Experience transitioning from C-172 to complex aircraft as potential first owned aircraft?

Jack Allison wrote:

Looking for any feedback from folks that had mostly C-172 time (zero complex
and/or RG time) then transitioned to a complex airplane when you went to
buy. What did you transition to? Was it a good decision/positive
experience? What type of insurance requirements did you face in terms of
dual time, RG experience, etc.? Were you instrument rated at the time of
transitioning to the complex aircraft?

Just looking for feedback from folks who may have been down this path. When
I move down the path toward ownership, the performance of a complex aircraft
suit my flying requirements better so I'm poking around a bit to get an idea
of costs, issues, insurance requirements, etc. Looking forward to someday
leaving my first "I bought an airplane" post :-)

I went from a 172 to a 182 (high performance, but not complex) several
years ago. This was a trivial transition. Took two circuits to get
used to the prop, but the rest was like a 172 flown slightly faster and
with slightly heavier controls. I just this past week completed my
transition to a complex airplane, an Arrow 180. The transition again
took about two circuits and actually remembering the gear isn't nearly
as hard as I thought it might be. I've used the GUMP check for years
even in the fixed gear airplanes and just said "fixed" to myself and now
actually check the lights. I did have to fly 10 hours with an
instructor to meet the requirements of the club's insurance carrier.

The insurance is much higher on the RG airplane. Maybe being owned by a
flying club makes it higher also, but when I owned the 67 Skylane, my
partner and me paid just over $1,100 a year for liability ($1MM smooth)
and hull insurance. The club pays more than $3,000 annually for the 67
Arrow 180 and this is with lower limits of liability ($500,000/$100,000
as I recall).

Personally, while I like the lower fuel burn for the same speed, I'd
take a Skylane any day and use the lower insurance costs to more than
pay for the extra fuel. And the higher useful load and much better
take-off and landing performance are another bonus.


Matt

In article , Matt Whiting
wrote:

The insurance is much higher on the RG airplane. Maybe being owned by a
flying club makes it higher also, but when I owned the 67 Skylane, my
partner and me paid just over $1,100 a year for liability ($1MM smooth)
and hull insurance. The club pays more than $3,000 annually for the 67
Arrow 180 and this is with lower limits of liability ($500,000/$100,000
as I recall).

My club manager is in discussion with the owner of a 1979 Turbo Arrow
IV for a leaseback. I was told the insurance with roughly double if it
is brought into the flying club (from $3400 to $7500 annually).

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
The insurance is much higher on the RG airplane. Maybe
being owned by a flying club makes it higher also, but
when I owned the 67 Skylane, my partner and me paid
just over $1,100 a year for liability ($1MM smooth)
and hull insurance. The club pays more than $3,000
annually for the 67 Arrow 180 and this is with lower
limits of liability ($500,000/$100,000 as I recall).

Insurance for my Cutlass RG is $1450/year. That's $90K hull and $1M
liability (not smooth).
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM