"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

Actually, I made a mistake: one of those three was a COL350, there's a
bunch
more of those, plus the 300's, and the insurance would be based, I
assume,
over the Columbia line which numbers in the thousands. I'm not sure if
the
300/350/400 series is assessed as a single type.

Reference material:

http://www.gama.aero/dloads/2006GAMA...alDatabook.pdf

Thanks...interesting (and shows what happens when to make generalizations
:~( )

They don't include Lancairs, which has been maknig kit planes, using the
same basic design since at least the early 90's. MOF, the distinction
forced them to change the name to Columbia. That was rather the point I was
trying to make. Bad move on my part.

Also, that may or may not be a factor in how insurance is priced.
Overwhelmingly, the insurance is going to be a factor of the pilot, not the
aircraft. Unless the aircraft has particular characteristics, such as a
converted military aircraft, I doubt (could be wrong) the insurance cost is
going to be unusual.

In the context of the original post (boy, has this group got the tendancy to
go off on tangents!) it was a pilot flying VERY FEW hours each month in an
aircraft that goes over a half-million $$$, complaining about the cost of
insurance. He never did come back with the numbers for the "comparable"
aircraft price quotes. He also didn't answer whether he had an IR (that make
a HUGH difference), nor how much TT he had.