Jump to content
Isham

Experimental versus S-LSA Insurance Cost

Recommended Posts

I have considered going ELSA.  The one thing that has stopped me is insurance.  On the last renewal I was told that ELSA insurance would be significantly higher because Flight Design does not build ELSA airplanes.  The insurance agent used Van's RV-12 as a comparison.  The RV-12 ELSA is not higher than a factory RV-12 because they offer the ELSA. 

My question is:  What is your experience on insurance cost on ELSA verses SLSA?

Mine is $1,436.  My hull is covered for $40K.  I fly under sport pilot rules.  I am 70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My insurance did not change one cent when I made the change, and has remained stable in the last 3-4 years my airplane has been ELSA.  Your age will affect your rate far more than going ELSA.  I have a $70k hull value, and my premium this year was $1310, but I'm 54.  All that changes in going to ELSA is who can do the maintenance.  The airplane was still built in a factory under ASTM standards.  You can even make the case that maintenance is done better because the guy doing it will have his butt in the seat in many cases.

Also, any change in premium will be made up for easily by lowered maintenance cost.  I did my rubber change myself the first year I was ELSA, and in that first year I saved over $2500 in total maintenance costs over the year.  I have since removed/replaced my BRS to repack and replace the rocket, and done several other major tasks that I would have otherwise had to pay somebody for.  Going ELSA saves a LOT of money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using Aviation Insurance Resources (have for a long time for my Piper 180 and stayed with them when I switched to the CTSW).  I will contact Avinsure Agency Inc and get a quote.

Thank you for the info. 

Maybe others are in this same boat and can save with this discussion.

The other thing that may affect it is our airplane is in our corporation name, not an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of ownership, they will ask who the named pilots will be. That and your policy limits are what sets your rates, not who owns it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No past claims.  No pilot issues.  Only myself and a local instructor and we are both well qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago insurance for my 2007 CTSW was $1200 for $89K hull. Last year it went to $1700 and this year it's $2100.

My broker is Falcon Insurance. They said three things are affecting my rates:

1) Due to big losses the industry is hardening up. And there are fewer players.

2) Age. I will be 77 this month. The next big hurdle will be when I turn 80. Falcon said they wouldn't drop me but would simply price me out of the market. That is happening to some of my more "senior" neighbors in this airpark. Quotes of $6K for 75K hull have been talked about.

3) They do not like CTSW's. Apparently the CTSW has an accident rate four times that of a C-172. A lot of that is landing/takeoff accidents. Falcon said that for the same hull value my premium for a C-182 would be about half. They also said stay away from tail draggers and retractable. 

 

Several years ago I asked one agency (forget which) what would happen if I changed the CTSW to ELSA. They said they would not cover me. I then asked about an ELSA RV-12. They said "no problem". See the first post above. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sandpiper said:

…..

3) They do not like CTSW's. Apparently the CTSW has an accident rate four times that of a C-172. A lot of that is landing/takeoff accidents. Falcon said that for the same hull value my premium for a C-182 would be about half. They also said stay away from tail draggers and retractable. 

 

Is landing CT planes that much more difficult than other LSAs like RV 12 to warrant this claim ?  I would think this comparison to C172 would hold for all LSAs …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no question the CT is difficult on the ground, narrow gear, light wing loading, and tendency for the tail to stall in the flare, lots of bent gear. Flight Design has known this for a long time that's why they changed the aerodynamics in the F2. This is what motivated me to correct the flare issue with the vg's. It's a different plane, much more docile on landing. Unfortunately it's ancient history for Flight Design and there will never be an MRA to fix it it can only be done as ELSA. It's still a great plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how the landing/stall characteristics will change on my CTSW when I change to the e-Prop.  Taking 6-7lb off right at the very nose has to have some effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...