Need advice about leaseback

[Rich]

Greetings fellow pilots. I have a situaton at hand and am weighing some
options and thought that I have received good advice here before so I
figured I would try again. Here is my dilema..I am currently enrolled in
school to receive my commercial and CFI (as well as multi and CFII) I
have a great opportunity to purchase an airplane. I have talked to the
school about getting involved in the leaseback program. They are
encouraging that, however the plane I am looking at is a 1980 Piper
Dakota 236B. This plane has 235 horsepower. What I am wondering is if
the plane would fly enough to offset some of the cost of purchasing it.
I understand that it cannot be used for GA training. but I was wondering
if there was a big enough market out there on a rental basis that the
plane would fly enough to recoupe some financial outlay.
I am interested in what ya'all might think. Thanks for your help and as
always.....Happy Flying



*** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[BTIZ]

I am curious why it cannot be used for GA training...

High Performance training and endorsements would be required to fly it. Why
not get the training in it. Is the school telling you it cannot be used for
training to force the "students" to use his aircraft and not yours?

If that is the case.. I'd research another school or FBO.

Is this a noted "School", part 141?? or just an FBO with a flight school.
Has something been done to the aircraft that it is now "Experimental"..

BTW.. I know a Piper 235B (and other letter variants) also known as
Pathfinder", but I've not heard of a Piper 236 (not to say there is not
one).

BT

"Rich" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings fellow pilots. I have a situaton at hand and am weighing some
> options and thought that I have received good advice here before so I
> figured I would try again. Here is my dilema..I am currently enrolled in
> school to receive my commercial and CFI (as well as multi and CFII) I
> have a great opportunity to purchase an airplane. I have talked to the
> school about getting involved in the leaseback program. They are
> encouraging that, however the plane I am looking at is a 1980 Piper
> Dakota 236B. This plane has 235 horsepower. What I am wondering is if
> the plane would fly enough to offset some of the cost of purchasing it.
> I understand that it cannot be used for GA training. but I was wondering
> if there was a big enough market out there on a rental basis that the
> plane would fly enough to recoupe some financial outlay.
> I am interested in what ya'all might think. Thanks for your help and as
> always.....Happy Flying
>
>
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Marco Leon]

I think he means "primary" GA training (read: for a private pilot license)


"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:jssDb.18162$m83.13977@fed1read01...
> I am curious why it cannot be used for GA training...
>
> High Performance training and endorsements would be required to fly it.
Why
> not get the training in it. Is the school telling you it cannot be used
for
> training to force the "students" to use his aircraft and not yours?
>
> If that is the case.. I'd research another school or FBO.
>
> Is this a noted "School", part 141?? or just an FBO with a flight school.
> Has something been done to the aircraft that it is now "Experimental"..
>
> BTW.. I know a Piper 235B (and other letter variants) also known as
> Pathfinder", but I've not heard of a Piper 236 (not to say there is not
> one).
>
> BT
>
> "Rich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Greetings fellow pilots. I have a situaton at hand and am weighing some
> > options and thought that I have received good advice here before so I
> > figured I would try again. Here is my dilema..I am currently enrolled in
> > school to receive my commercial and CFI (as well as multi and CFII) I
> > have a great opportunity to purchase an airplane. I have talked to the
> > school about getting involved in the leaseback program. They are
> > encouraging that, however the plane I am looking at is a 1980 Piper
> > Dakota 236B. This plane has 235 horsepower. What I am wondering is if
> > the plane would fly enough to offset some of the cost of purchasing it.
> > I understand that it cannot be used for GA training. but I was wondering
> > if there was a big enough market out there on a rental basis that the
> > plane would fly enough to recoupe some financial outlay.
> > I am interested in what ya'all might think. Thanks for your help and as
> > always.....Happy Flying
> >
> >
> >
> > *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> > Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Nathan Young]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<jssDb.18162$m83.13977@fed1read01>...
> I am curious why it cannot be used for GA training...
>
> High Performance training and endorsements would be required to fly it. Why
> not get the training in it. Is the school telling you it cannot be used for
> training to force the "students" to use his aircraft and not yours?
>
> If that is the case.. I'd research another school or FBO.
>
> Is this a noted "School", part 141?? or just an FBO with a flight school.
> Has something been done to the aircraft that it is now "Experimental"..
>
> BTW.. I know a Piper 235B (and other letter variants) also known as
> Pathfinder", but I've not heard of a Piper 236 (not to say there is not
> one).

The 236 is the Dakota. Basically a late model 235 or Pathfinder. I
believe it incorporates the newer Cherokee wing and fuselage stretch,
much like an Archer II does vs. a Cherokee 180.

-Nathan

[BTIZ]

ah ha...

BT

"Nathan Young" > wrote in message
om...
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:<jssDb.18162$m83.13977@fed1read01>...
> > I am curious why it cannot be used for GA training...
> >
> > High Performance training and endorsements would be required to fly it.
Why
> > not get the training in it. Is the school telling you it cannot be used
for
> > training to force the "students" to use his aircraft and not yours?
> >
> > If that is the case.. I'd research another school or FBO.
> >
> > Is this a noted "School", part 141?? or just an FBO with a flight
school.
> > Has something been done to the aircraft that it is now "Experimental"..
> >
> > BTW.. I know a Piper 235B (and other letter variants) also known as
> > Pathfinder", but I've not heard of a Piper 236 (not to say there is not
> > one).
>
> The 236 is the Dakota. Basically a late model 235 or Pathfinder. I
> believe it incorporates the newer Cherokee wing and fuselage stretch,
> much like an Archer II does vs. a Cherokee 180.
>
> -Nathan

[BTIZ]

true... a 235/236 would be a bit much for PPL

BT

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> I think he means "primary" GA training (read: for a private pilot license)
>
>
> "BTIZ" > wrote in message
> news:jssDb.18162$m83.13977@fed1read01...
> > I am curious why it cannot be used for GA training...
> >
> > High Performance training and endorsements would be required to fly it.
> Why
> > not get the training in it. Is the school telling you it cannot be used
> for
> > training to force the "students" to use his aircraft and not yours?
> >
> > If that is the case.. I'd research another school or FBO.
> >
> > Is this a noted "School", part 141?? or just an FBO with a flight
school.
> > Has something been done to the aircraft that it is now "Experimental"..
> >
> > BTW.. I know a Piper 235B (and other letter variants) also known as
> > Pathfinder", but I've not heard of a Piper 236 (not to say there is not
> > one).
> >
> > BT
> >
> > "Rich" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Greetings fellow pilots. I have a situaton at hand and am weighing
some
> > > options and thought that I have received good advice here before so I
> > > figured I would try again. Here is my dilema..I am currently enrolled
in
> > > school to receive my commercial and CFI (as well as multi and CFII) I
> > > have a great opportunity to purchase an airplane. I have talked to the
> > > school about getting involved in the leaseback program. They are
> > > encouraging that, however the plane I am looking at is a 1980 Piper
> > > Dakota 236B. This plane has 235 horsepower. What I am wondering is if
> > > the plane would fly enough to offset some of the cost of purchasing
it.
> > > I understand that it cannot be used for GA training. but I was
wondering
> > > if there was a big enough market out there on a rental basis that the
> > > plane would fly enough to recoupe some financial outlay.
> > > I am interested in what ya'all might think. Thanks for your help and
as
> > > always.....Happy Flying
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> > > Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Colin Kingsbury]

Another issue is that insurance will likely require renters to have time in
type and 90-day currency or some such. If yours is the only plane of its
kind on the line it's less likely a large number of renters will get and
maintain currency. If there's 3 or 4 of them then it's a lot easier. There
used to be a very nice 182RG at my field that the owner couldn't get rented
even after putting dual GNS 430s in it for just this reason, even though it
was one of the fastest singles you could rent within 50 miles of Boston (and
at a very reasonable price).

Of course they want to encourage you to join the program. You accept all of
the risk of owning an asset, but share part of the reward with them, though
they accept precisely zero risk in the process. Let's just say they're not a
disinterested bystander in this. Ask them, if they think this plane is such
a hot investment, why aren't they buying it? If the plane is good and
there's a market for it, buy it and find a few other guys to buy shares in
it and start a partnership. Stupid things are best done in groups.

Best,
-cwk.

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:jssDb.18162$m83.13977@fed1read01...
> I am curious why it cannot be used for GA training...
>
> High Performance training and endorsements would be required to fly it.
Why
> not get the training in it. Is the school telling you it cannot be used
for
> training to force the "students" to use his aircraft and not yours?
>

[tony roberts]

the best advice you'll get is don't.
--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[R. Hubbell]

On 15 Dec 2003 23:22:12 GMT Rich > wrote:

> Greetings fellow pilots. I have a situaton at hand and am weighing some
> options and thought that I have received good advice here before so I
> figured I would try again. Here is my dilema..I am currently enrolled in
> school to receive my commercial and CFI (as well as multi and CFII) I
> have a great opportunity to purchase an airplane. I have talked to the
> school about getting involved in the leaseback program. They are
> encouraging that, however the plane I am looking at is a 1980 Piper
> Dakota 236B. This plane has 235 horsepower. What I am wondering is if
> the plane would fly enough to offset some of the cost of purchasing it.
> I understand that it cannot be used for GA training. but I was wondering
> if there was a big enough market out there on a rental basis that the
> plane would fly enough to recoupe some financial outlay.
> I am interested in what ya'all might think. Thanks for your help and as
> always.....Happy Flying


Start a club, make this the first plane. Get a 172 as soon as you can to
attract new pilots (and new members). The plane can be flown a little
cheaper in a club then on lease-back with an FBO.

Where are you based?

R. Hubbell



>
>
>
> *** Sent via http://www.automationtools.com ***
> Add a newsgroup interface to your website today.

[Andrew Gideon]

R. Hubbell wrote:

> Start a club, make this the first plane. Get a 172 as soon as you can to
> attract new pilots (and new members). The plane can be flown a little
> cheaper in a club then on lease-back with an FBO.

Wouldn't this involve far higher insurance costs than private ownership or
even a partnership? How it would compare to something on lease-back, I've
no idea.

- Andrew

[Ron Natalie]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message online.com...
> R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> > Start a club, make this the first plane. Get a 172 as soon as you can to
> > attract new pilots (and new members). The plane can be flown a little
> > cheaper in a club then on lease-back with an FBO.
>
> Wouldn't this involve far higher insurance costs than private ownership or
> even a partnership? How it would compare to something on lease-back, I've
> no idea.

Once you have a policy that lets random people fly the plane the insurance is
going to triple over owner-flown aircraft. It depends how this shared across
all the club members and the other savings as to whether it is going to save money.

[Mitch]

If limited your club/coownership/corp to 5 members or less, and each member
is listed as a named insured, then the insurance is about the same as
private ownership, and based on the lowest time owner.

The sixth owner caused the 3X increase.

Mitch - at least that's what they told me about 2 years ago...


"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> > R. Hubbell wrote:
> >
> > > Start a club, make this the first plane. Get a 172 as soon as you can
to
> > > attract new pilots (and new members). The plane can be flown a little
> > > cheaper in a club then on lease-back with an FBO.
> >
> > Wouldn't this involve far higher insurance costs than private ownership
or
> > even a partnership? How it would compare to something on lease-back,
I've
> > no idea.
>
> Once you have a policy that lets random people fly the plane the insurance
is
> going to triple over owner-flown aircraft. It depends how this shared
across
> all the club members and the other savings as to whether it is going to
save money.
>
>
>

[Andrew Gideon]

Mitch wrote:

> If limited your club/coownership/corp to 5 members or less, and each
> member is listed as a named insured, then the insurance is about the same
> as private ownership, and based on the lowest time owner.
>
> The sixth owner caused the 3X increase.

Even if the sixth (and seventh, eighth, ... fortyfifth) is named?

- Andrew