Another ownership question

[Wendy]

I've searched through the archives, and there is a lot of useful information
there concerning buying and affording an airplane. My question,
specifically, is this: If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a year?
(The purchase price is based on looking through aso.com at $50K asking
price- surely the asking price is not going to be the selling price?)

The answer my research in r.a.o seems to yield is "maybe", and anything less
than 150 hrs would be "no". I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
woman I don't mind tinkering around with things; an airplane would obviously
involve a lot of tinkering :)

TIA-

Wendy

[markjen]

There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr. But if you can
fly 100 hours or more, the costs are close enough that the overwhelming
benefits of ownership (predictability, scheduling, flexibility, pride, etc.)
make it a great way to go, provided you want and have the extra time to
spend managing the ownership aspects (maintenance, keeping it clean,
paperwork, etc.).

Below 100-hours, ownership really doesn't make economic sense so I advise
people flying the typical 50 or 75 hours per year to try and find a 2- or
3-way partnership.

- Mark

[Jim Weir]

Good lord, I hope Margy Natalie doesn't get ahold of this. "even though"?? I'm
not sure what being a woman has to do with liking to tinker. Some of them even
get tinker's licenses from Sammy Unkle.

Jim


"Wendy" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
->woman I don't mind tinkering around with things
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Wendy]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good lord, I hope Margy Natalie doesn't get ahold of this. "even
though"?? I'm
> not sure what being a woman has to do with liking to tinker. Some of them
even
> get tinker's licenses from Sammy Unkle.
>
> Jim
>
Good point :) I spent a few years in the Caribbean on boats- I didn't care
much for the tinkering initially but after a while it got kinda interesting.
Except for the toilets. That never got interesting.

Wendy

[ks_av8r]

Some very good comments so far.

A couple of other items for consideration. If your use requires overnight
or multiple days, by owning you won't have "minimums per day" costs. For me
that discouraged renting and paying for an aircraft while it sets.

Another one, is if after a year or so, if it isn't getting the flying time
for break even, you can always consider a co-ownership at that time and sell
1/2 of it. You would be in a good position, as you wouldn't have to rush
into it and could be selective on whom you sell to. Over the long term, a
well maintained used aircraft will usually appreciate. For example, in
1984, when I was considering starting a co-ownership, the local college was
selling their 1976 C172 for $10,000. It was nicely equipped, as they used
it for IFR/Commercial training, but was getting high time on the engine and
the interior was showing its wear. Today $40,000?

Good luck and enjoy.


"Wendy" > wrote in message
rvers.com...
> I've searched through the archives, and there is a lot of useful
information
> there concerning buying and affording an airplane. My question,
> specifically, is this: If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
> equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
> rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a year?
> (The purchase price is based on looking through aso.com at $50K asking
> price- surely the asking price is not going to be the selling price?)
>
> The answer my research in r.a.o seems to yield is "maybe", and anything
less
> than 150 hrs would be "no". I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
> woman I don't mind tinkering around with things; an airplane would
obviously
> involve a lot of tinkering :)
>
> TIA-
>
> Wendy
>
>

[blanche cohen]

Wendy--

there are two answers -- one very quantitative and based on rental vs
usage cost. Then there's the qualitative answer which will usually
take priority. Owning the aircraft means it's always available (unless
it's in the shop), you know exactly who's been flying it and how,
and it's always fun to watch the reaction on non-pilots faces (even
funnier on men!) when you admit to owning an airplane.

And you never have to worry about getting home from a trip because
the airplane is reserved by someone else.

[jim rosinski]

"markjen" > wrote:

> There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
> point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr.

For my 1972 Skyhawk, the break-even point has been around 90-100
hours/yr, counting the value of my own fairly unskilled labor as zero.
That's with a pretty cheap hangar ($135/mo), reliable plane
(unscheduled maintenance has usually been avionics), and cheap
insurance ($700/yr). It does include an engine reserve. Beat-up
172's are renting for around $85/hr wet where I live.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Montblack]

("Wendy" wrote)
> The answer my research in r.a.o seems to yield is "maybe", and anything
less
> than 150 hrs would be "no". I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
> woman I don't mind tinkering around with things; an airplane would
obviously
> involve a lot of tinkering :)


Someone else (or two) helping split the fixed costs might mean you wouldn't
have to fly 100 hrs to break even vs renting. I think I read 3 people on a
non-money pit 172 = (about) 75 hrs vs renting. That's only 6 hours per
month before you pass the break even point.

--
Montblack

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wendy wrote:
>
> If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
> equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
> rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a year?

If you ignore the potential income from the money you used to buy the plane,
yes, you can. I recommend this, since the "potential income" on my investments
ran about negative 60% over the last few years.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

[Duane MacInnis]

There is some working data on buying, groups, and renting on my website at
http://www.macinnisaviation.com/handy.htm

I have a spreadsheet that might be handy too, let me know if you want it.

Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.

Cheers

Duane
++++++++++++++
Duane MacInnis PE
Flight Instructor
Cell (604) 454-7415
www.macinnisaviation.com

Grumman Cheetah C-GVJF






"Wendy" > wrote in message
rvers.com...
> I've searched through the archives, and there is a lot of useful
information
> there concerning buying and affording an airplane. My question,
> specifically, is this: If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
> equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
> rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a year?
> (The purchase price is based on looking through aso.com at $50K asking
> price- surely the asking price is not going to be the selling price?)
>
> The answer my research in r.a.o seems to yield is "maybe", and anything
less
> than 150 hrs would be "no". I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
> woman I don't mind tinkering around with things; an airplane would
obviously
> involve a lot of tinkering :)
>
> TIA-
>
> Wendy
>
>

[Ross Oliver]

Duane MacInnis > wrote:
>Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
>actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.

[Dave Stadt]

"Ross Oliver" > wrote in message
...
> Duane MacInnis > wrote:
> >Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
> >actually *appreciate* in value.
>
>
> I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
> was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
> Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
> in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.


I don't think anything Cessna, Cirrus or any of the others are doing is
affecting the value of my 56 year old airplane. I suspect that holds true
for 99.5 percent of the fleet.

[Jim & Tammy]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wendy wrote:
> >
> > If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
> > equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
> > rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a
year?
>
> If you ignore the potential income from the money you used to buy the
plane,
> yes, you can. I recommend this, since the "potential income" on my
investments
> ran about negative 60% over the last few years.

Yeah those Xians are a moral bunch alright. Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swargard,
Jim & Tammy Baker, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Hitler! <VBG>

JT


> George Patterson
> The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a
gay
> bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful
that
> the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon,
and his
> wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
Cleves,
> and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no
longer
> here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian
marriages.

[jim rosinski]

(Ross Oliver) wrote:

> Duane MacInnis > wrote:
> >Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
> >actually *appreciate* in value.
>
> I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
> was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
> Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
> in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.

I paid $32.5K for my 1972 Skyhawk in 1992. Book value is now around
$40K, including the additional hours put on the plane in the last 11
years. Not lots of appreciation in value but clearly greater than
zero.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

[Ross Richardson]

I fly about 75 - 100 hours a year. I own a '65 Skyhawk/IFR/180HP. I
agree, the hours do not meet the financial requirements on owning, but
there is something to be said that MY plane is in the hangar with I want
to fly, and I do not have to try and schedule a plane after a week of
bad weather, only to have everybody else trying the same thing.

Partnership would be an alternative, maybe.

markjen wrote:
>
> There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
> point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr. But if you can
> fly 100 hours or more, the costs are close enough that the overwhelming
> benefits of ownership (predictability, scheduling, flexibility, pride, etc.)
> make it a great way to go, provided you want and have the extra time to
> spend managing the ownership aspects (maintenance, keeping it clean,
> paperwork, etc.).
>
> Below 100-hours, ownership really doesn't make economic sense so I advise
> people flying the typical 50 or 75 hours per year to try and find a 2- or
> 3-way partnership.
>
> - Mark

[[email protected]]

On 17-Nov-2003, (Ross Oliver) wrote:

> >Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
> >actually *appreciate* in value.
>
>
> I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
> was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
> Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
> in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.


The '79 Arrow IV we bought in 1996 for $48K is worth at LEAST $80K today,
assuming similar engine SMOH. That corresponds to an average aggregate
annual value increase of more than 7.5%. Not a bad investment at all!

Due to the Bush-whacked economy over the past 2 years (and NOT because of
production of new models) used airplane prices have been very soft, but then
so have values of other types of investments.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[markjen]

Long-term (over the past 50 years or so), airplanes have generally
appreciated at the overall inflation rate. So they aren't great investments
per se, but they don't dramatically lose value like cars, motorcycles,
boats, etc. like most depreciating assets. This assumes you put some money
back into the airplane for capital improvements (paint, avionics,
upholstery, etc.). Include this and it doesn't look so good. They're about
halfway between a car and a house.

As with all things, you have to ride out the downs to get to the ups. My
aircraft increased in value about 65% between purchase in 1991 and 2001
(about a 5% annual appreciation rate), but has lost $20K in the last two
years. So overall, it has averaged 3%/year. I consider this a little high
since the runup in the late-90's was unprecedented. So 2-2.5% is probably a
good long-term average to expect. And that's about the inflation rate over
the period.

- Mark

[Andrew Gideon]

ks_av8r wrote:


> Another one, is if after a year or so, if it isn't getting the flying time
> for break even, you can always consider a co-ownership at that time and
> sell
> 1/2 of it.

Another factor to consider, beyond hours flying, is the hours spent with the
aircraft sitting away from home. Renting, this costs. Owning, it's free.

That's a "column" that pushed me heavily towards club membership (something
like ownership with training wheels {8^).

- Andrew

[Wendy]

You've all given me some good informationa and confirmed what I already
suspected; thanks loads! I bought Iowa University Press' "Buying And Owning
Your Own Airplane" today; I'll get back to you on any questions that
publication may raise. I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I want?"
stage, with the C-172 being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being
the most interesting (and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast
majority of my flying will be by myself, so the power limitations of these
two airplanes aren't really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for
weekend jaunts as well as XC flying. The Citabria will require a hangar,
and that may be an issue as they are not the easiest things to find here (I
want to base the plane at KCXO). Then there's tailwheel insurance... Ok, I
am getting an idea of what this involves, and I realize I am just dealing
with the tip of the iceberg!

Wendy

[[email protected]]

On 18-Nov-2003, "Wendy" > wrote:

> I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I want?" stage, with the C-172
> being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being the most interesting
> (and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast majority of my flying
> will be by myself, so the power limitations of these two airplanes aren't
> really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for weekend jaunts as well
> as XC flying.



As a compromise between these two you might consider a Grumman Cheetah. Or,
since you will be alone most of the time, a Cherokee 140 will provide
similar performance to a C-172 at a significantly lower purchase price.
Another advantage of the Cherokee is its much larger fuel tanks, which give
it very good range when the cabin load is light.

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

Get the Citabria. More utility. You can turn it upside down :-0. Tailwheel
insurance is not a big deal if you find the right company. AUA is good.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

"Wendy" > wrote in message
...
>
> You've all given me some good informationa and confirmed what I already
> suspected; thanks loads! I bought Iowa University Press' "Buying And
Owning
> Your Own Airplane" today; I'll get back to you on any questions that
> publication may raise. I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I
want?"
> stage, with the C-172 being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being
> the most interesting (and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast
> majority of my flying will be by myself, so the power limitations of these
> two airplanes aren't really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for
> weekend jaunts as well as XC flying. The Citabria will require a hangar,
> and that may be an issue as they are not the easiest things to find here
(I
> want to base the plane at KCXO). Then there's tailwheel insurance... Ok,
I
> am getting an idea of what this involves, and I realize I am just dealing
> with the tip of the iceberg!
>
> Wendy
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Wendy" > wrote in message
...
>
> You've all given me some good informationa and confirmed what I already
> suspected; thanks loads! I bought Iowa University Press' "Buying And
Owning
> Your Own Airplane" today; I'll get back to you on any questions that
> publication may raise. I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I
want?"
> stage, with the C-172 being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being
> the most interesting (and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast
> majority of my flying will be by myself, so the power limitations of these
> two airplanes aren't really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for
> weekend jaunts as well as XC flying. The Citabria will require a hangar,
> and that may be an issue as they are not the easiest things to find here
(I
> want to base the plane at KCXO). Then there's tailwheel insurance... Ok,
I
> am getting an idea of what this involves, and I realize I am just dealing
> with the tip of the iceberg!
>
> Wendy


Absolutely no doubt go with the Citabria. Insurance will not be a problem.
Make sure the wing spar AD is complied with if it has a wood spar.

[Wendy]

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Get the Citabria. More utility. You can turn it upside down :-0. Tailwheel
> insurance is not a big deal if you find the right company. AUA is good.
>
> Deb
>
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
> Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

I'm leaning towards the Citabria. I learned to fly one at Harvey & Rihn
Aviation, and picked up a few hours in their Super Decathlon along the way;
I love spins and rolls! Cub Crafters has a nice one for sale, although it
is the 115hp ECA (which is what my tailwheel training was done in):
http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/airplanedetails.asp?Action=ShowPictures&PartID=9988
It's had the metal spar AD completed, and it looks pretty good. I've not
done enough research to know if the price is too high or not.

Wendy

[dave]

Wendy,
I bought a 1968 ECA about two months ago. The insurance is about $1000/year
with AIG. I previously had about twenty hours in tail draggers and an
instrument rating. I don't know about the price on the plane you mentioned
but it does seem high. Then again, it looks like new.
Check out yahoo groups for citabriapilots. They really helped me when I
bought mine.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CitabriaPilots/

Dave


"Wendy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Get the Citabria. More utility. You can turn it upside down :-0.
Tailwheel
> > insurance is not a big deal if you find the right company. AUA is good.
> >
> > Deb
> >
> > --
> > 1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
> > 1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
> > 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
> > Jasper, Ga. (JZP)
>
> I'm leaning towards the Citabria. I learned to fly one at Harvey & Rihn
> Aviation, and picked up a few hours in their Super Decathlon along the
way;
> I love spins and rolls! Cub Crafters has a nice one for sale, although it
> is the 115hp ECA (which is what my tailwheel training was done in):
>
http://www.cubcrafters.com/cc/airplanedetails.asp?Action=ShowPictures&PartID=9988
> It's had the metal spar AD completed, and it looks pretty good. I've not
> done enough research to know if the price is too high or not.
>
> Wendy
>
>

[Wendy]

"dave" <davesjunkmail@comcast> wrote in message
...
> Wendy,
> I bought a 1968 ECA about two months ago. The insurance is about
$1000/year
> with AIG. I previously had about twenty hours in tail draggers and an
> instrument rating. I don't know about the price on the plane you
mentioned
> but it does seem high. Then again, it looks like new.
> Check out yahoo groups for citabriapilots. They really helped me when I
> bought mine.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CitabriaPilots/
>
> Dave

I can live with $1000/yr, but if it is outrageously high I'd forgo hull
insurance until I had more time in the plane (anything I buy will be a cash
deal involving no financing, but I know I'd be insane to not carry
liability). I am not instrument rated, although I am slowly working on it
in a 172. I'll have maybe 20 hrs TW when I buy, and somewhere in the
neighborhood of 150 hrs total. Insurance peoples might gag at that :) The
airplanes are just loads of fun to fly (as you know!); the feeling of flight
is very immediate in a Citabria and I find that quite attractive. Not to
mention they make you pay attention on the ground... I really don't know
when I'll buy- maybe in the fall of next year, which gives me a lot of time
to research the aircraft, the process, and my own myriad compulsions :)
Thanks for the link to the group- I'll jump in there straightaway.

Wendy

[Duane MacInnis]

After renting, flying, etc in Cherokees and Cessnas, I bought a Grumman
Cheetah.

Well, the RV people http://www.vansaircraft.com/ talk about the "RV grin".

The Grumman is no RV (close in some respects), but there is such a thing as
the "Grumman grin" http://www.aya.org/

Have fun!
++++++++++++++
Duane MacInnis PE
Flight Instructor
Cell (604) 454-7415
www.macinnisaviation.com

Grumman Cheetah C-GVJF


"Wendy" > wrote in message
...
>
> You've all given me some good informationa and confirmed what I already
> suspected; thanks loads! I bought Iowa University Press' "Buying And
Owning
> Your Own Airplane" today; I'll get back to you on any questions that
> publication may raise. I'm still at the "what kind of airplane do I
want?"
> stage, with the C-172 being the most practical and a 150hp Citabria being
> the most interesting (and fun) airplanes in my price and range. The vast
> majority of my flying will be by myself, so the power limitations of these
> two airplanes aren't really a factor, and they'll both suit me well for
> weekend jaunts as well as XC flying. The Citabria will require a hangar,
> and that may be an issue as they are not the easiest things to find here
(I
> want to base the plane at KCXO). Then there's tailwheel insurance... Ok,
I
> am getting an idea of what this involves, and I realize I am just dealing
> with the tip of the iceberg!
>
> Wendy
>
>

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

>
> Another factor to consider, beyond hours flying, is the hours spent with the
> aircraft sitting away from home. Renting, this costs. Owning, it's free.
>
> That's a "column" that pushed me heavily towards club membership (something
> like ownership with training wheels {8^).

Yup, I went with club membership. It has almost all the advantages of
owning but few of the drawbacks. At least in my club the fleet is big
enough that scheduling is seldom a problem, except on the exceptionally
nice weekends when you wait until Thursday to schedule ;). I pay
monthly dues that include insurance as a named insured, and cost less
than buying insurance on the open market. The wet rate for a 20 year
old Warrior II is about the same as the wet rate for a 30 year old 172
at an FBO but the Warriors are better equipped (gps, autopilot). There
is a pool of instructors associated with the club that use a common
syllabus and meet club requirements, and regular ground schools are
held. Maintanence is handled by the club, with help from members
volunteering their time under A&P supervision. Also the cameradarie is
a big benefit.

Persoally, I can't see ever owning while the club is available to me.
Heck, I've figured that if you GAVE me an airplane it still would cost
me more (insurance, taxes, tie down, annuals, etc) than I pay to fly in
the club. Btw I fly about 50-75 hours a year.

Mike
--
PP-ASEL
PA28-161
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
Note: email invalid. Respond on newsgroup

[[email protected]]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
: Yup, I went with club membership. It has almost all the advantages of
: owning but few of the drawbacks.

Biggest problem I had with flight club was no percieved cost
benefit to just renting from an FBO. A flight club cannot afford to run a
shoestring budget, and must bill real (expected) costs per hour. The fact
is that airplanes run best and are the cheapest when they're flown a lot.
If you fly 75 hours a year, buying your own (or better yet partnership)
might be a break-even point to renting. Difference is if you own it, you
only immediately see the direct operating costs (fuel/oil). For me it's
easier to justify a nice 2-hour afternoon flight after work if I can stop
by the gas station on the way to the airport and refill my Cherokee for
$20. If I had to pay $144 for 2 hours of club rental, I wouldn't do it.

: Persoally, I can't see ever owning while the club is available to me.
: Heck, I've figured that if you GAVE me an airplane it still would cost
: me more (insurance, taxes, tie down, annuals, etc) than I pay to fly in
: the club. Btw I fly about 50-75 hours a year.

Again, for that useage, it's probably a break-even point for solo
ownership. For me it's the direct perceived cost of taking a flight that
will encourage/discourage it. Flying a 1100nm round-trip to see my folks
a month ago directly cost me $150 in fuel. For $750 club PA-28 rental,
there's no way in hell I would have gone.

YMMV
-Cory



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

wrote:

> TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
> : Yup, I went with club membership. It has almost all the advantages of
> : owning but few of the drawbacks.
>
> Biggest problem I had with flight club was no percieved cost
> benefit to just renting from an FBO.

You are right. I pay about the same per hour to fly in the club as I
would with the FBO. The benefits I see of club membership over
similar-cost FBO renting are:

1. The club has a fleet of 9 airplanes of three types with good
availability but the FBO only has one 172 (well did until it was wrecked
recently but they are replacing it) and one 182 with very tight
availability -- if you aren't a primary student at the FBO, forget about
it on the weekends.

2. The club's planes are better equipped (autopilot, gps)

3. If I fly with the FBO I would have to buy renter's insurance that
costs more than the club's dues, and those dues include insurance that
is better than what I could buy on my own, and also include the club's
facilities including a club hangar (that I have access to 24/7 so if I
want to fly on the spur of the moment I can even when the facility is
closed and locked up for the day) and a very nice weather downlink
briefing setup. Plus I like the cameraderie.

4. The club has 6 instructors to choose from while the FBO only has one,
see point #1 about availability :)

(remember the above is comparing the club to FBO renting, not comparing
it to owning :)

> Difference is if you own it, you
> only immediately see the direct operating costs (fuel/oil). For me it's
> easier to justify a nice 2-hour afternoon flight after work if I can stop
> by the gas station on the way to the airport and refill my Cherokee for
> $20. If I had to pay $144 for 2 hours of club rental, I wouldn't do it.

This is a very good point, though it's more emotional than practical. I
do sometimes cringe when writing those large checks for long flights.
However on the flip side if I owned I think I would cringe in the months
when I would have to write large checks for all the fixed costs but I
didn't fly the airplane very much if at all. And given my flying habits
that second cringe would amount to far more money over time.

> : Persoally, I can't see ever owning while the club is available to me.
> : Heck, I've figured that if you GAVE me an airplane it still would cost
> : me more (insurance, taxes, tie down, annuals, etc) than I pay to fly in
> : the club. Btw I fly about 50-75 hours a year.
>
> Again, for that useage, it's probably a break-even point for solo
> ownership. For me it's the direct perceived cost of taking a flight that
> will encourage/discourage it. Flying a 1100nm round-trip to see my folks
> a month ago directly cost me $150 in fuel. For $750 club PA-28 rental,
> there's no way in hell I would have gone.

I can see that view, however I would come out ahead that way because I
did not pay several hundred dollars in fixed costs for the previous
months when I only flew a few hours due to travel, weather, etc.

In fact my brother-in-law owns an Archer which he's had for a long time
and has long since paid off. I was envious, until I learned he hasn't
flown since January and the plane is just sitting there rotting because
he can't justify keeping up with the fixed costs for the flying he's
doing (it doesn't help he's been laid off and is in a tight spot).

Which brings up the other advantage of the club over ownership: it's a
lot easier to walk away if something happens medically or financially to
make flying impractical.

Of course all this doesn't mean I don't fantasize about owning an
airplane, but for me that fantasy also includes getting a windfall of at
least $100,000 first :)

> YMMV

We agree on this, it is a wise statement indeed :)

Mike
--
PP-ASEL
PA28-161
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
Note: email invalid. Respond on newsgroup

[[email protected]]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
: This is a very good point, though it's more emotional than practical. I
: do sometimes cringe when writing those large checks for long flights.
: However on the flip side if I owned I think I would cringe in the months
: when I would have to write large checks for all the fixed costs but I
: didn't fly the airplane very much if at all. And given my flying habits
: that second cringe would amount to far more money over time.

Maintenance doesn't have to be a bank-killer. There are more
cost-effective ways (read: owner-assisted annuals and preventative
maintenance) to keep a bird airworthy. The biggest potential cost savings
is to get a partner, or maybe two.

: I can see that view, however I would come out ahead that way because I
: did not pay several hundred dollars in fixed costs for the previous
: months when I only flew a few hours due to travel, weather, etc.

True... although I've got a somewhat skewed view since I've got a
unique agreement with my partners. They buy the parts, I put them on, the
mechanic inspects and signs it off.

: Which brings up the other advantage of the club over ownership: it's a
: lot easier to walk away if something happens medically or financially to
: make flying impractical.

Very true. It became obvious to me that if I wanted to fly more
than an hour a month, I'd have to own. For me, getting the partners was
enough to share the financial responsibility.

: Of course all this doesn't mean I don't fantasize about owning an
: airplane, but for me that fantasy also includes getting a windfall of at
: least $100,000 first :)

Aw... a descent-shape PA-28-140 can be had for $25-30k. I guess
my problem with flight clubs is that they cannot be run "cheaply."
Everything costs more when it's a club... insurance goes up (a lot!),
engine overhaul must be paid for in advance and done by the book (pay a
mechanic to take it off, send to to have overhauled, etc), etc, etc.

:> YMMV

: We agree on this, it is a wise statement indeed :)

I'll stand by it and reiterate... :)

BTW, talk to me again in 6 months when I cussing working on the friggin'
thing again at annual time! :)

-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

wrote:

> Maintenance doesn't have to be a bank-killer. There are more
> cost-effective ways (read: owner-assisted annuals and preventative
> maintenance) to keep a bird airworthy.
[snip]
> True... although I've got a somewhat skewed view since I've got a
> unique agreement with my partners. They buy the parts, I put them on, the
> mechanic inspects and signs it off.

Oh, did I remember to mention that I'm all thumbs with a wrench? :) To
paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would not fly in an airplane that I maintained.

> : Of course all this doesn't mean I don't fantasize about owning an
> : airplane, but for me that fantasy also includes getting a windfall of at
> : least $100,000 first :)
>
> Aw... a descent-shape PA-28-140 can be had for $25-30k.

I have expensive aircraft fantasies :) plus that one would include
having money left over to defray a lot of the fixed costs.

> I guess
> my problem with flight clubs is that they cannot be run "cheaply."
> Everything costs more when it's a club... insurance goes up (a lot!),
> engine overhaul must be paid for in advance and done by the book (pay a
> mechanic to take it off, send to to have overhauled, etc), etc, etc.

I see that as a good thing.

> BTW, talk to me again in 6 months when I cussing working on the friggin'
> thing again at annual time! :)

I hear ya. :) I have a boat that I hate taking care of, so I figure
given that experience I better not take on an airplane unless I am
willing to write a lot of checks. What kind of airplane do you and
your partners own?

Mike
--
PP-ASEL
PA28-161
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
Note: email invalid. Respond on newsgroup

[[email protected]]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
:> Aw... a descent-shape PA-28-140 can be had for $25-30k.

: I have expensive aircraft fantasies :) plus that one would include
: having money left over to defray a lot of the fixed costs.

Better rent then... :)


:> I guess
:> my problem with flight clubs is that they cannot be run "cheaply."
:> Everything costs more when it's a club... insurance goes up (a lot!),
:> engine overhaul must be paid for in advance and done by the book (pay a
:> mechanic to take it off, send to to have overhauled, etc), etc, etc.

: I see that as a good thing.

I'm trying to be the cheap ******* aircraft owner/operator. I'd
prefer not to pay for incorporation fees, club-rate insurance, and
inflated engine overhaul funds. Just pay for the real expenses, and don't
spend more than you have to.

:> BTW, talk to me again in 6 months when I cussing working on the friggin'
:> thing again at annual time! :)

: I hear ya. :) I have a boat that I hate taking care of, so I figure
: given that experience I better not take on an airplane unless I am
: willing to write a lot of checks. What kind of airplane do you and
: your partners own?

Boats are holes in the water you put money into. Never thought it
could be topped until I got involved with aviation. Our plane is a '69
Cherokee 180 that we've finally gotten up to snuff. Mechanically pretty
sound (after a quick $1500 top job), and fresh used digital old-school
King IFR stack.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Montblack]

("TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote)
> In fact my brother-in-law owns an Archer which he's had for a long time
> and has long since paid off. I was envious, until I learned he hasn't
> flown since January and the plane is just sitting there rotting because
> he can't justify keeping up with the fixed costs for the flying he's
> doing (it doesn't help he's been laid off and is in a tight spot).


Grab 3 other people and buy the plane from your sister's hubby. You'd be
helping out a family member in need. <g>

BTW - did anyone else think it ironic (in the KX-155 LEDs thread) that one
fix for cleaning connections (gold? silver?) was to polish them with a
dollar bill?

Let us know how things go with your new Archer partnership. You 4 going to
hangar that rascal, or just tie it down the first year?

--
Montblack

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Montblack wrote:

> ("TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote)
>
>>In fact my brother-in-law owns an Archer which he's had for a long time
>>and has long since paid off. I was envious, until I learned he hasn't
>>flown since January and the plane is just sitting there rotting because
>>he can't justify keeping up with the fixed costs for the flying he's
>>doing (it doesn't help he's been laid off and is in a tight spot).
>
>
>
> Grab 3 other people and buy the plane from your sister's hubby. You'd be
> helping out a family member in need. <g>

He's got too much pride to sell that plane, and even if he did I have a
rule about not buying cars, planes or boats from relatives, or selling
such to them -- it's much better for family harmony that way, as I've
learned through experience (wanna buy a boat that has only had one other
owner, my father :).

> Let us know how things go with your new Archer partnership. You 4 going to
> hangar that rascal, or just tie it down the first year?

:) you're good, you should go into sales

Mike
--
PP-ASEL
PA28-161
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
Note: email invalid. Respond on newsgroup

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Montblack" > writes:

> ("TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote)
> > In fact my brother-in-law owns an Archer which he's had for a long time
> > and has long since paid off. I was envious, until I learned he hasn't
> > flown since January and the plane is just sitting there rotting because
> > he can't justify keeping up with the fixed costs for the flying he's
> > doing (it doesn't help he's been laid off and is in a tight spot).
>
>
> Grab 3 other people and buy the plane from your sister's hubby. You'd be
> helping out a family member in need. <g>
>
> BTW - did anyone else think it ironic (in the KX-155 LEDs thread) that one
> fix for cleaning connections (gold? silver?) was to polish them with a
> dollar bill?

Yes, this seemed all wrong for aviation -- shouldn't it have been at
least a $50?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Montblack]

E-mail me off group about your boat. Thanks.

I'm the current owner of *my* dad's boat - 16 ft money sucking machine with
a propeller <g>.

My sister might be getting the "family" boat (free) for Christmas <evil
grin>.

Redecking project is almost complete - marine plywood cut/spar
varnished/glue/marine carpet/stainless hardware/etc. Completion (a.k.a. -
reinstall pieces into das boat) can wait 'till April. Boat's in its own
little winter cocoon now.

Family calls my season-end "keep snow and rain out of the boat" effort The
Aircraft Carrier. I built an 8 ft high wall x about 12 ft long (with 16"
stud centers) then set it down, across the boat. I attached 7 short legs,
which raise the starboard side up - for water runoff. The legs also lift the
(framed only) wall over the steering console (no windshield on this fishing
boat). Bought a 15'x25' brown/green tarp at Menard's to cover the whole
thing. Whole setup (lumber/screws/tarp/bungees) cost $40 max. When
disassembled, the lumber fits between 2 stud sections in the garage - for
summer storage. Cheapest part of ownership has been putting the boat away on
the slab for the season. <g>

12" of snow forecast for the Twin Cities this weekend.

Mont with black then at
then the "wave" plus the "front"
and a dot then the com

--
Montblack

("TTA Cherokee Driver" wrote)
> He's got too much pride to sell that plane, and even if he did I have a
> rule about not buying cars, planes or boats from relatives, or selling
> such to them -- it's much better for family harmony that way, as I've
> learned through experience (wanna buy a boat that has only had one other
> owner, my father :)