All, I'm new to ownership, and my dad is thinking about building his first kit plane. I'm just wondering an informal poll of what people are paying for insurance. Is it a percentage of the hull value that places like Avemco typically use to give you your annual premium?

We pay nearly 3.5% of the hull coverage for our annual for a Bearhawk, but I'm a low time tailwheel pilot and only have 300 total hours. As it's shared amongst a few of us the $5500 premium doesn't sting as bad as we all share it.

For those of you with a lot of experience under your belt does it get cheaper? My dad is considering building a Kitfox, but if the nose wheel saves him several thousand dollars every year then that might cause him to build a tricycle after all.

Are there any tailwheels out there that are so cheap and docile that one can build time in them and then drive down rates on their 180/185, carbon cub, etc. insurances?

Thanks and I'm sorry if this is a dumb question. I looked through the forum and didn't quite see any specific guidance on new owners (and new tailwheel pilots) on how to approach the subject of insurance.

I’m a ~3k hour commercial pilot with ~500 tailwheel. My E-AB 4-seat tailwheel plane is insured around 2.7% of the hull value. Just as a data point.

This has been my only airplane I’ve owned so far, so I can’t really speculate on your other questions. Sorry!

My C180 was 2.1% of my hull value. That was as a 400hr PPL, 300 TW hrs. Now as a 900hr PPL, my 206 is 2.6%, but I think a bunch of that increase is from the extra liability I have to carry as a 6 place aircraft. Sorry, I can't answer your other questions either.

climbingnerd wrote:For those of you with a lot of experience under your belt does it get cheaper? My dad is considering building a Kitfox, but if the nose wheel saves him several thousand dollars every year then that might cause him to build a tricycle after all.

Are there any tailwheels out there that are so cheap and docile that one can build time in them and then drive down rates on their 180/185, carbon cub, etc. insurances?

I fly a 185, have 1600 total, 400 tailwheel, 250 in type. It hasn’t gotten any cheaper at 400 vs 200 TW or 250 vs 20 in type, but that may reflect recent changes in the market. As for your dad, the nosewheel would save a few hundred a year over a KF for a time, but I’d be surprised if it were in the thousands, depending on his age, experience, etc.

There are certainly cheaper and easier taildraggers, but it’s a false economy to get a bunch of Citabria time for the purpose of lowering the premiums on a future, hypothetical Skywagon. It would probably take 500 hours to make a difference, and it still wouldn’t be much.

I'm on first year of my Scout, it is 1.6% with 600 TW, and i'm a professional pilot with all the ratings.

First year of my C180 (2017) was 2.7% with 5 hrs TW, 120 hrs TT.

Second year of C180 (2018) was 1.8%. By this time I had 100 in type.

I pay 2.0% of estimated hull value for my 180. My rate has fluctuated over the 10 years I've owned it, with the peak a few years ago at 2.7% and an average of 2.3%. I am not sure if the recent decrease in my rate is because of the broader market, because I moved to another state, or some other factor. So to answer one of your questions, I have not seen my rate go down significantly as my experience goes up.

I use Avemco, which admittedly is not the cheapest insurance out there. But I have been a customer for nearly 20 years, and the excellent service I received when my airplane was damaged in a windstorm ensured my loyalty.

My airplane is insured at a reasonable hull value. I have as much liability insurance as Avemco will sell me, which is $1M with $300K sublimits. I fly professionally, have 1000 hours in type, and have no incidents so I like to think I am a low-risk customer!

I don't think it gets cheaper, at least not significantly. Insurance has comprised 10-20% of my total annual airplane expense over the years, but I don't operate as frugally as some others who tie down outside, use MOGAS, do their own maintenance, etc. I agree that you should just get the airplane you want, instead of something lesser just to defray your insurance costs.

When shopping insurance I was told there is a decrease when you pass 100hrs in type. In the Luscombe that decrease was noteable. I haven’t passed 100hrs in the Bearhawk yet but with the measurable increase in rates this yet I doubt we’ll see much decrease when we renew.

FWIW: When I was shopping 180s the rates were right around 2% stated hull value. Currently we pay 3.5% stated hull on the BH.

I think measuring by percent of hull is a bit of a simplification since liability is one thing and hull is another. The liability cost is the same for each type (for the same liability coverage) regardless of hull value.

For my E-LSA RANS S-6ES (experimental LSA with tricycle gear), I'm paying 1.8% of the hull value for physical damage (flight and ground), and $253 for medical payments and liability (not linked to hull value - mostly impacted positively by 2 seats and negatively by "experimental LSA status). Adding both together, I'm at about 2.3% of hull value. That's starting with zero time in make and model, but with a Commercial-Instrument ticket and just shy of 2000 hrs total time - 2/3 of that in helicopters.

While I was still shopping for the airplane, I also got a quote on a taildragger S-6ES that was virtually identical to mine (including the hull value) other than where the 3rd wheel was located, and that it was EAB instead of E-LSA... That quote was about 15% higher than for the trike version – with 100% of the difference being in the "physical damage" premium (hull insurance). Liability and medical were identical for both planes.

3.3% on our 150hp Pacer on wheels, and that's with my partner who only has 100 TT

whee wrote:I think measuring by percent of hull is a bit of a simplification since liability is one thing and hull is another. The liability cost is the same for each type (for the same liability coverage) regardless of hull value.

Whee I agree with you. The numbers I quoted regarding my experience a few posts ago include three zip codes, two liability levels, and at least two (maybe three) hull valuations. But the rates I paid aren't closely correlated with the changes in coverage I made so there are some broader factors at play too.

Climbingnerd, I think the best way to your questions is to spend some time with a good broker. Then call Avemco since they are their own brokers, and then go from there.

I feel the OP’s confusion as insurance is almost like playing poker, where you can’t see the insurer’s hand. I highly recommend finding an agent who will discuss the variables with you. Before I purchased my current 182, I found a very helpful agent at Bill White Insurance agency who helped demystify a lot of the unknowns. I actually had my heart set on a Skywagon, although my priority is floats. At the time of our discussion I had about 1100 TT, 200 floats but only 37 TW. Bill White specializes in Skywagon insurance, but to get into their “Skywagon program,” the requirements are 250 TW & 50 in type. The agent actually made the effort to solicit quotes based on a hypothetical aircraft and only one insurer would even quote me in a Skywagon with 37 hrs TW. That discussion pretty much steered me to an old straight tail 182 on floats, which a mechanic friend steered me to at about the same time.

I have also been insured with Avemco for many years with various partnerships and, as others have noted, have found them to be easy to work with but not the cheapest. They were also very good at explaining their rates. For example, with a floatplane partnership, we knew that our rates would come down as the least experienced partner reached 25, 50, 100, 200, etc on floats. The percentage reductions I don’t recall, but I’m sure an Avemco agent could give your Dad quotes on the nosewheel vs tailwheel Kitfox. Just remember that Avemco will probably be expensive, so a discussion with a good, independent agent would also be beneficial.

Does it get cheaper with a lot of experience? I’d have to say yes based on my discussions comparing rates with friends, although about the only way to get large amounts of experience is to fly professionally.

Are there cheap and docile tailwheel aircraft that will help drive down insurance on a Skywagon? Again, I’d have to say yes (think back to Bill white’s Skywagon program requiring 250 TW & 50 in type), but I agree with StuBob that it is a false economy to get a bunch of Citabria time for a future, hypothetical Skywagon.

The insurance market is also changing rapidly. The first two years I paid 3.6% of hull, the third year I paid 4.8% and just recently I paid 5.3%. All of this is a reflection of the hardening insurance market. Also, I am Alaska based and insurance companies don’t like Alaska, don’t like floats and really don’t like floats in Alaska.

Good luck and I hope your Dad can get some good, quantitative information from an agent so that he can make an informed decision. Tons of variables factor into the insurance rates.

Ross

As you may have gathered by now, there are a lot of variables out there, and the answers are kind of all over the place.

I too recommend you contact a good brokerage, such as Falcon, for example, and ask them the questions, based on YOUR situation. Then call AVEMCO and ask the same questions of them.

DO NOT call two brokerages, such as White and Falcon.....they are brokers, who are going to shop the same underwriters. AVEMCO is an independent underwriter, so they don't shop the market, like the brokers will.

MTV

So it appears that the percentage of HV is always going to be slightly higher with an experimental, regardless of one's experience. I guess that makes a strong case for a partnership...or I should just fly more each year to drive down the hourly cost of insurance. Thanks for all these responses. It's very helpful. I wish there was a book/instruction manual for starting to own and fly tailwheels. A lot of this learning seems to simply come from osmosis and time.

climbingnerd wrote:So it appears that the percentage of HV is always going to be slightly higher with an experimental, regardless of one's experience. I guess that makes a strong case for a partnership...or I should just fly more each year to drive down the hourly cost of insurance. Thanks for all these responses. It's very helpful. I wish there was a book/instruction manual for starting to own and fly tailwheels. A lot of this learning seems to simply come from osmosis and time.

The percentage is higher because the liability is higher. That part won’t change based on hull value.

I’m helping my sister shop for a time builder. Her quote on a 172 gave me some serious pause. It was like $650/yr. Is it really worth a $3000 premium for a TW Experimental...to me nope.

FWIW I"m ATP CFI etc. w/ 7,000 hours, 1,000 TW, 1,400 float, 900 skis, work as a pilot, and got every discount avemco gives. I'm at $1,400 per year for 80,000 hull 100/500 pax/incident on my PA-12

I spoke with my Falcon agent today. My insurance is up for renewal November 3rd. I have had a really positive experience with Falcon and have used them since I bought the 180 in 2007. My policy allows for off airport operations and has no deductible. I used to get 1 million smooth insurance through Global Aerospace with a 130K hull value. The coverage ran around 2200/year. Last year I was denied because Global Aerospace didn't offer 1 million smooth policies. I went with a 1 mill/100K policy and saved some money - rate was 1649 for 150K hull. My agent told me today to expect an increase. I am going to try to find a 1 million smooth policy again. It was close to 4K through AIG last year when I checked but maybe Global Aerospace will offer the greater liability coverage again - my agent is checking. I have 2600 TT (1400 tailwheel/1000+ hours in the 180/No accidents or claims). The most concerning part of the conversation today was how insurers are denying some pilots over age 70 for certain aircraft. The cost of flying is only going in one direction - upwards.



Josh

Why not consider flying without hull insurance? I fly an older Citabria and do my share of off airport flying. Recently taught my son to fly in the same airplane (I'm a CFI), and admit I thought about it before sending him out solo at 22 hours. Now he's got hundreds of hours in it and never had an issue. Read Kathryn's Report on all the GA crashes and their causes, I don't want to be subsidizing bad pilots that load up with hull instead of common sense.

1M liability on our three airplanes, costs $400/yr. total.

Josh[/quote]

Karmutzen wrote:Why not consider flying without hull insurance?

Biggest reason I can think of is an engine out with no good place to put it down.

Eventually I will be denied insurance because of my age (62 now) and I suppose as long as I still feel on top of my game when that happens, I'll go without insurance. Alaska actually has a liability law that non-commercial operators can't be sued in an aircraft crash (although there is an egregious clause).

Biggest reason I can think of is an engine out with no good place to put it down.

Yep, I envy pilots in Kansas or Texas that actually have an option if the engine quits. I combed through stats, and the "Inflight Shutdown" rate for piston is .006 per 1000 hrs. So out of every thousand GA pilots that each fly 1000 hours in their lifetime, just six will ever have an IFSD (or engine failure for whatever reason). I'll take those odds, especially considering that those six include fuel starvation, poor maintenance, poor engine/fuel handling, or that Cirrus favourite of pulling the chute over a gauge malfunction.

Karmutzen wrote:

Biggest reason I can think of is an engine out with no good place to put it down.

Yep, I envy pilots in Kansas or Texas that actually have an option if the engine quits. I combed through stats, and the "Inflight Shutdown" rate for piston is .006 per 1000 hrs. So out of every thousand GA pilots that each fly 1000 hours in their lifetime, just six will ever have an IFSD (or engine failure for whatever reason). I'll take those odds.

Hull insurance has paid off for me. If I didn't have it I wouldn't be able to afford to fly anymore.