Since when did a corpoaration care about anything other than
maximizing profits and return on its stock for it's share holders?

Besides market forces such as collusion or competition there may be
some physics reasons for the disparity is prices as well.

Being larger and faster, the twin is carrying more than twice the
energy into a crash. So crashes, when they do happen, tend to be more
destructive.

Another market force may be that people that can afford a twin, have
more money and are willing to pay more when billed. Nothing to do
with safety.


"Doodybutch" wrote in message .net...
I have a retractable single (R182). I have lots of hours. My insurance (1
Mil Smooth + 120 K Hull value) is $1800.

The previous thread here (Light Twins - How Soft???) showed insurance rates
for light twins (1 Mil Smooth + 85 K Hull value) with lots of hours at about
$2800.

There is only one reason for this disparity in price. The insurance
companies only care about their wallets. They are not emotionally involved
owners.

The light twins crash more often. If they crashed less, the insurance rates
would be lower. It is not the number of passengers, BTW. A quick look
through NTSB statistics shows only a few fatal crashes with 4 passengers,
and many of those are singles.

A great irony, isn't it?

DB