cost of ownership

[The Weiss Family]

I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one more
time.
I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed gear
single.
A 172, cherk 180, etc.
I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
plausible to own.
Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
Thanks

Adam

[Jeff]

If your needing to justify owning, then you may as well continue renting, I own
not because I fly xxx hours a year or because owning is cheaper then renting, I
own because I like to come back to my airplane the way I left it, I own because
I can get up at any hour of the day and night and go anywhere I want, I own
because I hate rental junk, I own because there is something special about
having your own personal airplane.

Airplanes are expensive, its not something I would jump into if I didn't have
the disposable income. make it easy and just use the basics to see if you can
afford it
insurance 1000$ a year or higher
tiedown 45$ a month or higher
loan payment ???
annual inspection: figure 1000$ (could be allot more)
fuel

if you can pull off the above without having any financial problems then you
should be ok. if you have to figure it up on paper, then anything else that
arises will sink you.



The Weiss Family wrote:

> I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one more
> time.
> I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed gear
> single.
> A 172, cherk 180, etc.
> I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> plausible to own.
> Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
> Thanks
>
> Adam

[Nathan Young]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:39:29 -0700, "The Weiss Family"
> wrote:

>I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one more
>time.
>I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed gear
>single.
>A 172, cherk 180, etc.
>I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
>plausible to own.
>Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
>Thanks

If things work out, and you fly more than 100 hrs per year, owning can
be cheaper than renting. However, owning a plane is a huge financial
risk. The worst case example: An engine can start making metal at
any time, which (even in a 172 or Cherokee 180) is a 15-20k overhaul.
But, there are tons of smaller problems which can still put a major
dent ($100s if not $1000s) in a pocketbook.

Flying is a passion for most of us, so it is easy to have clouded
judgment surrounding the purchase of an airplane. Just be certain you
can afford it before you jump into ownership, because there is a real
possibility to end up with a plane that cannot be used, and stacks of
bill that need to be paid.

A flying club, or a partnership is a great way to get involved in the
ownership of a plane without taking the major financial risk. Yes,
you will still have to reserve the plane, and fight (a bit) over
scheduling, but it is better than renting, gives the pride of
ownership, and allows you better familiarization (and hence safety) by
regularly flying the same plane.

For your cost questions, here's some input: This is based on a
Cherokee 180.

Hangar (chicago suburbs): $300/month = $3600 / year
Insurance $900/year
Fuel: 200hrs/year @ 10gph @ $2.95/gal = $5900/year
Oil: 5 cases @ $50/case = $250/year.
Total: $10650 / year

So those are the known costs. The big question mark is maintenance
and annual inspection. I probably average a bit over $2k/year for
this, but have been as low as $1k and as high as $5k.

-Nathan

[Roy Smith]

Nathan Young > wrote:

> For your cost questions, here's some input: This is based on a
> Cherokee 180.
>
> Hangar (chicago suburbs): $300/month = $3600 / year
> Insurance $900/year
> Fuel: 200hrs/year @ 10gph @ $2.95/gal = $5900/year
> Oil: 5 cases @ $50/case = $250/year.
> Total: $10650 / year
>
> So those are the known costs. The big question mark is maintenance
> and annual inspection. I probably average a bit over $2k/year for
> this, but have been as low as $1k and as high as $5k.

You've left out some major costs, like engine reserve. True, it's not
cash out of pocket, but it's an accrued cost just the same.

My guess is for a Cherokee 180, you should be reserving something on the
order of $10/hr for engine overhaul/replacement. Get a quote from your
machanic on an overhaul or replacement. Divide that by the published
TBO, and you come up with an hourly depreciation rate. It's really only
a guess (your engine could crap out earlier, or it could make it past
TBO, and overhaul costs are variable depending on what they find when
they open it up), but it's a reasonable guess, and that's better than
nothing.

One nice thing about a flying club is you get the benefits of scale. My
club owns 7 planes, most of which fly 3-400 hours a year, so we average
a little more than one engine overhaul per year. Sometimes we make it
to TBO, sometimes we don't, sometimes we go past TBO. The good and the
bad average out so we can get a pretty good handle on what to expect in
the long run.

[The Weiss Family]

Thanks to all for your input.
I'm pretty anxious to get my own plane.
In fact, if my wife wasn't keeping me grounded (pun intended), I probably
would have bought one already.
Even though we could "probably" afford one on our own, she's making sure I
check out every detail.
Don't tell her, but she's probably right for doing so ;-)

Based on what you have informed me, I can show her some estimated monthly
numbers, and see what happens...

Thanks again,

Adam

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
> I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one
more
> time.
> I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed
gear
> single.
> A 172, cherk 180, etc.
> I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> plausible to own.
> Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
> Thanks
>
> Adam
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

The Weiss Family wrote:
>
> I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> plausible to own.

If you can't afford to spend $5,000 a year on aviation, keep renting.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Jeff]

I had a cherokee 180 before I sold it for the turbo arrow, the actual costs
were not that much, now the costs of all the "must have" stuff like IFR
certified GPS, AM/FM stereo, speed mods and so on can eat you alive. And yes,
once you get a plane, you will find you must have something. you will see :)

outside of the basics, tiedown, annual, 50 hour oil changes, insurance, there
was not much more. these are pretty simple planes that can take a beating.

and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school, chances
are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.

The Weiss Family wrote:

> Thanks to all for your input.
> I'm pretty anxious to get my own plane.
> In fact, if my wife wasn't keeping me grounded (pun intended), I probably
> would have bought one already.
> Even though we could "probably" afford one on our own, she's making sure I
> check out every detail.
> Don't tell her, but she's probably right for doing so ;-)
>
> Based on what you have informed me, I can show her some estimated monthly
> numbers, and see what happens...
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Adam
>
> "The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one
> more
> > time.
> > I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed
> gear
> > single.
> > A 172, cherk 180, etc.
> > I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> > plausible to own.
> > Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
> > Thanks
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >

[PlsurFlyin]

>Based on what you have informed me, I can show her some estimated monthly
>numbers, and see what happens...

Here's what my Fairchild costs me to fly per hour...
Hourly cost to Operate Fairchild.


Gas 13 gal@ $3.26/gal= $ 42.38
Oil 1 qt/hr@ $ 3.25/qt= $ 3.25
Insurance $1,500 year÷50 hours/yr= $ 30.00
Hangar $135x12 months ÷50= $ 32.40
Engine Resv. $5000 (600 hours)÷50 hours/yr(12)= $ 8.33
Other $5/hr $ 5.00
Total cost to Operate Fairchild 24 per hour… $121.36

[The Weiss Family]

My low estimates were about $7000.
Boy, I'm really borderline. I might be able to get my wife on board for
this.
I'm taking her flying next Saturday. If she catches the bug like I have it,
it might be an easier sell ;-)

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Weiss Family wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> > plausible to own.
>
> If you can't afford to spend $5,000 a year on aviation, keep renting.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[NW_PILOT]

disposable income? bill gates don't even have disposable income why don't
you try "extra money to spend" instead of disposable income.


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> If your needing to justify owning, then you may as well continue renting,
I own
> not because I fly xxx hours a year or because owning is cheaper then
renting, I
> own because I like to come back to my airplane the way I left it, I own
because
> I can get up at any hour of the day and night and go anywhere I want, I
own
> because I hate rental junk, I own because there is something special about
> having your own personal airplane.
>
> Airplanes are expensive, its not something I would jump into if I didn't
have
> the disposable income. make it easy and just use the basics to see if you
can
> afford it
> insurance 1000$ a year or higher
> tiedown 45$ a month or higher
> loan payment ???
> annual inspection: figure 1000$ (could be allot more)
> fuel
>
> if you can pull off the above without having any financial problems then
you
> should be ok. if you have to figure it up on paper, then anything else
that
> arises will sink you.
>
>
>
> The Weiss Family wrote:
>
> > I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one
more
> > time.
> > I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed
gear
> > single.
> > A 172, cherk 180, etc.
> > I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> > plausible to own.
> > Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
> > Thanks
> >
> > Adam
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

The Weiss Family wrote:
>
> My low estimates were about $7000.

Well, my costs break down to about that.

Tiedown - $85.00/month. (was $75.00/month until recently).
Insurance - $1,200/year.
Annual - ~$900.
Maintenance - ~$500/year.
Fuel - ~$20.00/hour.
Engine bank - $7.00/hour.

So, we're over $3,500 a year without flying at all. After that, it depends on how
much you fly. Your figure is about right for about 100 hours of air time per year.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Jeff]

if I have extra money I put it in my money market account or stocks, disposable
income is just that - I can do as I want with it.

NW_PILOT wrote:

> disposable income? bill gates don't even have disposable income why don't
> you try "extra money to spend" instead of disposable income.
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If your needing to justify owning, then you may as well continue renting,
> I own
> > not because I fly xxx hours a year or because owning is cheaper then
> renting, I
> > own because I like to come back to my airplane the way I left it, I own
> because
> > I can get up at any hour of the day and night and go anywhere I want, I
> own
> > because I hate rental junk, I own because there is something special about
> > having your own personal airplane.
> >
> > Airplanes are expensive, its not something I would jump into if I didn't
> have
> > the disposable income. make it easy and just use the basics to see if you
> can
> > afford it
> > insurance 1000$ a year or higher
> > tiedown 45$ a month or higher
> > loan payment ???
> > annual inspection: figure 1000$ (could be allot more)
> > fuel
> >
> > if you can pull off the above without having any financial problems then
> you
> > should be ok. if you have to figure it up on paper, then anything else
> that
> > arises will sink you.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Weiss Family wrote:
> >
> > > I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one
> more
> > > time.
> > > I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed
> gear
> > > single.
> > > A 172, cherk 180, etc.
> > > I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> > > plausible to own.
> > > Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Adam
> >

[tony roberts]

> My low estimates were about $7000.

Then you should do it.
Also, remember that it is "likely" that your aircraft will appreciate in
value. While that isn't guaranteed,and should be treated as a bonus,
it is highly probable.

But the main reason to buy is that it changes your mission profile.
Example - I used to rent, fly around for 90 minutes and land. It was
never worth actually landing anywhere nearby, as my FBO charged 3 hours
minimum if ever the aircraft was out over 3 hours, regardless of how
long it flew.

Now on a weekend, particularly a bad weather one, I'll fly 30 minutes to
an airport where I will land, meet several friends, have coffee and BS
for an hour, then fly toward home for 15 minutes, land and do it again,
then fly home.

Total flight time less than 60 minutes.
Total time - all day.
Total aviation value - priceless.
Total cost - Variable costs $30.00.
Fixed costs I pay whether I fly or not.
So now I fly lots. Like you I agonized over the cost.
Once I bought I kicked myself for not doing it a long time ago.
And as an aside, there is a certain comfort in always finding the plane
as you left it, with your stuff in it, and knowing that it wasn't abused
on its last flight.

My advice is to do it - you'll find many benefits that you hadn't even
considered.

Tony



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

[David Megginson]

The Weiss Family wrote:

> I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one
> more time. I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for
> your fixed gear single. A 172, cherk 180, etc. I'm trying to figure out
> how much renting I have to do before it becomes plausible to own. Any
> advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.

I bought my own airplane in December 2002, so I'm still a fairly new owner.
You've already had lots of good replies about costs, though I'd caution you
that you'll probably need to plan on paying at least double your average
yearly cost the first year, mostly in parts and maintenance: you'll be
flying the plane differently (causing some borderline parts to fail sooner),
you'll have a fresh mechanic looking at the plane, and you'll have different
needs (such as a second nav radio that actually works).

The main point, though, is that there's no point comparing the costs with
renting, because the renting and owning are entirely different. Renting is
for flying local flights, same-day cross-countries (say, to have lunch or
shop in another city a couple of hours away, or visit a friend), and the
occasional overnight trip. Depending on an FBO's policy, longer trips (say,
a week in Florida) are either forbidden or highly inconvenient, requiring
booking weeks in advance (maybe months in advance for the summer) and paying
for a few hours every day when the plane is on the ground.

Owning gives you the freedom to fly where you want, when you want, but also
the responsibility for taking care of the thousands of individual (and
expensive) parts that people screw and rivet together to make airplanes. If
you plan to fly mostly cross-countries, especially longer ones, there's
really no option: you have to own. If you want to be able to decide on
Friday that you're going away for a weekend in the summer, you have to own.
If you want to have some control over the safety of the airplane (say,
using better quality oil hoses that won't melt and start a fire, or
replacing the muffler before the shroud corrodes through and starts sending
CO through the heating system, etc), you have to own.

That said, if you're not going to be flying enough hours to justify sole
ownership, you can go in with a partner or two and massively reduce your
fixed costs. For example, if you're paying $1,000/year parking, $2,000/year
insurance, and $3,000/year parts and maintenance, you can pay all $5,000
yourself, pay $2,500 with one partner, or pay $1,670 with two partners.
Partners can also share the large amount of work involved in owning.

Personally, since I fly an inexpensive plane (a Piper Warrior II) for well
over 120 hours/year I am a sole owner, but I am very open to joining a
partnership if I start flying less often or if I need to move up to a bigger
or faster plane. Just having someone else to take turns cleaning and waxing
the plane sounds like a nice idea ...


All the best,


David

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "The Weiss Family"
> wrote:

> I know this has been asked a million times, but I have to ask just one
> more
> time.
> I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed
> gear
> single.
> A 172, cherk 180, etc.
> I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> plausible to own.
> Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
> Thanks
>
> Adam


I've had my cherokee 140 since 1994. There have been years where
total cost for inspections and repairs for the year were less than
$1000. Most years total cost for inspections and repairs for the year
have been less than $2000.

And then there was the bill for an engine overhaul, coupled with
other problems and "while you are at it"... I stopped keeping track
when the cost passed $23,500. The total was probably a bit higher
than $30,000. For that, everything firewall forward was removed
and overhauled or replaced with new.

And of course there have been panel/radio improvements. I've
replaced both navcoms, overhauled the ADF, added a DME, autopilot,
engine monitor, and strikefinder.

--
Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

The Weiss Family > wrote:
: A 172, cherk 180, etc.
: I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
: plausible to own.
: Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.
: Thanks

As posted by a number of others, there are unquantifiable differences between
renting an owning. Someone said, "Renting is for 90 minute local flights and owning
is for trips." That's probably pretty close to accurate. If you never plan on taking
the plane more places than a quick 1-2 hour flight, renting starts make a lot of
sense. If you plan on taking it on longer trips, it's just not an option, from both
logistics and cost. For example, I flew my Cherokee from SW Virginia to SE Minnesota
over easter. Total, direct costs incurred by the 14 hour, ~1200 nm flight, $250
*round trip*. The rest of the costs are roughly fixed so it encourages flying. If it
were renting (and even possible to take such a trip), it'd be $1000 or more... much
more thought necessary to justify it.

My partners and I do things as inexpensively as possible on the plane. I do
the work under supervision of my A&P. Replace things as necessary, but mostly keep a
close eye on everything (maintainance-wise) all the time so if something goes you know
about it beforehand. If you don't do that, relatively minor expenses can add up
quickly due to incidental damage.

For me, owning means I forget about the fixed costs because I've already paid
for them, and just look at the direct costs of flying somewhere... roughly
$15-$20/hour on cargas. In the area bopping around at 45% power... $10-$15/hour.

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

[The Weiss Family]

Thanks Tony,

This is exactly the kind of thing I've been agonizing about, too. Not just
day trips, but what if I want to take a two or three hour trip to see
friends, and then stay for a week?

I don't want to pay a three hour per day minimum for seven days, when the
plane will probably only fly six hours total!

Thanks!

[The Weiss Family]

"Bob Noel" wrote:

>And then there was the bill for an engine overhaul, coupled with
> other problems and "while you are at it"... I stopped keeping track
> when the cost passed $23,500. The total was probably a bit higher
> than $30,000. For that, everything firewall forward was removed
> and overhauled or replaced with new.

Ouch!
I definitely couldn't afford that right away on top of all the other
expenses.
This limits the field of potential aircraft to low-time (or mid-time)
engines.

[David Megginson]

The Weiss Family wrote:

> This is exactly the kind of thing I've been agonizing about, too. Not just
> day trips, but what if I want to take a two or three hour trip to see
> friends, and then stay for a week?
>
> I don't want to pay a three hour per day minimum for seven days, when the
> plane will probably only fly six hours total!

Again, if money is an issue, look at buying your first plane with a partner.
You'll have someone else to share the initial cost, the ongoing work and
fixed expenses, and if your partner is more experienced with planes, you'll
also be able to avoid a lot of the expensive, newbie-owner mistakes that I
(and probably many others) make. If you're at all serious about travelling,
renting isn't a realistic option.

I wasn't able to find a partner around Ottawa when I was first looking (I
cared about IFR and the other people I talked to didn't want to spend the
extra money), and I'm managing OK as a sole owner now, but the first 18
months or so were a little hairy. If you can remember what it was like when
you moved from an apartment to your first house (as owner), and suddenly you
were expected to know about how to deal with contractors, what quotes were
fair, what weeping tiles were, how to grade a lawn, building codes, property
taxes, etc. etc., you'll have a good idea of what it will be like at first
owning a plane -- just multiply all that by 10.

When you're getting close to buying, come back to the list and you'll be
able to find a lot of advice (more than half of it good). Here are a few
easy, generic checklist items for any kind of plane:

1. How much weight can it carry with full fuel? How about with fuel at
tabs? Is that enough for your family now? What about three years from now?
Since you have a family, useful load probably matters more than speed.
Flying with fuel at tabs might not be practical for IFR, with the
requirement for an alternate and extra reserves, so pay close attention to
the full-fuel load if you're an IFR pilot or are likely to become one soon.

2. How many recurring ADs are there for the make/model, and how much do they
cost to carry out? For example, an older Cherokee with a front-mounted oil
cooler will need to have its oil hoses replaced every 8 years, which is only
a couple of hundred dollars; other recurring ADs, however, can cost
thousands. Don't wait until you've already put down a deposit and paying
for a prepurchase inspection to find out about these, since you can easily
research them online from your desk while leafing through Trade-a-Plane.

3. What avionics do you need? It's a *lot* (ie. 50%-75%) cheaper to buy a
plane with the avionics you need already installed than to buy and install
them afterwards. If you fly IFR and think you're going to want a Stormscope,
autopilot, and/or IFR GPS, look at planes that already have those
(personally, all I really wanted for IFR beyond basic NAV/ADF/DME was a
Stormscope, which I had installed last month).

4. How close is the engine to TBO? Most people seem to prefer an engine
that is about 50% of the way along -- that way, any problems from the last
overhaul are already worked out, but you still have a long time until the
next one. The plane's price will be adjusted accordingly.

5. Have fun looking.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

The Weiss Family wrote:

> Ouch!
> I definitely couldn't afford that right away on top of all the other
> expenses.
> This limits the field of potential aircraft to low-time (or mid-time)
> engines.

Not necessarily -- if the market is working correctly, the difference
between the cost of a plane with a new engine and a plane with a run-out
engine should be about equal to the cost of an overhaul.

From what I've seen on these lists and heard talking to other pilots,
low-time engines can be a bad idea, especially if the previous owner did a
quick, cheapie overhaul to help sell the plane. Doing your own overhaul on
a run-out engine is probably better, but you're assuming the risks of all
the early problems that show up afterwards. I chose mid-time, and I've been
very happy with that.


All the best,


David

[Bob Fry]

David Megginson > writes:

> The Weiss Family wrote:
>
> > Ouch!
> > I definitely couldn't afford that right away on top of all the other
> > expenses.
> > This limits the field of potential aircraft to low-time (or mid-time)
> > engines.
>
> Not necessarily -- if the market is working correctly, the difference
> between the cost of a plane with a new engine and a plane with a
> run-out engine should be about equal to the cost of an overhaul.

From my experience the market isn't working w.r.t. discounting the
price of an airplane with the engine near TBO. When searching for my
airplane, I found two very similar models to the one I eventually
bought, and rejected them both when the owners wouldn't discount their
selling price because of the engine time. I found an airplane with a
low time engine (done by a very well known overhauler) for just
$2000-$3000 more than what the other two wanted.

[David Megginson]

Bob Fry wrote:

> From my experience the market isn't working w.r.t. discounting the
> price of an airplane with the engine near TBO. When searching for my
> airplane, I found two very similar models to the one I eventually
> bought, and rejected them both when the owners wouldn't discount their
> selling price because of the engine time.

Presumably, they'd already built the engine time into their selling prices.
Unfortunately, a lot of owners seem to have pretty exaggerated ideas of
what their planes are worth. They probably had to drop their prices
eventually, or else they gave up on trying to sell.


All the best,


David

[Jeff]

David is exactly right about finding the right plane, my first plane (a cherokee
180), I ended up putting all kinds of speed mods on it, new avionics, then
decided it was not fast enough so bought my current plane a Turbo Arrow, this
time I got a plane that had things I wanted in it, HSI, airconditioning, some
speed mods, really good interior and paint. I did how ever still spend about 20k
for new garmin 430, audio panel, xponder and AM/FM/CD player for the wife to
listen to on those long trips.

the good thing about owning your own plane is your not restricted to anything
except weather and deciding where you want to go next.

David Megginson wrote:

> The Weiss Family wrote:
>
> > This is exactly the kind of thing I've been agonizing about, too. Not just
> > day trips, but what if I want to take a two or three hour trip to see
> > friends, and then stay for a week?
> >
> > I don't want to pay a three hour per day minimum for seven days, when the
> > plane will probably only fly six hours total!
>
> Again, if money is an issue, look at buying your first plane with a partner.
> You'll have someone else to share the initial cost, the ongoing work and
> fixed expenses, and if your partner is more experienced with planes, you'll
> also be able to avoid a lot of the expensive, newbie-owner mistakes that I
> (and probably many others) make. If you're at all serious about travelling,
> renting isn't a realistic option.
>
> I wasn't able to find a partner around Ottawa when I was first looking (I
> cared about IFR and the other people I talked to didn't want to spend the
> extra money), and I'm managing OK as a sole owner now, but the first 18
> months or so were a little hairy. If you can remember what it was like when
> you moved from an apartment to your first house (as owner), and suddenly you
> were expected to know about how to deal with contractors, what quotes were
> fair, what weeping tiles were, how to grade a lawn, building codes, property
> taxes, etc. etc., you'll have a good idea of what it will be like at first
> owning a plane -- just multiply all that by 10.
>
> When you're getting close to buying, come back to the list and you'll be
> able to find a lot of advice (more than half of it good). Here are a few
> easy, generic checklist items for any kind of plane:
>
> 1. How much weight can it carry with full fuel? How about with fuel at
> tabs? Is that enough for your family now? What about three years from now?
> Since you have a family, useful load probably matters more than speed.
> Flying with fuel at tabs might not be practical for IFR, with the
> requirement for an alternate and extra reserves, so pay close attention to
> the full-fuel load if you're an IFR pilot or are likely to become one soon.
>
> 2. How many recurring ADs are there for the make/model, and how much do they
> cost to carry out? For example, an older Cherokee with a front-mounted oil
> cooler will need to have its oil hoses replaced every 8 years, which is only
> a couple of hundred dollars; other recurring ADs, however, can cost
> thousands. Don't wait until you've already put down a deposit and paying
> for a prepurchase inspection to find out about these, since you can easily
> research them online from your desk while leafing through Trade-a-Plane.
>
> 3. What avionics do you need? It's a *lot* (ie. 50%-75%) cheaper to buy a
> plane with the avionics you need already installed than to buy and install
> them afterwards. If you fly IFR and think you're going to want a Stormscope,
> autopilot, and/or IFR GPS, look at planes that already have those
> (personally, all I really wanted for IFR beyond basic NAV/ADF/DME was a
> Stormscope, which I had installed last month).
>
> 4. How close is the engine to TBO? Most people seem to prefer an engine
> that is about 50% of the way along -- that way, any problems from the last
> overhaul are already worked out, but you still have a long time until the
> next one. The plane's price will be adjusted accordingly.
>
> 5. Have fun looking.
>
> All the best,
>
> David

[Jeff]

when I bought my current plane, I went after a low time factory reman. engine.
Any engine with over 600 hours on it (I have a 1800 hr TBO on my engine) I would
not even look at, but I was seeing planes with engine at or close to TBO where
the owners wanted the same price as one with a new engine.
when I did the prebuy, I also had an oil analysys done to make sure the engine
was still in good shape.

David Megginson wrote:

> The Weiss Family wrote:
>
> > Ouch!
> > I definitely couldn't afford that right away on top of all the other
> > expenses.
> > This limits the field of potential aircraft to low-time (or mid-time)
> > engines.
>
> Not necessarily -- if the market is working correctly, the difference
> between the cost of a plane with a new engine and a plane with a run-out
> engine should be about equal to the cost of an overhaul.
>
> From what I've seen on these lists and heard talking to other pilots,
> low-time engines can be a bad idea, especially if the previous owner did a
> quick, cheapie overhaul to help sell the plane. Doing your own overhaul on
> a run-out engine is probably better, but you're assuming the risks of all
> the early problems that show up afterwards. I chose mid-time, and I've been
> very happy with that.
>
> All the best,
>
> David

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> Not necessarily -- if the market is working correctly, the difference
> between the cost of a plane with a new engine and a plane with a run-out
> engine should be about equal to the cost of an overhaul.

My experience from perusing the ads is that the difference in price is about half the
actual overhaul cost.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[The Weiss Family]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school,
chances
> are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.
>

If you do a lease-back, what type of insurance must you carry?

[Jeff]

I leased back my old 180 for several months, the FBO took care of the
insurance, tie down and maint.
they would give me a monthly check of around 800-1000$ after everything
was paid for.
But it would require commericial insurance and 100 hour inspections. but
as I said, thats not an issue since the rentals actually pay for
everything.

The Weiss Family wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school,
> chances
> > are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.
> >
>
> If you do a lease-back, what type of insurance must you carry?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jeff wrote:
>
> and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school, chances
> are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.

Leasing the aircraft is a business venture, and you should treat it as one.
Typically, you will be treated as a renter, even if you own the aircraft. If you want
to fly it, this may be no problem if you take the plane during the week, but you may
have the same problems taking the plane for a weekend that you have today renting
other people's aircraft.

I have known people who made a decent amount of money leasing aircraft to flight
schools. I have also heard of people losing their shirts (or at least, their planes).
Much depends on the terms of the lease contracts. For what little it's worth, from
what I've seen, lessors on the West Coast tend to lose money on the deal.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Newps]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> when I bought my current plane, I went after a low time factory reman.
engine.

Which makes no sense as it has a Continental. The last thing I want is
Continental jugs. Chromed Continental cylinders would be OK.

[Newps]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school,
> chances
> > are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.
> >
>
> If you do a lease-back, what type of insurance must you carry?

Forget it. You will never make a leaseback work. Plus it is the same as
renting a plane. You now have to schedule your own damn plane. You would
need commercial insurance. It is at least three times regular insurance.

[Jeff]

making it work depends on what you want to work.
If you just want it to pay the bills then its a good thing, if your trying to
make money, probably will not do it.

as for the same as renting, thats depends on the FBO, I never scheduled my
plane, if no one had it, I took it.

Newps wrote:

> "The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school,
> > chances
> > > are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.
> > >
> >
> > If you do a lease-back, what type of insurance must you carry?
>
> Forget it. You will never make a leaseback work. Plus it is the same as
> renting a plane. You now have to schedule your own damn plane. You would
> need commercial insurance. It is at least three times regular insurance.

[Jeff]

makes no sense to you, makes sense to me since I am the one payig the bills
for it.
I would buy a plane with a factory reman before I bought one with a who
knows what kind of overhaul.


Newps wrote:

> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > when I bought my current plane, I went after a low time factory reman.
> engine.
>
> Which makes no sense as it has a Continental. The last thing I want is
> Continental jugs. Chromed Continental cylinders would be OK.

[Elwood Dowd]

There is a big difference between owning and renting. Let me explain.

When you own a plane, you know exactly where it has been, who has been
flying it and working on it, when the oil was changed last, what that
funny smell is. You know no one other than you (or your partners if you
have them) has landed the plane hard and tried to hide it, or buzzed an
irate neighbor, etc. Peace of mind. If you rent long enough you will
see some crazy crap that people pull.

To pay for this peace of mind, you have to come up cash for all of the
regular bills: fuel and oil, maintenance, hangar, insurance. This list
can be as fancy or tame as you want, but for a trainer it breaks down
pretty easily. I'll mock one up so you can see:

insurance: $800/yr
tie-down: $480/yr (40/mo)
loan pmts: $3600/yr (300/mo)
annual: $1000/yr
flying: $2000/yr (2.50/gal, 8gph, 100hrs)
misc: $1000/yr (oil, light bulbs, unplanned)
--------
$8880/yr = $740/mo

Sure you can make it cheaper. Do a lot of your own maintenance, get a
plane with an auto gas STC, all kinds of things. Get a homebuilt, you
might cut that value in half, many owners have.

Now, to answer your question about a break-even point, if you are paying
$75/hr to rent that trainer then that 100 hrs costs you $7500, no
variation. You might find a cheaper rental, but other than that you
have no options in making it cheaper.

Now, here we get to the real difference. "Breaking even" happens
somewhere around 125 hours in this model, but doing this kind of math is
entirely misleading. There are many, many variables in ownership that
simply don't exist when renting. More to the point, there are
responsibilities that don't exist for renters. When it breaks YOU pay
for it. Sometimes it breaks in a very big way.

Our plane broke in a very big way just after we bought it. Nosegear
collapsed on the 8th landing we made. Got the engine apart---yep, it
needs a complete overhaul, because prepurchase inspections do not have
x-ray vision. Even after the insurance settlement we paid over 1/3
again for the plane, not counting the $2500 to get my family home from
the middle of nowhere on a commercial airline.

This is not to scare you. We rebuilt our plane and it ROCKS. I could
never go back to renting even if I had one next door. However, you have
to know what responsibilities you are taking on, and how you are going
to answer them if they call. We are lucky, we have some home equity we
could spend on the plane. If I hadn't had that, what kind of repairs
would I have been able to afford? Would I have put my family back into
it with cheaper repairs?

In this way it is no different from an RV or a nice boat---the costs are
similar. But your family is not necessarily in danger if you go cheap
on fixing your RV.

Anyway, I hope this gives you some things to think about. Use your
imagination and try to think of bad things that could happen, and how
much they could cost, and how you will afford them if they do. Think of
this as a graduation in responsibility and you will be better prepared
to accept the benefits.

hope this helps

Elwood


The Weiss Family wrote:
> I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed gear

[Elwood Dowd]

By the way, the plane we bought had a low to mid time engine, 700hrs on
a 2000hr TBO, Lycoming IO-360. It still needed an overhaul, and not
just because of the damage done by the prop strike.

The term "buyer beware" has incredible significance in this market.
Keeping an airplane in good shape is expensive, and not everyone does
more than they absolutely have to. Don't buy the cheapest plane you
find, don't believe ANYTHING the seller/broker/whoever says without
written proof, and don't go it alone---find a knowledgeable friend who
has been there to walk through it with you. You need someone on your
side. If you don't have a friend like this, go make one!

Lastly, don't believe anything you read on the Internet. Read Ron
Wanttaja's book about airplane ownership, it will put you on the right road.

Elwood

[David Megginson]

The Weiss Family wrote:

>>and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school, chances
>>are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.
>
> If you do a lease-back, what type of insurance must you carry?

Just a quick warning -- I think I've read one, maybe two postings from
people who had good or neutral experiences with lease-backs. All of the
others have described it as a trip to hell and back.

If you have to book the plane whenever you want to use it, and might find
that it's already booked by someone else, where are the benefits of owning?


All the best,


David

[Bob Fry]

David Megginson > writes:

> Bob Fry wrote:
>
> > From my experience the market isn't working w.r.t. discounting the
> > price of an airplane with the engine near TBO. When searching for my
> > airplane, I found two very similar models to the one I eventually
> > bought, and rejected them both when the owners wouldn't discount their
> > selling price because of the engine time.
>
> Presumably, they'd already built the engine time into their selling
> prices. Unfortunately, a lot of owners seem to have pretty exaggerated
> ideas of what their planes are worth. They probably had to drop their
> prices eventually, or else they gave up on trying to sell.

Neither one had taken into account the cost of an engine overhaul,
IMO. Both did eventually sell; one for about $4000-$5000 less than
what I paid for my similar, low-time model. So some discounting (for
high-time engine) was done by seller and buyer, but not enough.

[Nathan Young]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 16:16:12 -0700, "The Weiss Family"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>> and if you do not want any costs, lease it back to a flight school,
>chances
>> are it will rent enough that it covers all your costs.
>>
>
>If you do a lease-back, what type of insurance must you carry?

Commercial. Your rates will go up significantly, plus you will have
to get 100hr inspections, and fix all the stuff the renters break.

Before you get involved in one, do some searches on
http://www.dejanews.com about leasebacks. The topic has been
discussed at length in the rec.aviation.* newsgroups.

-Nathan

[Newps]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
> makes no sense to you, makes sense to me since I am the one payig the
bills
> for it.
> I would buy a plane with a factory reman before I bought one with a who
> knows what kind of overhaul.

Must be your first Continental. Those of us that have Continentals know not
to get a factory engine. The bottom ends are great, but the cylinders are
crap.

[[email protected]]

Bob Fry > wrote:
: Neither one had taken into account the cost of an engine overhaul,
: IMO. Both did eventually sell; one for about $4000-$5000 less than
: what I paid for my similar, low-time model. So some discounting (for
: high-time engine) was done by seller and buyer, but not enough.

I think it's generally considered (and seems to hold true) that the discount
on a run-out engine is about 1/2 the cost of buying a new one. When we were looking
for a Cherokee, one with a "fresh" engine cost $5-7k more than one that was runout. A
mid-cost/effort overhaul for a 4-banger like that would be $10-15k.

Seems to be about the same with the avionics.... adds about half the value of
what it costs to the plane.

-Cory

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

[Richard Kaplan]

"The Weiss Family" > wrote in message
...

> I'm trying to figure out how much renting I have to do before it becomes
> plausible to own.
> Any advice as to insurance, fixed and variable costs, etc.

If you do an honest assessment of the cost to own an airplane, virtually no
airplane owner can operate his airplane cheaper than he coudl rent the same
airplane. This is particularly true for a C172-class airplane which is
unlikely to be used on a very regular basis for practical transporation
except in some very specific regions of the country which almost always have
VFR weather, i.e. the Southwest.

Reasons to buy an airplane include not having to deal with restrictions on
keeping a rental airplane for a week or so trip, having access to an
airplane not available for rental, having control over maintenance, having
control over modifications/avionics, and simply pride of ownership. These
are all fine reasons to buy an airplane -- do not think that it will be
cheaper than owning, however.

If you do buy an airplane, consider that the cost of a surprise engine
overhaul can easily be 25% of the value of the airplane. Imagine one day
getting a call from your mechanic with the bad news that you need to do an
unexpected early engine overhaul. If you would not be able to handle that
financially, then either do not buy the airplane or else seek a partner to
buy the airplane with you.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Richard Kaplan > wrote:
>If you do an honest assessment of the cost to own an airplane, virtually no
>airplane owner can operate his airplane cheaper than he coudl rent the same
>airplane.

Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.
You can make the cost per hour work out better (assuming you don't
botch the prebuy and the airplane market doesn't collapse while you
own it) but the *total* annual cost will be higher.

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

[David Megginson]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> If you do an honest assessment of the cost to own an airplane, virtually no
> airplane owner can operate his airplane cheaper than he coudl rent the same
> airplane. This is particularly true for a C172-class airplane which is
> unlikely to be used on a very regular basis for practical transporation
> except in some very specific regions of the country which almost always have
> VFR weather, i.e. the Southwest.

That's a bit excessive. I agree that a C172/Cherokee class airplane isn't
the fastest way to get somewhere against a headwind, and it's definitely not
a coast-to-coast plane, but it's a perfectly reasonable IFR platform. I fly
my Warrior quite a bit in IMC in central Canada and the U.S. northeast.

In the winter, late fall, and early spring, I have to cancel flights
sometimes because of the risk of icing in IMC, but that would be true in any
plane without full known-ice certification (i.e. most singles and many
twins). I've added a Stormscope for peace-of-mind in summer IMC.

> Reasons to buy an airplane include not having to deal with restrictions on
> keeping a rental airplane for a week or so trip, having access to an
> airplane not available for rental, having control over maintenance, having
> control over modifications/avionics, and simply pride of ownership. These
> are all fine reasons to buy an airplane -- do not think that it will be
> cheaper than owning, however.

I agree with your point, but in fact, the cost of owning hasn't been too far
off for me -- I paid a bit more per hour in my first year (who doesn't?),
but my second year is shaping up to be much less expensive, even with used
Stormscope installation, so I'll probably be slightly ahead (that includes
amortization for the engine, etc.).

Still, I agree that it's not cheaper in absolute terms: I doubt I'd be
flying 120 hours/year as a renter, so I'd probably be spending much less.

> If you do buy an airplane, consider that the cost of a surprise engine
> overhaul can easily be 25% of the value of the airplane. Imagine one day
> getting a call from your mechanic with the bad news that you need to do an
> unexpected early engine overhaul. If you would not be able to handle that
> financially, then either do not buy the airplane or else seek a partner to
> buy the airplane with you.

I agree entirely, and it doesn't even have to be an overhaul -- as Richard
knows, there are lots of other little things in even the simplest plane that
can break and cost you anywhere from $500 to $5000 and beyond.


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
>
> If you do an honest assessment of the cost to own an airplane, virtually no
> airplane owner can operate his airplane cheaper than he coudl rent the same
> airplane.

Really? Ever try to rent a Maule MX-7?

> Reasons to buy an airplane include not having to deal with restrictions on
> keeping a rental airplane for a week or so trip,

But that is part of the cost of rental. If I have to pay for 21 hours rental for a
week trip, and I fly my own aircraft 4 hours for the same trip, that's "operating my
aircraft cheaper than I can rent the same plane."

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:PRwsc.109351$536.19458583@attbi_s03...

> Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.

Owners typically think they will fly 150-200 hours per year but very rarely
do owners fly more than 50-100 hours per year.

Take a look at Trade-A-Plane and see how many airplanes you find with more
than 100 hours per year since they were made.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
e.rogers.com...

> That's a bit excessive. I agree that a C172/Cherokee class airplane isn't
> the fastest way to get somewhere against a headwind, and it's definitely
not
> a coast-to-coast plane, but it's a perfectly reasonable IFR platform. I
fly
> my Warrior quite a bit in IMC in central Canada and the U.S. northeast.

It is fine as an IFR platform as you say except for icing conditions or
situations where headwinds limit your alternates and as long as you plan
trips of reasonable distance for the airplane's speed.

Altogether, that is why I say that few owner-flown C172/Cherokee airplanes
fly more than 50-100 hours per year. It is rare to have a typical aviation
mission to use the airplane more than this given the airplane's abilities.

Do you fly more than 100 hours per year in your airplane? If so, you are an
exception. How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100 hours
per year?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...>

> But that is part of the cost of rental. If I have to pay for 21 hours
rental for a
> week trip, and I fly my own aircraft 4 hours for the same trip, that's
"operating my
> aircraft cheaper than I can rent the same plane."

I agree completely that one reason to own an airplane is to fly something
not easily available for rent -- a Maule certainly fits that category.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[The Weiss Family]

Thanks for the info Elwood.
I get excited thinking about ownership, but like buying a car, it's best not
to get emotional.
Your post helped me get a decent perspective on the ups and downs of
ownership.

thanks!

Adam

"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> There is a big difference between owning and renting. Let me explain.
>
> When you own a plane, you know exactly where it has been, who has been
> flying it and working on it, when the oil was changed last, what that
> funny smell is. You know no one other than you (or your partners if you
> have them) has landed the plane hard and tried to hide it, or buzzed an
> irate neighbor, etc. Peace of mind. If you rent long enough you will
> see some crazy crap that people pull.
>
> To pay for this peace of mind, you have to come up cash for all of the
> regular bills: fuel and oil, maintenance, hangar, insurance. This list
> can be as fancy or tame as you want, but for a trainer it breaks down
> pretty easily. I'll mock one up so you can see:
>
> insurance: $800/yr
> tie-down: $480/yr (40/mo)
> loan pmts: $3600/yr (300/mo)
> annual: $1000/yr
> flying: $2000/yr (2.50/gal, 8gph, 100hrs)
> misc: $1000/yr (oil, light bulbs, unplanned)
> --------
> $8880/yr = $740/mo
>
> Sure you can make it cheaper. Do a lot of your own maintenance, get a
> plane with an auto gas STC, all kinds of things. Get a homebuilt, you
> might cut that value in half, many owners have.
>
> Now, to answer your question about a break-even point, if you are paying
> $75/hr to rent that trainer then that 100 hrs costs you $7500, no
> variation. You might find a cheaper rental, but other than that you
> have no options in making it cheaper.
>
> Now, here we get to the real difference. "Breaking even" happens
> somewhere around 125 hours in this model, but doing this kind of math is
> entirely misleading. There are many, many variables in ownership that
> simply don't exist when renting. More to the point, there are
> responsibilities that don't exist for renters. When it breaks YOU pay
> for it. Sometimes it breaks in a very big way.
>
> Our plane broke in a very big way just after we bought it. Nosegear
> collapsed on the 8th landing we made. Got the engine apart---yep, it
> needs a complete overhaul, because prepurchase inspections do not have
> x-ray vision. Even after the insurance settlement we paid over 1/3
> again for the plane, not counting the $2500 to get my family home from
> the middle of nowhere on a commercial airline.
>
> This is not to scare you. We rebuilt our plane and it ROCKS. I could
> never go back to renting even if I had one next door. However, you have
> to know what responsibilities you are taking on, and how you are going
> to answer them if they call. We are lucky, we have some home equity we
> could spend on the plane. If I hadn't had that, what kind of repairs
> would I have been able to afford? Would I have put my family back into
> it with cheaper repairs?
>
> In this way it is no different from an RV or a nice boat---the costs are
> similar. But your family is not necessarily in danger if you go cheap
> on fixing your RV.
>
> Anyway, I hope this gives you some things to think about. Use your
> imagination and try to think of bad things that could happen, and how
> much they could cost, and how you will afford them if they do. Think of
> this as a graduation in responsibility and you will be better prepared
> to accept the benefits.
>
> hope this helps
>
> Elwood
>
>
> The Weiss Family wrote:
> > I would love to know your real-world costs of ownership for your fixed
gear
>

[Elwood Dowd]

Glad to hear! Keep us in the loop.

More advice: don't forget about the non-CessnaPiper planes out there,
or even some of the lesser known models of brand C and P. There are
some fantastic deals. Cessna Cardinal RGs and Mooney M20C and -E, for
example, all go 145 knots on 9-10gph. The Cardinal comes in a
welded-leg version as well.

Mooneys are great planes if you can fit into them. In my experience, if
you are comfortable in a Cherokee you can squeeze in.

I feel claustrophobic with small cabins and only one door, so we bought
a Beechcraft Sierra, same engine as the Mooney and Cardinal RG but only
135kt or so---but a cabin nearly as big as our station wagon. The fixed
gear version is a Musketeer or Sundowner. Not all have two doors, but
some even have a kid-size bench seat in the baggage area.

We decided that cabin size and ease of egress were more important than
speed, so we ended up with a Beech instead of a Mooney. It was a toss
up between the Sierra and the Cardinal RG---the Sierra was about 4/5 the
cost.

Best thing to do is to get Ron Wanttaja's book, one of the Bill Clarke
anthologies, or an older edition of Aviation Consumer's guide to used
planes, and look through the stats. Figure out what's important, and go
from there. When you have it narrowed down, join the type club mailing
lists. Both the Cardinal list and the Musketeer list have been
fantastic resources.



The Weiss Family wrote:
> Thanks for the info Elwood.
> I get excited thinking about ownership, but like buying a car, it's best not
> to get emotional.
> Your post helped me get a decent perspective on the ups and downs of
> ownership.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:PRwsc.109351$536.19458583@attbi_s03...
>
> > Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.
>
> Owners typically think they will fly 150-200 hours per year but very
rarely
> do owners fly more than 50-100 hours per year.
>
> Take a look at Trade-A-Plane and see how many airplanes you find with more
> than 100 hours per year since they were made.

I wonder what's the rates between those who have it for "personal" use as
opposed to "business" use.

[Dude]

Forget it, never listen to someone who has absolutely no business posting
this....


>
> Forget it. You will never make a leaseback work. Plus it is the same as
> renting a plane. You now have to schedule your own damn plane. You would
> need commercial insurance. It is at least three times regular insurance.
>
>

Seriously, there are a thousand stores of bad leaseback situations. You
will not here the happy owners screaming at the top of their lungs. My
leaseback works okay. The key is to have a plane that can get the hours you
need it to. If yo uneed 40 plus hours/month, the plane needs to be a
primary trainer (or the only plane that fills the complex trainer role), and
needs to be something that fits in with the fleet (you don't necessarily
want to be the only low wing or high wing in a fleet).

You have to evaluate the fleet hours they are getting, who owns the other
planes, what will likley happen to the hours on the fleet from your adding a
plane (will it just spread the same renters thinner, or will it fill a need,
or what). Also, you need a rainy day fund.

You will likely be placed on the FBO's fleet insurance.

[Dude]

I have got to start typing/spelling better!



"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Forget it, never listen to someone who has absolutely no business posting
> this....
>
>
> >
> > Forget it. You will never make a leaseback work. Plus it is the same
as
> > renting a plane. You now have to schedule your own damn plane. You
would
> > need commercial insurance. It is at least three times regular
insurance.
> >
> >
>
> Seriously, there are a thousand stores of bad leaseback situations. You
> will not here the happy owners screaming at the top of their lungs. My
> leaseback works okay. The key is to have a plane that can get the hours
you
> need it to. If yo uneed 40 plus hours/month, the plane needs to be a
> primary trainer (or the only plane that fills the complex trainer role),
and
> needs to be something that fits in with the fleet (you don't necessarily
> want to be the only low wing or high wing in a fleet).
>
> You have to evaluate the fleet hours they are getting, who owns the other
> planes, what will likley happen to the hours on the fleet from your adding
a
> plane (will it just spread the same renters thinner, or will it fill a
need,
> or what). Also, you need a rainy day fund.
>
> You will likely be placed on the FBO's fleet insurance.
>
>
>
>
>

[Dude]

Elwood,

I was thinking about updating to the new aviation consumer book. Why do you
recommend the older ones? Has there been a change? The one I have from the
eighties seems fairly written.


"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> Glad to hear! Keep us in the loop.
>
> More advice: don't forget about the non-CessnaPiper planes out there,
> or even some of the lesser known models of brand C and P. There are
> some fantastic deals. Cessna Cardinal RGs and Mooney M20C and -E, for
> example, all go 145 knots on 9-10gph. The Cardinal comes in a
> welded-leg version as well.
>
> Mooneys are great planes if you can fit into them. In my experience, if
> you are comfortable in a Cherokee you can squeeze in.
>
> I feel claustrophobic with small cabins and only one door, so we bought
> a Beechcraft Sierra, same engine as the Mooney and Cardinal RG but only
> 135kt or so---but a cabin nearly as big as our station wagon. The fixed
> gear version is a Musketeer or Sundowner. Not all have two doors, but
> some even have a kid-size bench seat in the baggage area.
>
> We decided that cabin size and ease of egress were more important than
> speed, so we ended up with a Beech instead of a Mooney. It was a toss
> up between the Sierra and the Cardinal RG---the Sierra was about 4/5 the
> cost.
>
> Best thing to do is to get Ron Wanttaja's book, one of the Bill Clarke
> anthologies, or an older edition of Aviation Consumer's guide to used
> planes, and look through the stats. Figure out what's important, and go
> from there. When you have it narrowed down, join the type club mailing
> lists. Both the Cardinal list and the Musketeer list have been
> fantastic resources.
>
>
>
> The Weiss Family wrote:
> > Thanks for the info Elwood.
> > I get excited thinking about ownership, but like buying a car, it's best
not
> > to get emotional.
> > Your post helped me get a decent perspective on the ups and downs of
> > ownership.
>

[Dude]

I put over 100 hours on my plane last year, and renters added to that.

I agree about what you are saying though. If many folks were really doing
more than 100 hours a year on a plane, they would likely look into a faster
plane for those long cross countries.

I have been adding ratings, and doing cross countries, so I am getting lots
of hours. I would definitely do less flying if I rented.


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
> e.rogers.com...
>
> > That's a bit excessive. I agree that a C172/Cherokee class airplane
isn't
> > the fastest way to get somewhere against a headwind, and it's definitely
> not
> > a coast-to-coast plane, but it's a perfectly reasonable IFR platform. I
> fly
> > my Warrior quite a bit in IMC in central Canada and the U.S. northeast.
>
> It is fine as an IFR platform as you say except for icing conditions or
> situations where headwinds limit your alternates and as long as you plan
> trips of reasonable distance for the airplane's speed.
>
> Altogether, that is why I say that few owner-flown C172/Cherokee airplanes
> fly more than 50-100 hours per year. It is rare to have a typical
aviation
> mission to use the airplane more than this given the airplane's abilities.
>
> Do you fly more than 100 hours per year in your airplane? If so, you are
an
> exception. How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100 hours
> per year?
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[Dave Butler]

Dude wrote:
> Forget it, never listen to someone who has absolutely no business posting
> this....
>
>>Forget it. You will never make a leaseback work. Plus it is the same as
>>renting a plane. You now have to schedule your own damn plane. You would
>>need commercial insurance. It is at least three times regular insurance.
>>
>
> Seriously, there are a thousand stores of bad leaseback situations. You
> will not here the happy owners screaming at the top of their lungs. My
> leaseback works okay.

<snip>

Good job, Dude. My leaseback worked ok, too, when I had it. It was an excellent
way for me to break into airplane ownership.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[David Megginson]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
> news:PRwsc.109351$536.19458583@attbi_s03...
>
>
>>Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.
>
>
> Owners typically think they will fly 150-200 hours per year but very rarely
> do owners fly more than 50-100 hours per year.

That's a fair point. I planned on 120 hours/year myself -- my logbook tells
me that I flew 144 hours in the first year I owned my Warrior and have flow
64 hours in the first six months for my second year (though much of that was
winter--the hours will get higher in the nice weather). My plan is to keep
aiming for 120 and to take on a partner if my annual hours drop below 100 a
couple of years in a row. I cannot imagine going back to renting. I might
also look for a partnership if I need a bigger or faster plane some day.

I agree that we see lots of planes just sitting on the field in the same
spot, week after week, month after month. This is completely unscientific,
of course, but it feels like there is an inverse correlation between the
ownership cost of a plane and the amount you fly. The Bonanzas and Barons
seem just to sit around most of the time, the 182s fly a bit more often, the
Cherokees and 172s fly a lot, and probably the most-flown privately-owned
plane on our field is a little 152.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> Do you fly more than 100 hours per year in your airplane?

I flew 144 hours last year, most of it cross-country. A typical
cross-country flight for me is 250-500 miles, within my non-stop range (with
reserves), usually cruising between 7,000 and 10,000 ft to stay above the
turbulence.

If I needed to make longer trips frequently, I'd probably look at a faster
plane, but I have an awful lot to fly to within 500 miles (all of the Great
Lakes cities as far west as Sault Ste. Marie, New York, Philadephia, Boston,
Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, etc.), and 126 ktas is quite fast enough for
that range. The plane is particularly useful for short business trips that
would be a major pain on the airlines, though the majority of my flying is
personal rather than business-related.

> If so, you are an
> exception. How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100 hours
> per year?

On the Usenet groups, probably an awful lot do, but we might not be
representative of 172/Cherokee/Musketeer owners in general.

Again, as I think you mentioned earlier and others have mentioned as well,
the trick to ownership is to make sure that the *plane* flies, say, 100
hours/year, not necessarily that the pilot does. Two 50 hour/year pilots
will get just as much economy out of ownership as one 100 hour/year pilot.


All the best,


David

[Richard Kaplan]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

> hours/year, not necessarily that the pilot does. Two 50 hour/year pilots
> will get just as much economy out of ownership as one 100 hour/year pilot.

Agreed.... if you can find a compatible partner or two, that is an excellent
way to reduce ownership costs while still retaining most of the advantages
of airplane ownership. Scheduling does not typically seem to be a problem
in partnerships of 2-3 pilots, and partnerships not only reduce the fixed
expenses but also provide a nice cushion to manage the cost of a surprise
maintenance bill or to help fund airplane upgrades.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Richard Kaplan]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...>


> ownership cost of a plane and the amount you fly. The Bonanzas and Barons
> seem just to sit around most of the time, the 182s fly a bit more often,
the
> Cherokees and 172s fly a lot, and probably the most-flown privately-owned
> plane on our field is a little 152.

I think this may be true, but to the extent that it is due to economics I do
not think the owners are saving that much money by not flying. I believe
very much that between the range of flying 50 hours per year vs. 200 hours
per year, maintenance is due not to tach hours but to calendar hours. The
Bonanza or Baron sitting on the ramp will probably require as much -- if not
more -- maintenance in a year of flying 50 hours as in a year of flying 200
hours.

Part of your observation may also be due to the fact that it is easy to find
a qualified pilot to borrow or rent a C152 or C172 but the more rare or
complex an airplane gets it gets harder to find a qualified/insurable pilot
to share its use.

Supporting your original observation, I have made an anecdotal but
interesting observation among pilots who schedule IFR recurrent training
with my flight school. I encourage pilots to plan on a combination of
instruction in their airplane and my simulator, and single-engine pilots
almost always readily agree to this as long as there are not weather or
maintenance concerns. Yet twin-engine pilots are often reluctant to use
their airplane for training -- not just for engine-out work but even for
basic instrument approach practice. Their reasons are usually not directly
stated but I get a sense that the cost of flying the airplane is a major
factor.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100 hours
> per year?

I fly 120+ hrs/yr, most of it IFR xc.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...>

> I fly 120+ hrs/yr, most of it IFR xc.

And you have a 172RG, not a 172... that makes it a bit more practical
dealing with headwinds.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Elwood Dowd]

Dude wrote:
> Elwood,
>
> I was thinking about updating to the new aviation consumer book. Why do you
> recommend the older ones? Has there been a change? The one I have from the
> eighties seems fairly written.

Only because the older ones can be found used for $10 or so. The new
one is $50 plus shipping. I have read some of the later (updated)
reports, and it didn't seem to me that there was $40 worth of new
information there.

Then again, if you are well heeled it is very interesting to compare the
reports of, say, an older Comanche to a newer Cirrus SR20. But then if
you are that well heeled, you can afford the $40!

[Tina Marie]

In article >, Richard Kaplan wrote:
> Do you fly more than 100 hours per year in your airplane? If so, you are an
> exception. How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100 hours
> per year?

Me. I usually exceed 100 hours alone, plus other people fly it sometimes.

Tina Marie

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tina Marie" > wrote in message
...

> Me. I usually exceed 100 hours alone, plus other people fly it sometimes.

What do you fly? Where from? Where to?

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Steven Barnes]

[snip]

> Do you fly more than 100 hours per year in your airplane? If so, you
are an
> exception. How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100
hours
> per year?
>
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

I'm in a flying club with a 172 and a 182. I bought a 1/3 share of a
Cherokee 180 last October.
Logbook shows: 2002: 72.9, 2003: 83, 2004: 47.6 so far

Sadly, it looks like most flights average out to 1.1 hobbs per flight.
I've been working on ifr training over the past year, so that lowers the
average.

I don't do a lot of traveling, but it's not really due to a slower
airplane. It's just life and weather that seem to do me in. I'm hoping the
ifr rating will help with the weather part. I'd have to work pretty hard to
get over 100 hours per year. (but what fun...)

[Tina Marie]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> What do you fly? Where from? Where to?

Tripacer. I fly to and from the local $100 hamburger place. I fly to
and from the local soaring club. I do one long (2000 mile+) trip a year,
sometimes 2 of those. Other then that, I putter around a lot.

It's not up to date, but you can get an idea from:
http://www.tripacerdriver.com/log.html

These are up to date:
http://www.tripacerdriver.com/RouteGraphics/RouteMap.jpg
http://www.tripacerdriver.com/RouteGraphics/DistanceByYear.jpg
http://www.tripacerdriver.com/RouteGraphics/DistanceByType.jpg

Tina Marie
--
http://www.tripacerdriver.com "...One of the main causes
of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way
to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)

[The Weiss Family]

I think I'm going to stick with a fixed gear to start.
I've been eyeing the Musketeer, but I'm a little worried about the IO-346.
All the 0-360 ones I've seen (or can afford) are only 150HP, but the IO-346
is 165HP.
Anyway, point well taken. I like Beech's as well.
Thanks


Adam

"Elwood Dowd" > wrote in message
...
> Glad to hear! Keep us in the loop.
>
> More advice: don't forget about the non-CessnaPiper planes out there,
> or even some of the lesser known models of brand C and P. There are
> some fantastic deals. Cessna Cardinal RGs and Mooney M20C and -E, for
> example, all go 145 knots on 9-10gph. The Cardinal comes in a
> welded-leg version as well.
>
> Mooneys are great planes if you can fit into them. In my experience, if
> you are comfortable in a Cherokee you can squeeze in.
>
> I feel claustrophobic with small cabins and only one door, so we bought
> a Beechcraft Sierra, same engine as the Mooney and Cardinal RG but only
> 135kt or so---but a cabin nearly as big as our station wagon. The fixed
> gear version is a Musketeer or Sundowner. Not all have two doors, but
> some even have a kid-size bench seat in the baggage area.
>
> We decided that cabin size and ease of egress were more important than
> speed, so we ended up with a Beech instead of a Mooney. It was a toss
> up between the Sierra and the Cardinal RG---the Sierra was about 4/5 the
> cost.
>
> Best thing to do is to get Ron Wanttaja's book, one of the Bill Clarke
> anthologies, or an older edition of Aviation Consumer's guide to used
> planes, and look through the stats. Figure out what's important, and go
> from there. When you have it narrowed down, join the type club mailing
> lists. Both the Cardinal list and the Musketeer list have been
> fantastic resources.
>
>
>
> The Weiss Family wrote:
> > Thanks for the info Elwood.
> > I get excited thinking about ownership, but like buying a car, it's best
not
> > to get emotional.
> > Your post helped me get a decent perspective on the ups and downs of
> > ownership.
>

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Good job, Dude. My leaseback worked ok, too, when I had it. It was an
excellent
> way for me to break into airplane ownership.

Did it make a profit outright or did it simply reduce the expense of
ownership? What kind of plane was it?

How did leaseback affect your maintenance costs?

Did you factor in the depreciation on your engine?

Why did you stop the leaseback?


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dave Butler]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Good job, Dude. My leaseback worked ok, too, when I had it. It was an
>
> excellent
>
>>way for me to break into airplane ownership.

> Did it make a profit outright or did it simply reduce the expense of
> ownership? What kind of plane was it?

It was very thin one way or the other, close to break even. I intentionally
operated it that way. I saw it as as opportunity to get experience in ownership,
be in control of and aware of maintenance, and have a plane for me to fly with
minimal expense. Of course, as you know, the expense of ownership is so wildly
variable that even though my intent was to come close to breaking even, the fact
that I did so was mostly a matter of luck. It was a 1975 PA28-180 Archer.

The lease arrangement was such that I was responsible for providing an airworthy
aircraft, the club paid for insurance and provided scheduling, collection, and
screening of users, used it for instrument instruction.

The maintenance was done mostly by an FBO on the field for convenience, I didn't
shop for price. This is the primary airport in a class C, and I think the
maintenance rates were higher than they might have been at an outlying field. It
was maintained with the intent of maximizing dispatching availability, which
sometimes meant paying overtime rates.

In the beginning I had a partner, but I bought him out when he didn't want to do
it any more due to a medical issue.

>
> How did leaseback affect your maintenance costs?

I can't give you a quantitative answer, but there were relatively few instances
where maintenance expense occurred because of obvious renter malfeasance. Since
the airplane was flying ~350 hours per year, the maintenance expense was spread
over way more hours than I could have achieved any other way.

>
> Did you factor in the depreciation on your engine?

Yes. I overhauled the engine twice during my tenure of ownership. One field
overhaul at a boutique engine shop was a disaster due to the difficulty of
warranty service because of distance. The other was a field overhaul at a nearby
shop with new Lyc cylinders and was a more satisfactory experience. The current
owner is going through an overhaul right now, went for a reman.

>
> Why did you stop the leaseback?

I was not flying due to some temporary medical difficulties. I had an offer from
another club member that looked attractive. Out of loyalty to the club, I wanted
the club to be able to continue to use the plane. The plane has changed hands
again since then, and is still on leaseback to the same club. I still fly it
once in a while.

Remove SHIRT to reply directly.
Dave

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Dave Butler > wrote:
>
>The lease arrangement was such that I was responsible for providing an
>airworthy
>aircraft, the club paid for insurance and provided scheduling, collection, and
>screening of users, used it for instrument instruction.

The club paying for insurance is huge. Commercial insurance can easily
cost 3-4x the personal/business policy. That's also what makes it
impractical to let your airplane be used a "little" for instruction.
The insurance is so high you need a year's worth of solid revenues to
offset it.

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

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...

> Yes. I overhauled the engine twice during my tenure of ownership. One
field

Well that might be a good argument in favor of leaseback. Most
single-pilot airplanes probably reach TBO by calendar hours way before they
reach TBO by tach hours. Getting revenue to support regular engine
overhauls is a big plus -- I would much rather fly IFR behind an engine new
by calendar hours than an engine low on tach hours but high on calendar
hours.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dave Butler]

Ben Jackson wrote:
>
> The club paying for insurance is huge. Commercial insurance can easily
> cost 3-4x the personal/business policy. That's also what makes it
> impractical to let your airplane be used a "little" for instruction.
> The insurance is so high you need a year's worth of solid revenues to
> offset it.

When you say "club paying" you have to realize it is the end users that
ultimately pay the price. The cost of insurance has to be passed on to the end
users in some way, either in the hourly rate or in the monthly price of access
to the aircraft. I think it makes more sense to price it in the monthly rate, in
this case, club dues.

[Dave Butler]

Richard Kaplan wrote:
> "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes. I overhauled the engine twice during my tenure of ownership. One
>
> field
>
> Well that might be a good argument in favor of leaseback. Most
> single-pilot airplanes probably reach TBO by calendar hours way before they
> reach TBO by tach hours. Getting revenue to support regular engine
> overhauls is a big plus -- I would much rather fly IFR behind an engine new
> by calendar hours than an engine low on tach hours but high on calendar
> hours.
>

I agree but I hadn't thought of it as an advantage. Thanks for the insight.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Jeff]

you dont have to work hard at flying over 100 hrs a year, you only need to find
reasons to go places besides just to fly.

I tell my wife, you want to go somewhere for any reason just let me know, she
she finds horse shows, dog shows, stores to shop at and so on I can fly her to.
Its easy to get over 100 hours when you fly the wife around.


Steven Barnes wrote:

> I'd have to work pretty hard to
> get over 100 hours per year. (but what fun...)

[Jeff]

I fly well over 100 hours a year, mostly to california and arizona and usually
taking the wife to horse and dog shows.


Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Do you fly more than 100 hours per year in your airplane? If so, you are an
> exception. How many pilots here fly a C172-class airplane over 100 hours
> per year?
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com

[Rosspilot]

If you want to fly 100+ hours per year, make flying an integral part of your
business. It works real well :-)


www.Rosspilot.com