Considering buying a share

[Paul Tomblin]

I belong to a really good flying club
(http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/) - we've got 5 aircraft ranging from
a Piper Warrior (PA28-161) to a Piper Lance (P32R-300). I fly about 25-35
hours a year, and wish I could fly more. The majority of my flying is
weekend trips up to Canada to see my kids. Sometimes I have a trip
planned but don't fly because I can't get an airplane, other times it's
because I don't know much about instrument flying in the winter yet and
I'm scared of ice, or I don't know how to handle pre-heating at an "away"
field. My wife isn't real enthusiastic about flying, so sometimes we
drive places were I'd rather fly because she doesn't want to take the
chance of getting stranded somewhere. (For instance, we're going to
Chicago this weekend, but we've booked plane tickets even though the
weather looks like it's going to be perfect VFR). I'm trying to convince
myself that if you took away the lack of availability problem, I'd
probably fly 50 hours or more a year.

Anyway, I've suddenly got some spare money kicking around. I was looking
at a plane partnership - a friend has a quarter share in a Cherokee 140
with a 160hp upgraded engine. The plane looks like it's basically a
two-person plane - I can't see putting anybody in the back seat,
especially behind me. Since most of my flying is just me or me and my
wife, that would probably work out.

The plane looks reasonably equipped - the interior is a bit ratty, and the
panel is a mish-mash of things squeezed in wherever they'll fit, but it's
got two panel mount GPSes (only one is legal for approaches). The lead
guy in the partnership says that the four members of the partnership get
together and do all the "owner assist" parts of the annual, so the annual
only takes a day or two and only costs about $600 plus any squawks. They
kick in $35 a month to the general fund, and $35 per hour flown, and that
covers maintenance and upgrades and everything else. That makes it quite
a bit cheaper than the club, but I have to wonder if the maintenance is as
high quality as I'm used to in the club.

The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well, but he
says that the other partners have priority over the students. He also
says that the plane only flies about 20 hours a month, and I know every
time I'm at the field it seems to be sitting there. However, I know that
as well as this open slot in the partnership agreement, one of the other
partners pays his fees but hasn't flown in 17 years (his wife won't let
him fly until his kids are no longer financially dependant on him!), so
there's really only two active members in the partnership.

If I go into this partnership, I'd probably maintain my membership in the
flying club just so that I have access to the higher load carrying
capacity of the Dakota and Lance when I need it.

I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
- whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
- whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
Cherokee 140?
- how I can make sure I'm not getting ripped off?
- would participating in an annual be a good way to size up their
maintenance attitude and quality?
- do you think it might be a problem if the lead guy is used to having
partners who don't fly much and suddenly I join and fly the plane away
every weekend when there isn't another partner flying?
- if I pass on this partnership, where does one find other people looking
for partners? I found this one through a guy in my church (the guy
whose wife won't let him fly).

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Hardware, n.:
The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.

[Dave Butler]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

<big snip>

> I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
> - whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
> - whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
> Cherokee 140?
> - how I can make sure I'm not getting ripped off?
> - would participating in an annual be a good way to size up their
> maintenance attitude and quality?
> - do you think it might be a problem if the lead guy is used to having
> partners who don't fly much and suddenly I join and fly the plane away
> every weekend when there isn't another partner flying?
> - if I pass on this partnership, where does one find other people looking
> for partners? I found this one through a guy in my church (the guy
> whose wife won't let him fly).

[broken record] Be certain your goals are well aligned with those of your
partners. If you fly a lot and they don't, you will have a different view of how
the plane should be maintained / upgraded / scheduled / financed / etc., and
that will eventually lead to trouble.

What's a "lead guy"? Does he have a bigger stake in the plane than the others?
Is this partnership a democracy or a monarchy? Speaking for myself, I'd want a
democracy where all votes are the same size.

I already snipped the part where you said how many partners there were, but I
think you said you'd be the fifth partner(?). That's a lot of people to get to
agree on major decisions. As mentioned above, the partner(s) who fly a lot may
have a different view from those who don't.

Where to find partners: get a list of aircraft owners in your zip code from one
of the pilot databases, direct-mail them and tell them you might be interested
in a partnership. Put an ad in the local paper. Put up notices in nearby FBOs.
Best of all is word-of-mouth. Tell your pilot friends that you're looking.

Dave

[TripFarmer]

Study the partnership agreement in detail.


Trip

In article >, says...
>
>I belong to a really good flying club
>(http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/) - we've got 5 aircraft ranging from
>a Piper Warrior (PA28-161) to a Piper Lance (P32R-300). I fly about 25-35
>hours a year, and wish I could fly more. The majority of my flying is
>weekend trips up to Canada to see my kids. Sometimes I have a trip
>planned but don't fly because I can't get an airplane, other times it's
>because I don't know much about instrument flying in the winter yet and
>I'm scared of ice, or I don't know how to handle pre-heating at an "away"
>field. My wife isn't real enthusiastic about flying, so sometimes we
>drive places were I'd rather fly because she doesn't want to take the
>chance of getting stranded somewhere. (For instance, we're going to
>Chicago this weekend, but we've booked plane tickets even though the
>weather looks like it's going to be perfect VFR). I'm trying to convince
>myself that if you took away the lack of availability problem, I'd
>probably fly 50 hours or more a year.
>
>Anyway, I've suddenly got some spare money kicking around. I was looking
>at a plane partnership - a friend has a quarter share in a Cherokee 140
>with a 160hp upgraded engine. The plane looks like it's basically a
>two-person plane - I can't see putting anybody in the back seat,
>especially behind me. Since most of my flying is just me or me and my
>wife, that would probably work out.
>
>The plane looks reasonably equipped - the interior is a bit ratty, and the
>panel is a mish-mash of things squeezed in wherever they'll fit, but it's
>got two panel mount GPSes (only one is legal for approaches). The lead
>guy in the partnership says that the four members of the partnership get
>together and do all the "owner assist" parts of the annual, so the annual
>only takes a day or two and only costs about $600 plus any squawks. They
>kick in $35 a month to the general fund, and $35 per hour flown, and that
>covers maintenance and upgrades and everything else. That makes it quite
>a bit cheaper than the club, but I have to wonder if the maintenance is as
>high quality as I'm used to in the club.
>
>The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well, but he
>says that the other partners have priority over the students. He also
>says that the plane only flies about 20 hours a month, and I know every
>time I'm at the field it seems to be sitting there. However, I know that
>as well as this open slot in the partnership agreement, one of the other
>partners pays his fees but hasn't flown in 17 years (his wife won't let
>him fly until his kids are no longer financially dependant on him!), so
>there's really only two active members in the partnership.
>
>If I go into this partnership, I'd probably maintain my membership in the
>flying club just so that I have access to the higher load carrying
>capacity of the Dakota and Lance when I need it.
>
>I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
>- whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
>- whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
> Cherokee 140?
>- how I can make sure I'm not getting ripped off?
>- would participating in an annual be a good way to size up their
> maintenance attitude and quality?
>- do you think it might be a problem if the lead guy is used to having
> partners who don't fly much and suddenly I join and fly the plane away
> every weekend when there isn't another partner flying?
>- if I pass on this partnership, where does one find other people looking
> for partners? I found this one through a guy in my church (the guy
> whose wife won't let him fly).
>
>--
>Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
>Hardware, n.:
> The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.

[Stan Prevost]

Paul, what do you mean by the "lead guy" in the partnership? Does he own a
larger share, or what? I'm dubious of a partnership with one dominant
person. Maybe it's a good arrangement in this particular case, but I would
look carefully at that aspect.

Stan


"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> I belong to a really good flying club
> (http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/) - we've got 5 aircraft ranging from
> a Piper Warrior (PA28-161) to a Piper Lance (P32R-300). I fly about 25-35
> hours a year, and wish I could fly more. The majority of my flying is
> weekend trips up to Canada to see my kids. Sometimes I have a trip
> planned but don't fly because I can't get an airplane, other times it's
> because I don't know much about instrument flying in the winter yet and
> I'm scared of ice, or I don't know how to handle pre-heating at an "away"
> field. My wife isn't real enthusiastic about flying, so sometimes we
> drive places were I'd rather fly because she doesn't want to take the
> chance of getting stranded somewhere. (For instance, we're going to
> Chicago this weekend, but we've booked plane tickets even though the
> weather looks like it's going to be perfect VFR). I'm trying to convince
> myself that if you took away the lack of availability problem, I'd
> probably fly 50 hours or more a year.
>
> Anyway, I've suddenly got some spare money kicking around. I was looking
> at a plane partnership - a friend has a quarter share in a Cherokee 140
> with a 160hp upgraded engine. The plane looks like it's basically a
> two-person plane - I can't see putting anybody in the back seat,
> especially behind me. Since most of my flying is just me or me and my
> wife, that would probably work out.
>
> The plane looks reasonably equipped - the interior is a bit ratty, and the
> panel is a mish-mash of things squeezed in wherever they'll fit, but it's
> got two panel mount GPSes (only one is legal for approaches). The lead
> guy in the partnership says that the four members of the partnership get
> together and do all the "owner assist" parts of the annual, so the annual
> only takes a day or two and only costs about $600 plus any squawks. They
> kick in $35 a month to the general fund, and $35 per hour flown, and that
> covers maintenance and upgrades and everything else. That makes it quite
> a bit cheaper than the club, but I have to wonder if the maintenance is as
> high quality as I'm used to in the club.
>
> The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well, but he
> says that the other partners have priority over the students. He also
> says that the plane only flies about 20 hours a month, and I know every
> time I'm at the field it seems to be sitting there. However, I know that
> as well as this open slot in the partnership agreement, one of the other
> partners pays his fees but hasn't flown in 17 years (his wife won't let
> him fly until his kids are no longer financially dependant on him!), so
> there's really only two active members in the partnership.
>
> If I go into this partnership, I'd probably maintain my membership in the
> flying club just so that I have access to the higher load carrying
> capacity of the Dakota and Lance when I need it.
>
> I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
> - whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
> - whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
> Cherokee 140?
> - how I can make sure I'm not getting ripped off?
> - would participating in an annual be a good way to size up their
> maintenance attitude and quality?
> - do you think it might be a problem if the lead guy is used to having
> partners who don't fly much and suddenly I join and fly the plane away
> every weekend when there isn't another partner flying?
> - if I pass on this partnership, where does one find other people looking
> for partners? I found this one through a guy in my church (the guy
> whose wife won't let him fly).
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Hardware, n.:
> The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Stan Prevost" > said:
>Paul, what do you mean by the "lead guy" in the partnership? Does he own a
>larger share, or what? I'm dubious of a partnership with one dominant
>person. Maybe it's a good arrangement in this particular case, but I would
>look carefully at that aspect.

Like I said, it's a four way partnership, and one of the slots is open,
and another is held by a guy who never flies. The plane was originally
bought by the guy I'm calling "the lead guy" and three of his students,
although I think at least one of the partnerships turned over since then
and is held by somebody who wasn't originally his student. The lead guy
seems to make at least some of the maintenance decisions, I'm not 100%
sure of that. I also saw him fiddling with a little brass screw driver
adjusting the compass at one point, so he might be an A&P, or he might
have a pretty broad idea of what constitudes owner maintenance, I don't
know.

That's another thing I'd need to look at, if he's used to calling all the
shots.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.

[Jon Kraus]

I forget if you are Instrument Rated or still an Instrument student but
25-35 hours a month doesn't seem like enough to stay intrument current
to me... Unless everytime you fly it is in actual or under the hood then
you need to fly more... My experience is that owning is more expensive
than renting by far but I am in a 2 way partnership in a complex
airplane. My opinion is that you should stay with the club.. If you
find that you can fly more you can always form a parnership later. I
found my partner at our FBO by posting a message to see if anyone was
interested in purchasing an airplane... I also wouldn't go with more
than 3 partners but that is jsut my opinion.. Good luck in whatever you
decide!!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201 4443H

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I belong to a really good flying club
> (http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/) - we've got 5 aircraft ranging from
> a Piper Warrior (PA28-161) to a Piper Lance (P32R-300). I fly about 25-35
> hours a year, and wish I could fly more. The majority of my flying is
> weekend trips up to Canada to see my kids. Sometimes I have a trip
> planned but don't fly because I can't get an airplane, other times it's
> because I don't know much about instrument flying in the winter yet and
> I'm scared of ice, or I don't know how to handle pre-heating at an "away"
> field. My wife isn't real enthusiastic about flying, so sometimes we
> drive places were I'd rather fly because she doesn't want to take the
> chance of getting stranded somewhere. (For instance, we're going to
> Chicago this weekend, but we've booked plane tickets even though the
> weather looks like it's going to be perfect VFR). I'm trying to convince
> myself that if you took away the lack of availability problem, I'd
> probably fly 50 hours or more a year.
>
> Anyway, I've suddenly got some spare money kicking around. I was looking
> at a plane partnership - a friend has a quarter share in a Cherokee 140
> with a 160hp upgraded engine. The plane looks like it's basically a
> two-person plane - I can't see putting anybody in the back seat,
> especially behind me. Since most of my flying is just me or me and my
> wife, that would probably work out.
>
> The plane looks reasonably equipped - the interior is a bit ratty, and the
> panel is a mish-mash of things squeezed in wherever they'll fit, but it's
> got two panel mount GPSes (only one is legal for approaches). The lead
> guy in the partnership says that the four members of the partnership get
> together and do all the "owner assist" parts of the annual, so the annual
> only takes a day or two and only costs about $600 plus any squawks. They
> kick in $35 a month to the general fund, and $35 per hour flown, and that
> covers maintenance and upgrades and everything else. That makes it quite
> a bit cheaper than the club, but I have to wonder if the maintenance is as
> high quality as I'm used to in the club.
>
> The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well, but he
> says that the other partners have priority over the students. He also
> says that the plane only flies about 20 hours a month, and I know every
> time I'm at the field it seems to be sitting there. However, I know that
> as well as this open slot in the partnership agreement, one of the other
> partners pays his fees but hasn't flown in 17 years (his wife won't let
> him fly until his kids are no longer financially dependant on him!), so
> there's really only two active members in the partnership.
>
> If I go into this partnership, I'd probably maintain my membership in the
> flying club just so that I have access to the higher load carrying
> capacity of the Dakota and Lance when I need it.
>
> I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
> - whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
> - whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
> Cherokee 140?
> - how I can make sure I'm not getting ripped off?
> - would participating in an annual be a good way to size up their
> maintenance attitude and quality?
> - do you think it might be a problem if the lead guy is used to having
> partners who don't fly much and suddenly I join and fly the plane away
> every weekend when there isn't another partner flying?
> - if I pass on this partnership, where does one find other people looking
> for partners? I found this one through a guy in my church (the guy
> whose wife won't let him fly).
>

[Jon Kraus]

I forget if you are Instrument Rated or still an Instrument student but
25-35 hours a year doesn't seem like enough to stay intrument current
to me... Unless everytime you fly it is in actual or under the hood then
you need to fly more... My experience is that owning is more expensive
than renting by far but I am in a 2 way partnership in a complex
airplane. My opinion is that you should stay with the club.. If you
find that you can fly more you can always form a parnership later. I
found my partner at our FBO by posting a message to see if anyone was
interested in purchasing an airplane... I also wouldn't go with more
than 3 partners but that is jsut my opinion.. Good luck in whatever you
decide!!

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201 4443H

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> I belong to a really good flying club
> (http://www.rochesterflyingclub.com/) - we've got 5 aircraft ranging from
> a Piper Warrior (PA28-161) to a Piper Lance (P32R-300). I fly about 25-35
> hours a year, and wish I could fly more. The majority of my flying is
> weekend trips up to Canada to see my kids. Sometimes I have a trip
> planned but don't fly because I can't get an airplane, other times it's
> because I don't know much about instrument flying in the winter yet and
> I'm scared of ice, or I don't know how to handle pre-heating at an "away"
> field. My wife isn't real enthusiastic about flying, so sometimes we
> drive places were I'd rather fly because she doesn't want to take the
> chance of getting stranded somewhere. (For instance, we're going to
> Chicago this weekend, but we've booked plane tickets even though the
> weather looks like it's going to be perfect VFR). I'm trying to convince
> myself that if you took away the lack of availability problem, I'd
> probably fly 50 hours or more a year.
>
> Anyway, I've suddenly got some spare money kicking around. I was looking
> at a plane partnership - a friend has a quarter share in a Cherokee 140
> with a 160hp upgraded engine. The plane looks like it's basically a
> two-person plane - I can't see putting anybody in the back seat,
> especially behind me. Since most of my flying is just me or me and my
> wife, that would probably work out.
>
> The plane looks reasonably equipped - the interior is a bit ratty, and the
> panel is a mish-mash of things squeezed in wherever they'll fit, but it's
> got two panel mount GPSes (only one is legal for approaches). The lead
> guy in the partnership says that the four members of the partnership get
> together and do all the "owner assist" parts of the annual, so the annual
> only takes a day or two and only costs about $600 plus any squawks. They
> kick in $35 a month to the general fund, and $35 per hour flown, and that
> covers maintenance and upgrades and everything else. That makes it quite
> a bit cheaper than the club, but I have to wonder if the maintenance is as
> high quality as I'm used to in the club.
>
> The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well, but he
> says that the other partners have priority over the students. He also
> says that the plane only flies about 20 hours a month, and I know every
> time I'm at the field it seems to be sitting there. However, I know that
> as well as this open slot in the partnership agreement, one of the other
> partners pays his fees but hasn't flown in 17 years (his wife won't let
> him fly until his kids are no longer financially dependant on him!), so
> there's really only two active members in the partnership.
>
> If I go into this partnership, I'd probably maintain my membership in the
> flying club just so that I have access to the higher load carrying
> capacity of the Dakota and Lance when I need it.
>
> I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
> - whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
> - whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
> Cherokee 140?
> - how I can make sure I'm not getting ripped off?
> - would participating in an annual be a good way to size up their
> maintenance attitude and quality?
> - do you think it might be a problem if the lead guy is used to having
> partners who don't fly much and suddenly I join and fly the plane away
> every weekend when there isn't another partner flying?
> - if I pass on this partnership, where does one find other people looking
> for partners? I found this one through a guy in my church (the guy
> whose wife won't let him fly).
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:


>
> I'm curious as to the opinions of the other people here as to
> - whether getting into a partnership would be a good idea?
> - whether I should hold out for something a little more capable than a
> Cherokee 140?

(note: I own a 160hp 140)
How much more capability do you want? If it's just you and maybe one
other person, that 160hp 140 will fly just about as fast as a warrior. Do
you want the speed of an Archer? or ?

I see the advantage of a cherokee 140 mostly in the purchase price.
It's much less money than comparable warrior or Archer. And I like
the lighter controls compared to the Archer.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Stan Prevost]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

> That's another thing I'd need to look at, if he's used to calling all the
> shots.
>

Yes, that's what I was getting at. I think it's good to partition the
responsibilities among the active partners, such as maintenance, keeping the
books, keeping databases and programs up to date, etc. But be careful of
one guy who wants to call all the shots.

I am in a three-way partnership, with two of us handling all the duties (in
the sense of having primary responsibility for, not absolute authority or
autonomy), just the way it worked out. It is working fine, and has for
several years.

[Jay Honeck]

> The lead
> guy in the partnership says that the four members of the partnership get
> together and do all the "owner assist" parts of the annual, so the annual
> only takes a day or two and only costs about $600 plus any squawks.

Having a group of guys that are willing to get their hands dirty to save
money -- as long as you've got a good A&P keeping everyone in line -- is a
very good thing. I've seen too many partnerships where one guy does all the
work, and the others coast.

> They kick in $35 a month to the general fund, and $35 per hour flown, and
> that
> covers maintenance and upgrades and everything else.

How much is the "buy in" to become a partner? That per-hour amount is
awfully low, especially given the miniscule monthly fee. Shoot, one new
propeller and you've wiped out three years of your $35 x 5 guys monthly
fees. What happens when you want to add upgrades? Or an overhaul?

> The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well

That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is NOT
going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you really
want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well
>
> That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is
NOT
> going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you
really
> want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?

That's what I was thinking as well. Providing instruction in the
plane tends to double or triple the cost of insurance. Is the "lead
guy" making up the difference? Is he instructing under the standard
business/personal policy without telling the insurance company? If
it's the former, then my only concern would be the type of instruction
(i.e. IFR dual instruction only might work). If it's the latter, I'd
drop the deal like a hot potato.

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

[Colin W Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > > The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well
> >
> > That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is
> NOT
> > going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you
> really
> > want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?
>
> That's what I was thinking as well. Providing instruction in the
> plane tends to double or triple the cost of insurance. Is the "lead
> guy" making up the difference? Is he instructing under the standard
> business/personal policy without telling the insurance company? If
> it's the former, then my only concern would be the type of instruction
> (i.e. IFR dual instruction only might work). If it's the latter, I'd
> drop the deal like a hot potato.

Really, even if you're doing regular and good-quality maintenance?

How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?

[xyzzy]

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well
>>>
>>>That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is
>>
>>NOT
>>
>>>going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you
>>
>>really
>>
>>>want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?
>>
>>That's what I was thinking as well. Providing instruction in the
>>plane tends to double or triple the cost of insurance. Is the "lead
>>guy" making up the difference? Is he instructing under the standard
>>business/personal policy without telling the insurance company? If
>>it's the former, then my only concern would be the type of instruction
>>(i.e. IFR dual instruction only might work). If it's the latter, I'd
>>drop the deal like a hot potato.
>
>
> Really, even if you're doing regular and good-quality maintenance?
>
> How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
> thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?
>
>

There's a difference between owning an airplane that was a
rental/trainer many years ago, and owning one that's a rental/trainer now.

[[email protected]]

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Really, even if you're doing regular and good-quality maintenance?

Yes. Training aircraft tend to get beat up more than average due to
the lower experience levels of the students (I'm referring to primary
training). Who is going to pay for that extra wear and tear. The
partners?
>
> How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
> thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?

Mine spent a several hundred hours on the rental line in its younger
days. It also got some pretty significant damage during that time.

To me, there is a big difference in owning a plane that was once used
as a trainer, compared to owning one that is currently being used as a
trainer.

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

[Jay Honeck]

>> How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
>> thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?

My old Warrior spent many years on the line, being ridden hard and put away
wet. I spent a bunch of dough, and a gazillion hours making everything
right again, and it's not something I would want to do over. If it had
still been on the rental line, I wouldn't have bothered.

One major advantage of owning a plane is knowing who flew it -- and landed
it -- last. If your lead guy is instructing in the plane, you have lost a
huge reason for ownership, right off the bat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dude]

My question is what do the students do when its time to solo?

I had a plane in leaseback, and it suffered pretty good levels of abuse with
little damage to show for it. Making everything right again was not very
expensive compared to the money I saved with the leaseback. However, being a
part owner and not getting the benefits of the rental would not seem right
to me.