Steve B

We checked AVEMCO and it was significantly cheaper. Obviously facts and circumstances so YMMV but our experience was that it was definitely worth checking with them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Age - 50:44. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In response to request for numbers. Plane is an Ovation 3. Premium yr 1 : Yr 2 = 9.2k : 14.6k Total Time pilot 1 : pilot 2 = 332 : 240 Retractable p1 : p2 = 156 : 82 Pilot 1 has 59 instrument hours (almost!) and pilot 2 is IR. Both pilots took a 20 hour transition course with a former factory CFII Pilot 1 attended a MAPA recurrent training course Both pilots flew about 80 hours in the plane last year. I have questions about year 1 to year 2 relative cost and absolute cost. I get that the first year premium needed to be high. (No complaint there - we had zero experience in a HP expensive plane - but love the plane and sought to be diligent about training and the big step up from 172 / 182 / Arrow experience. ). But having done that why would premiums go UP so much. I get the market is bad - but would have thought that gets offset by no longer having zero experience in the plane. Absolute cost - rough number our premium is 5% of the value of the plane. So that’s an underwriting profit if fewer than 1 in 20 planes with pilots like us are totaled each year. I mean - I will concede we are likely a worse statistical risk than a 1000 hour pilot (though for any underwriters reading we are super careful!) - but I don’t think 1/20 of us would total the plane each year! Not even remotely close. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know this has been discussed before but couldn’t find a recent post (2020). Has anyone seen substantial increases recently? (50%+). Particularly frustrating as last year was our first year with the plane so we wrote off a high rate to low experience in type / complex. My partner and I each have 80+ hours in type and I got an IR and he attended a MAPA training course and yet our premium is up nearly 60%. We don’t have any losses or extenuating circumstances. We are confused. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Delaware . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reread 1980Mooney’s post above: short version - even if there isn’t “debt” as you typically think of it - is a loan from a bank - there are trade creditors (suppliers, tax authorities etc) and employees. These entities can demand payment and, if the US entity doesn’t have the ability to pay, can eventually get to a bankruptcy. They can’t reach back up the chain to the parent - but they can force resolution in the US. The parent could then put more money in to satisfy those obligations, or, probably more likely, allow for a bankruptcy (or other liquidation) process to play out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“One bad apple spoils the bunch” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the TBM is right out, then? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You make a good point. We think about the Mooneys as “sports cars of the piston 4 seaters” - but that analogy isn’t a perfect fit - turboprop planes have much better performance (see TBM lust) whereas sports cars are at the pinnacle of performance. And it’s a fair enough point that what is now the “M350” isn’t that much of a step up in price or piloting challenge above the NEW Ultras - it is almost as fast as an A (faster than O) and carries more (and without oxygen masks) - maybe you are right and there isn’t a logical spot between the Archer and the M series for buyers of new planes. (My used Ovation is in a different price zip code - cheaper than a new Archer). One could definitely make the argument that if you want more than an Archer and are buying new you may as well jump to a 6 seat, pressurized airplane. Or at least there isn’t room for more than one SR22 type in the market. I admit that sometimes when planning trips and trying to fit people I do wish I had an M350 (or M600) - but at the time of buying an O3 was the limit for $ and what I thought I could handle as a next step as a pilot. Glad I have mine and I guess when I’m in the market again (in 10+ years) I need a different plan than buying somebody’s used Ovation Ultra! Maybe I will get one with auto land!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pure speculation: I would guess there is a modest business in supporting the old fleet. The challenge will be the scale of what that is realistically worth vs what the Chinese investors will bother with and what they invested. I would guess that if people with expertise - you know the names from your MAPA ads - Air-Mods, Dugosh, LASAR, Maxwell, Cole - got together - there is a price that they could pay that would have a positive return if run as fleet support. Question is if the Chinese owner will bother with the sale process (lawyers etc) for that price. (And, obviously, if buyers like that would want the complexity of expanding in that way). At some price, all the existing owners would probably kick in to form a coop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Piper should buy it. At this point, Mooney’s product line is two, fairly high performance, models. They slot right in between the piston piper line and the piper turbo-props. As much as I’d love a TBM, the Piper family of turboprops are in a more realistic neighborhood in fantasy land. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://citizenbike.com I got the “Tokyo”. It’s good for last mile. I have taken it on trips where it was my only transport for 10 days and it’s great for up to about 10 miles for me. You could obviously go further but it’s not a full size bike. (I didn’t get the electric boost option - saving weight - but with that I would think it would be comfortable to ride 20+ miles no problem). Get the travel bag and you’re set to load it in the plane. It fits through the baggage door of an ovation. It’s fairly inexpensive so mine just lives in the hangar. I found it to be a very nice quality set up for the price. (And I’m a bike guy who has tricked out racing bikes in the garage.) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm - in that case I might need that remote switch! Seriously though - I’m in a hangar and using a full engine heating system (Reiff) with the temperature probe measuring the general compartment (vs just the oil) - so I would think the engine compartment should actually be warm and dry as dew point for the winter air is way lower than the temps of even the coldest parts of the engine compartment. I don’t follow what the source of increases moisture relative to the heating would be. I would think that from my engines perspective it’s as if I’m heating the whole hangar to a range of 40-60 degrees (which would be good, right?). Am I missing something? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have my engine pre-heat plugged in through a thermostat that turns on at 40 degrees and off at 60. In coastal NJ that means it’s not running all that much in the day except Jan - Mar. I figure it keeps the engine compartment well above dew point at all times and the plane is always at a “startable” if not ideal temperature and it’s often 50+ degrees. What is the concern with having the heater regularly on if you are flying fairy regularly? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks M20Doc and Carusam. That is reassuring! Gear down, gear down, gear down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk