current small aircraft market????

[Private]

In the 'Would you buy this engine' thread,

Peter R. said "With the glut of aircraft on the market"
and
John Galban said "with the airplane market heavily favoring the buyer these
days,"

I have been watching the for sale adverts looking for a Decathlon, and seem
to note a LOT more aircraft than I remember being normal. I am not sure if
this situation has been developing for some time or if it is just a normal
seasonal thing. I cannot comment on the actual sale prices but the asking
prices do not seem to reflect the increased supply.

Comments?






?

[John Galban]

On May 19, 4:57 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> I have been watching the for sale adverts looking for a Decathlon, and seem
> to note a LOT more aircraft than I remember being normal. I am not sure if
> this situation has been developing for some time or if it is just a normal
> seasonal thing. I cannot comment on the actual sale prices but the asking
> prices do not seem to reflect the increased supply.
>

The situation has been building for over a year. My best guess is
that increased fuel prices have put a damper on the market. I know
several owners that have had their planes for sale for over 6 months,
with little interest. The asking prices are still high, but the
actual selling prices are not. One of my airport neighbors finally
found a buyer for his plane. It had a runout engine, but was
otherwise perfect. No mechanical squawks, great panel, all leather
interior and excellent paint. After nearly a year on the market, he
sold for 60% of his asking price.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 4:57 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> In the 'Would you buy this engine' thread,
>
> Peter R. said "With the glut of aircraft on the market"
There is also the possibility that the new Light-Sport Aircraft
flooding the market have an influence on the market. There are over
100 LSA models available now and more coming everyday. Fun flying for
4 to 5 gph sure is nice when gas costs $3 to $4 a gallon. Looking at
statistics pilots fly less than 100 hours a year and carry one or less
passengers so the Light-Sport Aircraft can cover most of the fun
flying done today statistically. I'm not saying the LSAs are doing all
the flying just that they might be having an affect and growing.

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/




> and
> John Galban said "with the airplane market heavily favoring the buyer these
> days,"
>
> I have been watching the for sale adverts looking for a Decathlon, and seem
> to note a LOT more aircraft than I remember being normal. I am not sure if
> this situation has been developing for some time or if it is just a normal
> seasonal thing. I cannot comment on the actual sale prices but the asking
> prices do not seem to reflect the increased supply.
>
> Comments?
>
> ?

[Matt Whiting]

John Galban wrote:
> On May 19, 4:57 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> I have been watching the for sale adverts looking for a Decathlon, and seem
>> to note a LOT more aircraft than I remember being normal. I am not sure if
>> this situation has been developing for some time or if it is just a normal
>> seasonal thing. I cannot comment on the actual sale prices but the asking
>> prices do not seem to reflect the increased supply.
>>
>
> The situation has been building for over a year. My best guess is
> that increased fuel prices have put a damper on the market. I know
> several owners that have had their planes for sale for over 6 months,
> with little interest. The asking prices are still high, but the
> actual selling prices are not. One of my airport neighbors finally
> found a buyer for his plane. It had a runout engine, but was
> otherwise perfect. No mechanical squawks, great panel, all leather
> interior and excellent paint. After nearly a year on the market, he
> sold for 60% of his asking price.

I think fuel costs are just one part of the overall situation. Where I
live there are several other problems. One, it is getting hard to find
good maintenance for light airplanes. Several of the small airports
around no longer have an A&P on the field. Insurance costs are higher
and getting harder to get. I can't fly in my company's general aviation
program as I can no longer buy the $1MM "smooth" insurance my company
requires. This was readily available in the mid 90s before 9/11. Add
these challenges to fuel costs and availability of so many other forms
of entertainment and it isn't hard to predict the future of GA.


Matt

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Matt,
is $1MM flat not available or just too expensive. I'm trying to design
an employee pilot program for my company and am gathering data like that. I
filed for a quote the other day and still haven't heard back so maybe the
market is really drying up.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Galban wrote:
>> On May 19, 4:57 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>> I have been watching the for sale adverts looking for a Decathlon, and
>>> seem
>>> to note a LOT more aircraft than I remember being normal. I am not sure
>>> if
>>> this situation has been developing for some time or if it is just a
>>> normal
>>> seasonal thing. I cannot comment on the actual sale prices but the
>>> asking
>>> prices do not seem to reflect the increased supply.
>>>
>>
>> The situation has been building for over a year. My best guess is
>> that increased fuel prices have put a damper on the market. I know
>> several owners that have had their planes for sale for over 6 months,
>> with little interest. The asking prices are still high, but the
>> actual selling prices are not. One of my airport neighbors finally
>> found a buyer for his plane. It had a runout engine, but was
>> otherwise perfect. No mechanical squawks, great panel, all leather
>> interior and excellent paint. After nearly a year on the market, he
>> sold for 60% of his asking price.
>
> I think fuel costs are just one part of the overall situation. Where I
> live there are several other problems. One, it is getting hard to find
> good maintenance for light airplanes. Several of the small airports
> around no longer have an A&P on the field. Insurance costs are higher and
> getting harder to get. I can't fly in my company's general aviation
> program as I can no longer buy the $1MM "smooth" insurance my company
> requires. This was readily available in the mid 90s before 9/11. Add
> these challenges to fuel costs and availability of so many other forms of
> entertainment and it isn't hard to predict the future of GA.
>
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Matt,
> is $1MM flat not available or just too expensive. I'm trying to design
> an employee pilot program for my company and am gathering data like that. I
> filed for a quote the other day and still haven't heard back so maybe the
> market is really drying up.
>

I was flat out unable to find this coverage. If you find someone who
will write such a policy, please let me know. I didn't try Lloyds of
London, but I called AOPA and a also private insurance broker that
supposedly can deal with any company other than AVEMCO (which is who I
think AOPA uses) and both told me that $1MM smooth simply wasn't available.

Matt

[Longworth[_1_]]

On May 19, 10:36 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I was flat out unable to find this coverage. If you find someone who
> will write such a policy, please let me know. I didn't try Lloyds of
> London, but I called AOPA and a also private insurance broker that
> supposedly can deal with any company other than AVEMCO (which is who I
> think AOPA uses) and both told me that $1MM smooth simply wasn't available.
>
> Matt

Matt,
We have had $1M smooth with USAIG the last several years starting
when we both had less than 500hrs and without instrument ratings.
Last year, we checked around and found that AOPA agreed to offer $1M
smooth with AIG but with a somewhat higher premium than USAIG so we
stayed with USAIG. Previously, AOPA told us that they could not offer
$1M smooth, maybe the change had something to do with the fact that we
got over 500hrs and with instrument ratings. We stayed with USAIG
this year but switched agency since the previous one could not get us
additional insured with waiver of subrogation free of charge for Guy
Maher, a CFI specialized in Cardinal operation (whom we plan to take a
training course this summer). Through the new agency, I learned that
we could reduce our premium from $1545 to $1311 with $2500 deductible
for the hull coverage (insured at $60K). This is about the same as
what we got before with AIG for the $1M with $100K sublimit.

Hai Longworth

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

> I was flat out unable to find this coverage. If you find someone who will
> write such a policy, please let me know. I didn't try Lloyds of London, but
> I called AOPA and a also private insurance broker that supposedly can deal
> with any company other than AVEMCO (which is who I think AOPA uses) and both
> told me that $1MM smooth simply wasn't available.

I must be missing something here.

I just upgraded my coverage to $1M smooth through the AOPA agency with no
trouble. Cost me an extra $600/yr.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Longworth wrote:
> On May 19, 10:36 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> I was flat out unable to find this coverage. If you find someone who
>> will write such a policy, please let me know. I didn't try Lloyds of
>> London, but I called AOPA and a also private insurance broker that
>> supposedly can deal with any company other than AVEMCO (which is who I
>> think AOPA uses) and both told me that $1MM smooth simply wasn't available.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Matt,
> We have had $1M smooth with USAIG the last several years starting
> when we both had less than 500hrs and without instrument ratings.
> Last year, we checked around and found that AOPA agreed to offer $1M
> smooth with AIG but with a somewhat higher premium than USAIG so we
> stayed with USAIG. Previously, AOPA told us that they could not offer
> $1M smooth, maybe the change had something to do with the fact that we
> got over 500hrs and with instrument ratings. We stayed with USAIG
> this year but switched agency since the previous one could not get us
> additional insured with waiver of subrogation free of charge for Guy
> Maher, a CFI specialized in Cardinal operation (whom we plan to take a
> training course this summer). Through the new agency, I learned that
> we could reduce our premium from $1545 to $1311 with $2500 deductible
> for the hull coverage (insured at $60K). This is about the same as
> what we got before with AIG for the $1M with $100K sublimit.

I wonder if that is because you had an existing policy? I have 600+
hours and am instrument rated also, but I checked on insurance just last
January and was told flat-out that I couldn't get $1M smooth initially.

I sent and looked and I kept the email:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I emailed you a quote for liability only, I hope you received it. The
company I quoted is AIG. The highest limit they will offer at this time is
the industry standard 1mil/100K. They will require at least 50 hours in
the make/model before they would offer higher limits, maybe next year. If
you have any more questions, or wish to bind the coverage, just give me a
call.

Regards,

We cannot accept bind and change requests via email.

Jeanie Shogren
Account Executive
AOPA Insurance Agency, Inc.
P. O. Box 9170
Wichita, KS 67277
Phone: 1-800-622-2672, ext. 177
Fax: 316-942-0091

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>> I was flat out unable to find this coverage. If you find someone who will
>> write such a policy, please let me know. I didn't try Lloyds of London, but
>> I called AOPA and a also private insurance broker that supposedly can deal
>> with any company other than AVEMCO (which is who I think AOPA uses) and both
>> told me that $1MM smooth simply wasn't available.
>
> I must be missing something here.
>
> I just upgraded my coverage to $1M smooth through the AOPA agency with no
> trouble. Cost me an extra $600/yr.
>

I couldn't get that initially. Yes, they told me after 50 hours they
would consider an upgrade. I'm assuming you've had your airplane for
more than 50 hours. :-)

Matt

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Matt - it looks like their issue was <50 Hrs in type at the time of the
request. Also, you were asking for straight liability only - no hull
coverage. Were you approaching the request as a renter?

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
....
>
> I sent and looked and I kept the email:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I emailed you a quote for liability only, I hope you received it. The
> company I quoted is AIG. The highest limit they will offer at this time
> is
> the industry standard 1mil/100K. They will require at least 50 hours in
> the make/model before they would offer higher limits, maybe next year. If
> you have any more questions, or wish to bind the coverage, just give me a
> call.
>
....

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 8:58 pm, wrote:
> On May 19, 4:57 pm, "Private" > wrote:> In the 'Would you buy this engine' thread,
>
> > Peter R. said "With the glut of aircraft on the market"
>
> There is also the possibility that the new Light-Sport Aircraft
> flooding the market have an influence on the market. There are over
> 100 LSA models available now and more coming everyday. Fun flying for
> 4 to 5 gph sure is nice when gas costs $3 to $4 a gallon. Looking at
> statistics pilots fly less than 100 hours a year and carry one or less
> passengers so the Light-Sport Aircraft can cover most of the fun
> flying done today statistically. I'm not saying the LSAs are doing all
> the flying just that they might be having an affect and growing.
>
Yep, might have to do with the medical requirements for LS as
well as fuel costs, etc. I see a lot of grey hair (ok, so I've
sprouted
a few myself:-) around the GA fields these days. If you have the
choice of "try renewing class 3, but if theres problems..." vs
"don't renew and fly on your drivers license"?

Here in Canada, we don't have Light Sport, but they are talking
about it and I hope they do follow the FAA lead.

Wouldn't mind a good, cheap Decathlon myself, rick

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Carter wrote:
> Matt - it looks like their issue was <50 Hrs in type at the time of the
> request. Also, you were asking for straight liability only - no hull
> coverage. Were you approaching the request as a renter?
>

I asked for full coverage at first including $1MM smooth liability (see
below), but after I fell out of my chair seeing the premium and they
hadn't quoted the $1MM smooth per my request. I then asked again what
liability only would be with $1MM smooth since they had given no reason
for not quoting the requested covered in round 1. I then got the
response that they wouldn't write that coverage so I passed on purchase
of the 210. If I can't fly on company business, my person "business
case" for buying an airplane is in much poorer shape...

Matt



I. AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION & PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE

Aircraft 1 of 1
NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
Number of Seats 6
Insured Value $70,000
Hull Coverage Full Ground & Flight
Deductible In Motion/Ingestion: $100
Deductible Not In Motion: $100

Approved Pilots for Aircraft NJAS3068 with requirements if applicable
Matthew Whiting
Any other pilots: Any private pilot or better having an instrument
rating having a minimum of 750 total logged hours including 250 hours in
retractable gear aircraft and at least 25 hours in the make and model.

Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00

__________________________________________________ __________
II. LEGAL LIABILITY PROTECTION - Limits of Liability
Single Limit Each Occurrence Including Passengers $1,000,000
Sub Limit per Passenger if applicable $100,000

__________________________________________________ __________
III. MEDICAL PAYMENTS Each passenger $1,000

Total Annual Policy Premium $3,785.00

[Ken Reed]

> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
> Insured Value $70,000
> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00

That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years
ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm
paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an
airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that
quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Matt Whiting]

Ken Reed wrote:
>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>> Insured Value $70,000
>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>
> That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years
> ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm
> paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an
> airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that
> quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>

Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a
decent accident rate.

I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50
hours in type.


Matt

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:


> I. AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION & PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE
>
> Aircraft 1 of 1
> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
> Number of Seats 6
> Insured Value $70,000
> Hull Coverage Full Ground & Flight
> Deductible In Motion/Ingestion: $100
> Deductible Not In Motion: $100
>
> Approved Pilots for Aircraft NJAS3068 with requirements if applicable
> Matthew Whiting
> Any other pilots: Any private pilot or better having an instrument
> rating having a minimum of 750 total logged hours including 250 hours in
> retractable gear aircraft and at least 25 hours in the make and model.
>
> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>
> __________________________________________________ __________
> II. LEGAL LIABILITY PROTECTION - Limits of Liability
> Single Limit Each Occurrence Including Passengers $1,000,000
> Sub Limit per Passenger if applicable $100,000
>
> __________________________________________________ __________
> III. MEDICAL PAYMENTS Each passenger $1,000
>
> Total Annual Policy Premium $3,785.00


That's a terrible quote. When I bought my Bo in the summer of 05 I had
zero retract time. About 1100 hours total, almost all in my 182. Hull
value $90K. Premium was $2800 for the same limits as you except the
medical payments are either $3K or $5K, I forget. Last year the premium
was $2300. This year I expect it will be less then $2K especially since
I won't forget to ask to have it insured for four seats only this time.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>> I. AIRCRAFT DESCRIPTION & PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE
>>
>> Aircraft 1 of 1
>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>> Number of Seats 6
>> Insured Value $70,000
>> Hull Coverage Full Ground & Flight
>> Deductible In Motion/Ingestion: $100
>> Deductible Not In Motion: $100
>>
>> Approved Pilots for Aircraft NJAS3068 with requirements if applicable
>> Matthew Whiting
>> Any other pilots: Any private pilot or better having an instrument
>> rating having a minimum of 750 total logged hours including 250 hours
>> in retractable gear aircraft and at least 25 hours in the make and model.
>>
>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>>
>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> II. LEGAL LIABILITY PROTECTION - Limits of Liability
>> Single Limit Each Occurrence Including Passengers $1,000,000
>> Sub Limit per Passenger if applicable $100,000
>>
>> __________________________________________________ __________
>> III. MEDICAL PAYMENTS Each passenger $1,000
>>
>> Total Annual Policy Premium $3,785.00
>
>
> That's a terrible quote. When I bought my Bo in the summer of 05 I had
> zero retract time. About 1100 hours total, almost all in my 182. Hull
> value $90K. Premium was $2800 for the same limits as you except the
> medical payments are either $3K or $5K, I forget. Last year the premium
> was $2300. This year I expect it will be less then $2K especially since
> I won't forget to ask to have it insured for four seats only this time.

I agree, but I couldn't find a better one in my area.

Matt

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Ken Reed wrote:
>>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>>> Insured Value $70,000
>>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>>
>> That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few
>> years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my
>> broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have
>> 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value
>> almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>>
>
> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had
> a decent accident rate.
>
> I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required
> 50 hours in type.
>
>
> Matt

6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Ken Reed wrote:
>>>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>>>> Insured Value $70,000
>>>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>>>
>>> That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few
>>> years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my
>>> broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have
>>> 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value
>>> almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>>>
>>
>> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had
>> a decent accident rate.
>>
>> I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required
>> 50 hours in type.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models.
When was the 210 a four-seater?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Ken Reed wrote:
>>>>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>>>>> Insured Value $70,000
>>>>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>>>>
>>>> That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few
>>>> years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my
>>>> broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have
>>>> 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value
>>>> almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210
>>> had a decent accident rate.
>>>
>>> I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the
>>> required 50 hours in type.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models.
> When was the 210 a four-seater?

Well it used to have the kiddy seats.

[Allen[_1_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Ken Reed wrote:
>>>>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>>>>> Insured Value $70,000
>>>>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>>>>
>>>> That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few
>>>> years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my
>>>> broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have
>>>> 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value
>>>> almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had
>>> a decent accident rate.
>>>
>>> I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required
>>> 50 hours in type.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models.
> When was the 210 a four-seater?

The first four model years were 4 seats, then the kiddie seats came as an
option I believe in 1964.

[Deadstick]

On May 20, 8:48 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Ken Reed wrote:
> >> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
> >> Insured Value $70,000
> >> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>
> > That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years
> > ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm
> > paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an
> > airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that
> > quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>
> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a
> decent accident rate.
>
> I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required 50
> hours in type.
>
> Matt


Generally the losses insurance companies see in Cessna 210 involve
landing gear failures, gear up landings, losing control on landing or
over-running the end of the runway. These losses themselves aren't so
bad, but the cost to repair a Cessna 210 is going up rapidly every
year.

$3785 annual premium for a Cessna 210 for a low-time pilot doesn't
seem out of line. If you can get through the first year without a
loss and fly a lot, your premium would go down substantially the next
year.

[John Galban]

On May 20, 7:55 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
> That's a terrible quote. When I bought my Bo in the summer of 05 I had
> zero retract time. About 1100 hours total, almost all in my 182. Hull
> value $90K. Premium was $2800 for the same limits as you except the
> medical payments are either $3K or $5K, I forget. Last year the premium
> was $2300. This year I expect it will be less then $2K especially since
> I won't forget to ask to have it insured for four seats only this time.- Hide quoted text -
>

You can usually get a policy with the $100K sublimits if you have no
time in type, but forget smooth coverage. Even when I bought my
lowly Cherokee over a decade ago, I had to go the first year with the
$100K sublimit because I had no time in type. After the first year,
all of the companies except Avemco would quote a smooth policy.
Avemco doesn't do smooth.

By the way Newps, I think you got a great deal on your policy. Most
low-rectract time pilots usually take it in the shorts on their first
retract policy.

Last year at a backcountry strip, I met a guy selling a pristine '61
210 with a new engine and interior for just under $60K. He said he'd
had it on the market for 6 months, but none of the interested buyers
could get a reasonable insurance rate, so he had to keep lowering the
price. I think there's something that insurance companies don't like
about the 210 / Newbie retract pilot combo.

John Galban======>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

John Galban wrote:
> On May 20, 7:55 pm, Newps > wrote:
>
>>That's a terrible quote. When I bought my Bo in the summer of 05 I had
>>zero retract time. About 1100 hours total, almost all in my 182. Hull
>>value $90K. Premium was $2800 for the same limits as you except the
>>medical payments are either $3K or $5K, I forget. Last year the premium
>>was $2300. This year I expect it will be less then $2K especially since
>>I won't forget to ask to have it insured for four seats only this time.- Hide quoted text -
>>

>
> By the way Newps, I think you got a great deal on your policy. Most
> low-rectract time pilots usually take it in the shorts on their first
> retract policy.

And I am insured with Avemco. When I shopped around I got a slightly
lower quote with the company I had with the 182, Global. They were
about $100 cheaper but wanted 25 hours with an instructor. I told him
he was nuts and went with Avemco who only wanted 10 hours.


>
> Last year at a backcountry strip, I met a guy selling a pristine '61
> 210 with a new engine and interior for just under $60K.


Struts, gear doors and an IO-470. What the hells the point?


He said he'd
> had it on the market for 6 months, but none of the interested buyers
> could get a reasonable insurance rate, so he had to keep lowering the
> price. I think there's something that insurance companies don't like
> about the 210 / Newbie retract pilot combo.

I have a friend with a Turbine P210. Same deal with those, you can't
give them away. You going to make Schafer third weekend in July?

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Ken Reed wrote:
>>>> NJAS3068 1966 CESSNA 210F
>>>> Insured Value $70,000
>>>> Premium for Aircraft NJAS3068 is $3,785.00
>>> That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few
>>> years ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my
>>> broker. I'm paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have
>>> 1MM smooth, an airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value
>>> almost four times that quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.
>>>
>> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had
>> a decent accident rate.
>>
>> I'll probably end up with a 182 again as that way I have the required
>> 50 hours in type.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> 6 vs 4 seats at least on the later models.
>
>

Ah, yes, I forgot that Mooney is a 4 seater.

Matt

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Newps wrote:
> You going to make Schafer third weekend in July?

It's looking like I will make it this year. I'll probably arrive on Sat.
morning.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Ken Reed]

> > That's a major reason I didn't buy a turbo 210 I looked at a few years
> > ago. Insurance on any 210 was outrageous, according to my broker. I'm
> > paying less of a yearly premium than quoted above, have 1MM smooth, an
> > airframe that's 25 years newer and a hull value almost four times that
> > quoted above. This for my Mooney Bravo.

> Any idea of why the difference is so dramatic? I thought the 210 had a
> decent accident rate.

My broker just calls it a 'high loss rate.'

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

[Newps]

flynrider via AviationKB.com wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> You going to make Schafer third weekend in July?
>
>
> It's looking like I will make it this year. I'll probably arrive on Sat.
> morning.



Good, look for the yellow and white V tail and stop by and say hi. We
always arrive Thursday morning as then we get a full day with the place
to ourselves.

[Paul kgyy]

Still another factor is the emergence of used Cirrus and Diamond
models, moving down into the $200K range. This is depressing prices
for high end retractables made in the period 1975-1995, and this in
turn pushes everything else down.

[Dan Luke]

"Paul kgyy" wrote:

> Still another factor is the emergence of used Cirrus and Diamond
> models, moving down into the $200K range. This is depressing prices
> for high end retractables made in the period 1975-1995

Doesn't appear to be hurting the prices of the aircraft I'm interested in --
late '80s model Bonanza A36s.

Good ones are hanging right around $240-300K, where the've been for quite a
while.

--
Dan
? at BFM