MikeOH

@Parker_WoodruffThanks for quelling the 2X "info". Still, I don't understand how their risk increases?? Is there actuarial data that factually demonstrates higher risk?

I agree with that 100%. And, that is EXACTLY what I think is going on here: The insurance company would make a lot more money if four pilots insured four airplanes, rather than sharing one (equal hours). Not taking into account Vance's valid points, their risk exposure is the same, yet the premium is double! They'd like to get away with 4X (equal premium to four individual aircraft), but know they can't. Their not-in-motion risk goes down as well; by a factor of 4.

Good analysis. Can't say I disagree with any of those effects. I also don't believe that those risks justify the 2X increase

And, again, how is the insurance company's risk exposure higher if four pilots fly 50 hours each, or one pilot flys 200 hours? Remember the premise in my hypo that EACH pilot is equally experienced, etc and, therefore, presents the same risk profile per hour of flight. One can even assume the rate is based on the worst pilot, still doesn't justify 2X unless that's what he'd get charged as the sole pilot on a policy.

Hypothetical answer, let's say one in every four Mooney pilots has an incident. That airplane now has a much higher chance of getting damaged. HUH? My hypo was that the TOTAL hours remain the same. If they all have the same experience, etc. their individual risk per hour is identical. So, what difference does it make if ONE pilot flys 200 hours, or FOUR pilots fly 50 hours each?

Hypothetical for all the insurance company lovers out there: Four pilots, all with equal ratings, hours, etc. pay twice what one of them, by themselves, would pay for a policy. Only ONE pilot can fly the plane at a time. Please explain why it's reasonable for the insurance company to DOUBLE the premium if the TOTAL hours is the same, either way?

Care to share the name of the shop so that I can make sure I NEVER go there? Won't cover his work after only 44 hours?? (I'm assuming the 44 hours isn't over a 5 year period)

I thought camshafts were SURFACE hardened. Once that surface has been compromised/penetrated the metal will continue to wear even if the cause of the spalling is removed. Do I have that wrong?

What kind of dog?

I suspect, based on the excerpt from AeroShell below, that the prop is significantly hotter than ambient (not a surprise):

Yep. I wonder how long before that will be the law (especially here in the People's Republic of Kalifornia)

I asked how many MOONEYs are flying in such conditions; not military. And, those records date back 50 - 75 years; not all that common. Anyway, you sound like the guy that chases kids off his lawn I'm done here.

Turbo, yeah. NA M20F, not so much!

Oh, puhleease! How many owners are flying their Mooney at -40?

All I know is that I don't need no stinkin' placard telling me not to operate the aircraft at minus frickin' 40 degrees! I'm not doing ANYTHING at that temperature