gallois wrote:
In Europe some larger airfields have a stipulation that you must carry something like €5 million in liability insurance before you can land there. Does this not happen in the USA?
In the US this can be a factor at smaller, private airports, typically meaning a residential airpark. €5M would be far more than customary in the US, but as an example I once visited La Cholla Airpark in Tucson and had to affirm that I was insured for liability, dollar amount not specified. That’s my only experience but I believe it also occurs at some other similar airport communities. Larger airports are typically public and no prearrangements or notifications are necessary to land.
In the UK, the military bases have this. But most policies already cover it.
I think 5 million is the minimum most people do in Europe. I initially had that too but when i saw the difference to a 10 million insurance which was minimal, I immediately upgraded. That is about the max insurers will do reasonably here.
Hi all,
My long-term mission is
The airplane would :
The 172 is not powerful enough and the 182 too expensive.
I can think of the Archer II and Arrow. They share :
The extra cost of the RG is unpredictable I guess, but one should account for it.
The extra speed is nice but not required for us.
I think climb performance is important for IFR in France due to high MEAs.
Would you say it would have an impact on the dispatch rate ? I mean, the Arrow being (a tiny bit) more weather-proof than the Archer ?
Did I miss something ?
There are not that many options. One could be to look for a 172 with the 180hp engine (I think there are even some with 200hp around) and a variable speed prop. I used to fly one like that and they go pretty well (+/- 125kts) and have some extra oompf to climb out of short strips. Not sure how many there are, though.
Other than that, your mission profile pretty much describes a C182…..
Jujupilote wrote:
Hi all,My long-term mission is
Socata TB-20 (or TB-10)?
@Jujupilote, would a Grumman Tiger work? Seems to fit your requirements if its relatively low ceiling and high altitude performance is acceptable. You do not seem to need a high payload. Easy to maintain, enjoyable to fly relative to most comparable planes.
@jujupilote I’ve flown the Archer across the Rockies and a well rigged Archer is only around 5 to 10 knots slower than the Arrow. For the mission you describe it is more than sufficient. Alternatively @WF has a nice Turbo Dakota for sale.
I have flown Archer2 and Arrow180 (about 100h on each), between the two I would take Archer2 everytime while it’s slightly slower it was well maintained & equipped (EFIS, GTN, AP), in the other hand the Arrow180 did not have much pull or bang for bucks with it’s complexity but it was the “CPL champion” with the condition that goes with 
Archer2 is nice trade-off in Mr Piper range, 4pob for 300nm (or 2pob & 600nm), grass & tarmac and stable platform for FL80 flying in light IMC with adults sleeping like babies, I just asked the owner if he is selling it (but VAT now is applicable on G-regs)
Turbo-Arrow3/4 looked like a different league in performance & budget
Such a 172 would be like a unicorn
The grumman tiger is interesting. Great performance, visibility and easier access. Like a american Robin. But the limited airframe life and parts getting rare put me off.
I ask because Archer and Arrows asking prices are , very close.
Does an Archer climb reasonably at gross up to FL110 ?
Yes, I exclude the arrow 180.
