260se as primary trainer?

[tomherbst]

Would the 260se be a reasonable plane in which to finish my primary training? I was an active student a year ago, solo'ed at the end of july '01, took a few more lessons in august then was almost nothing after 9/11. My instructor had enough of the club in the post 9/11 environment and is now flying commercially. It would seem some instuctors would want encourage a plane with worse habits to teach recovery techniques, landing at higher speeds, etc.

Do insurance companies tend to price it the same as 182's of similar hull values?

Considering buying a plane more interesting than the beat to death club 172's to finish training, I've looked at Husky's, 180's, etc and the insurance companies really want me in a 182. Every taildragger I've quoted was $8k (~$100k hull). Cirrus sr20 was $8k (~$200k hull). Not even considering not wanting to pay that much for insurance, prices like that would seem to indicate they consider the coverage to be "high risk" and that doesn't seem like a good idea.

thanks -

tom

[kwmoore]

Tom: here is an editted version of my response to a similar post on the earlier yahoo groups 260se forum.

I can comment on much of this, excepting the insurance issue. You'll just have to ask your broker about it. If you do not already have a broker, I have had a good experience with Hardy Aviation in WichitaKS. They also insure Todd's planes and a number of other 260se's. In the current climate it may indeed be difficult and/or VERY expensive for a student or newly rated pilot to insure any high performance airplane. However a 182 or 260se should be considerably less expensive to insure than a Cirrus or Lancair.

It's certainly a good idea to train in the plane you'll be flying, provided it's not ultra complex. Bad idea to do your PPL in a King Air, for example. ;) The 172 is a good choice as a training airplane, and it may be wise just to complete your training in this plane. I know that West Valley Flying Club at PAO/SQL has several 1999/2000 172SPs on the line that are not "beat-to-death."

On the other hand the 260se could work for this, and you can get the high performance sign-off during your training. N21396's owner Dean transitioned to the 260se very early on and it worked well for him. Expect it to add a minimum of 10-15 hr to your training to get comfortable with the extra workload and extra performance/speed. I certainly would not go to any higher performance or more complex plane than the 182/260se at this early stage though. It's better to accumulate time and experience.

The yahoo groups forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/petersonsamazing260sestol)
had several discussions about safety in the 260se. See the yahoo groups thread: "Has the 260se's enhanced safety changed your flying decisions?" The 260se does not take a back seat to any of the current GA offerings on the issue of safety. You don't have to regularly use the 260se's slow flight/stol capabilities to benefit from its enhanced safety, but I think you'll find it's really fun to practice!

On the other hand it may be indeed too benign for primary training in the opinions of some CFIs. If you let yourself get slack and develop really bad habits that the 260se forgives, you may indeed get yourself in for a nasty surprise or two if you then fly a standard Cessna. It all depends on developing and maintaining your own rigorous standards for your piloting skill.

[tomherbst]

Originally posted by kwmoore
It's certainly a good idea to train in the plane you'll be flying, provided it's not ultra complex. Bad idea to do your PPL in a King Air, for example. ;) The 172 is a good choice as a training airplane, and it may be wise just to complete your training in this plane. I know that West Valley Flying Club at PAO/SQL has several 1999/2000 172SPs on the line that are not "beat-to-death."


I'll wait on the King Air. During the boom years I seriously considered buying a position for the Eclipse twin jet. I've come back to earth with the stock market.

I have actually trained at WVFC in their 172's. The 1999 2383Q was the only newer one last year and I flew it as often as possible. Solo'ed in the venerable 1979 4849D, however.

Beyond wanting to get to know one plane very well and having a high level of confidence in it and my knowledge of flying it, I'd like to find a plane that fits me better. I am a large person in almost every dimension. It was surprising to learn that while the need to lose a few pounds is important for flying for a variety of reasons, my width and wingspan have been the dimensions most difficult so far. My broad shoulders and long arms make avoiding window hardware on the left and the instructor on the right a challenge in the flare with a 172. Just flying around I tend to sweat on the person in the right seat. Not pretty. My last instructor was Dave Fry who is about 6'1" and 150 pounds. I have yet to find any with a similarly modest diameter and center-of-gravity friendly weight , much less one with these features that I also trust and can communicate with.

thanks -

tom