![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The gear on a C-310 is taller than the twin Comanche and further to
fall which may cause more damage because you hit the ground harder. Thus higher the cost of the insurance. LOL It could have something to do with the accident statistics. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Renters insurance and TRIA | Scrabo | Piloting | 1 | February 20th 05 04:44 AM |
insurance for Sport Pilots! | Cub Driver | Piloting | 4 | September 11th 04 01:14 AM |
FBO Insurance requirement for tie-downs | Chris | Owning | 25 | May 18th 04 07:24 PM |
Aviation Insurance History, data, records? | cloudclimbr | General Aviation | 0 | February 17th 04 03:36 AM |
How find out one's aviation insurance claims history? Aviation Claims Information Bureau? | cloudclimbr | Owning | 1 | February 15th 04 11:16 PM |