non-RV aircraft vs. RV for time building + insurance

Mike D · #1 07-08-2009, 12:42 PM

After meeting a few RVators out there, and reading the boards here, it seems as though most have owned previous non-RV aircraft. There may be many reasons for this but, I am considering buying a non-RV aircraft

because I am running into the struggle to build hours so I can get reasonable insurance for an RV.

Just thought I would check with everyone on what my options are. I have ~100hrs with ~20hrs being TW time. It seems as though 200hrs is the magic number to get reasonable insurance. Also, as most of us, I don?t have a huge bank account just waiting to pay for my flying.

What is your opinion? Do you buy your dream right out of the gate or do you need to make baby steps? Should I buy a RV and just suck it up on the insurance, or buy a time builder that I can learn the ropes of aircraft ownership? If you advise the non-RV aircraft what is a good tail dragger plane that can substitute for an RV. (Although there is no substitute) C-120/C-140, Luscombe, Tomahawk (nonTD), etc? Does the cost of ownership with a certified plane make this whole idea of a "time builder" worthless over RV + insurance argument?

Just as a note, I am a builder at heart, but love to fly. But there are many posts on buy vs. build already.

If I buy, it will be a -4.

But if I build it will be a -7

Thanks!!

JHines · #2 07-08-2009, 01:08 PM

I think your maintenance cost for a certified plane would be a lot higher than for an RV. With the exception of a few permitted maintenance tasks, everything on a certified plane must be done by an A&P. Also, certified parts are extremely expensive compared to their non-certified (but aircraft quality/grade) counterparts.

On the other hand, if you are looking for time-building, the initial purchase price for a "spam can" is likely to be a lot less than an RV. You can get a good C150 for under $25K and maybe even the $15-20K range.

breister · #3 07-08-2009, 01:09 PM

If you simply want the cheapest way to build hours in an airplane that is similar to an RV, buy or rent an AA-1. Today it is a buyer's market, and while it may not ever pick back up to what it was you should be able to sell it in a couple of years for nearly what you paid for it.

gpiney · #4 07-08-2009, 01:32 PM

You may be able to find a nice Thorp T18 in the 20's. A tight squeeze for my 6'3" 190lb body. I've been in a buddy's T18. Flies real nice and doesn't drag it's nose around.

Birkelbach · #5 07-08-2009, 01:49 PM

The first annual inspection of the spam can will more than offset the extra insurance cost of the RV.

cwreeves · #6 07-08-2009, 01:52 PM

If it were me, I'd spent the money building the RV and bite the bullet for the insurance. I think higher insurance premiums would cheaper in the long run. When I insured my RV-7 with no time in an RV at all a 1 million dollar liability policy cost $520 for the year. Full coverage was $1900/yr. I did have 600hrs in tail wheel and about 260 in a KR-2. Just my two cents.
Charlie

John Clark · #7 07-08-2009, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birkelbach

The first annual inspection of the spam can will more than offset the extra insurance cost of the RV.

I tend to agree. Remember that the "spam can" option is going to involve a 20 to 40+ year old airplane. A single major component failure could cost more than your year's insurance. Also, the old logic of "you can fly it and resell it for what you paid" might not be true in this economy. I'm afraid I get a perverse pleasure from listening to my pals tell tales of corrosion, cracks, and unobtainable parts for certified airplanes.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA

jetjok · #8 07-08-2009, 05:11 PM

IMHO, I agree with the previous posts that advize to just bite the bullet and find a nice RV that needs a new home.
While you are somewhat light on experience, with 20 hours of T/W time already under your belt, you would have no problem with the RV. The RV is one of the most honest conventional aircraft that I have flown, and seems to me to be the best "all around" aircraft in the sky.
HOWEVER.......IF... you were to go for a lower costing certificated aircraft, I would suggest a PA- 20 or -22/20 Piper Pacer. I have a 1950 PA-20 and it is the best bang for the buck semi-four place aircraft available. I blow by 172's in climb and cruise, and can land it all day long on 1000' ft runways. Some may be put off by the fact that it is fabric covered, but if your find one where the rags are fairly recent, you will have no problems.
Once again though, I would just find a nice RV (a -4 you said?) and jump in. The additional cost of insurance and sales tax when you did go for the RV will be more than offset.
Good luck!

newtech · #9 07-08-2009, 05:29 PM

I had 120 hours in Cessnas when I stopped flying in 2001 to build my RV-7A. When I finished my RV a couple of weeks ago all AIG wanted was five hours transition training in a nose wheel RV to cover me for the first flight, full coverage. I spent five hours with Pierre Smith in his RV-6A and my first flight the 24th of last month was a non event. I am comfortable with my rates and pleased with the decision to go straight to the RV. Tail wheel rates are probably higher but my wife and nephews will be learning to fly in my plane so the nose wheel made more sense. Besides, I like seeing where I am going

I keep myself on pretty tight reigns when it comes to exploring the higher performance aspects of this high powered sports plane.

mburch · #10 07-08-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by breister

If you simply want the cheapest way to build hours in an airplane that is similar to an RV, buy or rent an AA-1.

I used to own an AA1B, and I agree... actually Paul Dye had an AA1 as well, so I am in good company.

By the way, the guy who I sold mine to is looking to sell it (family size exceeds the available seating capacity) so if you're looking for a nice Grumman two-seater with an upgraded engine (O-290-D2) and a decent panel, let me know and I'll put you in touch.

mcb