 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dlm34077(at)q.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: N968TP |
 |
|
One thing about the fuel lines; when using 5052 a builder can segment the
lines and connect with unions; then the numerous bends are not required.
When required one can use flex lines (Teflon lines with braided Stainless
sheath. Also use the approved flaring tool for aircraft fittings. The flare
angle may be different.
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bob Turner
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 885
Location: Castro Valley, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: N968TP |
|
|
I'm not Tim, but the answer is obvious: insurance writers base their premiums on the perceived risk, and claim history. For a while the high-end Lancairs were almost un-insurable.
As to how we compare to other aircraft: we're hurt by the very small number of insurance companies willing to cover homebuilts. Lack of competition, plus the small numbers don't make for good statistics, so they don't really have a feel for the risk.
During my build I paid more for builder's insurance than I had previously paid for hull on a flying 182, even adjusted for the difference in value!
I do know that when I asked about what I consider reasonable liability limits (at least $1M per passenger) I was told that it just wasn't available.
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dlm34077(at)q.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: N968TP |
|
|
I am not certain that these total crashes will adversely affect our rates.
Assuming that there are 300 flying with 1000 more under construction the
loss rate of flying aircraft is 2% of flying aircraft spread over about five
years. Most of the premiums for insurance for well qualified pilots (>1000
hours,> 100 hours in type are about 2% of hull. Assuming that the average
RV10 is insured for 150K and 300 pilots have paid the premium for 5 years
the amount comes to about $4.5M plus investment income. The payout on those
airframes is probably about $250K including liability for the non crew $100K
seat or about $1.5M for the six major crashes. I don't know the numbers on
the SR20-SR22 group but that group has a lot of fatal accidents and those
aircraft are $500K aircraft with several seats filled; I would be more
concerned about the Cirrus premiums than the RV10 fleet. Of course I am
paying 50% more now than when I had my 1976 TC177RG. It had a hull value of
$90K but I also had 2000+ in that aircraft. Ratings and time make a
difference.
RV10 N46007
Com CFII A&P
4000+
400+ in type
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
