To Glass or Not To Glass...

[[email protected]]

I'm starting the process of shopping for an airplane.
I'm thinking of buying one in 2 to 3 months.

I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.

As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.

I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.

Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
about reliability, software glitches etc....
See:http://www.da40g1000.com/

For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.

I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
(50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.

This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.

As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-


Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....

Paul

[Jim Macklin]

The Baron is a very nice airplane and it is very easy to fly
at 85-90 knots. But any twin requires that you practice a
lot or the second engine will quickly take you to the scene
of the accident. The 310 is developing a lot of airframe
problems.

The glass cockpit is nice, but the real selling point is
that it is cheaper for the manufacturer to buy and install.
You can buy a nice used airplane and upgrade to modern panel
mounted GPS and displays for less money than buying a new
G1000 airplane.

You may need a 5-6 seat airplane to be able to carry 4 and
some baggage with enough fuel to fly x-c. Over-water. you
will need a raft and floatation gear whether you are in a
single or twin. If you have the money, a Cessna 208 Caravan
with a PT6 engine is a nice airplane with good sight-seeing
layout.


> wrote in message
...
| I'm starting the process of shopping for an airplane.
| I'm thinking of buying one in 2 to 3 months.
|
| I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
| and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with
light baggage.
|
| As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass
cockpits,
| and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000
182.
|
| I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182
or G1000 DA40.
|
| Any comments from people that have lived with the new
glass for awhile?
| I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep
seeing comments
| about reliability, software glitches etc....
| See:http://www.da40g1000.com/
|
| For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older
airframe, add
| new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have
$100K left over.
|
| I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I
fly enough
| (50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
| One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San
Diego
| CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.
|
| This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single
allways makes me feel queasy.
|
| As a result I've also thought about getting a older
barron, or 310 and
| putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably
cheaper than a
| new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing
low and slow along the
| coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
| I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had
infinite $ I'd own two
| planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-
|
|
| Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
|
| Paul
|
|
|
|

[Kingfish]

wrote:
> I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
> and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.
>
> As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
> and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.
>
> I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.
>
> Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
> I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
> about reliability, software glitches etc....
> See:http://www.da40g1000.com/
>
> For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
> new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.
>
> I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
> (50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
> One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
> CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.
>
> This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.
>
> As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
> putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
> new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
> coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
> I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
> planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-
>
>
> Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
>

Mr Peanut weighing in here:

At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting. If you're getting a
G1000 checkout in a Skylane already to rent that's probably your best
option. New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
for the G1000 182 IIRC, and they're still up over 250K. Yes, an older
airframe can be made better than new with engine, paint, interior &
avionics but the investment may not be recouped when you go to sell the
plane. The used piston single market is kinda flat right now
(something to do with $4.50+ avgas?) which works in your favor when
you're the buyer but of course will work against you if you're selling.

The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
power-off glide. That alone wouldn't justify a twin IMHO. If you've
priced out older hi-perf twins like the Baron and C-310 you'd know
they'd eat you alive in maintenance & operating costs not to mention
insuring one. Overhauling engines & props on an older Baron (like a
BE-55 for example) plus an avionics upgrade would cost as much, if not
*more* than a new glass 182. I know a local guy that went that route,
and the total investment when he was done would have bought a new 182.
And he didn't even touch the panel. Yikes.

[[email protected]]

>At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting.
I realize that owning does not make financial sense.

I want to be able to go out to the airport on a whim.
I'm tired of flying tired old minimally maintained planes.
I want to be able to stay for an extra day without out having schedule problems.
For proficiency sake I want to fly the same plane, not "whats availible today"


>The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
>a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
>power-off glide.
Take a look at the map, AVX is an island well off the coast.
You will spend more than 1/2 the flight beyond gliding distance.
The daytime weekend plan is to ditch near one of the many many many boats going back and forth in the
area, at night or on a week day, its a much dicer afair.

(Both my self and my wife are ex-lifeguards and strong ocean swimmers, I might be tempted to
routinely fly that route in a single with a pair of survival suits and a elt in a ditch bag.)


Paul

[Tony]

Hi Paul:

I think the bad news is, if you fly as little as 100 hours a year a
complex twin is NOT going to be safer for you, it's likely going to be
a killing machine. A brute like the 182 would be plenty of airplane. It
would appear also your out-of-gliding-range flight time might be 15% of
your total time: you may be making a mountain of a very unlikely event:
I suspect a pilot error is MUCH more likely than an in the water
ditching if you're flying complex only a couple of hours a week.

You might want to run some engine/airplane failure stats, also over
water vs over land engine failures to decide how uncomfortable you
really are with the notion of SEL. My guess is, if your initial feet
dry segment is 30 minutes or so you've probably pretty well
demonstrated the engine will chug along for another hour feet wet.

Having said all of that, it's a neat problem to have, isn't it?


CLEAR!
Kingfish wrote:
> wrote:
> > I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
> > and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.
> >
> > As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
> > and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.
> >
> > I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.
> >
> > Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
> > I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
> > about reliability, software glitches etc....
> > See:http://www.da40g1000.com/
> >
> > For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
> > new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.
> >
> > I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
> > (50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
> > One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
> > CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.
> >
> > This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.
> >
> > As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
> > putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
> > new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
> > coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
> > I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
> > planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
> >
>
> Mr Peanut weighing in here:
>
> At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting. If you're getting a
> G1000 checkout in a Skylane already to rent that's probably your best
> option. New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
> for the G1000 182 IIRC, and they're still up over 250K. Yes, an older
> airframe can be made better than new with engine, paint, interior &
> avionics but the investment may not be recouped when you go to sell the
> plane. The used piston single market is kinda flat right now
> (something to do with $4.50+ avgas?) which works in your favor when
> you're the buyer but of course will work against you if you're selling.
>
> The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
> a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
> power-off glide. That alone wouldn't justify a twin IMHO. If you've
> priced out older hi-perf twins like the Baron and C-310 you'd know
> they'd eat you alive in maintenance & operating costs not to mention
> insuring one. Overhauling engines & props on an older Baron (like a
> BE-55 for example) plus an avionics upgrade would cost as much, if not
> *more* than a new glass 182. I know a local guy that went that route,
> and the total investment when he was done would have bought a new 182.
> And he didn't even touch the panel. Yikes.

[Doug[_1_]]

I'd suggest a single for your first airplane. As for which year, it is
up to your budget. Aircraft are like cars in that the newer ones
depreciate more, so you will eat it when you sell if you buy new(er).
Still, safetywise, newer is better. Old stuff is OLD. If you like the
182 and glass cockpit, get one of those. Not a bad choice. Cessna 182
will do your mission. You'll just have to live with over the water
single issues, but Catalina can be flown so you can glide to land, if
you climb high enough. Small twins are expensive, and statistically
more dangerous than singles. If budget is at all a consideration, stick
with a single. Buy the newest you can afford.

[AOA]

Why not think about fractional ownership.. You'll get all the tech
stuff without the upfront costs. Check out OURPLANE they have a range
of choices (182, cirrus etc etc..)

Just a thought but I know I would lean that way if I was thinking of
flying a new bird...

Good luck


Tony wrote:
> Hi Paul:
>
> I think the bad news is, if you fly as little as 100 hours a year a
> complex twin is NOT going to be safer for you, it's likely going to be
> a killing machine. A brute like the 182 would be plenty of airplane. It
> would appear also your out-of-gliding-range flight time might be 15% of
> your total time: you may be making a mountain of a very unlikely event:
> I suspect a pilot error is MUCH more likely than an in the water
> ditching if you're flying complex only a couple of hours a week.
>
> You might want to run some engine/airplane failure stats, also over
> water vs over land engine failures to decide how uncomfortable you
> really are with the notion of SEL. My guess is, if your initial feet
> dry segment is 30 minutes or so you've probably pretty well
> demonstrated the engine will chug along for another hour feet wet.
>
> Having said all of that, it's a neat problem to have, isn't it?
>
>
> CLEAR!
> Kingfish wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
> > > and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.
> > >
> > > As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
> > > and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.
> > >
> > > I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.
> > >
> > > Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
> > > I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
> > > about reliability, software glitches etc....
> > > See:http://www.da40g1000.com/
> > >
> > > For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
> > > new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.
> > >
> > > I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
> > > (50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
> > > One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
> > > CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.
> > >
> > > This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.
> > >
> > > As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
> > > putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
> > > new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
> > > coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
> > > I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
> > > planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-
> > >
> > >
> > > Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
> > >
> >
> > Mr Peanut weighing in here:
> >
> > At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting. If you're getting a
> > G1000 checkout in a Skylane already to rent that's probably your best
> > option. New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
> > for the G1000 182 IIRC, and they're still up over 250K. Yes, an older
> > airframe can be made better than new with engine, paint, interior &
> > avionics but the investment may not be recouped when you go to sell the
> > plane. The used piston single market is kinda flat right now
> > (something to do with $4.50+ avgas?) which works in your favor when
> > you're the buyer but of course will work against you if you're selling.
> >
> > The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
> > a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
> > power-off glide. That alone wouldn't justify a twin IMHO. If you've
> > priced out older hi-perf twins like the Baron and C-310 you'd know
> > they'd eat you alive in maintenance & operating costs not to mention
> > insuring one. Overhauling engines & props on an older Baron (like a
> > BE-55 for example) plus an avionics upgrade would cost as much, if not
> > *more* than a new glass 182. I know a local guy that went that route,
> > and the total investment when he was done would have bought a new 182.
> > And he didn't even touch the panel. Yikes.

[Robert M. Gary]

Only in terms of price. In every other way owning is better.

-Robert


Kingfish wrote:
> wrote:
> Mr Peanut weighing in here:
>
> At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting.

[Robert M. Gary]

I teach in the C-182 with G1000. It's a nice airplane but it has a
very sad useful load and quite a high fuel burn for being as slow as it
is. As a result you end up having to use those extra large tanks but
then it becomes a two person airplane.
You might check out the G1000 systems offered in the Mooney line up.
The G1000 integration is tighter in the Mooney (the autopilot is fully
integrated, in the C-182 you have to set attitude and barometer in both
separately).
The nice thing about the Mooney is that you can get a really good known
ice system that has an amazing track record for performance. Cirrus
also has a known ice system but seems to have had some problems in
icing conditions.
I'm not aware of twins that are being offered with G1000 systems.

I think, after you buy, you will realize its the right choice. Knowing
you can jump in your plane and launch on a 1000 mile IFR trip is
priceless. Showing up at the FBO to find the atitude indicator out for
repairs in the rental will make you a convert.

-Robert


wrote:
> I'm starting the process of shopping for an airplane.
> I'm thinking of buying one in 2 to 3 months.
>
> I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
> and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.
>
> As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
> and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.
>
> I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.
>
> Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
> I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
> about reliability, software glitches etc....
> See:http://www.da40g1000.com/
>
> For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
> new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.
>
> I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
> (50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
> One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
> CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.
>
> This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me feel queasy.
>
> As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
> putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
> new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow along the
> coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
> I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own two
> planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-
>
>
> Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
>
> Paul

[Robert M. Gary]

Certainly buy all the goodies you can afford. Adding
avionics/autopilots/etc to an existing plane is enormously expensive
and you never get the money back. Best bet is to always buy a plane
that has the stuff you want.

-Robert

Doug wrote:
Buy the newest you can afford.

[City Dweller[_1_]]

Being a happy DA40 owner myself, I wholeheartedly recommend the all-glass
Diamond Star. It's faster than the 182, very forgiving, and it provides
unsurpassed visibility. And don't forget -- plastic is the future of GA,
don't bother yourself with tin cans if you can afford a composite airplane.

-- City Dweller


> wrote in message
...
> I'm starting the process of shopping for an airplane.
> I'm thinking of buying one in 2 to 3 months.
>
> I want a cross country plane that can carry 2 people
> and baggage/camping gear, and sometimes 4 people with light baggage.
>
> As a computer geek I'm very enamoured with the new glass cockpits,
> and I'm in the process of getting checkout in a new G1000 182.
>
> I'm currently thinking about a 1 or 2 year old G1000 182 or G1000 DA40.
>
> Any comments from people that have lived with the new glass for awhile?
> I've been doing a lot of resarch on the web and keep seeing comments
> about reliability, software glitches etc....
> See:http://www.da40g1000.com/
>
> For the price of flying new Glass, one could buy an older airframe, add
> new engine, prop, avionics, interior and paint and have $100K left over.
>
> I'm also fighting the twin/single dilema, I'm not sure I fly enough
> (50 to 100hrs a year) to be really current in a twin, but
> One of my standard flights is to go up the coast from San Diego
> CRQ->AVX->SBA avoiding LA class B and traffic.
>
> This is 100 miles over water and doing this in a single allways makes me
> feel queasy.
>
> As a result I've also thought about getting a older barron, or 310 and
> putting in new engines, props and avionics, still probably cheaper than a
> new "Glass" bird. The only downside is that sightseeing low and slow
> along the
> coast is not as much fun at 150K as it is at 75K
> I'm only a little conflicted on requirements, If I had infinite $ I'd own
> two
> planes.... a breezy and a light jet ;-
>
>
> Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>

[Kingfish]

wrote:

> I want to be able to go out to the airport on a whim.
> I'm tired of flying tired old minimally maintained planes.
> I want to be able to stay for an extra day without out having schedule problems.
> For proficiency sake I want to fly the same plane, not "whats availible today"

This sounds familiar. Same issues we all have to deal with when
renting, huh?


>The coastal flight you mentioned by San Diego shouldn't be an issue in
>a single assuming you're at the appropriate altitude to reach land in a
>power-off glide.
>>> Take a look at the map, AVX is an island well off the coast.
>>> You will spend more than 1/2 the flight beyond gliding distance.

I'm in Connecticut and don't have any Left Coast maps : )

Another poster mentioned the OurPlane fractional ownership deal.
Another similar shared ownership company is AirShares. IIRC they only
fly Cirrus SR-22s. That might be the best compromise for you.

[Dave S]

wrote:

>
> Any thoughts from the peanut gallery....
>
> Paul
>

Are you married to the concept of Factory Built/Certified airframes only?

There is a whole nother world (Experimental Amatuer Built) out there
with panels that can rival the new glass. An RV-10 might be right up
your alley, and you can even get someone to "help" you build it. Or buy
one thats flying. A Velocity might meet your mission too. Lancair 4/P..

The kit has been on the market a little over a year, and I saw TWO that
were complete, flying, nice panels, with For Sale signs on them, and
their appearance was certainly not "amatuer built".

One that has been flying for a while (several hundred hours) carries
much more weight/status with me than one that is "almost complete but
not yet flown".

Dave

[Stefan]

Robert M. Gary schrieb:

> I'm not aware of twins that are being offered with G1000 systems.

http://www.diamondair.com/aircraft/da42_private/index.html

[Kingfish]

Stefan wrote:
> Robert M. Gary schrieb:
>
> > I'm not aware of twins that are being offered with G1000 systems.
>
> http://www.diamondair.com/aircraft/da42_private/index.html

Include the G58 Baron on that list. Only if you have $1.2 million to
spend...

[Dan Luke]

"City Dweller" wrote:

> Being a happy DA40 owner myself, I wholeheartedly recommend the all-glass
> Diamond Star. It's faster than the 182, very forgiving, and it provides
> unsurpassed visibility.

Nice airplane but not much of a traveling machine.

Back when I was having new airplane delusions I considered the DA40, but the
range and payload were too poor to make it a player.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[[email protected]]

>Why not think about fractional ownership.. You'll get all the tech
>stuff without the upfront costs. Check out OURPLANE they have a range
>of choices (182, cirrus etc etc..)
>
>Just a thought but I know I would lean that way if I was thinking of
>flying a new bird...
>
>Good luck
>

I've looked very seriously at a new OurPlane SR22.
In talking to others I've come to the conclusion that 8 people sharing one plane is about 4 too many.

There is a brand new SR22 comming to CRQ any day now.
The only nearby OurPlane is a SR22 at MYF, when I asked the representative
if I could look at the schedule for the MYF SR22 he got very evasive and said things like "that
particular SR22 is used more than any other in the fleet", "its very busy", "its not represenative"
etc.. etc..
I've also talked to several pilots that were OurPlane or Airshares users in other areas
and only about 50% said they would do it again, and the biggest complaint was scheduling.



Paul

[[email protected]]

>
>Are you married to the concept of Factory Built/Certified airframes only?
>
>There is a whole nother world (Experimental Amatuer Built) out there
>with panels that can rival the new glass. An RV-10 might be right up
>your alley, and you can even get someone to "help" you build it. Or buy
>one thats flying. A Velocity might meet your mission too. Lancair 4/P..
>
>The kit has been on the market a little over a year, and I saw TWO that
>were complete, flying, nice panels, with For Sale signs on them, and
>their appearance was certainly not "amatuer built".
>
>One that has been flying for a while (several hundred hours) carries
>much more weight/status with me than one that is "almost complete but
>not yet flown".
>

I have seriously considered the RV10 and maybe the Lancair ES.
The Lancair 4P is cool... but the safety record of the Lancair 4P is somewhat poor....
The airplane is probably too hot for the pilots, my self included.
It was damm hard to type that ;-)

I have my A/P (not my IA) so an experimental means I could do my own annuals.
I don't have the time for an RV10 project and I'm a bit wary about bying
one already built. I'm also a bit leary of the uncertified avionics being put
in a lot of experimentals.

Any advice or experience from the group in this area?

Paul

[Andrey Serbinenko]

But doesn't it tie you up to your home base? With a rental you have the
option to do some flying far from home without having to ferry your
aircraft all the way there and back. It would be more of a concern for
a smaller single, of course.

Andrey

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> Only in terms of price. In every other way owning is better.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> Kingfish wrote:
>> wrote:
>> Mr Peanut weighing in here:
>>
>> At 50-100 hours/year you'd be better off renting.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
> But doesn't it tie you up to your home base? With a rental you have the
> option to do some flying far from home without having to ferry your
> aircraft all the way there and back. It would be more of a concern for
> a smaller single, of course.

How does owning an airplane remove that option?

[Kingfish]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
> > New 182s list at $326K, '05s are 275K+. '04 was the first year
> > for the G1000 182 IIRC
>
> and for (starting at) $ 478.000 you can buy a Diamond DA42 Twin Star.
> That's a multi engine with a G1000 and burning Jet fuel ....

478k is a heckuva lot more money than he was considering spending for a
1 or 2 year old 182 in his OP. Personally, I like the DA42 and can't
wait to check one out, even if it's just a look-see on a ramp somewhere.

[Kingfish]

wrote:
> I have seriously considered the RV10 and maybe the Lancair ES.
> The Lancair 4P is cool... but the safety record of the Lancair 4P is somewhat poor....
> The airplane is probably too hot for the pilots, my self included.
> It was damm hard to type that ;-)
>

I don't know about the safety record of the IV-P but the ones I've seen
on Controller.com are not cheap - more than a new G1000 182. Not sure
how comfortable I'd feel in an amateur-built pressurized airplane. One
of my friends had seriously considered selling his 182 for a Lancair IV
(not pressurized) but the insurance was prohibitive, apparently (he
explained) because of the small pool of IVs flying to spread out the
risk.

[Andrey Serbinenko]

Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>> But doesn't it tie you up to your home base? With a rental you have the
>> option to do some flying far from home without having to ferry your
>> aircraft all the way there and back. It would be more of a concern for
>> a smaller single, of course.
>
> How does owning an airplane remove that option?
>
>

[Kingfish]

wrote:
> Take a look at the map, AVX is an island well off the coast.
> You will spend more than 1/2 the flight beyond gliding distance.

I found an online sectional. AVX is about 15nm off the coast of San
Pedro. That's no less distant than Nantucket is from the Massachusetts
mainland, slightly more than for Martha's Vineyard. Yet every weekend
many singles make the trip back & forth, myself included.

[[email protected]]

>478k is a heckuva lot more money than he was considering spending for a
>1 or 2 year old 182 in his OP. Personally, I like the DA42 and can't
>wait to check one out, even if it's just a look-see on a ramp somewhere.

If you get the desired options and pay taxes to the peoples republic of CA then
it will be more than 500K more than what I can afford.

Other than not being able to afford it I'd love a DA42.

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
> If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
> and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Why would it be a significant factor when choosing your next destination?

If you can fly your airplane there, you would. Owning is a benefit in that
case.

If you can't fly your airplane there, then you don't. But it's not as
though your owned airplane costs you MORE just because you had to travel
without it. If when you are at your destination, you choose to rent an
airplane locally, then you have the expense for that rental, but you'd have
that expense whether or not you owned an airplane. Again, owning the
airplane doesn't increase your cost in that situation.

I don't see any way that owning an airplane ties you to your home base, nor
do I see any way that owning an airplane restricts one's ability to fly
other airplanes elsewhere.

I've owned my airplane for 12 years now, and not once have I found that
owning an airplane has in any way restricted my ability to travel or other
fly other airplanes.

Your comment sounds a lot like something someone who has never owned an
airplane might say when trying to find some reason to not own an airplane.
There ARE reasons to not own an airplane (economics and the hassle of
managing the airplane being the two main ones), but the question of what
one's options are when traveling without the owned airplane is NOT among
them.

Pete

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
> If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
> and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.

Let's say I'm like the majority of the population and don't own a plane and
I take and airline across county and need to travel on the surface once I
get there. Should the fact that I own a car at home have any effect on my
decision whether to rent a car or walk?

[Andrey Serbinenko]

That seems like a good analogy, but for one thing: you get enough utility
out of your car to justify the cost of owning it as it is, and it is not
a huge cost or hassle. If recreational trips is all the flying you do,
then every trip made in a different airplane from the one you've paid and keep
paying for takes away from its utility and drives the cost/value number
ever higher.


Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
> "Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
>> If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money wasted,
>> and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next destination.
>
> Let's say I'm like the majority of the population and don't own a plane and
> I take and airline across county and need to travel on the surface once I
> get there. Should the fact that I own a car at home have any effect on my
> decision whether to rent a car or walk?
>
>

[Andrey Serbinenko]

> If you can't fly your airplane there, then you don't. But it's not as
> though your owned airplane costs you MORE just because you had to travel
> without it. If when you are at your destination, you choose to rent an

It is not the pure dollar cost that matters, but the effectiveness of
the money spent, i.e. cost vs. utility. It is especially true for
something requiring continuous money infusions like owning an airplane.

> Your comment sounds a lot like something someone who has never owned an

That's exactly that. I'm evaluating my options now.

> airplane might say when trying to find some reason to not own an airplane.

Not that I'm trying to find a reason not to own, rather a sound justification
to own.


Andrey

[Gig 601XL Builder]

There's the problem in your logic. You are assuming that an airplane owner
that just uses the aircraft for recreational trips isn't getting enough
utility out of it.


"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
> That seems like a good analogy, but for one thing: you get enough utility
> out of your car to justify the cost of owning it as it is, and it is not
> a huge cost or hassle. If recreational trips is all the flying you do,
> then every trip made in a different airplane from the one you've paid and
> keep
> paying for takes away from its utility and drives the cost/value number
> ever higher.
>
>
> Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Yes, you can still rent if you like, in addition to owning an airplane.
>>> If you can afford both. Your airplane sitting on the ramp is money
>>> wasted,
>>> and this can be a significant factor when choosing your next
>>> destination.
>>
>> Let's say I'm like the majority of the population and don't own a plane
>> and
>> I take and airline across county and need to travel on the surface once I
>> get there. Should the fact that I own a car at home have any effect on my
>> decision whether to rent a car or walk?
>>
>>

[Peter Duniho]

"Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
...
> It is not the pure dollar cost that matters, but the effectiveness of
> the money spent, i.e. cost vs. utility. It is especially true for
> something requiring continuous money infusions like owning an airplane.

You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you couldn't
fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those destinations for your
scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like, on the order of one such
trip a week.

I'd be surprised if ANY of the 600,000+ certificated pilots in the US meet
that criteria, but if the number is non-zero, it can't be more than a
handful at most.

Otherwise, the question of owning is no different than the question of
engaging in any other hobby or owning any other property that cannot be used
while you're traveling. Do you worry about your inability to use your car,
or your house, or your bicycle, or your refrigerator, or your...?

> [...]
> Not that I'm trying to find a reason not to own, rather a sound
> justification
> to own.

The question of ownership comes down to just a handful of issues, none of
which have anything to do with the issue you present:

* Economics:
-- can you afford it?
-- would you spend more renting than owning?
* Non-economic benefits:
-- convenience
-- personal satisfaction
-- degree of control
* Non-economic drawbacks:
-- primarily, managing the ownership (maintenance, hangar/tiedown,
registration, etc.)

This is not an exclusive list...other issues do sometimes enter into the
picture (for example, wanting to regularly fly an airplane that simply
cannot be rented, like a seaplane). But the question of whether you can use
the airplane when you're not home or not is simply NOT a rational thing to
concern oneself with. Owning an airplane in no way creates any detrimental
situation with respect to that.

Pete

[Newps]

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> * Economics:
> -- can you afford it?

This is important, obviously.



> -- would you spend more renting than owning?

This isn't. The answer is always no, but the answer is also irrelavant
if the answer to the first question is yes.

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrey Serbinenko" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It is not the pure dollar cost that matters, but the effectiveness of the
>> money spent, i.e. cost vs. utility. It is especially true for something
>> requiring continuous money infusions like owning an airplane.
>
>You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you couldn't
>fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those destinations for your
>scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like, >on the order of one such
>trip a week.
>
> I'd be surprised if ANY of the 600,000+ certificated pilots in the US meet
> that criteria, but if the number is non-zero, it can't be more than a
> handful at most.

*Raising Hand...*

You've just described my world to a tee...

I'd love to own my own plane but I fly east of the Mississippi (if not all
the way to the east coast) from Phoenix every Thursday and return on Monday
for 34 of the 40 week NASCAR season. And, unlike a traveling salesman who
can reschedule a meeting, I *have* to get where I'm going or I don't work.
The relatively short turnaround each week means I don't have the time to
meander my way back and forth accross the country in a light single or light
twin. The "no work = no pay" issue means I don't have any extra time to sit
on the ground for any length of time so if I were to get trapped by Wx I'd
be seriously SOL.

I could fly myself to the races we do in Fontana, CA and Las Vegas, but my
schedule at these events is such that I need to be on the ground by 8am.
Yes, it would be doable even in a C172 ... but if I get hamstrung by the Wx
or a mechanical issue, my "employer" isn't going to be too happy. You don't
just call AccountTemps to replace someone in my work world. Too many last
second bailouts (read: more than one...) would probably get me fired.

One twist is that our travel is usually taken care of well in advance (at
least 6 mos or more) of the start of the race season. With almost three
full months left in this year, I'm already looking at next February and
March.

Now, if I lived in Charlotte or Asheville and could back up my own flying
with the ability to reach many of the tracks by car if last second Wx or
repairs popped up, I think (for me) owning would make much more sense.

We actually have several pilots on our crew including one guy who is based
up in Conneticut and flies himself to every event east of the Mississippi in
a Beech Duchess. It's sweet !!

Regards,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Jose[_1_]]

> the first partner saves you 50% of the costs. The third partner saves you
> only an additional 17% of the total costs but blocks (theoretically) 33% of
> availability.

Clever, but misleading. It could also be put that the first partner
saves you 50% of the costs and blocks (theoretically) 50% of the
schedule. The third partner saves you 33% of the costs, but only blocks
(theoretically) an additional 17% of the schedule.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> -- would you spend more renting than owning?
>
> This isn't. The answer is always no, but the answer is also irrelavant if the answer to the first question is yes.

Wrong - this is quite relevant. I can afford many things but I don't
buy all the things I can afford. The non-economic benefits and costs
come into play as balancing act.

I suppose "if I can afford it AND NOT NOTICE", then the answer may be
irrelevant. But for most people I know who can afford an airplane, they
would notice.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>> -- would you spend more renting than owning?
>
> This isn't. The answer is always no, but the answer is also irrelavant if
> the answer to the first question is yes.

That's not true. In some cases, the answer is "no" and in other cases the
answer is "yes".

For example, if you fly an airplane as much as a given airplane being rented
gets flown and the owner of the rented airplane isn't losing money, it's a
given that it would cost you less to own the airplane yourself than to rent
it.

The break-even is actually somewhere else, at a lower utilization, but the
above is trivially true and suffices as a counter-proof to your claim.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:bLPEg.1397$rT5.1320@fed1read01...
>>You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you
>>couldn't fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those
>>destinations for your scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like,
>> >on the order of one such trip a week.
>> [...]
>
> *Raising Hand...*
>
> You've just described my world to a tee...

If you flew your theoretically owned airplane every other week (on a Tuesday
or Wednesday) for a couple of hours at a time, and did one decent
cross-country during the off-season, you'd fall squarely within the
description of a typical owner, at least a lower-usage one.

Furthermore, while some of your trips could not be made by an owned
airplane, I'd be willing to bet many could (perhaps even most). If that's
not true, then you really need to move somewhere closer to your work. My
description assumes that 100% of the trips cannot be made with your
airplane.

Finally, one key element of the analysis is that you have to be RENTING an
airplane and flying it when you are at your destination. Sounds to me as
though you are working, so it's not like your airplane would have gotten
flown during that time anyway.

Your schedule, as similar as it may sound to my description, really doesn't
fit the bill. You wouldn't have been flying your airplane during those
trips anyway, and you still have ample time to fly the airplane and still
meet a minimal annual usage to (barely :) ) justify owning an airplane.

Pete

[Jose[_1_]]

> but: the second partner brings not too much advantage, IMHO (and adds a
> third opinion on every decision).

.... and a third pair of hands to accomplish every decision.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:16:35 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

> The break-even is actually somewhere else, at a lower utilization, but the
> above is trivially true and suffices as a counter-proof to your claim.

You're missing a factor. Rentals typically have a daily minimum. This
can add up for a vacation that lasts a week, two, or longer.

I'd just landed when another club member was getting ready to depart.
He's taking the family for a three (?) day trip to an island about an hour
away. Even if you ignore that our hourly rates are lower than rental rates
for the same aircraft, and ignore that we use tach time rather than hobbs
time, the daily minimum of a rental would have added at least a few
hundred to his vacation's cost.

And that's just for a three day trip.

Partnerships, clubs, ownerships, and fractionals can offer significant
savings over rentals when one uses airplanes for travel that involves
extended stays.

- Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/

[Jay Beckman]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:bLPEg.1397$rT5.1320@fed1read01...
>>>You would have to be doing a LOT of traveling, to places where you
>>>couldn't fly your own airplane, AND renting airplanes at those
>>>destinations for your scenario to have any relevance whatsoever. Like,
>>> >on the order of one such trip a week.
>>> [...]
>>
>> *Raising Hand...*
>>
>> You've just described my world to a tee...
>
> If you flew your theoretically owned airplane every other week (on a
> Tuesday or Wednesday) for a couple of hours at a time, and did one decent
> cross-country during the off-season, you'd fall squarely within the
> description of a typical owner, at least a lower-usage one.

Interesting. As it happens, that's exactly the pattern my flying tends to
take.

> Furthermore, while some of your trips could not be made by an owned
> airplane, I'd be willing to bet many could (perhaps even most). If that's
> not true, then you really need to move somewhere closer to your work. My
> description assumes that 100% of the trips cannot be made with your
> airplane.

As I said, there are a couple of race cities to which I could fly myself.
As for relocating, if I knew back in 2001 that I'd be able to count on
racing for as much work as I've actually gotten out of it, I'd probably have
moved back east. As it stands now, things are a little up in the air with a
new TV deal in place.

> Finally, one key element of the analysis is that you have to be RENTING an
> airplane and flying it when you are at your destination. Sounds to me as
> though you are working, so it's not like your airplane would have gotten
> flown during that time anyway.

Ah. I didn't interpret your point quite this way in your OP. I see your
point. Flying is not something I need to do when I'm on the road.

> Your schedule, as similar as it may sound to my description, really
> doesn't fit the bill. You wouldn't have been flying your airplane during
> those trips anyway, and you still have ample time to fly the airplane and
> still meet a minimal annual usage to (barely :) ) justify owning an
> airplane.
>
> Pete

I need to show this last paragraph to my "Secretary of the Treasury..." :O)

Jay

[Newps]

>
>>>the first partner saves you 50% of the costs. The third partner saves you
>>>only an additional 17% of the total costs but blocks (theoretically) 33% of
>>>availability.


You're assuming each partner flies about the same amount. This is
almost never the case. I'm aware of two partnerships with three guys I
work with. Two are in on an Archer. There's 5 total in that
partnership. The two guys I work with are the only two that fly. Hell,
one lives in Hawaii 9 months of the year and the other two really aren't
interested in flying. But they all pay their bills. The two guys I
know fly the crap out of that Archer for $45 an hour wet. The other
partnership is a 182 with six partners, only three of them ever fly. No
idea what the others are thinking.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Hell, one lives in Hawaii 9 months of the year and the other two really aren't interested in flying. But they all pay their bills.

How do I find partners like that?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:16:35 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> The break-even is actually somewhere else, at a lower utilization, but
>> the
>> above is trivially true and suffices as a counter-proof to your claim.
>
> You're missing a factor. Rentals typically have a daily minimum. This
> can add up for a vacation that lasts a week, two, or longer.
>
> I'd just landed when another club member was getting ready to depart.
> He's taking the family for a three (?) day trip to an island about an hour
> away. Even if you ignore that our hourly rates are lower than rental rates
> for the same aircraft, and ignore that we use tach time rather than hobbs
> time, the daily minimum of a rental would have added at least a few
> hundred to his vacation's cost.
>
> And that's just for a three day trip.
>
> Partnerships, clubs, ownerships, and fractionals can offer significant
> savings over rentals when one uses airplanes for travel that involves
> extended stays.
>
> - Andrew
> http://flyingclub.org/
>

If you are paying a day rate, does that cover you for unlimited wet use of
the aircraft during that period?Surely if you had to pay a day rate, you'd
use more time out of your 3 day vacation for sight seeing from the air?
Crash Lander

[Peter Duniho]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> If you are paying a day rate, does that cover you for unlimited wet use of
> the aircraft during that period?Surely if you had to pay a day rate, you'd
> use more time out of your 3 day vacation for sight seeing from the air?

No. It's not a "day rate", in which the pilot pays a flat per-day rate to
fly the plane for an unlimited number of hours during that day.

It's just what Andrew describes it as: a "daily minimum". That is, you are
still charged hourly, but if you take the airplane overnight, there is a
minimum number of hours that you will be charged per day for each day that
you have the airplane. The minimum is applied over the entire time you have
the airplane, so you don't actually have to fly the minimum each day to
avoid paying extra. You just have to average the minimum rate, otherwise
you wind up paying for time you didn't actually fly.

Typically, a "day" is a given 24 hour period. So if you take the airplane
overnight, that's only one "day". Different FBOs define it differently
though...there might be one out there that considers any overnight to be two
days.

So, for example, let's say you want to take the airplane out for a long
weekend, leaving Friday afternoon and coming back Monday afternoon. You'll
have the airplane out for three days, so with a two-hour daily minimum you
will pay a minimum of six hours of rental time. If your trip only involves
a two-hour flight out, and then a two-hour flight back, there's an extra two
hours of flight time you'll have to pay for even though you didn't actually
fly the plane more than four hours. Most pilots design their trips to make
sure they use the minimum time, either by flying far enough out, or by
including additional flying while around their destination.

I disagree that I was "missing" that factor per se...I already said that I
wasn't providing a complete enumeration, and IMHO the question of daily
minimums isn't usually a MAJOR part of the decision to own or not (but that
does vary individually, depending on what kind of flying one typically does
or wants to do). The exact analysis for ownership varies considerably from
person to person, and my goal was simply to state the most common, universal
factors. Yes, this is one of many things I didn't mention in my post, but
it doesn't mean I didn't intend for people to consider it. It was just
outside the scope of my post.

Pete

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If you are paying a day rate, does that cover you for unlimited wet use
>> of the aircraft during that period?Surely if you had to pay a day rate,
>> you'd use more time out of your 3 day vacation for sight seeing from the
>> air?
>
> No. It's not a "day rate", in which the pilot pays a flat per-day rate to
> fly the plane for an unlimited number of hours during that day.
>
> It's just what Andrew describes it as: a "daily minimum". That is, you
> are still charged hourly, but if you take the airplane overnight, there is
> a minimum number of hours that you will be charged per day for each day
> that you have the airplane. The minimum is applied over the entire time
> you have the airplane, so you don't actually have to fly the minimum each
> day to avoid paying extra. You just have to average the minimum rate,
> otherwise you wind up paying for time you didn't actually fly.
>
> Typically, a "day" is a given 24 hour period. So if you take the airplane
> overnight, that's only one "day". Different FBOs define it differently
> though...there might be one out there that considers any overnight to be
> two days.
>
> So, for example, let's say you want to take the airplane out for a long
> weekend, leaving Friday afternoon and coming back Monday afternoon.
> You'll have the airplane out for three days, so with a two-hour daily
> minimum you will pay a minimum of six hours of rental time. If your trip
> only involves a two-hour flight out, and then a two-hour flight back,
> there's an extra two hours of flight time you'll have to pay for even
> though you didn't actually fly the plane more than four hours. Most
> pilots design their trips to make sure they use the minimum time, either
> by flying far enough out, or by including additional flying while around
> their destination.
>
> I disagree that I was "missing" that factor per se...I already said that I
> wasn't providing a complete enumeration, and IMHO the question of daily
> minimums isn't usually a MAJOR part of the decision to own or not (but
> that does vary individually, depending on what kind of flying one
> typically does or wants to do). The exact analysis for ownership varies
> considerably from person to person, and my goal was simply to state the
> most common, universal factors. Yes, this is one of many things I didn't
> mention in my post, but it doesn't mean I didn't intend for people to
> consider it. It was just outside the scope of my post.
>
> Pete

Thanks Peter. I often wondered about daily minimums. I thought it would be
like 5 hours a day, but I guess realistically a rented a/c would only do
about 2 on average per day. True?
Crash Lander

[Peter Duniho]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Peter. I often wondered about daily minimums. I thought it would be
> like 5 hours a day, but I guess realistically a rented a/c would only do
> about 2 on average per day. True?

The minimum that an FBO charges, and how they charge it, depends on the FBO.
This particular "feature" varies a lot. For sure, the minimum is just
that...it's not set on what the airplane might normally see in use, but
rather based on what the FBO sees as the minimum charge it needs from the
airplane to ensure it's not losing money, as well as on what the FBO
believes pilots will be willing to put up with.

In addition, many FBOs set different minimums during the summer and winter,
as the airplane is likely to get less use during the winter anyway.

An FBO running a flight school with a number of active pilots may well see
more than two hours of usage per day for their airplanes, especially in the
summer. But if they set their daily minimum to something closer to the
actual utilization, pilots would find another FBO where they could more
reasonably take the plane on multi-day trips (and would probably not bother
to rent from the first FBO for smaller blocks of time).

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Crash Lander" > wrote:

> Thanks Peter. I often wondered about daily minimums. I thought it would be
> like 5 hours a day, but I guess realistically a rented a/c would only do
> about 2 on average per day. True?

I know one FBO where the daily min was 3 hours/day during the week and
4 hours/day on the weekend. However, they seemed willing to negotiate
wrt not making me pay for fuel I didn't use.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jose[_1_]]

> Therefore, a top post with an untrimmed set of
> quotes (usually, when top posters reply to top posters, you get an
> enormously long history of quoted material at the bottom)

The FBOs I'm familiar with want four hours per day, which is impractical
for travelling. There was one that only wanted two per day, that was
doable for the most part.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Peter. I often wondered about daily minimums. I thought it would be
> like 5 hours a day, but I guess realistically a rented a/c would only do
> about 2 on average per day. True?

Another data point: the FBO I use (in Massachusetts) has a three-hour daily
minimum. And they're pretty lax about enforcing it, especially if you come
reasonably close or if demand was low and other similar planes there were
sitting idle.

--Gary