
>
> Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
> choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
> they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.
>
> ---
> Mark

I am partial to conventional airplanes and bore holes in the sky in a
Mooney 201 (M20J). At 6'1" I can move the seat aft so far I have
trouble reaching the peddles, but then there's no leg room for the
person behind me. The newer Mooneys get pulled around with IO 540s,
but mine, with a 360, will sip 9 gallons an hour and give 150 knots,
that works for my flight profiles. I expect the ones you're looking at
have both a smaller appetite and greater speed.

Good luck with your choice -- I'm happy with mine but certainly agree
one size (or type or manufacturer) does not fit all.

[Mark]

On Nov 16, 10:16*pm, a > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:01*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > What airplane are you considering?
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
> > and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
> > category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
> > there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
> > and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
> > 2) Sportcruiser.
>
> > I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
> > a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
> > as the better idea.
>
> > Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
> > choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
> > they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> I am partial to conventional airplanes and bore holes in the sky in a
> Mooney 201 (M20J). At 6'1" I can move the seat aft so far I have
> trouble reaching the peddles, but then there's no leg room for the
> person behind me. The newer Mooneys get pulled around with IO 540s,
> but mine, with a 360, will sip 9 gallons an hour and give 150 knots,
> that works for my flight profiles. I expect the ones you're looking at
> have both a smaller appetite and greater speed.

Yeah, Mooneys are nice, but my target locations are in
the 500 mile range and I would like to do round trips in one
day if necessary.

> Good luck with your choice -- I'm happy with mine but certainly
agree
> one size (or type or manufacturer) does not fit all.

Thanks, nice talking with you.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 18, 8:29*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 16, 10:16*pm, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 9:01*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > What airplane are you considering?
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
> > > and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
> > > category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
> > > there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
> > > and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
> > > 2) Sportcruiser.
>
> > > I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
> > > a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
> > > as the better idea.
>
> > > Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
> > > choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
> > > they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > I am partial to conventional airplanes and bore holes in the sky in a
> > Mooney 201 (M20J). At 6'1" I can move the seat aft so far I have
> > trouble reaching the peddles, but then there's no leg room for the
> > person behind me. The newer Mooneys get pulled around with IO 540s,
> > but mine, with a 360, will sip 9 gallons an hour and give 150 knots,
> > that works for my flight profiles. I expect the ones you're looking at
> > have both a smaller appetite and greater speed.
>
> Yeah, Mooneys are nice, but my target locations are in
> the 500 mile range and I would like to do round trips in one
> day if necessary.
>
> *> Good luck with your choice -- I'm happy with mine but certainly
> agree
>
> > one size (or type or manufacturer) does not fit all.
>
> Thanks, nice talking with you.
>
> ---
> Mark

3 plus hours on average each way would make it a long day in an M20.
Did it often when younger, but now those trips would include a RON if
I wanted to get anything meaningful done at the remote location. The
good news about the RON is a meeting can end with dinner and a drink
or two. I too often had to decline those offers in the past, but not
now. It turns out from a practical point of view that taking off
around 8 the following morning will allow me to slay dragons back at
the plant from noon onward. That's much better for me than arriving
home late at night and getting to work mid morning the following day.
Again, I fully agree one size does not fit all (and this routine is
also subject to change, but it's unlikely I'll be delegating these
trips to someone else anytime soon!).

[Mark]

On Nov 19, 9:43*am, a > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:29*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:16*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 9:01*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > > What airplane are you considering?
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
> > > > and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
> > > > category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
> > > > there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
> > > > and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
> > > > 2) Sportcruiser.
>
> > > > I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
> > > > a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
> > > > as the better idea.
>
> > > > Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
> > > > choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
> > > > they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > Mark
>
> > > I am partial to conventional airplanes and bore holes in the sky in a
> > > Mooney 201 (M20J). At 6'1" I can move the seat aft so far I have
> > > trouble reaching the peddles, but then there's no leg room for the
> > > person behind me. The newer Mooneys get pulled around with IO 540s,
> > > but mine, with a 360, will sip 9 gallons an hour and give 150 knots,
> > > that works for my flight profiles. I expect the ones you're looking at
> > > have both a smaller appetite and greater speed.
>
> > Yeah, Mooneys are nice, but my target locations are in
> > the 500 mile range and I would like to do round trips in one
> > day if necessary.
>
> > *> Good luck with your choice -- I'm happy with mine but certainly
> > agree
>
> > > one size (or type or manufacturer) does not fit all.
>
> > Thanks, nice talking with you.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> 3 plus hours on average each way would make it a long day in an M20.
> Did it often when younger, but now those trips would include a RON if
> I wanted to get anything meaningful done at the remote location. The
> good news about the RON is a meeting can end with dinner and a drink
> or two. I too often had to decline those offers in the past, but not
> now. It turns out from a practical point of view that taking off
> around 8 the following morning will allow me to slay dragons back at
> the plant from noon onward. *That's much better for me than arriving
> home late at night and getting to work mid morning the following day.
> Again, I fully agree one size does not fit all (and this routine is
> also subject to change, but it's unlikely I'll be delegating these
> trips to someone else anytime soon!).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I know what you're saying about the fatigue factor.
Actually, my longer trips would be around 415 miles,
and at 200kts I'm looking at 1.8 hours one way. Not
only that, these are all pleasure trips and I can still get
a RON or not depending on preference. In other words,
I want more *capability* than I need. In fact, here's a
nice example of a lovely family doing exactly what I'm
talking about. They are running in the 220's groundspeed,
and his best was 253kts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHZtafoGGs

Definitely do-able in under 2 hrs.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 19, 1:18*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 9:43*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 8:29*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 10:16*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 9:01*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > > > What airplane are you considering?
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
> > > > > and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
> > > > > category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
> > > > > there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
> > > > > and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
> > > > > 2) Sportcruiser.
>
> > > > > I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
> > > > > a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
> > > > > as the better idea.
>
> > > > > Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
> > > > > choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
> > > > > they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Mark
>
> > > > I am partial to conventional airplanes and bore holes in the sky in a
> > > > Mooney 201 (M20J). At 6'1" I can move the seat aft so far I have
> > > > trouble reaching the peddles, but then there's no leg room for the
> > > > person behind me. The newer Mooneys get pulled around with IO 540s,
> > > > but mine, with a 360, will sip 9 gallons an hour and give 150 knots,
> > > > that works for my flight profiles. I expect the ones you're looking at
> > > > have both a smaller appetite and greater speed.
>
> > > Yeah, Mooneys are nice, but my target locations are in
> > > the 500 mile range and I would like to do round trips in one
> > > day if necessary.
>
> > > *> Good luck with your choice -- I'm happy with mine but certainly
> > > agree
>
> > > > one size (or type or manufacturer) does not fit all.
>
> > > Thanks, nice talking with you.
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > 3 plus hours on average each way would make it a long day in an M20.
> > Did it often when younger, but now those trips would include a RON if
> > I wanted to get anything meaningful done at the remote location. The
> > good news about the RON is a meeting can end with dinner and a drink
> > or two. I too often had to decline those offers in the past, but not
> > now. It turns out from a practical point of view that taking off
> > around 8 the following morning will allow me to slay dragons back at
> > the plant from noon onward. *That's much better for me than arriving
> > home late at night and getting to work mid morning the following day.
> > Again, I fully agree one size does not fit all (and this routine is
> > also subject to change, but it's unlikely I'll be delegating these
> > trips to someone else anytime soon!).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I know what you're saying about the fatigue factor.
> Actually, my longer trips would be around 415 miles,
> and at 200kts I'm looking at 1.8 hours one way. Not
> only that, these are all pleasure trips and I can still get
> a RON or not depending on preference. In other words,
> I want more *capability* than I need. *In fact, here's a
> nice example of a lovely family doing exactly what I'm
> talking about. They are running in the 220's groundspeed,
> and his best was 253kts.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHZtafoGGs
>
> Definitely do-able in under 2 hrs.
>
> ---
> Mark

I agree, if I was buying a new airplane I'd look at other options (my
BoD has been recommending something with two engines for a long time)
but there are better places to spend that kind of money. For now, the
cost for incremental change in speed and the safety of engine
redundancy is too high, and I'm very comfortable flying the 201.
Life is good, and that part of my life isn't broken, no need to fix
it. The people at the places I go know there's a 5 or 10% chance
something will make me abort the trip, that number would be only
marginally lower with a different airplane.

The difference is, as you've stated, the overt reason for your trips
would be pleasure -- for mine, the reason is business, the pleasure of
flying is a side effect. But each summer, it seems, I have to visit
customers or potential customers all over the place, usually about 400
miles apart, without convenient airline services. Why, every few years
those trips reach the west coast. Tough life, but someone etc.

I'd like to find some customers well out on the Bahamas, but so far
no luck.

Good luck on your quest.

[a[_3_]]

On Nov 19, 1:18*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 9:43*am, a > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 18, 8:29*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 16, 10:16*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 16, 9:01*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 16, 8:05*pm, a > wrote:
>
> > > > > > What airplane are you considering?
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > I lean towards the lancairs, glasairs, and Van RV's,
> > > > > and there are plenty to be picked up, but in the new
> > > > > category, and this is really the more sensible choice,
> > > > > there are 2 Light Sport Planes which are both beautiful
> > > > > and economical, those being, 1) Arion Lightning and
> > > > > 2) Sportcruiser.
>
> > > > > I used to want the Burt Rutan canard styles, but over
> > > > > a period of time, I began to see a conventional design
> > > > > as the better idea.
>
> > > > > Also, being 6'3", I have to make sure I can fit in my
> > > > > choice. I found a nice Lancair the other day that
> > > > > they said anyone over 5'10, don't bother.
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Mark
>
> > > > I am partial to conventional airplanes and bore holes in the sky in a
> > > > Mooney 201 (M20J). At 6'1" I can move the seat aft so far I have
> > > > trouble reaching the peddles, but then there's no leg room for the
> > > > person behind me. The newer Mooneys get pulled around with IO 540s,
> > > > but mine, with a 360, will sip 9 gallons an hour and give 150 knots,
> > > > that works for my flight profiles. I expect the ones you're looking at
> > > > have both a smaller appetite and greater speed.
>
> > > Yeah, Mooneys are nice, but my target locations are in
> > > the 500 mile range and I would like to do round trips in one
> > > day if necessary.
>
> > > *> Good luck with your choice -- I'm happy with mine but certainly
> > > agree
>
> > > > one size (or type or manufacturer) does not fit all.
>
> > > Thanks, nice talking with you.
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > 3 plus hours on average each way would make it a long day in an M20.
> > Did it often when younger, but now those trips would include a RON if
> > I wanted to get anything meaningful done at the remote location. The
> > good news about the RON is a meeting can end with dinner and a drink
> > or two. I too often had to decline those offers in the past, but not
> > now. It turns out from a practical point of view that taking off
> > around 8 the following morning will allow me to slay dragons back at
> > the plant from noon onward. *That's much better for me than arriving
> > home late at night and getting to work mid morning the following day.
> > Again, I fully agree one size does not fit all (and this routine is
> > also subject to change, but it's unlikely I'll be delegating these
> > trips to someone else anytime soon!).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I know what you're saying about the fatigue factor.
> Actually, my longer trips would be around 415 miles,
> and at 200kts I'm looking at 1.8 hours one way. Not
> only that, these are all pleasure trips and I can still get
> a RON or not depending on preference. In other words,
> I want more *capability* than I need. *In fact, here's a
> nice example of a lovely family doing exactly what I'm
> talking about. They are running in the 220's groundspeed,
> and his best was 253kts.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHZtafoGGs
>
> Definitely do-able in under 2 hrs.
>
> ---
> Mark

Mark, have you noticed some kid trying to get attention in the
newsgroup? Some clever person suggested a new word that fits:
"Ignoranus" -- stupid and an ass hole.

[Mark]

On Nov 19, 4:58*pm, a > wrote:

> Mark, have you noticed some kid trying to get attention in the
> newsgroup? Some clever person suggested a new word that fits:
> "Ignoranus" -- stupid and an ass hole.

Heh! Yeah I noticed he wasn't
firing on all his cylinders. Seems
he's particularly envious of you.

---
Mark

[Ross]

Mark wrote:
/snip/ - Show quoted text -
>
> I know what you're saying about the fatigue factor.
> Actually, my longer trips would be around 415 miles,
> and at 200kts I'm looking at 1.8 hours one way. Not
> only that, these are all pleasure trips and I can still get
> a RON or not depending on preference. In other words,
> I want more *capability* than I need. In fact, here's a
> nice example of a lovely family doing exactly what I'm
> talking about. They are running in the 220's groundspeed,
> and his best was 253kts.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHZtafoGGs
>
> Definitely do-able in under 2 hrs.
>
> ---
> Mark
>

I would certainly not want to be in an accident and have all of the
mother's weight push between the baby and the lap belt. When I flew my
kids and grand kids there were always in a FAA approved car seat
strapped in the back seat. I understand that is hard to do in a two
place aircraft. Just my two cents worth.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
Sold :(
KSWI