Buying a plane versus renting

[RD]

Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next couple
of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to keep
renting which is very expensive.

If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to use
for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any pitfalls I
should be aware of?

A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the initial
cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via maintenance
compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer 172 (year 2001)
versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?

Any input is really appreciated.

--
Thank You,
Ryan

[Rob Thomas]

Ryan,

Not that I know anything, but here's my opinion:

With the Feds allowing 50% bonus depreciation on new aircraft (for business
use), my assumption is that this will increase sales for new aircraft and
cause the late model used market to slump (e.g. 1997 - 2001 172s). Also, I
think the late model used market will further be depressed because of the
glass panel cockpits coming out.

I'm also trying to decide if I want to purchase new or pick up a one of
these late model aircraft. I'm seeing asking prices that are fairly
attractive. One would hope that you'd be catching this market at the
bottom of the trough, and that most of the value has already declined from
the person who initially bought the plane.

I'm sure you'll see the response that if you fly more than 100 hours a year,
then it's cheaper to buy. That depends on a lot of things, but as you say,
you're looking to fly 250+ hours per year over the next couple of years,
then you should absolutely be looking at buying.

You might want to describe to the group what type of flying you'll be doing
as well, and where.

r.



"RD" > wrote in message
...
> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
couple
> of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to keep
> renting which is very expensive.
>
> If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to
use
> for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any pitfalls I
> should be aware of?
>
> A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the initial
> cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via
maintenance
> compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer 172 (year
2001)
> versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?
>
> Any input is really appreciated.
>
> --
> Thank You,
> Ryan
>
>

[RD]

As a note, I will be flying for pleasure. Mainly cross country trips.



"RD" > wrote in message
...
> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
couple
> of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to keep
> renting which is very expensive.
>
> If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to
use
> for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any pitfalls I
> should be aware of?
>
> A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the initial
> cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via
maintenance
> compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer 172 (year
2001)
> versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?
>
> Any input is really appreciated.
>
> --
> Thank You,
> Ryan
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "RD" >
wrote:

> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
> couple
> of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to
> keep
> renting which is very expensive.

if you think renting is expensive, just wait until you buy
your first airplane...

:-)

--
Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

Buying vs. renting is not an apples-to-apples comparison, just as flying
vs. driving is not. There are many factors for each that don't apply to
the other.

Example: we bought a plane last year because there are no rentals
within a 1.5hr drive from my house, and also because we wanted to travel
more and were spending a lot to do it with rental planes. If all had
gone well, we would have indeed saved several thousand dollars by owning
instead of renting, given the same travel, and we certainly would have
saved all those 3-hour round trips to the FBO.

However, despite a prepurchase inspection, our nosegear collapsed 5 days
after we bought the plane. The plane was down for 8 months. Even after
the insurance paid for a new prop and the engine tear-down, overhauling
the rest of the engine and all of the landing gear hydraulics plus a few
other items ended up costing us another 1/3 of what we had paid for the
plane.

The point is that with owning, you assume a different level of risk than
you do by renting. With a rental, your risk is in trusting that the
owner of the plane maintains it well. If you own it, you assume that
risk, and it can get expensive very, very fast.

On the other hand, you also get a different set of benefits, which is
what most of us think of as the "joy of ownership". For most people the
joys far outweigh the risks. (I'm still on the fence about it, but
eventually I'll come around---at this point I can't afford to sell the
thing!)

hope this helps

[[email protected]]

On 26-Feb-2004, "RD" > wrote:

> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
> couple of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just
> to keep
> renting which is very expensive.
>
> If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to
> use for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any
> pitfalls I
> should be aware of?
>
> A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the initial
> cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via
> maintenance compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer
> 172 (year
> 2001) versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?
>
> Any input is really appreciated.


Certainly, if you fly 250 hours/year you can cost-justify owning. However,
if you are only going to keep this plane a couple of years then you probably
want to consider an older model that will not suffer from much, if any,
depreciation.

The real issue, though, is whether you are really going to be doing that
much flying. 250 hours per year equates to nearly 5 hours per week, every
week. Very few individual owners come close to this unless they use their
airplanes extensively for business purposes. However, if you are intent
upon building hours to qualify for further ratings or some pilot job, then I
think you would want a plane that is inexpensive to fly. Sounds like speed
is not all that important, so I'd be looking at a 172 of a fixed gear, small
engine Cherokee. A Beech Musketeer might also fill the bill, and at an
attractive purchase price.
--
-Elliott Drucker

[G.R. Patterson III]

RD wrote:
>
> As a note, I will be flying for pleasure. Mainly cross country trips.

I doubt that you will find anyone who will rent you a plane for several hundred
hours a year of pleasure trips. Most FBOs balk at renting for more than a few
hours and few keeping a plane overnight. You might be able to do it for trips
during the week, but most of them want the planes on weekends for students.

A club might be an option for you.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Mark Astley]

Ryan,

Here's a data point for you:

After one year of ownership of a '70 PA28-140, in which I flew about 100
hours, I pretty much broke even compared to renting. My hourly cost is
higher than renting if you include things I "capitalized" (these are
improvements to the plane which increase its value, it's also a trick which
owners use to fool themselves when they look at the balance sheet and wonder
where all the money went). Most of my flying was for training purposes,
with several pleasure flights mixed in. I would say my plane is average in
terms of purchase price and general condition (in other words, the panel was
about 25 years old, and the interior/paint around 15).

In most cases, whether new or used, you'll need to keep the plane a few
years before the economics make sense.

New planes have high acquisition costs and will depreciate for the first
five years or so, after which things tend to level off. Maintenance will be
less expensive, or rather, covered under warranty, and total cost
(forgetting the loan you'll probably need to get) can be low as long as you
don't throw money at panel improvements, etc. However, insurance will be
higher because your hull value will be near your purchase price (required
for a loan, and I'd certainly fully insure a plane I just dropped mucho
bucks on).

Used planes have low acquisition costs and value remains fairly stable.
Your first year will likely be expensive as you'll want to fix things the
previous owner didn't, and you may want to add an improvement or two.
Maintenance will likely be more frequent as older parts fail: I replaced an
alternator, a tach, a rotating beacon, and fixed an oil leak at various
points in my first year. Insurance is usually more reasonable for an older
used single engine plane.

best of luck,
mark

"RD" > wrote in message
...
> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
couple
> of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to keep
> renting which is very expensive.
>
> If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to
use
> for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any pitfalls I
> should be aware of?
>
> A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the initial
> cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via
maintenance
> compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer 172 (year
2001)
> versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?
>
> Any input is really appreciated.
>
> --
> Thank You,
> Ryan
>
>

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

I'm sure some w/ mention just being able to get in the plane and go. Safety
comes w/ familiarity and training. Its easier in your own plane.

Bought a '77 Archer for $50K, added $15k and two years. Got my IR ticket,
made many xc trips to Fla from TN and then sold for $70k. Do dickering, no
negotiation, just a cashiers check. I still see 52F on the our field.
Seems like a good investment to me.

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.



take off my shoes to reply

[ArtP]

I bought a 2002 Cirrus SR20 "C" for $226,000. I just sold it for
$145,000. It cost an additional $43,000 for insurance, hangar, and
maintenance. It was flown 250 hours (50 of that was to and from the
service center which was in a different state). You can do the math,
but bottom line it was the worst "investment" I ever made.

[Ray Andraka]

You bought on the wrong side of the depreciation curve. I bought my
Cherokee Six 9 years ago for $44.5K. It was appraised last fall for
$87K, and I've put about 1000 hours on it in the mean time. Granted,
I've put some money into it, including an unexpected engine overhaul
last year, but I would have spent over 2x what I've spent for
maintenance and upgrades renting a lesser airplane for the same hours,
plus would not have been able to go off for a week somewhere with the
plane. The airplane has far surpassed any of my market investments, and
it was never intended as an investment.

ArtP wrote:

> I bought a 2002 Cirrus SR20 "C" for $226,000. I just sold it for
> $145,000. It cost an additional $43,000 for insurance, hangar, and
> maintenance. It was flown 250 hours (50 of that was to and from the
> service center which was in a different state). You can do the math,
> but bottom line it was the worst "investment" I ever made.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
ArtP > wrote:
>I bought a 2002 Cirrus SR20 "C" for $226,000. I just sold it for
>$145,000.

I can't help it, I still read that and think, "Huh, I could have bought
a 2002 SR20..." despite your maintenance headaches. :)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Newps]

Yeah, but you knew that going in. New planes always depreciate for awhile.



ArtP wrote:
> I bought a 2002 Cirrus SR20 "C" for $226,000. I just sold it for
> $145,000. It cost an additional $43,000 for insurance, hangar, and
> maintenance. It was flown 250 hours (50 of that was to and from the
> service center which was in a different state). You can do the math,
> but bottom line it was the worst "investment" I ever made.

[John Kunkel]

"RD" > wrote in message
...
> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
couple
> of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to keep
> renting which is very expensive.

I'm reminded of the old ditty "If you fly it, f**k it or float it, you're
better off renting".

[ArtP]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:01:15 GMT, (Ben Jackson) wrote:

>In article >,
>ArtP > wrote:
>>I bought a 2002 Cirrus SR20 "C" for $226,000. I just sold it for
>>$145,000.
>
>I can't help it, I still read that and think, "Huh, I could have bought
>a 2002 SR20..." despite your maintenance headaches. :)

That's what makes the free market system so great. One person's
nightmare is another person's dream.

[CriticalMass]

wrote:

> Buying vs. renting is not an apples-to-apples comparison, just as
> flying vs. driving is not. There are many factors for each that don't
> apply to the other.
>
> you also get a different set of benefits, which is what most of us
> think of as the "joy of ownership". For most people the joys far
> outweigh the risks.


Right on point.

Attempting to justify ownership on dollar costs alone doesn't tell the tale.

Owning is expensive, no ands or buts about it. But there are
intangibles, like always knowing the airplane will be available, and
knowing you'll be able to fly the airplane you expect to fly, and
knowing what condition the last pilot (you) left the airplane
in....there's no way to put a price on that stuff.

Showing up at the airport to fly somebody else's rental piece of junk
would never get it for me, I've been there, done that, and I've been
willing to pay the piper (pun intended) for a long time now, for the
privilege of flying my OWN plane.

[S Green]

"CriticalMass" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > Buying vs. renting is not an apples-to-apples comparison, just as
> > flying vs. driving is not. There are many factors for each that don't
> > apply to the other.
> >
> > you also get a different set of benefits, which is what most of us
> > think of as the "joy of ownership". For most people the joys far
> > outweigh the risks.
>
>
> Right on point.
>
> Attempting to justify ownership on dollar costs alone doesn't tell the
tale.
>
> Owning is expensive, no ands or buts about it. But there are
> intangibles, like always knowing the airplane will be available, and
> knowing you'll be able to fly the airplane you expect to fly, and
> knowing what condition the last pilot (you) left the airplane
> in....there's no way to put a price on that stuff.
>
> Showing up at the airport to fly somebody else's rental piece of junk
> would never get it for me, I've been there, done that, and I've been
> willing to pay the piper (pun intended) for a long time now, for the
> privilege of flying my OWN plane.


Except when the airplane is away on its annual or has a major problem,
knowing that if I want to fly I have to hire a piece of junk.

There is nothing more frustrating than having a plane and it not be
available to fly.

[ArtP]

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 08:52:18 -0000, "S Green"
> wrote:

>There is nothing more frustrating than having a plane and it not be
>available to fly.

Amen.

[CriticalMass]

S Green wrote:

>Except when the airplane is away on its annual or has a major problem,
>knowing that if I want to fly I have to hire a piece of junk.
>
>There is nothing more frustrating than having a plane and it not be
>available to fly.
>

Granted.

My last "annual" started last June (2003).

That "annual" turned into a MOH (Mattituck).

My airplane is STILL inop, due to enormous delays in just getting the
damned thing back from the "annual" shop, and due to added unanticipated
eventualities, like the factory fuel flow gauge going tits up on the
first flight post MOH, and the front crank seal leaking out of MOH, and
again, after one replacement.

I nevertheless stand by my other post. Am I lowering my standards by
going to the local flight school and renting their doggy 152s just to
get some airtime? Nope.

Whatever the frustrations (and owning is full of 'em), it's MY plane, or
NO plane, for ME, that is.

[Dude]

RD,

One thing you did not tell us is what you plan to do AFTER 2 years and 500
hours.

If you do not plan to trade up, then do not buy new. Bonus depreciation is a
great deal, but if it gets recaptured, it ain't so great. Trading up can
avoid recapture.

If you do plan to trade up, maybe you should rent a little longer, until you
feel you are ready for your "target plane"

A172 vs. an arrow is not the same, did you mean archer?

Are you really just building hours, or trying to get somewhere? If you are
trying to get somewhere, you will be flying in IMC. You will want something
safe and efficient.

An Arrow may keep you happy for 500 hours, a 172 maybe not. If you are
seriously traveling, I would get something nicer,likely something faster.
Definitely more fuel efficient.

Definitely get up to date avionics, and an AP. With that much time in the
plane, the workload savings is definitely worth the bucks.

The only glass cockpit I like is the Garmin, due to its ability to reset.
If these things live up to the press, Garmin will greatly increase its
market share. If you are not set in your scanhabits, you might want to get
a glass cockpit.

If you really are going to put 500 hours on and then sell, I would lean away
from brand new. That kind of hours will depreciate a new plane pretty well.
You can sometimes pick up nearly new planes at a steal. Just don't buy a
lemon like Art's. If you are buying new, and plan to put those hours on, go
glass.

the more you tell the group, the more we can likely help you narrow down the
choices.

[RD]

Dude,

The plane I'm looking at is a 2001 172R with the IFR nav package. It has
about 1200 hours on it and the price seems very reasonable. Local owner
wants to keep it in town. I like the fact it's somewhat new, low time, new
avionics etc and has a decent fuel burn rate.

My goal is to build time and experience. Finish off more ratings etc. I know
I can buy something much cheaper but I'm very hesitant being burnt on the
maintenance side with an older airplane and any other lurking surprises it
may bring. I know the history of this 172 from the day it came to our local
airport from the factory. No damage history etc. Always hangered etc.

Is 2001 still too new? Is there lots of room for depreciation still? The
price is about 20% less than any other advertised price I have seen for
other R models in the same year and hour range.




"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> RD,
>
> One thing you did not tell us is what you plan to do AFTER 2 years and 500
> hours.
>
> If you do not plan to trade up, then do not buy new. Bonus depreciation is
a
> great deal, but if it gets recaptured, it ain't so great. Trading up can
> avoid recapture.
>
> If you do plan to trade up, maybe you should rent a little longer, until
you
> feel you are ready for your "target plane"
>
> A172 vs. an arrow is not the same, did you mean archer?
>
> Are you really just building hours, or trying to get somewhere? If you are
> trying to get somewhere, you will be flying in IMC. You will want
something
> safe and efficient.
>
> An Arrow may keep you happy for 500 hours, a 172 maybe not. If you are
> seriously traveling, I would get something nicer,likely something faster.
> Definitely more fuel efficient.
>
> Definitely get up to date avionics, and an AP. With that much time in the
> plane, the workload savings is definitely worth the bucks.
>
> The only glass cockpit I like is the Garmin, due to its ability to reset.
> If these things live up to the press, Garmin will greatly increase its
> market share. If you are not set in your scanhabits, you might want to
get
> a glass cockpit.
>
> If you really are going to put 500 hours on and then sell, I would lean
away
> from brand new. That kind of hours will depreciate a new plane pretty
well.
> You can sometimes pick up nearly new planes at a steal. Just don't buy a
> lemon like Art's. If you are buying new, and plan to put those hours on,
go
> glass.
>
> the more you tell the group, the more we can likely help you narrow down
the
> choices.
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Yep, this is EXACTLY what I meant by "joy of ownership"!

CriticalMass wrote:

> Showing up at the airport to fly somebody else's rental piece of junk
> would never get it for me, I've been there, done that, and I've been
> willing to pay the piper (pun intended) for a long time now, for the
> privilege of flying my OWN plane.
>

[Dude]

RD,

Its hard for me to say whether the individual plane is a good deal or not.

I would say that if the plane is as described, it could go for anywhere from
85 to 115. That is a huge range, but there have been a lot of owners
leaving these planes with banks who wholesale them to get them off the books
( many flight schools and leaseback owners did not make the money they
thought they would). I am sure someone will yell and scream that this is
too low, but I also know that others will say they have seen deals in this
range.

Is the owner of this plane an FBO owner, or is the plane on leaseback?
Sounds like it is.

If you really know all this about the plane, you may be willing to pay more
than another buyer, but remember, when you want to sell, there is no
guarantee that someone with similar knowledge will want to buy it. They
will assume a leaseback plane was abused before they even agree to a prebuy.
The prebuy can show that the leaseback experience was good for the plane
instead of bad, but no one knows unless they do the prebuy. (YOU WILL DO A
PREBUY, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW!)

What other planes have you flown? How many hours do you have now? What are
you going to trade up to?

I think many here will agree that you are better off paying too much and
getting the right plane, than getting a great deal, and missing out on a
plane that would suit you better.

Also, total cost of ownership is more important than purchase price. At 500
hours and two years, you could see a 20k swing in TCO over that period.

After I tried planes other than Cessna's, I had a better respect for what
Cessna's offered, but I knew they were not what I wanted to fly anymore.
Call some other companies (Piper, Diamond, Tiger, Socata, Symphony, Liberty,
whatever), and try their planes. Tell them what you are planning to do, and
they will likely want you to try their planes before you decide. Do it.
Then you can look for a plane with more knowledge of what you want.

[Thomas Borchert]

Rd,

> The
> price is about 20% less than any other advertised price I have seen for
> other R models in the same year and hour range.
>

Well, time to find out why that is so!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Doug]

2001 is pretty new, still some fairly rapid "depreciation" in there.
It may be that aircraft prices are headed back up after 3 years of
declines, we shall see (depends on the economy). If they do, then the
appreciation may well outperform the depreciation due to use. 1200
hours is midtime, and if you put 500 hours on it it will be at high
time of 1700 which is a harder to sell point, but can be done if you
lower the price. If it is the airplane you want, has the avionics you
want, it may not be too bad a deal, certainly better financially than
buying new. In 500 hours and 5 years you will spend $20000+ fixed
costs (hangar, insurance, annual) and $20000 in hourly costs, so and
extra $10000 in depreciation one way or the other is not going to be
all that signifigant, then again its not chump change. For getting
your ratings, I can hardly think of a better trainer.

I think this is a good time to buy, as the market seems to have
bottomed. A 172 is a great airplane. Go for it!

[RD]

Hi Dude,

The plane is not on a lease. They own it outright and bought another fancier
ship to use instead of the 172. It now just sits in a heated hangar. The
only reason the price is low, compared to what I see advertised anywhere
else, is they want to keep the plane in the city. And no, it's not an FBO
plane. They have a business and bought this plane for leisure/business use.
It's been commercially maintained and is very clean on the inside and out
minus the odd hangar rash mark.

I will take your advice and definitely have a prebuy inspection done. Again,
my only fear is to know whether or not the depreciation has stabilized.

Take Care.


"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> RD,
>
> Its hard for me to say whether the individual plane is a good deal or not.
>
> I would say that if the plane is as described, it could go for anywhere
from
> 85 to 115. That is a huge range, but there have been a lot of owners
> leaving these planes with banks who wholesale them to get them off the
books
> ( many flight schools and leaseback owners did not make the money they
> thought they would). I am sure someone will yell and scream that this is
> too low, but I also know that others will say they have seen deals in this
> range.
>
> Is the owner of this plane an FBO owner, or is the plane on leaseback?
> Sounds like it is.
>
> If you really know all this about the plane, you may be willing to pay
more
> than another buyer, but remember, when you want to sell, there is no
> guarantee that someone with similar knowledge will want to buy it. They
> will assume a leaseback plane was abused before they even agree to a
prebuy.
> The prebuy can show that the leaseback experience was good for the plane
> instead of bad, but no one knows unless they do the prebuy. (YOU WILL DO
A
> PREBUY, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW!)
>
> What other planes have you flown? How many hours do you have now? What
are
> you going to trade up to?
>
> I think many here will agree that you are better off paying too much and
> getting the right plane, than getting a great deal, and missing out on a
> plane that would suit you better.
>
> Also, total cost of ownership is more important than purchase price. At
500
> hours and two years, you could see a 20k swing in TCO over that period.
>
> After I tried planes other than Cessna's, I had a better respect for what
> Cessna's offered, but I knew they were not what I wanted to fly anymore.
> Call some other companies (Piper, Diamond, Tiger, Socata, Symphony,
Liberty,
> whatever), and try their planes. Tell them what you are planning to do,
and
> they will likely want you to try their planes before you decide. Do it.
> Then you can look for a plane with more knowledge of what you want.
>
>
>
>
>

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "RD" > writes:

>The
>only reason the price is low, compared to what I see advertised anywhere
>else, is they want to keep the plane in the city. And no, it's not an FBO
>plane. They have a business and bought this plane for leisure/business use.
>It's been commercially maintained and is very clean on the inside and out
>minus the odd hangar rash mark.

I'm not questioning your explaination but I can't see why I would care where my
plane goes when I sell it. Be careful that there isn't some other reason.

Chuck

[John Galban]

"RD" > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> The
> only reason the price is low, compared to what I see advertised anywhere
> else, is they want to keep the plane in the city.

You mentioned this before, but I'm having trouble understanding the
logic behind it. What difference does it make to the seller where the
plane goes? Are they going to want to lease it back?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Thomas Borchert]

Rd,

> I will take your advice and definitely have a prebuy inspection done.
>

By someone who has no business (or other) relation with the owner, one
might add. Using the maintenance shop that has always worked on the
plane doesn't make sense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Captain Wubba]

Know any friends who want to buy a plane as well? A parnership with 1
or 2 others might well fit your bill...it would certainly reduce your
exposure. I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago; my wife
and I wanted to travel, and I just wanted to fly, and $75 an hour for
a clapped-out 172 seemed a bit extreme on an ongoing basis.

Two friends and I ended up purchasing an old (1963) Beech Musketeer.
Plenty of people warned me about buying an old plane, and several more
wanred me about how much I would dislike the Beech. They were all
wrong. The first year we had the plane, we put over 500 hours on it,
yet surprisingly had very few scheduling problems. I took her on cross
countrys to Florida, New York, Michigan, South Carolina...flew her all
over.

And given the amount we flew her, the per hour costs came out to about
$45-$50 an hour wet, including everything. We had our share of
replacement stuff (Carb, brakes, tires, some radio work, hoses), but
in the end it was both far cheaper and far nicer than having to rent.

I know several other older plane owners at my airport, and their
experience has pretty much been the same; older 'mainline' planes
(172s, Cherokees, Musketeers) make great first planes, and don't end
up breaking the bank. These are not complex airplanes...there isn't
really all the much to break. Basic (but useable) avionics, simple
systems, well-understood engines coupled with frequent oil changes and
plenty of flying tends to make these very affordable planes.

One caveat. You don't need a lot of money, but you *do* need to be
able to cough up a thousand or two pretty quickly in a pinch (happened
to us on the Carb). I've seen several planes than end up sitting on
the tarmac because the owner can't come up with the cash to fix
something necessary. So they sit, and develop other problems, which
can't be fixed either...so they sit more and develop *more*
problems....you get the picture.

As I said, I believe these things are easier with a parter. Or, as
somebody else mentioned, the club route. After having gotten my
Instrument and Commercial tickets in the Musketeer, we were approached
to sell it to a club (for more than we paid for it). We sold it, paid
off the loan, got memberships to the club and look back on purchasing
the Mouse as one of the best decisions we ever made. If I might add, I
have a few specific suggestions:

1. Buy older (1960-1975). Many of these planes are quite sound, and
are inexpensive to buy and operate. A 1970 172 pretty much flys like a
1998 172...for a lot less.

2. Get a *very* good prebuy inspection. Pay the extra, it will be well
worth it.

3. Map out your needs and expectations pretty clearly beforehand, and
select a few candidate models. None of these things are speed demons,
but each has model-specific plusses and minuses, and if you will be
spending 500 hours over the next 3 years in one, you don't want to
keep thinking you made a mistake.

4. Buy it like you want it. That isn't saying you won't add a thing or
two, but if you want certain avionics, a certain kind of interior,
etc. try to find it up front...if you put it in, you will never recoup
the expense, and you often end up spending much more than you expect.

5. Buy for the next five years, not the next 20. I know you
specifically mentioned simple planes, but some people think about
buying Mooneys or older Bonanzas when they have 100 hours. The more
complex the plane, the more expensive it will be. An annual on my
Musketeer ran me $1000. On a similar (but retractable gear) Sierra, it
ran more than twice that. The planes at my airport that actually fly
are the 150s, the 172s and the Cherokees. The ones that sit and look
pretty are the Bones and the Mooneys. Don't expect that this will be
the plane that you will have in 30 years.

6. Get in touch with user groups for the planes you are considering
before buying. The Musketeer pilot group has been amazing. Great
support, wonderful advice, and people who know where the parts are.

Owning does not have to be expensive. We have a guy at our airport who
owns an old Cessna 150 and has flown it for the last decade for an
average of under $25 an hour wet. That might be extreme, but I think
the conventional wisdom that owning has to be more expensive than
renting does not necessarily hold true if you do your homework and fly
a lot.

Good luck,

Cap



"RD" > wrote in message >...
> Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next couple
> of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to keep
> renting which is very expensive.
>
> If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to use
> for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any pitfalls I
> should be aware of?
>
> A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the initial
> cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via maintenance
> compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer 172 (year 2001)
> versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?
>
> Any input is really appreciated.

[RD]

Hi John,

I'm not sure of the logic, but it's the only new 172R at the airport. The
current owners are attached to it I think if that makes any sense. In fact,
I did all my training on it from day one just through a friendly arrangement
I have with them. I know the planes history basically since the day it
arrived from the factory. I can't comment any further on why they'd like to
see it stay at the local airport. They have no intentions of leasing it back
as they are quite content with their new aircraft.

The only concern I have is with depreciation and the falling US dollar.

Ryan

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "RD" > wrote in message
>...
> <snip>
> > The
> > only reason the price is low, compared to what I see advertised anywhere
> > else, is they want to keep the plane in the city.
>
> You mentioned this before, but I'm having trouble understanding the
> logic behind it. What difference does it make to the seller where the
> plane goes? Are they going to want to lease it back?
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[RD]

Thanks Capt. Very good post. I'll have to print it out. I'm going to stick
with a newer aircraft (the one I'm pursuing is a mid time 2001 172R). I've
talked to a mechanic and he said the new 172's are very reliable. I like the
fact the interior and paint is something I don't need to worry about - nor
the avionics. Corrosion won't be an issue either. Only depreciation is what
worries me and I'm trying to find out where the bottom is for the 172R's to
know if this price is fair or not.

I appreciate your long and informative post. And yes, I'll do an exhaustive
prebuy inspection even though I know the plane quite well.

Thank You,
Ryan


"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
> Know any friends who want to buy a plane as well? A parnership with 1
> or 2 others might well fit your bill...it would certainly reduce your
> exposure. I was in a similar situation a couple of years ago; my wife
> and I wanted to travel, and I just wanted to fly, and $75 an hour for
> a clapped-out 172 seemed a bit extreme on an ongoing basis.
>
> Two friends and I ended up purchasing an old (1963) Beech Musketeer.
> Plenty of people warned me about buying an old plane, and several more
> wanred me about how much I would dislike the Beech. They were all
> wrong. The first year we had the plane, we put over 500 hours on it,
> yet surprisingly had very few scheduling problems. I took her on cross
> countrys to Florida, New York, Michigan, South Carolina...flew her all
> over.
>
> And given the amount we flew her, the per hour costs came out to about
> $45-$50 an hour wet, including everything. We had our share of
> replacement stuff (Carb, brakes, tires, some radio work, hoses), but
> in the end it was both far cheaper and far nicer than having to rent.
>
> I know several other older plane owners at my airport, and their
> experience has pretty much been the same; older 'mainline' planes
> (172s, Cherokees, Musketeers) make great first planes, and don't end
> up breaking the bank. These are not complex airplanes...there isn't
> really all the much to break. Basic (but useable) avionics, simple
> systems, well-understood engines coupled with frequent oil changes and
> plenty of flying tends to make these very affordable planes.
>
> One caveat. You don't need a lot of money, but you *do* need to be
> able to cough up a thousand or two pretty quickly in a pinch (happened
> to us on the Carb). I've seen several planes than end up sitting on
> the tarmac because the owner can't come up with the cash to fix
> something necessary. So they sit, and develop other problems, which
> can't be fixed either...so they sit more and develop *more*
> problems....you get the picture.
>
> As I said, I believe these things are easier with a parter. Or, as
> somebody else mentioned, the club route. After having gotten my
> Instrument and Commercial tickets in the Musketeer, we were approached
> to sell it to a club (for more than we paid for it). We sold it, paid
> off the loan, got memberships to the club and look back on purchasing
> the Mouse as one of the best decisions we ever made. If I might add, I
> have a few specific suggestions:
>
> 1. Buy older (1960-1975). Many of these planes are quite sound, and
> are inexpensive to buy and operate. A 1970 172 pretty much flys like a
> 1998 172...for a lot less.
>
> 2. Get a *very* good prebuy inspection. Pay the extra, it will be well
> worth it.
>
> 3. Map out your needs and expectations pretty clearly beforehand, and
> select a few candidate models. None of these things are speed demons,
> but each has model-specific plusses and minuses, and if you will be
> spending 500 hours over the next 3 years in one, you don't want to
> keep thinking you made a mistake.
>
> 4. Buy it like you want it. That isn't saying you won't add a thing or
> two, but if you want certain avionics, a certain kind of interior,
> etc. try to find it up front...if you put it in, you will never recoup
> the expense, and you often end up spending much more than you expect.
>
> 5. Buy for the next five years, not the next 20. I know you
> specifically mentioned simple planes, but some people think about
> buying Mooneys or older Bonanzas when they have 100 hours. The more
> complex the plane, the more expensive it will be. An annual on my
> Musketeer ran me $1000. On a similar (but retractable gear) Sierra, it
> ran more than twice that. The planes at my airport that actually fly
> are the 150s, the 172s and the Cherokees. The ones that sit and look
> pretty are the Bones and the Mooneys. Don't expect that this will be
> the plane that you will have in 30 years.
>
> 6. Get in touch with user groups for the planes you are considering
> before buying. The Musketeer pilot group has been amazing. Great
> support, wonderful advice, and people who know where the parts are.
>
> Owning does not have to be expensive. We have a guy at our airport who
> owns an old Cessna 150 and has flown it for the last decade for an
> average of under $25 an hour wet. That might be extreme, but I think
> the conventional wisdom that owning has to be more expensive than
> renting does not necessarily hold true if you do your homework and fly
> a lot.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Cap
>
>
>
> "RD" > wrote in message
>...
> > Just wondering if anyone has some experience on the above subject. I'm
> > looking at building up some time (500 hours or more) within the next
couple
> > of years. My two options are to buy an older 172/Arrow etc or just to
keep
> > renting which is very expensive.
> >
> > If I can find a decent airplane, in the end, I assume purchasing one to
use
> > for a couple years will be cheaper. Am I wrong about this? Any pitfalls
I
> > should be aware of?
> >
> > A second question is regarding purchasing a newer 172. I know the
initial
> > cost is more, but given the age is it probable to save money via
maintenance
> > compared to an older airplane? What about resale on a newer 172 (year
2001)
> > versus resale on an older 172/Arrow?
> >
> > Any input is really appreciated.

[Dave Butler]

RD wrote:
> Only depreciation is what
> worries me and I'm trying to find out where the bottom is for the 172R's to
> know if this price is fair or not.

Spend $20 or so at http://www.aeroprice.com and get their evaluation.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

Dave

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

PaulaJay1 wrote:
> In article >, "RD" > writes:
>
>
>>The
>>only reason the price is low, compared to what I see advertised anywhere
>>else, is they want to keep the plane in the city. And no, it's not an FBO
>>plane. They have a business and bought this plane for leisure/business use.
>>It's been commercially maintained and is very clean on the inside and out
>>minus the odd hangar rash mark.
>
>
> I'm not questioning your explaination but I can't see why I would care where my
> plane goes when I sell it. Be careful that there isn't some other reason.

I would think if the plane was a dog, they'd rather sell it to an
out-of-state buyer than a local one. Not sure why they care either,
but I don't see that as a drawback.

[Dude]

It sounds like they let you use their plane for training, but you only paid
expenses?

It would be illegal for them to rent you the plane without 100 hour
inspections and such. If they are just attached to it, it makes no
difference. The fact that you have been flying the plane is a plus, and may
be a reason to pay higher than normal becuase you have reduced risk, but not
too much.

You still want to conduct a proper prebuy inspection.

Depreciation will be an issue mostly because the plane does not have a glass
cockpit, and if you pay too much. Glass is being announced on so many
planes, and until a retrofit is available any given model, it "could" affect
values.

(there are lots of skylane owners around here dying to sell their planes).

Falling US dollar should not affect the value of a 172 adversely. Why do
you think it would?



"RD" > wrote in message
...
> Hi John,
>
> I'm not sure of the logic, but it's the only new 172R at the airport. The
> current owners are attached to it I think if that makes any sense. In
fact,
> I did all my training on it from day one just through a friendly
arrangement
> I have with them. I know the planes history basically since the day it
> arrived from the factory. I can't comment any further on why they'd like
to
> see it stay at the local airport. They have no intentions of leasing it
back
> as they are quite content with their new aircraft.
>
> The only concern I have is with depreciation and the falling US dollar.
>
> Ryan
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "RD" > wrote in message
> >...
> > <snip>
> > > The
> > > only reason the price is low, compared to what I see advertised
anywhere
> > > else, is they want to keep the plane in the city.
> >
> > You mentioned this before, but I'm having trouble understanding the
> > logic behind it. What difference does it make to the seller where the
> > plane goes? Are they going to want to lease it back?
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>

[Dude]

> One caveat. You don't need a lot of money, but you *do* need to be
> able to cough up a thousand or two pretty quickly in a pinch (happened
> to us on the Carb). I've seen several planes than end up sitting on
> the tarmac because the owner can't come up with the cash to fix
> something necessary. So they sit, and develop other problems, which
> can't be fixed either...so they sit more and develop *more*
> problems....you get the picture.
>

Excellent advice and well put! You gotta have a rainy day fund.


> As I said, I believe these things are easier with a parter. Or, as
> somebody else mentioned, the club route. After having gotten my
> Instrument and Commercial tickets in the Musketeer, we were approached
> to sell it to a club (for more than we paid for it). We sold it, paid
> off the loan, got memberships to the club and look back on purchasing
> the Mouse as one of the best decisions we ever made. If I might add, I
> have a few specific suggestions:
>

Partnerships and clubs are not for everyone. If you like that sort of thing
its a definite plus, but some people just can't stand it. One should always
think carefully about these things, and choose partners as if it was a
marriage.

> 1. Buy older (1960-1975). Many of these planes are quite sound, and
> are inexpensive to buy and operate. A 1970 172 pretty much flys like a
> 1998 172...for a lot less.
>

I would have to disagree in many regards. These planes can be much more
expensive to operate if you are not mechanically inclined. It seems to me
that guys who change their own plugs, and help out on inspections do much
better with the older planes. Newer planes seem to get flown more (only my
observation), and that affects the cost per hour, and is better for the
plane. Also, I note that youur range is 1960-1975. What do you use to set
this range? If its the fact that there is no place south for the value to
go, don't count on it. If you are buying for the next five years, ask
yourself what the value of that plane will be in 5 years. A 1960 plane will
be almost 50.


> 2. Get a *very* good prebuy inspection. Pay the extra, it will be well
> worth it.
>
> 3. Map out your needs and expectations pretty clearly beforehand, and
> select a few candidate models. None of these things are speed demons,
> but each has model-specific plusses and minuses, and if you will be
> spending 500 hours over the next 3 years in one, you don't want to
> keep thinking you made a mistake.
>

Priceless info as well.

> 4. Buy it like you want it. That isn't saying you won't add a thing or
> two, but if you want certain avionics, a certain kind of interior,
> etc. try to find it up front...if you put it in, you will never recoup
> the expense, and you often end up spending much more than you expect.
>
> 5. Buy for the next five years, not the next 20. I know you
> specifically mentioned simple planes, but some people think about
> buying Mooneys or older Bonanzas when they have 100 hours. The more
> complex the plane, the more expensive it will be. An annual on my
> Musketeer ran me $1000. On a similar (but retractable gear) Sierra, it
> ran more than twice that. The planes at my airport that actually fly
> are the 150s, the 172s and the Cherokees. The ones that sit and look
> pretty are the Bones and the Mooneys. Don't expect that this will be
> the plane that you will have in 30 years.
>
> 6. Get in touch with user groups for the planes you are considering
> before buying. The Musketeer pilot group has been amazing. Great
> support, wonderful advice, and people who know where the parts are.
>
> Owning does not have to be expensive. We have a guy at our airport who
> owns an old Cessna 150 and has flown it for the last decade for an
> average of under $25 an hour wet. That might be extreme, but I think
> the conventional wisdom that owning has to be more expensive than
> renting does not necessarily hold true if you do your homework and fly
> a lot.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Cap
>


Pretty much have to agree with the rest.