Having flown both a standard Twin-Comanche and the 310K model I'd expect
the difference be due to the accident statistics as others have
suggested. Personally I liked the Twin-Comanche better - it was more
challenging to stay on top of and man could it come down when you needed
it to. I think it would be difficult to fly a Hi-Penetration approach in
the 310, but the TC did it just fine.

I'd expect the insurance rates for the Twin-Comanche-CR to be lower than
the original model and lower than the 310 -- maybe along the lines of
the early Seneca -- but that's just my speculation.




-----Original Message-----
From: Dave ]
Posted At: Saturday, December 31, 2005 8:48 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: ME Insurance
Subject: ME Insurance

Anybody know why the high requirement for the twin Comanche? -
compared to the 310?

Dave



On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 21:27:16 -0600, Scott Draper
wrote:

he needs 300+ TOTAL HOURS before they would insure him.
If the second statement is true, perhaps he should consider a single
for a couple hundred hours.

The insurance lady said he needed 500 hours TOTAL in any airplane
before they would insure him at all in the Comanche. Only 200 for
something like a Seneca or a 310.

The reason we're pushing for the twin is that the boy is airline
bound
and doing this initial training in the twin will give him a good leg
up when he starts having the total time needed for a commuter.

If we're lucky, then if he sells the airplane for what he paid or
better, the training and time building will be very cheap.