How common are aircraft partnerships compared to outright ownerships?

[[email protected]]

I've come to the point where I'm looking to get into owning an
aircraft. However, I've read (and calculated) that the break-even
point for owning comes after about 150-200 hours per year.

I'm not going to be doing nearly that amount of flying. In fact, I
don't know anybody other than a CFI or some other commercial pilot who
would. So, it seems that a partnership would be "the way to go" for
most people who want to vacation or take extended trips with an
aircraft.

If so, however, how come they're so *hard* to find? I don't see any
listed in trade-a-plane or on any aircraft commerce sites like
mooneymart or whatnot.

Based upon the number of listings that I've come across, partnerships
are downright endangered species.

Are they? And, if not, how do I go about *finding* them?

- Joe

[Doug]

Put some ads up on the bulletin boards at local airports. There are
usually several partnerships available. Ask around.

[Dave Butler]

wrote:
<snip>
> So, it seems that a partnership would be "the way to go" for
> most people who want to vacation or take extended trips with an
> aircraft.
>
> If so, however, how come they're so *hard* to find? I don't see any
> listed in trade-a-plane or on any aircraft commerce sites like
> mooneymart or whatnot.

Because aircraft partnerships are local, and you're looking at national or
worldwide media. Try the classified section of your local paper. Also check for
local airplanes for sale, sometimes they will take on a partner as an option to
selling. Also check on any airplanes you see at your local airport that you
like. Sometimes owners are willing to take on a partner but aren't advertising.

>
> Based upon the number of listings that I've come across, partnerships
> are downright endangered species.
>
> Are they? And, if not, how do I go about *finding* them?

Above...

[Leonard Ellis]

you might try looking at http://www.aopa.org at the aviation classified ads
(click on the link near the top of the window, more-or-less centered in the
banner).

By the way, I completely agree that sharing an airplane is (from a financial
perspective) the only way to go, assuming of course that you are able to
find a good partnership.

Good luck!

- Leonard
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've come to the point where I'm looking to get into owning an
> aircraft. However, I've read (and calculated) that the break-even
> point for owning comes after about 150-200 hours per year.
>
> I'm not going to be doing nearly that amount of flying. In fact, I
> don't know anybody other than a CFI or some other commercial pilot who
> would. So, it seems that a partnership would be "the way to go" for
> most people who want to vacation or take extended trips with an
> aircraft.
>
> If so, however, how come they're so *hard* to find? I don't see any
> listed in trade-a-plane or on any aircraft commerce sites like
> mooneymart or whatnot.
>
> Based upon the number of listings that I've come across, partnerships
> are downright endangered species.
>
> Are they? And, if not, how do I go about *finding* them?
>
> - Joe
>

[M]

If you get the right plane, the break even point can be as low as 100
hour. You tend to fly more when you own the plane because the plane is
nearly always available. How many good flying days when you want to
fly and the rentals are all booked?

--Mike

wrote:
> I've come to the point where I'm looking to get into owning an
> aircraft. However, I've read (and calculated) that the break-even
> point for owning comes after about 150-200 hours per year.
>
> I'm not going to be doing nearly that amount of flying. In fact, I
> don't know anybody other than a CFI or some other commercial pilot who
> would. So, it seems that a partnership would be "the way to go" for
> most people who want to vacation or take extended trips with an
> aircraft.
>
> If so, however, how come they're so *hard* to find? I don't see any
> listed in trade-a-plane or on any aircraft commerce sites like
> mooneymart or whatnot.
>
> Based upon the number of listings that I've come across, partnerships
> are downright endangered species.
>
> Are they? And, if not, how do I go about *finding* them?
>
> - Joe

[[email protected]]

On 5-Aug-2005, wrote:

> If so, however, how come they're so *hard* to find? I don't see any
> listed in trade-a-plane or on any aircraft commerce sites like
> mooneymart or whatnot.


Your assessment of the practicalities of airplane partnerships is exactly
correct, and for that reason they are very popular. However, it makes
little sense to advertise partnerships (BTW, the official FAA term is
"co-ownership") in national media. You need to be looking locally.

There are basically 4 ways to join a partnership, as follows:

-- You can purchase a "share" from a member of an existing partnership.

-- You can "buy into" an airplane currently owned by an individual.

-- You can form a partnership with one or more like-minded pilots and then
collectively shop for an airplane.

-- You can purchase an airplane by yourself and then seek partners to "buy
in".

Depending upon your circumstances, chances are one of these methods will
present itself if you do a little work. Obviously, if you are located in a
larger metro area your chances are better than if you hail from Zap, ND.

It has been my experience (several different partnerships on 3 different
airplanes) that partnerships generally form or change hands through
word-of-mouth. So let everybody you know, particularly pilots, A&Ps, CFIs,
etc., that you are looking. Look for local airplanes for sale, with the
idea that the owner may consider selling half rather than the whole thing.
See an airplane you like locally? Find the owner through the N-number
database
(http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*74902977!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/search_nnr.html)
and contact him/her. He/she may be willing to consider a partnership, or
may know of a similar make/model with an available share for sale.

Finally, there is no reason why you can't let the good people that frequent
this NG help. But you are going to have to tell us your location and the
type of airplane you are looking for. Good luck!

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Roger]

On 5 Aug 2005 01:23:51 -0700, wrote:

>I've come to the point where I'm looking to get into owning an
>aircraft. However, I've read (and calculated) that the break-even
>point for owning comes after about 150-200 hours per year.
>
>I'm not going to be doing nearly that amount of flying. In fact, I
>don't know anybody other than a CFI or some other commercial pilot who
>would. So, it seems that a partnership would be "the way to go" for
>most people who want to vacation or take extended trips with an
>aircraft.
>
>If so, however, how come they're so *hard* to find? I don't see any
>listed in trade-a-plane or on any aircraft commerce sites like
>mooneymart or whatnot.
>
>Based upon the number of listings that I've come across, partnerships
>are downright endangered species.

First, partnerships and clubs are probably the predominant way of
owning an aircraft or at least part of one.
You might look into local flying clubs as well as partnerships. They
are *usually* more flexible, less expensive, and may have more
available aircraft.

As others have already said, check out the bulletin boards at the
local airports and if you don't find anything, post a note that your
are looking for a partnership, or club to join.

Normally I'd expect to fly more and pay less in a club than a
partnership, but much depends on who you have for partners or club
members. Either way, when in partnerships of clubs you have to pay
even more attention to the preflight and become extra attentive as far
as things that might fail.

For the break even point that too varies. I found it to be around 75
to 100 hours for what I'm flying.

There are couple of flying clubs around here (Central Michigan) that
figure some where between $40 and $50 per hour. One has a Cherokee
180 (Hershey Bar wing - old one, but with a modern panel including a
430) and the other has a very nice 172 that is reasonably well
equipped.

Renting runs $75 to $100 an hour with a new 172 renting for around
$125, or $135 per hour.
>
>Are they? And, if not, how do I go about *finding* them?

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>- Joe

[xyzzy]

Roger wrote:

> First, partnerships and clubs are probably the predominant way of
> owning an aircraft or at least part of one.
> You might look into local flying clubs as well as partnerships. They
> are *usually* more flexible, less expensive, and may have more
> available aircraft.


I fly in a large club (200+ members) and a couple of times in the last
year I have seriously looked into buying, both solo and partnership, but
quite frankly the club is such a good deal I can't justify buying.

In the club I pay dues of $45/mo, and $80/hr wet to fly 160 hp Piper
Warrior II's with Apollo GPS and coupled autopilot. The club has a
fleet of four of them. That is the sum total of my airplane expenses and
includes a very good insurance policy (all club members are named
insureds), access to a hangar with offices that the club owns, and
social events. Since joining the club I've been flying on average 6
hours a month, which is 72 hours a year. I know exactly how much it has
cost me and I also know exactly how much it will cost me in the future
to fly.

I ran the spreadsheet on buying a low-end plane by myself, and also on
buying into a 3-way partnership on a little bit nicer plane. I never
could make it work out without significant fudging, even leaving out the
unknowns like how long before I need an overhaul, repairs, etc.

My perception of the advantages and disadvantages of club vs. ownership:

Advantages:

1. Cheaper
2. Absolutely predictable and controllable expenses (don't want to
spend as much this month? Don't fly as much).
3. No financial risk (unexpected maint, value-killing ADs, sudden
medical problem that makes an owned plane a white elephant, etc)
4. Maintenance not all my responsibility (members chip in to do
maintenance but it doesn't all fall on one or two people). Financially,
each squawk doesn't mean more $$$ out of my pocket.
5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.
6. I fly planes with better avionics and more capability than I could
afford to buy myself
7. It's easy to figure exactly what it costs me to fly (yes this can
also be a disadvantage :).

Disadvantages:

1. Availability -- don't count on being able to fly on a nice weekend
day unless you reserved well ahead. This is the flip side of advantage #5.
2. Don't totally control my own fate. For example: Accidents or
negligence by other members could affect the club's insurance situation
(partnerships have this problem too, but with a club there's more
people, therefore more variables). Another example: if the club board
decides to sell or replace an airplane or change aircraft types, or
specify different avionics from what I like, I have very little say in
the matter.
3. Even though it's cheaper in the long run, it's emotionally hard to
write a large check when returning from a long trip. More flying means
you pay more, whereas when you own more flying means it gets cheaper (on
a per-hour basis, anyway)
4. Must follow club SOP's, for example minimum runway lengths, required
preapproval for grass strips, etc. For me this is not a problem because
it ameliorates the first concern in disadvantage #2, plus my own
personal mins exceed the SOPs but others might find it too restrictive.
5. Some clubs may restrict flexibility for long trips (though mine is
pretty liberal on it and it hasn't been a problem for anyone as far as I
know).
6. Easy to figure exactly what it costs to fly :)
7. No pride of ownership.

I've concluded that I'd like to own a plane someday, but it will have to
be when I have a lot more money than I do now. C'mon, stock market!

[Andrew Gideon]

xyzzy wrote:

> 5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
> grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.

This is one of my favorite "why a club" answers. The other related answer
(which may not apply to your club) is that in a club has different types of
aircraft, there's some diversity in your flying.

- Andrew

[xyzzy]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>
>>5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
>>grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.
>
>
> This is one of my favorite "why a club" answers. The other related answer
> (which may not apply to your club) is that in a club has different types of
> aircraft, there's some diversity in your flying.
>

We also have 152's, which are such low-end trainers that hardly any
non-student pilots fly them, and Mooneys, and there are some members
that fly both Warriors and Mooneys. Most members just fly one type
though, because each type caters to a different market.

We're having that discussion now, looks like the club board has decided
to sell two of the four Warriors and buy 2 172's. I personally don't
like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both types
(which is an added expense and hassle), everyone's fleet availability
just got cut in half -- I actually argue worse than in half because
having one other plane of a type is much worse than having three others
of the type when you show up for your instrument lesson and find the NAV
radio on the plane you reserved is squawked. Others like the diversity
of flying more, and quite frankly I think some members just like
shopping for airplanes. Looks like the diversity/shopping crowd has won
the argument. That's why the "you don't control your own fate"
disadvantage has recently been added to my list of pros and cons for
club vs. owning.

[Newps]

xyzzy wrote:
I personally don't
> like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both types
> (which is an added expense and hassle),

If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.

[xyzzy]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> xyzzy wrote:
> I personally don't
>
>> like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
>> types (which is an added expense and hassle),
>
>
> If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.

True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's
agree?

[Andrew Gideon]

xyzzy wrote:

> Most members just fly one type
> though, because each type caters to a different market.

Hmm. My ideal club would have little "sports" airplanes (I'd put a super
decathalon in that set, for example) and larger "travel" airplanes (ie. a
182 or 206, for example). Esp. with families, a six-seater looks *very*
attractive.

> We're having that discussion now, looks like the club board has decided
> to sell two of the four Warriors and buy 2 172's.

That's not really the kind of diversity that would excite me. What's the
point?

- Andrew

[xyzzy]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>
>>Most members just fly one type
>>though, because each type caters to a different market.
>
>
> Hmm. My ideal club would have little "sports" airplanes (I'd put a super
> decathalon in that set, for example) and larger "travel" airplanes (ie. a
> 182 or 206, for example). Esp. with families, a six-seater looks *very*
> attractive.
>
>
>>We're having that discussion now, looks like the club board has decided
>>to sell two of the four Warriors and buy 2 172's.
>
>
> That's not really the kind of diversity that would excite me. What's the
> point?

I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
172's, because the Warriors are aging and the club wants newer (but not
brand new) planes, but the vintage the club wants was when Piper was
bankrupt and/or struggling so there aren't many Warriors of the desired
age to choose from, but there are plenty of 172s.

[Newps]

xyzzy wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> xyzzy wrote:
>> I personally don't
>>
>>> like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
>>> types (which is an added expense and hassle),
>>
>>
>>
>> If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.
>
>
> True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's
> agree?

Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I
have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a
172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than
that is just money grubbing.

[Andrew Gideon]

xyzzy wrote:

> I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
> 172's

Ah. That makes sense then, even if it's not a diversity issue.

- Andrew

[xyzzy]

Newps wrote:

>
>
> xyzzy wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> xyzzy wrote:
>>> I personally don't
>>>
>>>> like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
>>>> types (which is an added expense and hassle),
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.
>>
>>
>>
>> True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club
>> SOP's agree?
>
>
> Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I
> have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a
> 172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than
> that is just money grubbing.

We require a "club annual" which is basically a BFR, every year. Plus
between annuals you have to have a certain number of flight hours and
landings within six months to stay current. It's not a real high
number, and it has never been a factor for me. It may sound onerous,
but it helps us get a good insurance policy, which is hard for clubs to do.

Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do
a one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it
was an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from
one to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club
may need to require more.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Newps wrote:
>
> Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
> dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a
> one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
> hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was
> an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
> to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
> need to require more.
>
>

If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you.

[xyzzy]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Newps wrote:
>>
>>Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
>>dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a
>>one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
>>hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was
>>an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
>>to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
>>need to require more.
>>
>>
>
>
> If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
> Skyhawk they are just making money off you.
>
>

I'm just guessing on the 3-5 hours, they haven't set the requirements
yet. That's what a Warrior checkout for a new member is. Skyhawk
checkout may be less onerous, but it will be required. I'm pretty sure
the insurance will demand it, no matter how many pilots know that the
transition is in fact easy.

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>> Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
>> dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do a
>> one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
>> hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it was
>> an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
>> to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
>> need to require more.
>>
>>
>
> If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
> Skyhawk they are just making money off you.

I think the pertinent question is what model 172 requires this 3-5 hour
checkout?

A fuel injected 172 does not require priming on a normal day. Ever sit and
watch unfamiliar pilots try to start a 172SP? Prime, grind, grind, grind,
grind <pause> grind, grind, grind, grind <pause> grind, grind, grind.

How many seconds should a 172's starter be engaged before a cool-down time
is needed? How many minutes should one wait to attempt a restart?
Mixture lever in or out when attempting to start?

The flight school where I trained actually had a CFII (not from that
school) recently get "stuck" at a nearby airport because he could not start
a 2003 C172SP equipped with a new battery, new starter, and full fuel. He
killed the battery trying to start it! Upon speaking to the flight school
manager, he claimed that the aircraft and maintenance were to fault, not
him. The flight school sent maintenance and a CFII to the airport to
recharge the battery and rescue this person (who, somehow convinced the
school he didn't need a complete checkout). The aircraft fired right up.

What about the new 172s equipped with Garmin G1000 flight displays that are
beginning to appear at US flight schools? You will need probably a
minimum of 10 hours of check-out time to fly one of those.

I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Newps wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides currency, there's initial checkout. I.e, the need for several
>>> dozen members who are current and checked out in Warriors, to have to do
>>> a
>>> one-time club checkout in the 172 (most likely a written quiz and 3-5
>>> hours of dual) in order to get back the availability they had when it
>>> was
>>> an all-Warrior fleet. You may think it's trivial to transition from one
>>> to the other, and I would agree, but for insurance purposes the club may
>>> need to require more.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you are current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout
>> in a
>> Skyhawk they are just making money off you.
>
> I think the pertinent question is what model 172 requires this 3-5 hour
> checkout?
>
> A fuel injected 172 does not require priming on a normal day. Ever sit
> and
> watch unfamiliar pilots try to start a 172SP? Prime, grind, grind,
> grind,
> grind <pause> grind, grind, grind, grind <pause> grind, grind, grind.
>
> How many seconds should a 172's starter be engaged before a cool-down time
> is needed? How many minutes should one wait to attempt a restart?
> Mixture lever in or out when attempting to start?
>
> The flight school where I trained actually had a CFII (not from that
> school) recently get "stuck" at a nearby airport because he could not
> start
> a 2003 C172SP equipped with a new battery, new starter, and full fuel. He
> killed the battery trying to start it! Upon speaking to the flight
> school
> manager, he claimed that the aircraft and maintenance were to fault, not
> him. The flight school sent maintenance and a CFII to the airport to
> recharge the battery and rescue this person (who, somehow convinced the
> school he didn't need a complete checkout). The aircraft fired right up.
>
> What about the new 172s equipped with Garmin G1000 flight displays that
> are
> beginning to appear at US flight schools? You will need probably a
> minimum of 10 hours of check-out time to fly one of those.
>
> I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
> hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage
> if
> I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.
>


Since the OP did say they were buying older model 172's the G1000 is a none
issue as far as this thread is concerned. Both of the other items your
mentioned could easily be covered in a pilot orientation meeting followed a
1 hour MAX check ride. In that case if the check pilot saw that the checkee
had a problem it would be easy have them not sign off and give the further
instruction as needed.

And Peter if it would really take you a couple of hours of flight time to
figure out how to use the carb heat I have to ask... How long did it take
you to solo?

[TripFarmer]

Is 200 members and 4 airplanes really a club? Can you ever keep
it overnight or more than 2 hours? I went the partnership way 3 years ago and recently
bought my partners out of our 235. I got to fly more airplane in
the partnership than I could afford on my own. But I decided I
wanted it all so I have it all. But 200 members?! WOW!


Trip


In article >, says...
>
>Roger wrote:
>
>> First, partnerships and clubs are probably the predominant way of
>> owning an aircraft or at least part of one.
>> You might look into local flying clubs as well as partnerships. They
>> are *usually* more flexible, less expensive, and may have more
>> available aircraft.
>
>
>I fly in a large club (200+ members) and a couple of times in the last
>year I have seriously looked into buying, both solo and partnership, but
>quite frankly the club is such a good deal I can't justify buying.
>
>In the club I pay dues of $45/mo, and $80/hr wet to fly 160 hp Piper
>Warrior II's with Apollo GPS and coupled autopilot. The club has a
>fleet of four of them. That is the sum total of my airplane expenses and
>includes a very good insurance policy (all club members are named
>insureds), access to a hangar with offices that the club owns, and
>social events. Since joining the club I've been flying on average 6
>hours a month, which is 72 hours a year. I know exactly how much it has
>cost me and I also know exactly how much it will cost me in the future
>to fly.
>
>I ran the spreadsheet on buying a low-end plane by myself, and also on
>buying into a 3-way partnership on a little bit nicer plane. I never
>could make it work out without significant fudging, even leaving out the
>unknowns like how long before I need an overhaul, repairs, etc.
>
>My perception of the advantages and disadvantages of club vs. ownership:
>
>Advantages:
>
>1. Cheaper
>2. Absolutely predictable and controllable expenses (don't want to
>spend as much this month? Don't fly as much).
>3. No financial risk (unexpected maint, value-killing ADs, sudden
>medical problem that makes an owned plane a white elephant, etc)
>4. Maintenance not all my responsibility (members chip in to do
>maintenance but it doesn't all fall on one or two people). Financially,
>each squawk doesn't mean more $$$ out of my pocket.
>5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
>grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.
>6. I fly planes with better avionics and more capability than I could
>afford to buy myself
>7. It's easy to figure exactly what it costs me to fly (yes this can
>also be a disadvantage :).
>
>Disadvantages:
>
>1. Availability -- don't count on being able to fly on a nice weekend
>day unless you reserved well ahead. This is the flip side of advantage #5.
>2. Don't totally control my own fate. For example: Accidents or
>negligence by other members could affect the club's insurance situation
>(partnerships have this problem too, but with a club there's more
>people, therefore more variables). Another example: if the club board
>decides to sell or replace an airplane or change aircraft types, or
>specify different avionics from what I like, I have very little say in
>the matter.
>3. Even though it's cheaper in the long run, it's emotionally hard to
>write a large check when returning from a long trip. More flying means
>you pay more, whereas when you own more flying means it gets cheaper (on
>a per-hour basis, anyway)
>4. Must follow club SOP's, for example minimum runway lengths, required
>preapproval for grass strips, etc. For me this is not a problem because
>it ameliorates the first concern in disadvantage #2, plus my own
>personal mins exceed the SOPs but others might find it too restrictive.
>5. Some clubs may restrict flexibility for long trips (though mine is
>pretty liberal on it and it hasn't been a problem for anyone as far as I
>know).
>6. Easy to figure exactly what it costs to fly :)
>7. No pride of ownership.
>
>I've concluded that I'd like to own a plane someday, but it will have to
>be when I have a lot more money than I do now. C'mon, stock market!
>

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> Since the OP did say they were buying older model 172's the G1000 is a none
> issue as far as this thread is concerned.

OK, I got a bit carried away there.

> Both of the other items your
> mentioned could easily be covered in a pilot orientation meeting followed a
> 1 hour MAX check ride.

Are you are saying that a pilot orientation meeting and 1 hour MAX is all
that is needed to transition from a Warrier most likely equipped with basic
avionics and no AP to a fuel injected C172SP equipped with an autopilot and
IFR GPS? I totally disagree.

However, if you remind me of your flight instruction qualifications and how
many students you have successfully transitioned from a Warrier to a C172SP
within this one hour familiarity flight, then I will concede since my
opinion is only based on my familiarity with this model Skyhawk.

> And Peter if it would really take you a couple of hours of flight time to
> figure out how to use the carb heat I have to ask... How long did it take
> you to solo?

LOL! What's in your pants is bigger than mine? Is there some correlation
between number of hours to solo and the aptitude, skills, and proficiency
of a pilot post-solo?

My point was that given my unfamiliarity with something that has caused a
lot of pilots grief (based on the high number of suspected carb ice
incidents and accidents in the NTSB reports), I certainly recognize my
limitations and would want to be sure I completely understood the usage of
carb heat before launching on an X/C flight in IMC with my family.

But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo.

--
Peter























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Darrel Toepfer]

Peter R. wrote:

> But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo.

In a?

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:


> xyzzy wrote:
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> xyzzy wrote:
> >> I personally don't
> >>
> >>> like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
> >>> types (which is an added expense and hassle),
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.
> >
> >
> > True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club SOP's
> > agree?

> Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I
> have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a
> 172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than
> that is just money grubbing.

Where I rent has their own definition of current based on their insurance
policy.

To be "current" for insurance and to be allowed to fly solo you have to
have flown in the last 60 days in a particular aircraft type or higher
similar type. Time in a 172RG or 182 counts for a 172 but not for
Pipers for example.

Once around the pattern is sufficient to check off the square.

If you are not "current" by these standards it is around the pattern at
least once with a CFI (or more if you hose up).

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter R.]

Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

>> But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo.
>
> In a?

A 2001 C172SP.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Since the OP did say they were buying older model 172's the G1000 is a
>> none
>> issue as far as this thread is concerned.
>
> OK, I got a bit carried away there.
>
>> Both of the other items your
>> mentioned could easily be covered in a pilot orientation meeting followed
>> a
>> 1 hour MAX check ride.
>
> Are you are saying that a pilot orientation meeting and 1 hour MAX is all
> that is needed to transition from a Warrier most likely equipped with
> basic
> avionics and no AP to a fuel injected C172SP equipped with an autopilot
> and
> IFR GPS? I totally disagree.
>
Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't and again I wans't
talking about SPs



>> And Peter if it would really take you a couple of hours of flight time to
>> figure out how to use the carb heat I have to ask... How long did it take
>> you to solo?
>
> LOL! What's in your pants is bigger than mine? Is there some
> correlation
> between number of hours to solo and the aptitude, skills, and proficiency
> of a pilot post-solo?
>
> My point was that given my unfamiliarity with something that has caused a
> lot of pilots grief (based on the high number of suspected carb ice
> incidents and accidents in the NTSB reports), I certainly recognize my
> limitations and would want to be sure I completely understood the usage of
> carb heat before launching on an X/C flight in IMC with my family.
>
> But, to answer your question, it took 16 hours for me to solo.
>

I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of the accidents caused
by carb ice were with pilots who trained and flew aircraft with carb heat.

Peter I really don't think it would take you one our of training to figure
out carb heat. Actually I don't think it would take you ANY flight time to
figure out. Actual flying time is really a terrible place to learn things
like that. On the ground you can learn when carb icing is an issue and then
you have to remember when you are in a plane that has a carburetor that it
is an issue. No number of hours IN an airplane with an instructor is going
to help with that.

And for the record the transition time for me from 172 to Archer was 10
minutes on the ground playing with the radios and a 10 minute hop from one
air port to another.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
...
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>> xyzzy wrote:
>> > Newps wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> xyzzy wrote:
>> >> I personally don't
>> >>
>> >>> like it because unless a pilot is willing to stay current in both
>> >>> types (which is an added expense and hassle),
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If you can figure out how to open the door you are current in a 172.
>> >
>> >
>> > True, but will the insurance company and the people who write club
>> > SOP's
>> > agree?
>
>> Then you better define current, because a 172 only requires a BFR. I
>> have never seen an insurance policy be more restrictive than that for a
>> 172. A flying club might have a one year currency policy, any more than
>> that is just money grubbing.
>
> Where I rent has their own definition of current based on their insurance
> policy.
>
> To be "current" for insurance and to be allowed to fly solo you have to
> have flown in the last 60 days in a particular aircraft type or higher
> similar type. Time in a 172RG or 182 counts for a 172 but not for
> Pipers for example.
>
> Once around the pattern is sufficient to check off the square.
>
> If you are not "current" by these standards it is around the pattern at
> least once with a CFI (or more if you hose up).

Which is completely sensible.

[Montblack]

("xyzzy" wrote)
>>>5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
>>>grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.

> We also have 152's, which are such low-end trainers that hardly any
> non-student pilots fly them, and Mooneys, and there are some members
> that fly both Warriors and Mooneys. Most members just fly one type
> though, because each type caters to a different market.


200+ members - 4 wariors. Hmm, something's not right.

Now I see 152's and Monneys. Ahhh, better :-)

Got a club link?


Montblack

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't

Don't get hung up on my mention of the SP model. The OP mentioned "newer
(but not brand new)" C172s. Thus, I assumed post-1998 models, which are
all fuel injected and most contain more advanced avionics than a typical,
older Warrior.

In order to accurately reflect my experience, I used SP since that was what
it was, but I certainly could have included the R model in my assumption
about how long a checkout would take when going from a Warrier to either of
these models.

> and again I wans't talking about SPs

You weren't? Then why didn't you say so when you first stated, "If you are
current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you." Instead, you made a blanket
statement that seems to imply all 172 models.

Given the "newer (but not brand new)" quote from the original post, you
were no more at liberty (and therefore no more right or wrong) to assume a
pre-1998 model than I was to assume a post-1998 model.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Andrew Gideon]

TripFarmer wrote:

> Is 200 members and 4 airplanes really a club?

I read the description to indicate 4 warriors, as opposed to 4 planes. For
4 planes, that would be an incredible ratio (~5 times the member/plane
ratio my club maintains).

That does beg a question that's been at the back of my mind for a while.
For a "share based" club (like mine) where members all own a chunk of the
action, what's the difference between "club" and "partnership"?

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

On 8-Aug-2005, xyzzy > wrote:

> In the club I pay dues of $45/mo, and $80/hr wet to fly 160 hp Piper
> Warrior II's with Apollo GPS and coupled autopilot. The club has a
> fleet of four of them. That is the sum total of my airplane expenses and
> includes a very good insurance policy (all club members are named
> insureds), access to a hangar with offices that the club owns, and
> social events. Since joining the club I've been flying on average 6
> hours a month, which is 72 hours a year. I know exactly how much it has
> cost me and I also know exactly how much it will cost me in the future
> to fly.


So that works out to $87.50 per hour total cost ($80 + $45/6). Not bad,
but...

I co-own (with 2 others) an Arrow IV. We each fly roughly 70 hours/year,
for a total of (typically) a bit over 200 hours. We almost never have
scheduling conflicts. A couple of years ago we calculated what our hourly
costs were running, including all direct and indirect operating costs --
essentially everything we spent to fly, maintain, store, insure, and upgrade
the plane. Since the value of the plane is probably increasing at about the
same rate as most low-risk investments, we did not factor in the cost of
missed investment opportunity associated with our equity. The number came
out to about $90/hr, quite a bit below what rental rates would be for a
comparable plane. With today's higher fuel costs, the number is now
probably running closer to $100/hr.

We keep the plane meticulously maintained, stored in an enclosed hangar, and
we have a $1 million "smooth" liability policy as well as low deductible
hull coverage. The only maintenance we do ourselves is oil changes.

What this shows is that once annual utilization gets to about 200 hrs/year,
the per hour costs tend to flatten out. That's why I prefer my co-ownership
arrangement. Diff'rent strokes, as they say.

-Elliott Drucker

[Jack Allison]

Joe - Great that you're looking into buying/co-owning a plane. FWIW, it
took me about six months to find both a set of partners and a plane. I
joined the Cardinal Flyers Online when I first started looking and that
was a source for a couple partnership contacts. Then again, I was
looking into a Cardinal at that time so it made sense to go with CFO.
However, groups like the Cherokee Pilot's association would be good as
well since you can get some local contacts. It turns out that one of my
current partners was a guy I'd met in a ground school and he knew
another guy who was interested. End result: a 3-way partnership in a
'71 Arrow and things are working out great.

Ask around your FBO, folks at the airport, and just about anyone you run
into. Be patient as the process can take some time. Good luck!

Jack Allison
Arrow N2104T

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't
>
> Don't get hung up on my mention of the SP model. The OP mentioned "newer
> (but not brand new)" C172s. Thus, I assumed post-1998 models, which are
> all fuel injected and most contain more advanced avionics than a typical,
> older Warrior.
>
> In order to accurately reflect my experience, I used SP since that was
> what
> it was, but I certainly could have included the R model in my assumption
> about how long a checkout would take when going from a Warrier to either
> of
> these models.
>
>> and again I wans't talking about SPs
>
> You weren't? Then why didn't you say so when you first stated, "If you
> are
> current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
> Skyhawk they are just making money off you." Instead, you made a
> blanket
> statement that seems to imply all 172 models.
>
> Given the "newer (but not brand new)" quote from the original post, you
> were no more at liberty (and therefore no more right or wrong) to assume a
> pre-1998 model than I was to assume a post-1998 model.
>


Well Peter the OP did mention that they were switching to Cessna because the
vintage aircraft they were looking for was during the Piper bankruptcy isn't
that pre-1996?

You'll have to forgive me. When I think Skyhawk I think Fixed Gear,
Non-constant speed prop, carbureted engine. I think you really know what I
meant and are just being argumentative.

[Newps]

Peter R. wrote:

> I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
> hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
> I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.

Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
arc. There. You're checked out.

[xyzzy]

Montblack wrote:

> ("xyzzy" wrote)
>
>>>> 5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
>>>> grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.
>
>
>> We also have 152's, which are such low-end trainers that hardly any
>> non-student pilots fly them, and Mooneys, and there are some members
>> that fly both Warriors and Mooneys. Most members just fly one type
>> though, because each type caters to a different market.
>
>
>
> 200+ members - 4 wariors. Hmm, something's not right.

Not all members are as active as other members.


> Now I see 152's and Monneys. Ahhh, better :-)
>
> Got a club link?
>

http://www.wingsofcarolina.org

(rates haven't been updated, they went up in June, Warrior is now $80,
Mooney is now $120, not sure what the 152's are now).

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> You'll have to forgive me. When I think Skyhawk I think Fixed Gear,
> Non-constant speed prop, carbureted engine.

Fair enough. With that clarification, I agree with you that three-to-
five hours does seem excessive for a Warrior pilot, if indeed the features
you listed are the features of the C172 to which the pilot is
transitioning.

However, I honestly didn't know if your initial statement included the
newer model 172s, which have enough differences (IMO) to warrant a longer
checkout. Therefore I sought further clarification. FWIW, when I think
Skyhawk, I think of the abilities and features of the newer models.
Therein is the nature of our disagreement.

> I think you really know what I meant and are just being argumentative.

Eh? I disagreed with your comment about the three hour checkout and
provided the reasons for my disagreement. You now dismiss all of this as
argumentative and hide behind the excuse that I knew what you meant all
along, as if I am some type of mind reader? That's just silly.

If you look again at my first post in this thread, it only asked what model
to which you were referring. You are welcome to quote the words from my
post that you interpreted as argumentative.

Need I remind you that in your follow-up, it was you who lobbed a personal
barb by questioning how many hours it took me to solo, as if you expected
this to demonstrate some level of incompetence.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[xyzzy]

Well, the club has 9 airplanes, four of which are Warriors. Not all 200
members fly regularly. Many members own their own planes in addition to
membership.

The club has very liberal overnight policies. Each member can take two
2-week trips a year, and each member can go overnight one weekend a
month, IIRC. I don't know for sure because the policy is liberal enough
to have never constrained me. Minimum daily rental on overnights is 1
hour.

TripFarmer wrote:

> Is 200 members and 4 airplanes really a club? Can you ever keep
> it overnight or more than 2 hours? I went the partnership way 3 years ago and recently
> bought my partners out of our 235. I got to fly more airplane in
> the partnership than I could afford on my own. But I decided I
> wanted it all so I have it all. But 200 members?! WOW!
>
>
> Trip
>
>
> In article >, says...
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First, partnerships and clubs are probably the predominant way of
>>>owning an aircraft or at least part of one.
>>>You might look into local flying clubs as well as partnerships. They
>>>are *usually* more flexible, less expensive, and may have more
>>>available aircraft.
>>
>>
>>I fly in a large club (200+ members) and a couple of times in the last
>>year I have seriously looked into buying, both solo and partnership, but
>>quite frankly the club is such a good deal I can't justify buying.
>>
>>In the club I pay dues of $45/mo, and $80/hr wet to fly 160 hp Piper
>>Warrior II's with Apollo GPS and coupled autopilot. The club has a
>>fleet of four of them. That is the sum total of my airplane expenses and
>>includes a very good insurance policy (all club members are named
>>insureds), access to a hangar with offices that the club owns, and
>>social events. Since joining the club I've been flying on average 6
>>hours a month, which is 72 hours a year. I know exactly how much it has
>>cost me and I also know exactly how much it will cost me in the future
>>to fly.
>>
>>I ran the spreadsheet on buying a low-end plane by myself, and also on
>>buying into a 3-way partnership on a little bit nicer plane. I never
>>could make it work out without significant fudging, even leaving out the
>>unknowns like how long before I need an overhaul, repairs, etc.
>>
>>My perception of the advantages and disadvantages of club vs. ownership:
>>
>>Advantages:
>>
>>1. Cheaper
>>2. Absolutely predictable and controllable expenses (don't want to
>>spend as much this month? Don't fly as much).
>>3. No financial risk (unexpected maint, value-killing ADs, sudden
>>medical problem that makes an owned plane a white elephant, etc)
>>4. Maintenance not all my responsibility (members chip in to do
>>maintenance but it doesn't all fall on one or two people). Financially,
>>each squawk doesn't mean more $$$ out of my pocket.
>>5. With a fleet of four basically identical planes, not completely
>>grounded by squawks, annuals, overhauls, etc.
>>6. I fly planes with better avionics and more capability than I could
>>afford to buy myself
>>7. It's easy to figure exactly what it costs me to fly (yes this can
>>also be a disadvantage :).
>>
>>Disadvantages:
>>
>>1. Availability -- don't count on being able to fly on a nice weekend
>>day unless you reserved well ahead. This is the flip side of advantage #5.
>>2. Don't totally control my own fate. For example: Accidents or
>>negligence by other members could affect the club's insurance situation
>>(partnerships have this problem too, but with a club there's more
>>people, therefore more variables). Another example: if the club board
>>decides to sell or replace an airplane or change aircraft types, or
>>specify different avionics from what I like, I have very little say in
>>the matter.
>>3. Even though it's cheaper in the long run, it's emotionally hard to
>>write a large check when returning from a long trip. More flying means
>>you pay more, whereas when you own more flying means it gets cheaper (on
>>a per-hour basis, anyway)
>>4. Must follow club SOP's, for example minimum runway lengths, required
>>preapproval for grass strips, etc. For me this is not a problem because
>>it ameliorates the first concern in disadvantage #2, plus my own
>>personal mins exceed the SOPs but others might find it too restrictive.
>>5. Some clubs may restrict flexibility for long trips (though mine is
>>pretty liberal on it and it hasn't been a problem for anyone as far as I
>>know).
>>6. Easy to figure exactly what it costs to fly :)
>>7. No pride of ownership.
>>
>>I've concluded that I'd like to own a plane someday, but it will have to
>>be when I have a lot more money than I do now. C'mon, stock market!
>>
>
>

[Peter R.]

Newps > wrote:

> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
>> hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
>> I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.
>
> Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
> arc. There. You're checked out.

Thanks. If it is really that easy, then why are there so many NTSB
accident reports that list carb icing as a contributory cause?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[xyzzy]

wrote:
>
> What this shows is that once annual utilization gets to about 200 hrs/year,
> the per hour costs tend to flatten out. That's why I prefer my co-ownership
> arrangement. Diff'rent strokes, as they say.

I agree with your analysis, you are lucky to have a partnership that
works well for you. I did mention in my analysis that as club drawback
is that, unlike ownership, club flying does not get cheaper as the hours
increase. On the flip side, if I don't fly much in a month I don't
spend much, so I can control my expenses almost directly by how much I
fly, whereas with ownership the fixed costs are higher.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

>
>> I think you really know what I meant and are just being argumentative.
>
> Eh? I disagreed with your comment about the three hour checkout and
> provided the reasons for my disagreement. You now dismiss all of this as
> argumentative and hide behind the excuse that I knew what you meant all
> along, as if I am some type of mind reader? That's just silly.
>

Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs but
the older "plain old Skyhawks."


> If you look again at my first post in this thread, it only asked what
> model
> to which you were referring. You are welcome to quote the words from my
> post that you interpreted as argumentative.
>
> Need I remind you that in your follow-up, it was you who lobbed a personal
> barb by questioning how many hours it took me to solo, as if you expected
> this to demonstrate some level of incompetence.

That was a joke. You had made a comment that the Carb heat issue would take
3 to 5 hours of check flight time to learn. If that is the case for you and
as I said I didn't think would then the learing to fly the whole plane would
be on the order of 3 or 4 hundred hours. Like Newp so perfectly put it.
"Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
arc. There. You're checked out."

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Peter R. wrote:
>>
>>> I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
>>> hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage
>>> if
>>> I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.
>>
>> Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
>> arc. There. You're checked out.
>
> Thanks. If it is really that easy, then why are there so many NTSB
> accident reports that list carb icing as a contributory cause?
>

Because there are a lot of folks out there who forget. Many of these are
those that switch between injected and carbureted engines. No amount of
check ride is going to make you remember. That is why we have checklists and
the checklists are different for each aircraft. It's no different that those
that have non mechanical failure gear up landings.

[Peter R.]

xyzzy > wrote:

> I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
> 172's, because the Warriors are aging and the club wants newer (but not
> brand new) planes, but the vintage the club wants was when Piper was
> bankrupt and/or struggling so there aren't many Warriors of the desired
> age to choose from, but there are plenty of 172s.

xyzzy, for my and Gig's benefit, could you clarify the above? Is your
club considering the fuel-injected C172 models made in 1997 or later
(sorry, I incorrectly thought 1998 was the year the first 172 was delivered
after Cessna's resumption of production)?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> That was a joke.

From the Steven P. McNicoll school of comedy, no doubt.

> You had made a comment that the Carb heat issue would take
> 3 to 5 hours of check flight time to learn.

Well, at least get the quote correct. For the record, I stated the
following:

"I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model."


"Probably need a couple hours" is not three to five hours, at least in my
book.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[xyzzy]

Peter R. wrote:
> xyzzy > wrote:
>
>
>>I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
>>172's, because the Warriors are aging and the club wants newer (but not
>>brand new) planes, but the vintage the club wants was when Piper was
>>bankrupt and/or struggling so there aren't many Warriors of the desired
>>age to choose from, but there are plenty of 172s.
>
>
> xyzzy, for my and Gig's benefit, could you clarify the above? Is your
> club considering the fuel-injected C172 models made in 1997 or later
> (sorry, I incorrectly thought 1998 was the year the first 172 was delivered
> after Cessna's resumption of production)?
>

Last I heard they were shopping for 172 SP's, 2000ish vintage.

The current fleet of warriors are -161's, 1978-1982 vintage, with DME,
GX60 GPS, and coupled autopilot.

A quick check of controller.com shows asking prices in the 110-120K
range for the 172's in that age range, with a couple of dozen listed for
sale. Equivalent Warriors are about 10K more and there are only 3 of
them listed.

[Peter R.]

xyzzy > wrote:

> Last I heard they were shopping for 172 SP's, 2000ish vintage.

Thanks.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Peter R. wrote:
>> xyzzy > wrote:
>>
>
> Last I heard they were shopping for 172 SP's, 2000ish vintage.
>


That changes everything. Cessna really should have changed the name or
number on the plane if they are going to make the kind of changes they did.

[Andrew Gideon]

xyzzy wrote:

> club flying does not get cheaper as the hours
> increase

It does, but it's dependent upon *everyone's* flying; not just one person's.
A partnership would yield the same behavior, but with each person's flying
having that much more of an effect (presuming a lower pilot/plane ratio in
a partnership than in a club).

- Andrew

[Montblack]

("xyzzy" wrote)
> http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
>
> (rates haven't been updated, they went up in June, Warrior is now $80,
> Mooney is now $120, not sure what the 152's are now).


(From your link)
"To join the Club, a $100 application fee and a $300 refundable security
deposit are required, along with the first month dues of $45. (Security
deposits vary with aircraft type, see rates table for exact amount.)
Aircraft charges, priced only to recover the Club's costs, are based on the
time the engine is running and include fuel and oil. Instructors are paid
separately."

Looks like you only pay 100 dollars to join - then pay $45 per month. Cessna
152 is $58 wet. Insurance is included.

Flying deposits of $300, $600, $1,200 look to cover (approx) 5, 7.5, or 10
hours depending on plane type.

I see nice pads in the pics of the planes. Hangars? Are they in the works?


Montblack

[Peter R.]

Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:

> Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs but
> the older "plain old Skyhawks."

Well, Gig, I have to thank you. Your statement above was screaming for a
reference to back it up but instead of putting the burden on you, I decided
to try to prove or disprove it myself.

Therefore, I visited the FAA website and discovered that the FAA registered
aircraft database is offered there as a free, downloadable zip file.

Without a database management tool on my PC, I then downloaded the Open
Source database product called MySQL. Fortunately for me, there was a
Windows install routine that made installation and configuration rather
painless.

I then created a couple of tables and imported the aircraft reference data
and the master registration data from the FAA zip file (data current as of
August 5th, 2005).

The end result? I was able to query the two tables to see exactly how many
C172s manufactured from 1997 onward are registered compared to the number
of C172s manufactured prior to 1996.

Note that it appears that 1986 was the year Cessna ceased production of
C172s until the GA Revitalization Act, but for some reason there are three
aircraft in the database with a 1988 MFG date and 1 with a 1994 date
(perhaps this was a test A/C?).

Of course, there is the legitimate argument that not all aircraft
registered are actively flown. Logic suggests that this would be more
applicable to older aircraft than newer, so the pre-1996 numbers could be
lowered by some degree. Here are the results:


Number of C172s registered, pre- and post-General Aviation Revitalization
Act (C172s produced from 1997 onward are all the modern, fuel-injected,
more advanced avionics models we have been discussing):

1997 onward - 2,305
1986 and prior - 24,251

So, about 91% of all registered C172s are pre-1996. I suppose that
qualifies as a vast majority. :)


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote:
>
>> Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs
>> but
>> the older "plain old Skyhawks."
>
> Well, Gig, I have to thank you. Your statement above was screaming for a
> reference to back it up but instead of putting the burden on you, I
> decided
> to try to prove or disprove it myself.
> So, about 91% of all registered C172s are pre-1996. I suppose that
> qualifies as a vast majority. :)
>
>

Good researching Peter. 10:1 Sounds about right.

[Michael]

> However, if you remind me of your flight instruction qualifications and how
> many students you have successfully transitioned from a Warrier to a C172SP

I've successfully transitioned students into aircraft ranging from
gliders and old-fashioned ragwings to complex singles like the Mooney
and Bonanza, and even the odd twin. From where I'm sitting, he's right
and you're wrong. An hour is plenty of time to deal with issues like
fuel injection vs carb heat. It's nowhere near enough to get full
utility from a glass panel, but it's more than enough time to get the
same utility a pilot would get from a conventional panel. Someone who
is current and proficient in a Warrior should not need more than an
hour max to transition into a Skyhawk regardless of engine and
avionics.

Also, I think it's ridiculous to require recency of experience in make
and model - recency of experience makes sense for a class of airplane,
and a Warrior and Skyhawk are the same class.

Michael

[Peter R.]

Michael > wrote:

> Someone who
> is current and proficient in a Warrior should not need more than an
> hour max to transition into a Skyhawk regardless of engine and
> avionics.

Let me understand you. One hour is all you need to transition a pilot
unfamiliar with an IFR certified GPS and dual-axis autopilot into an
aircraft equipped as such? Really?

If you could, what is your syllabus?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[John Clear]

In article . com>,
Michael > wrote:
>
>Also, I think it's ridiculous to require recency of experience in make
>and model - recency of experience makes sense for a class of airplane,
>and a Warrior and Skyhawk are the same class.

I think the insurances companies have the rules on recency of
experience set to tightly, but I think there is some merit on having
recency of experience requirements, even in the same class of
aircraft.

I fly out of West Valley Flying Club (http://www.wvfc.org), which
is one of the biggest (the biggest?) flying clubs. The requirement
for recency of experience is 1hr in make/model in the last 90 days
for sub-200hp fixed gear planes. A more powerful plane counts for
a less powerful one, so an Archer counts for a Warrior, and a 172
counts for a 152. Complete matrix available here:
http://www.wvfc.org/current.html

I haven't flown a 172 since 1990, so even though the transition
shouldn't take more then an hour or so, I'm by no means familiar
with the specific characteristics of a 172. Could I just hop in
a 172 and fly safely? Probably, but I'd also probably do some
minor things incorrectly based on flying Archers/Warriors for years.

For sub-200hp fixed gear planes, six months or so is probably safe,
but after that, the minor differences can start to bite.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Michael]

> Let me understand you. One hour is all you need to
> transition a pilot
> unfamiliar with an IFR certified GPS and dual-axis
> autopilot into an
> aircraft equipped as such? Really?

Really. After all, said pilot has clearly been flying without these
things and doesn't need them. Thus I see no reason to cover the full
functionality of the devices unless he wants me to. He can read the
manual and figure it out himself, we can talk about it on the ground if
he wants to, and if he wants we can work on them - but knowing how to
use them is not a requirement for a checkout.

Would you require a VFR-only pilot to learn how to shoot an ADF
approach just because the plane he is renting is equipped to do so? Or
would showing him how to tune in a station be enough? How is it
different if he's IFR rated? Suppose he's IFR rated but not current?
Suppose he's only out of currency by only 3 months, and could shoot 6
aproaches and a hold with a safety pilot and suddenly he's legal?

Would you require training in LOP operations just because the plane was
equipped with engine analyzer and GAMI's, or would the "Lean to initial
roughness, then enrich to smoothness" be OK with you because it still
works?

Would you require training in aerobatics just because the aircraft was
capable of them? That would make a hell of a transition from a C-150
to a C-150 Aerobat.

There is a huge difference between being able to fly to the capability
of the airplane and being able to fly the plane reasonably safely.
Being able to fly to the capability of the airplane is something we
should all aspire to - but it's not realistic to require that for a
rental or club checkout.

> If you could, what is your syllabus?

GPS syllabus - how to put it into direct-to mode and change range on
the map (if there is one). Takes 5 minutes max.

Autopilot syllabus - how to engage heading hold and altitude, how to
disengage, where the circuit breaker is to disable it. Takes 5 minutes
max.

Sure, there's a lot more functionality there - but the pilot doesn't
need it, so no point requiring him to learn it.

Michael

[Jay Beckman]

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...

<SNIP>

> I fly out of West Valley Flying Club (http://www.wvfc.org), which
> is one of the biggest (the biggest?) flying clubs. The requirement
> for recency of experience is 1hr in make/model in the last 90 days
> for sub-200hp fixed gear planes. A more powerful plane counts for
> a less powerful one, so an Archer counts for a Warrior, and a 172
> counts for a 152. Complete matrix available here:
> http://www.wvfc.org/current.html

<SNIP>

John,

That's a terriffic website and WVFC looks like a really well-run
organization.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Peter R.]

Michael > wrote:

> There is a huge difference between being able to fly to the capability
> of the airplane and being able to fly the plane reasonably safely.
> Being able to fly to the capability of the airplane is something we
> should all aspire to - but it's not realistic to require that for a
> rental or club checkout.

Apparently I have different expectations from a checkout than what is
performed during a "typical" checkout.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[xyzzy]

John Clear wrote:

> In article . com>,
> Michael > wrote:
>
>>Also, I think it's ridiculous to require recency of experience in make
>>and model - recency of experience makes sense for a class of airplane,
>>and a Warrior and Skyhawk are the same class.
>
>
> I think the insurances companies have the rules on recency of
> experience set to tightly, but I think there is some merit on having
> recency of experience requirements, even in the same class of
> aircraft.
>
> I fly out of West Valley Flying Club (http://www.wvfc.org), which
> is one of the biggest (the biggest?) flying clubs. The requirement
> for recency of experience is 1hr in make/model in the last 90 days
> for sub-200hp fixed gear planes. A more powerful plane counts for
> a less powerful one, so an Archer counts for a Warrior, and a 172
> counts for a 152. Complete matrix available here:
> http://www.wvfc.org/current.html
>
> I haven't flown a 172 since 1990, so even though the transition
> shouldn't take more then an hour or so, I'm by no means familiar
> with the specific characteristics of a 172. Could I just hop in
> a 172 and fly safely? Probably, but I'd also probably do some
> minor things incorrectly based on flying Archers/Warriors for years.
>
> For sub-200hp fixed gear planes, six months or so is probably safe,
> but after that, the minor differences can start to bite.
>
> John

wow, THAT's a fleet! How many members?

[xyzzy]

Montblack wrote:

> ("xyzzy" wrote)
>
>> http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
>>
>> (rates haven't been updated, they went up in June, Warrior is now $80,
>> Mooney is now $120, not sure what the 152's are now).
>
>
>
> (From your link)
> "To join the Club, a $100 application fee and a $300 refundable security
> deposit are required, along with the first month dues of $45. (Security
> deposits vary with aircraft type, see rates table for exact amount.)
> Aircraft charges, priced only to recover the Club's costs, are based on
> the time the engine is running and include fuel and oil. Instructors are
> paid separately."
>
> Looks like you only pay 100 dollars to join - then pay $45 per month.
> Cessna 152 is $58 wet. Insurance is included.
>
> Flying deposits of $300, $600, $1,200 look to cover (approx) 5, 7.5, or
> 10 hours depending on plane type.

The deposits are actually equity shares in the club. You can't apply
them to flying time. They are refundable upon resignation.

> I see nice pads in the pics of the planes. Hangars? Are they in the works?

In 2001 the club moved from IGX to TTA. The pics on the pads were taken
at IGX, before the move. At TTA we have "our own" ramp (it's actually a
public ramp but 99% of the time only we use it) with a clubhouse that
includes a maintanence hangar, flight planning room, classroom, offices,
etc. If you look at the aerial picture of TTA at the bottom of the home
page, the ramp and building closest to the photographer (at the arrival
end of rwy 3) are ours.

[John Clear]

In article >, xyzzy > wrote:
>John Clear wrote:
>> I fly out of West Valley Flying Club (http://www.wvfc.org), which
>
>wow, THAT's a fleet! How many members?
>

Somewhere around 1000 members, but scheduling is rarely a problem.
I almost always can get my favorite Archer (35 out of my last 50
flights, and some of those don't count since they were in my other
favorite Archer before it moved over to HWD).

Since the club is so huge, there is a bit more regulations and
paperwork, but most of that is reasonable considering they are
letting you use a plane owned by someone else. The club doesn't
own any aircraft, but does do the maintenance on them, so they are
very well maintained.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[S Herman]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 22:44:58 +0000 (UTC),
(John Clear) wrote:
>
>I fly out of West Valley Flying Club (http://www.wvfc.org), which
>is one of the biggest (the biggest?) flying clubs.

Wow, those are some high rates for 70's-80's 172's.
The club is $600 year, so if you fly 100 hours a year ( a lot for most
pilots who don't own their own) that adds $6/HR to your $90/HR rate.
My clubs 172's of that vintage are $70/HR wet, just raised from $67.
Yes, we have no-sub insurance. At 50 hours per year you're paying
$102/HR for an older 172. Our Piper Dakota 235HP of that era runs
right at $100/hr. We are in North San Diego County. I can rent
1999-2000 172 SP's at the KCRQ FBO for $99/HR, course then you need
your own insurance.

[Oracle]

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:09:19 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>> Peter R. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple
>>>> of hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat
>>>> usage if
>>>> I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.
>>>
>>> Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the
>>> green arc. There. You're checked out.
>>
>> Thanks. If it is really that easy, then why are there so many NTSB
>> accident reports that list carb icing as a contributory cause?
>>
>>
> Because there are a lot of folks out there who forget. Many of these are
> those that switch between injected and carbureted engines. No amount of
> check ride is going to make you remember. That is why we have checklists
> and the checklists are different for each aircraft. It's no different
> that those that have non mechanical failure gear up landings.

Not to mention some that don't think it's needed because they took off on
a hot day. August issue of AOPA Training has a pretty good write up on
carb heat. Of course, they also address the down side of forgetting to
turn it back off too. Seems there is a large number of accidents steming
from that as well. Long story short, carb heat steals HP and yes, you
really can ice your carb on a 90+ F degree day.

[Dave Butler]

Oracle wrote:

> Not to mention some that don't think it's needed because they took off on
> a hot day. August issue of AOPA Training has a pretty good write up on
> carb heat. Of course, they also address the down side of forgetting to
> turn it back off too. Seems there is a large number of accidents steming
> from that as well. Long story short, carb heat steals HP and yes, you
> really can ice your carb on a 90+ F degree day.

http://www.ez.org/carb_ice.htm