buy or rent a 2006 182

[Dan Luke]

Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so, I've
been kicking around options for future flying.

My general bad feeling about owning an airplane in Mobile notwithstanding,
there's still a chance I could buy another airplane if renting a 2006 Cessna
182T from the local flight school doesn't work out. So I ran a few numbers
to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would compare, based on
costs here in Mobile:


o Rent

100 hrs/yr @ $190/hr. $19,000
Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)

Total $22,185





o Buy slightly used '06 182T, fly 100 hrs/yr

Engine overhaul setaside @ $12.50/hr $1,300
Fuel, 13gph @ $4.85/gal $6,305
Shelter @ $180/mo. $2,160
Insurance, $1M smooth $3,185
Annual (during warranty) $750
Oil & Filters $100
Cost of money @ 6% on $310K + tax $20,460

Total $34,260




--
Dan
? at BFM

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> o Buy slightly used '06 182T, fly 100 hrs/yr
>
> Engine overhaul setaside @ $12.50/hr $1,300
> Fuel, 13gph @ $4.85/gal $6,305
> Shelter @ $180/mo. $2,160
> Insurance, $1M smooth $3,185
> Annual (during warranty) $750
> Oil & Filters $100
> Cost of money @ 6% on $310K + tax $20,460
>
> Total $34,260


Not sure what your mission is, but:

http://www.ionaircraft.com/
Have considered the ION? <g>

I just got a call from Steve, he'd like some help this afternoon. Taxi
testing - with canopy on this time, etc.

Here's some FunFacts:
---------------------------------------------

1. 99 inch canopy ..... The view will be unmatched!

2. Jabiru 3300 .......... 1/3 the fuel burn of the 182 :-)

3. Airspeed(?) .......... Flight tests later this spring

4. Cockpit noise ...... In theory (until flight tests can verify this) we
think it will be relatively quite.

5. Pricing (?) ............. Not sure if that's a pre-OSH or a post-OSH
decision?

6. Removable wings!!

7. Chick magnet? Um, sure. The goal is to fly well and look cool doing it.
It's designed to be a fun AND capable plane.

8. Quick build times and AFFORDABLE!! Two bedrock principles at ION. (My
words, but also, my observations.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you order one, it will arrive in your driveway as a primered fuselage
with the outside length (run) of each boom needing attaching/sanding the
joint/etc. The elevator tail section will require a similar 'sectioned
piece' to be mated to the rest of the empennage. Cables and pulleys will
have access panels - for you to get in there and do that.

The NEW 120 hp engine will come pre-tested from Jabiru.

The canopy will come from one of the leading canopy makers in the country -
to your driveway.

Same with the landing gear.

Same with the (removable) wings - like a quick build kit from Vans. :-)

51% rule?

Yes! There's still plenty to do even after all the components are delivered
to you.

On the flip side, the jigging has been done for you - in the form of a
delivered fuselage. (Have I mentioned it will be primer'd?)

Options:
---------------------
Canopy tinting
Seat choice
Avionics
You'll paint the fuselage.
Wings polished, or painted?

It's a homebuilt - it's yours do equip as you see fit. Basically, get as
fancy as you want.

I'd like us to play "customer" on ION #2, after OSH, to see how long one
will (really) take to ...assemble.

That'll be up to Steve. <g>


Montblack
I'm off to ION World Headquarters for the afternoon ....or as Steve calls
it, the left side of Al's hangar.

[john smith]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)

I only pay about $750/year with AVEMCO for $1M renters insurance.

[Deadstick]

On May 25, 11:08 am, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so, I've
> been kicking around options for future flying.
>
> My general bad feeling about owning an airplane in Mobile notwithstanding,
> there's still a chance I could buy another airplane if renting a 2006 Cessna
> 182T from the local flight school doesn't work out. So I ran a few numbers
> to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would compare, based on
> costs here in Mobile:
>
> o Rent
>
> 100 hrs/yr @ $190/hr. $19,000
> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>
> Total $22,185
>
> o Buy slightly used '06 182T, fly 100 hrs/yr
>
> Engine overhaul setaside @ $12.50/hr $1,300
> Fuel, 13gph @ $4.85/gal $6,305
> Shelter @ $180/mo. $2,160
> Insurance, $1M smooth $3,185
> Annual (during warranty) $750
> Oil & Filters $100
> Cost of money @ 6% on $310K + tax $20,460
>
> Total $34,260
>
> --
> Dan
> ? at BFM


Unless you find a way to use it as a tax write-off, generally at 100hr
flight time per year its less expensive to rent than to own. Renters
insurance shouldn't cost you more than $2000.

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>
> I only pay about $750/year with AVEMCO for $1M renters insurance.

What hull value does that cover?

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Vaughn Simon]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

>
> o Rent
>
> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>
> Total $22,185

Yes but what amount of hull is covered at that cost? Last I checked, you
can't even buy enough renter's hull insurance to cover half of the value of that
plane. I don't understand why people rent expensive planes when they can't
insure themselves.

[Kyle Boatright]

One thing to consider is that with an aircraft you own, you'll have equity.
Depending on the term of your loan and the speed at which the aircraft
depreciates, that equity could be positive or negative (aarg)..

Beyond the equity issue, there is something to be said for being able to
schedule the aircraft at your convenience and for the ability to maintain
and upgrade the aircraft to your standards.

KB


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so,
> I've been kicking around options for future flying.
>
> My general bad feeling about owning an airplane in Mobile notwithstanding,
> there's still a chance I could buy another airplane if renting a 2006
> Cessna 182T from the local flight school doesn't work out. So I ran a few
> numbers to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would
> compare, based on costs here in Mobile:
>
>
> o Rent
>
> 100 hrs/yr @ $190/hr. $19,000
> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>
> Total $22,185
>
>
>
>
>
> o Buy slightly used '06 182T, fly 100 hrs/yr
>
> Engine overhaul setaside @ $12.50/hr $1,300
> Fuel, 13gph @ $4.85/gal $6,305
> Shelter @ $180/mo. $2,160
> Insurance, $1M smooth $3,185
> Annual (during warranty) $750
> Oil & Filters $100
> Cost of money @ 6% on $310K + tax $20,460
>
> Total $34,260
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan
> ? at BFM
>

[B A R R Y]

On 25 May 2007 12:52:27 -0700, Deadstick > wrote:

>
>Unless you find a way to use it as a tax write-off, generally at 100hr
>flight time per year its less expensive to rent than to own.

Unless you can find the right partnership.

[Dan Luke]

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

>
> Beyond the equity issue, there is something to be said for being able to
> schedule the aircraft at your convenience and for the ability to maintain
> and upgrade the aircraft to your standards.


Roger that.


I've owned '87D for seven years. I don't know if I'll be able to stand going
back to renting. We'll see.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:

> Not sure what your mission is, but:
>
> http://www.ionaircraft.com/
> Have considered the ION? <g>
>

Cool looking bird, but I need a long range IFR cruiser.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[[email protected][_1_]]

On May 25, 7:32 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Montblack" wrote:
> > Not sure what your mission is, but:
>
> >http://www.ionaircraft.com/
> > Have considered the ION? <g>
>
> Cool looking bird, but I need a long range IFR cruiser.
>
> --
> Dan
> ? at BFM
Dan

If you are looking for a long range IFR plane, you might want to look
at the Diamond Star DA-40. For the price of a 2006 182 you could
definitely get anything you want in the used DA-40 market. There are
11 of them on Controller listing from $140s to $200. I rented a couple
of DA-40s and was pretty impressed. I really liked the handling and
the visibility (seemed a lot more responsive than the SR-20), and they
move pretty fast for a 180hp fixed gear plane. When it is time to sell
the warbird, I'll deifnitely give them a consideration. Having flown
both recent 182s and DA-40s, unless I needed the lifting capacity of
the 182, I'd be tempted to go with the more fun plane to fly.

http://www.controller.com/listings/forsale/list.asp?catid=6&man=DIAMOND&mdl=DA40%2D180+STAR&guid=89A72BE5D8E74B97B5949231BCEF393B

Eric Bartsch
1959 Pilatus P-3 A-848

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:

\> If you are looking for a long range IFR plane, you might want to look
> at the Diamond Star DA-40. For the price of a 2006 182 you could
> definitely get anything you want in the used DA-40 market.


Nice plane, but IFR range and useful load are inadequate.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[kontiki]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
>
> Nice plane, but IFR range and useful load are inadequate.
>

Personally, for long range crusing I would want something faster
than a 182.

[Dan Luke]

"kontiki" wrote:

>> Nice plane, but IFR range and useful load are inadequate.
>>
>
> Personally, for long range crusing I would want something faster
> than a 182.

Who wouldn't?

New 182s aren't too shabby, though. The one at the flight school will cruise
145+ KTAS. Put that together with the 'Lane's good useful load and excellent
short field performance and you have a pretty dandy all-around airplane.

Anyway, the OP was about cost comparison, so I used apples-to-apples. If I do
buy another airplane, there are other possibilities.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> "john smith" wrote:
>
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> >> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
> >
> > I only pay about $750/year with AVEMCO for $1M renters insurance.
>
> What hull value does that cover?

$30k

[kontiki]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> New 182s aren't too shabby, though. The one at the flight school will cruise
> 145+ KTAS. Put that together with the 'Lane's good useful load and excellent
> short field performance and you have a pretty dandy all-around airplane.

Well for 300+ thousand dollars it ought to 145kts.
>
> Anyway, the OP was about cost comparison, so I used apples-to-apples. If I do
> buy another airplane, there are other possibilities.
>

My point was that for the kind of money you are talking about I could
by cruising at 165kts at the same or less fuel burn, and still have
enough money left to by a lot of Avgas.

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:

>>
>> > Dan Luke wrote:
>> >> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>> >
>> > I only pay about $750/year with AVEMCO for $1M renters insurance.
>>
>> What hull value does that cover?
>
> $30k

That wouldn't help much if I crumped a $300K bird.

I'll call my agent Tuesday and see what it would cost to cover that much.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"kontiki" wrote:

>
> My point was that for the kind of money you are talking about I could
> by cruising at 165kts at the same or less fuel burn, and still have
> enough money left to by a lot of Avgas.

Yes, in a considerably older airplane with older avionics, higher maintenance
costs, etc. If it was a retractable, insurance would be more, too.

Nevertheless, speed is good. I like Bo's, and very nice ones can be had for
$300K.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[kontiki]

Dan Luke wrote:


>
> Yes, in a considerably older airplane with older avionics, higher maintenance
> costs, etc. If it was a retractable, insurance would be more, too.
>

I don't know about that... insurance on my Comanche is $1700 per year.
To insure the hull on a 2000ish 182 couldn't be any cheaper. My plane
is simple to work on (1950's technology) and has been very reliable.
I am able to do a lot of the maintenance myself.

Granted an advantage of the 182 is ease of getting in and out compared
to most retracts. But beyond that it flies like a truck, is slow and
burns a lot of fuel. I have hundreds of hours in 182s so I am not
just speaking second hand.

> Nevertheless, speed is good. I like Bo's, and very nice ones can be had for
> $300K.
>

You can even find good ones for 100K less. But hey... if you have
the bucks I say go for it. Bo's are good airplanes, albeit expensive
to maintain.

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-05-25 09:08:26 -0700, "Dan Luke" > said:

> Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so, I've
> been kicking around options for future flying.

The major reason for owning a plane is convenience. It never seems that
there is a rental plane available when you want one.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:

>> Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so, I've
>> been kicking around options for future flying.
>
> The major reason for owning a plane is convenience. It never seems that
> there is a rental plane available when you want one.

True, alas. The flying club I used to belong to had good availability, but
nothing more capable than Skyhawks.

I really like the new 182 for rent at the local flight school...but so do
several other people, apparently. It's booked up this holiday weekend.

--
Dan
? at BFM

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> Nevertheless, speed is good. I like Bo's, and very nice ones can be had
> for $300K.


There's a guy near Mpls, Minnesota (@ ANE) who is selling half-share in his
NEW Diamond Twin Star DA-42, with Thielert Diesels.

It's a 100% guess on my part, but I'm thinking he's into his NEW plane for
approx $400K. (More? Less?)

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Diamond/7.htm

"Long range IFR platform?"

Hmm?

Ask those guys who flew into OSH last year from Sweden.

They flew in ...from the WEST! :-)


Montblack

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
>> Not sure what your mission is, but:
>>
>> http://www.ionaircraft.com/
>> Have considered the ION? <g>

> Cool looking bird, but I need a long range IFR cruiser.


IFR ION - can do!

Will compete nicely with a 182 in speed and distance.

Will blow away the 182 in price and fuel economy.

AND visibility.
(Oh, IFR ......"nevermind")


Montblack
Taxi test(s) and long run-ups went well yesterday. All 6 cylinders stayed in
the green - as predicted. We held our breaths anyway, just in case <g>.

[Matt Whiting]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Dan Luke" wrote)
>>> Not sure what your mission is, but:
>>>
>>> http://www.ionaircraft.com/
>>> Have considered the ION? <g>
>
>> Cool looking bird, but I need a long range IFR cruiser.
>
>
> IFR ION - can do!
>
> Will compete nicely with a 182 in speed and distance.
>
> Will blow away the 182 in price and fuel economy.

It's a two-seater. Comparing it to the 182 is pointless.

Matt

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> IFR ION - can do!
>>
>> Will compete nicely with a 182 in speed and distance.
>>
>> Will blow away the 182 in price and fuel economy.

> It's a two-seater. Comparing it to the 182 is pointless.


I met Dan at OSH, not "Hurricane" Dan and his three buddies. :-)

But yes, the 182 can haul way more: fuel to burn.., debt to purchase...


Montblack
Album: Desire (1976)
Huricane - Bob Dylan
"Here comes the story of the Hurricane"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007052607205975249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-05-25 09:08:26 -0700, "Dan Luke" > said:
>
>> Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so,
>> I've
>> been kicking around options for future flying.
>
> The major reason for owning a plane is convenience. It never seems that
> there is a rental plane available when you want one.
>
At least something with performance.

One can always find a 172 or similar. Even here at 6,000 feet it's hard to
find anything turboed.

If you're just doing orbits around the pattern, that might be fine, but try
doing any sort of business or anything 500 miles away.

[Dan Luke]

"Montblack" wrote:

>
> But yes, the 182 can haul way more: fuel to burn.., debt to purchase...

My dream machine is an RV-10. Trouble is, ya gotta build it, and I've got the
patience of a sixth grader who lost his Ritalin.

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

[Blueskies]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...
>
> "john smith" wrote:
>
>>>
>>> > Dan Luke wrote:
>>> >> Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>>> >
>>> > I only pay about $750/year with AVEMCO for $1M renters insurance.
>>>
>>> What hull value does that cover?
>>
>> $30k
>
> That wouldn't help much if I crumped a $300K bird.
>
> I'll call my agent Tuesday and see what it would cost to cover that much.
>
> --
> Dan
> ? at BFM
>

Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?

[Montblack]

("Dan Luke" wrote)
> My dream machine is an RV-10. Trouble is, ya gotta build it, and I've got
> the patience of a sixth grader who lost his Ritalin.


We (our EAA Chapter) sold a crated RV-10 last year.

It was a quick build kit. <g>


Montblack
Highway 61 Revisited (1965)
Just Like A Tom Thumb Blues - Bob Dylan

"And my best friend, my doctor
Won't even say what it is I've got"

Judy Collins did a very nice cover of this song, on her "In My Life" album
(1966)

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Montblack" wrote:
>
>> But yes, the 182 can haul way more: fuel to burn.., debt to purchase...
>
> My dream machine is an RV-10. Trouble is, ya gotta build it, and I've got the
> patience of a sixth grader who lost his Ritalin.
>

My dream machine would be a Vans designed REAL airplane ... the one's
with the wings on top. I just know Van could do a nice one! :-)

Matt

[Vaughn Simon]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?

Most likely yes. But most likely it covers the flight school, not the
renter pilot.

1) Pilot breaks airplane.
2) Insurance co. pays flight school.
3) Renter pilot learns what the word "subrogation" means.

Many flight schools fail to stress this "gotcha" to their customers because
then fewer folks would rent their airplanes.

Vaughn

>
>

[Blueskies]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message t...
>> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?
>
> Most likely yes. But most likely it covers the flight school, not the renter pilot.
>
> 1) Pilot breaks airplane.
> 2) Insurance co. pays flight school.
> 3) Renter pilot learns what the word "subrogation" means.
>
> Many flight schools fail to stress this "gotcha" to their customers because then fewer folks would rent their
> airplanes.
>
> Vaughn

Yes, so the plane is covered. Then the renter's insurance covers the additional liability...

[Vaughn Simon]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?
>>
>> Most likely yes. But most likely it covers the flight school, not the
>> renter pilot.
>>
>> 1) Pilot breaks airplane.
>> 2) Insurance co. pays flight school.
>> 3) Renter pilot learns what the word "subrogation" means.
>>
>> Many flight schools fail to stress this "gotcha" to their customers
>> because then fewer folks would rent their airplanes.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> Yes, so the plane is covered. Then the renter's insurance covers the
> additional liability...

Only if the renter has bought enough hull coverage on his renter's
insurance policy. The hull is not covered by the liability portion. I haven't
looked lately, but usually about $100,000 is the most you can buy.

Vaughn

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> > t...
> >> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?
> >
> > Most likely yes. But most likely it covers the flight school, not the
> > renter pilot.
> >
> > 1) Pilot breaks airplane.
> > 2) Insurance co. pays flight school.
> > 3) Renter pilot learns what the word "subrogation" means.
> >
> > Many flight schools fail to stress this "gotcha" to their customers
> > because then fewer folks would rent their
> > airplanes.
> >
> > Vaughn
>
> Yes, so the plane is covered. Then the renter's insurance covers the
> additional liability...

My $30k of hull is enough to cover the owners deductible.
The liability covers the rest.

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "kontiki" wrote:
>
>
>>My point was that for the kind of money you are talking about I could
>>by cruising at 165kts at the same or less fuel burn, and still have
>>enough money left to by a lot of Avgas.
>
>
> Yes, in a considerably older airplane with older avionics, higher maintenance
> costs, etc. If it was a retractable, insurance would be more, too.
>
> Nevertheless, speed is good. I like Bo's, and very nice ones can be had for
> $300K.

Sheesh, you can get a nice S35 like mine with a freshly overhauled 550
and autopilot for about $100K. 190 kts true and $200K left over to play
around with.

[Newps]

Blueskies wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message ...
>
>>"john smith" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Renter's ins., $1M smooth $3,185 (?)
>>>>>
>>>>>I only pay about $750/year with AVEMCO for $1M renters insurance.
>>>>
>>>>What hull value does that cover?
>>>
>>>$30k
>>
>>That wouldn't help much if I crumped a $300K bird.
>>
>>I'll call my agent Tuesday and see what it would cost to cover that much.
>>
>>--
>>Dan
>>? at BFM
>>
>
>
> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?


Yes, they are covered.

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:

>>>My point was that for the kind of money you are talking about I could
>>>by cruising at 165kts at the same or less fuel burn, and still have
>>>enough money left to by a lot of Avgas.
>>
>>
>> Yes, in a considerably older airplane with older avionics, higher
>> maintenance costs, etc. If it was a retractable, insurance would be more,
>> too.
>>
>> Nevertheless, speed is good. I like Bo's, and very nice ones can be had
>> for $300K.
>
> Sheesh, you can get a nice S35 like mine with a freshly overhauled 550 and
> autopilot for about $100K. 190 kts true and $200K left over to play around
> with.

Bo's older than '85 won't do.

[Mark Hansen]

On 05/26/07 18:57, john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>> > t...
>> >> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?
>> >
>> > Most likely yes. But most likely it covers the flight school, not the
>> > renter pilot.
>> >
>> > 1) Pilot breaks airplane.
>> > 2) Insurance co. pays flight school.
>> > 3) Renter pilot learns what the word "subrogation" means.
>> >
>> > Many flight schools fail to stress this "gotcha" to their customers
>> > because then fewer folks would rent their
>> > airplanes.
>> >
>> > Vaughn
>>
>> Yes, so the plane is covered. Then the renter's insurance covers the
>> additional liability...
>
> My $30k of hull is enough to cover the owners deductible.

Do you believe that you will only be asked to pay the owner's
deductible? Why do you think the owner's insurance company won't
come after you for the money they paid to the owner?

> The liability covers the rest.

Do you think your liability coverage will pay the owner's insurance
company back for the claim they paid to the owner on the hull coverage?

[Vaughn Simon]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> My $30k of hull is enough to cover the owners deductible.

Nope! Your rental contract likely makes you liable to the owner for his
deductible and other related expenses, but it does not end there! Here is the
way subrogation works:

1) The owner's insurance company pays the claim to the owner of the airplane,
who hopefully walks away happy.
2) The insurance company sues the responsible party for its loss (most likely,
the renter pilot...You)

There are two things that can protect you from the threat of subrogation:
1) Your flight school/FBO paid extra for a "waiver of subrogation" clause to
protect their customers. (I understand this is rare these days.)
2) Your vulnerable assets are small enough that the insurance company does not
bother suing you (In practice, this probably happens a lot.)

Liability does not apply. Liability pays for bodily injury and things you break
other than the airframe you are renting.

I am not a lawyer (and don't play one on the Internet) so if I am wrong about
this, please show me something to convince me.

Vaughn

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Luke ]
> Posted At: Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:46 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: buy or rent a 2006 182
> Subject: Re: buy or rent a 2006 182
>...
>
> Bo's older than '85 won't do.

Why the '85 cutoff? Is there a tax reason or corporate flight department
requirement? I'm very interested in this point.

[john smith[_2_]]

> > My $30k of hull is enough to cover the owners deductible.

> Do you believe that you will only be asked to pay the owner's
> deductible? Why do you think the owner's insurance company won't
> come after you for the money they paid to the owner?

> > The liability covers the rest.

> Do you think your liability coverage will pay the owner's insurance
> company back for the claim they paid to the owner on the hull coverage?

If I am a renter, and the engine quits because something breaks, I land
it and walk away. The insurance companies fight over who pays what.
Who are they going to get more from? Me or the others (including the
owner) who have an interest?
As it has been explained to me, inusrance companies rarely subrogate
unless they have a deep pocket or there was a blatant violation of the
regulations.
In todays litiguous society, the owner and the owners insurance company
stand an equal chance of being sued for improper maintenance.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

> So I ran a few
> numbers to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would
> compare, based on costs here in Mobile:

I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
the same or more?

Both aircraft are insured (and, apples to apples, I assume they're insured
identically). Both would have the same hourly into engine/paint/interior
reserves. Both use the same fuel and oil. both get the same annual, etc.

Renter's insurance is an added expense on the rental side, as is funding
the 100 hour inspections.

You're right that the renter avoids financing costs (whether aircraft is
bought for debt or cash). But the owner of the rental presumably knows
this and figures it into the hourly, making the per hour charge for the
rental slightly higher.

What am I missing that would "break" what I've described?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 19:14:32 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> Beyond the equity issue, there is something to be said for being able to
> schedule the aircraft at your convenience and for the ability to maintain
> and upgrade the aircraft to your standards.

This is why I like the "compromise" of a club where all members are
owners. It has the best of rental and ownership characteristics; in fact
it looks like a large partnership over multiple aircraft (or perhaps
multiple single-airplane partnerships).

The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.
But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
an issue.

And with multiple aircraft, the impact of any given aircraft being down
for MX drops.

It's not the perfect replacement for single-ownership. You have to adjust
the seats, and there are limits on scheduling (ie. you cannot keep an
aircraft at your vacation home for "the season"). But it's also cost
effective at under 300 hours/year (or whatever number is considered the
proper break-even point nowadays {8^).

The final benefit is that you're never making choices in a vacuum; there
are always older and more seasoned members of whom to seek advice. It's a
terrific way to learn about the care and feeding of aircraft from people
that are just as invested as yourself.


- Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/

[john smith]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
> Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.
> But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
> an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured.
Not all are as you describe above.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400, john smith wrote:

> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
>> Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner
>> aircraft. But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this
>> becomes less of an issue.
>
> That depends on how the club is structured. Not all are as you describe
> above.

Not all clubs are like this, true. But are not all clubs with members as
owners like this? I admit I don't know of all clubs <laugh>, but how
could owners not have at least a voice on such matters?

- Andrew

[Vaughn Simon]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
> I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
> It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
> Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
> the same or more?

Several reasons:

The main economic difference is probably that the rental aircraft should have
much higher utilization because it is available to far more pilots. This would
distribute the fixed costs among far more flying hours.

Another reason is leasebacks. Leasebacks are often a rather bad deal for
the airplane owner. Owners either enter into the leasback because they have
been "sold" on the idea along with the purchase of a new airplane, or they
already own the plane and are trying to reduce their ownership costs. Simple
fact: if it were cheaper for flying schools/FBOs to own their fleets outright,
that is what more of them would be doing.

Anytime anyone tries to convince you that any form of aircraft ownership is
cheaper than renting, check the figures several times and then go get a second
and third opinion before signing any dotted lines.

Vaughn

[Dan Luke]

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:

>
> What am I missing that would "break" what I've described?

The rental airplane will likely fly >300 hrs/yr.


--
Dan

"Dragged forward by cold science, which doesn't care what we think or believe
or wish for, we are headed into some interesting times."

- John Derbyshire

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400, john smith wrote:
>
> > Andrew Gideon wrote:
> >> The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
> >> Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner
> >> aircraft. But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this
> >> becomes less of an issue.
> >
> > That depends on how the club is structured. Not all are as you describe
> > above.
>
> Not all clubs are like this, true. But are not all clubs with members as
> owners like this? I admit I don't know of all clubs <laugh>, but how
> could owners not have at least a voice on such matters?

I am not a part-owner in either of the two clubs of which I am a member.
I simply rent the aircraft. All of the aircraft are lease-backs in one
club and the club is incorporated and the corporation owns the other.
There are nine airplanes in the one club and one in the other.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 17:57:38 -0400, john smith wrote:

> I am not a part-owner in either of the two clubs of which I am a member.

So these clubs are not of the sort I've been discussing.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:31:10 +0000, Vaughn Simon wrote:


> The main economic difference is probably that the rental aircraft should
> have
> much higher utilization because it is available to far more pilots. This
> would distribute the fixed costs among far more flying hours.

Okay. If we equalize flight hours, does this advantage disappear?

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:
>
>> So I ran a few
>> numbers to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would
>> compare, based on costs here in Mobile:
>
> I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
> It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
> Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
> the same or more?
>
> Both aircraft are insured (and, apples to apples, I assume they're insured
> identically). Both would have the same hourly into engine/paint/interior
> reserves. Both use the same fuel and oil. both get the same annual, etc.
>
> Renter's insurance is an added expense on the rental side, as is funding
> the 100 hour inspections.
>
> You're right that the renter avoids financing costs (whether aircraft is
> bought for debt or cash).

The renter pay ALL costs, including financing (unless the club/owner paid
cash).

What would be different, possibly by way of being more diversified, would be
the fixed costs. For instance, how many rental aircraft are hangared? Fixed
costs are going to be lower per hour as a rental aircraft is used more
often, usually by orders of magnitude. It's this that makes renting more
economical if the utilization is MUCH less with ownership.

> But the owner of the rental presumably knows
> this and figures it into the hourly, making the per hour charge for the
> rental slightly higher.

A rental aircraft is still owned and the owner needs to recoup their costs
as well as make a profit.

> What am I missing that would "break" what I've described?

Possibly insurance, as a rental aircraft has to be insured for various level
of pilot experience. If you have 2000 hours as an owner, the rentor still
has to cover for someone with 100 hours. Also, possibly, the 100 hour
inspections that an owner isn't required to perform...

[Vaughn Simon]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> A rental aircraft is still owned and the owner needs to recoup their costs as
> well as make a profit.

This is unfortunately not always true. Ask most any leasback owner. Most
of them lose money in the deal. The lucky ones make it up in tax advantages.

Also, I have seen many flight schools come and go over the years.

Vaughn

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> A rental aircraft is still owned and the owner needs to recoup their
>> costs as well as make a profit.
>
> This is unfortunately not always true. Ask most any leasback owner.
> Most of them lose money in the deal. The lucky ones make it up in tax
> advantages.
>
> Also, I have seen many flight schools come and go over the years.

So...let's see: They're pricing it wrong?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

john smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Blueskies" > wrote:
>
>> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>> Doesn't the flight school have any insurance?
>>>
>>> Most likely yes. But most likely it covers the flight school,
>>> not the renter pilot.
>>>
>>> 1) Pilot breaks airplane.
>>> 2) Insurance co. pays flight school.
>>> 3) Renter pilot learns what the word "subrogation" means.
>>>
>>> Many flight schools fail to stress this "gotcha" to their
>>> customers because then fewer folks would rent their
>>> airplanes.
>>>
>>> Vaughn
>>
>> Yes, so the plane is covered. Then the renter's insurance covers the
>> additional liability...
>
> My $30k of hull is enough to cover the owners deductible.
> The liability covers the rest.

Is there a Waiver of Subrogation in place that keeps the owners insurance
company from coming after you for the difference between $30K and the actual
loss?

[xyzzy]

On May 28, 12:38 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
> Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.

This is definitely the rub. Club flying is great, except for that
availability issue. owners can usually take their planes somewhere on
Memorial day weekend. Most club pilots can't, unless they planned way
ahead.

> But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
> an issue.

It's a question of how many members there are per plane. This may not
be even even across the club, for example my club has two Mooneys and
only about 20 pilots fly them, but over 50 vie for 2 172's. The
Mooney pilots think availability is great. The 172 pilots have a
different perspective.

> And with multiple aircraft, the impact of any given aircraft being down
> for MX drops.

This is a big plus. Another big plus is fleet variety. My club has
four aircraft types ranging from 152s to Mooneys. If you just want a
local sunset flight, you can fly a 152 for about $60/hr, if you are
going seriously cross country you can fly a Mooney for over twice as
much per hour. You seldom have to compromise the airplane for the
mission.

>
> It's not the perfect replacement for single-ownership. You have to adjust
> the seats, and there are limits on scheduling (ie. you cannot keep an
> aircraft at your vacation home for "the season"). But it's also cost
> effective at under 300 hours/year (or whatever number is considered the
> proper break-even point nowadays {8^).

Yes. My fixed aviation costs are under $100 a month --club dues and
XM fees for my GPS396. In a month when I don't fly much, I don't pay
much. Also I don't own an airplane I'd have to unload in a down
market if something happened like losing my medical, or job, etc.

> The final benefit is that you're never making choices in a vacuum; there
> are always older and more seasoned members of whom to seek advice.

This is a HUGE benefit to club flying.

[xyzzy]

On May 28, 8:00 pm, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007 19:31:10 +0000, Vaughn Simon wrote:
> > The main economic difference is probably that the rental aircraft should
> > have
> > much higher utilization because it is available to far more pilots. This
> > would distribute the fixed costs among far more flying hours.
>
> Okay. If we equalize flight hours, does this advantage disappear?

No. When you rent an aircraft, you are most likely renting it from
someone who deducts depreciation on the rental asset, which the single
owner generally can't do without jumping through a lot of hoops.

And the amount of hours we are talking about is a lot -- 50-100 hours
a month for the rental aircraft. If an owner can fly that much, every
month, consistently, month in and month out, then I'm very jealous of
his lifestyle.

Also, with the rental aircraft, the overall cost to everyone totalled
up is probably more than an owner pays, but it's many more renters so
the each individual's cost is lower, and it's financially more
flexible -- as a renter you don't pay fixed costs in the months when
you don't fly, for example.

[xyzzy]

> Why do you think the owner's insurance company won't
> come after you for the money they paid to the owner?

Because in the real world, they don't do that.

Over the years I've talked to several FBO owners, insurance agents,
and airplane owners who have been in situations where subrogation
would seemingly be justified, even called for, and the insurance
company has always declined to pursue it.

One aviation insurance agent I know has never had a policy he's sold
to go into subrogation (and he's been doing it a long time), and he
and his customers are actually quite mad about it because in some of
the cases the people the insurers declined to subrogate were
stunningly stupid and/or negligent and they thought very strongly that
they should have been subrogated, but weren't.

Subrogation is "out there" as a threat, but it's very seldom used in
the real world, if ever. It usually isn't worth it to the insurance
company. That is probably why you can't buy high-dollar renter
policies -- the companies that sell them know better than to sell
policies worth enough to make their customers attractive targets for
subrogation.

Can anyone name a specific instance where they know subrogation was
done? I've not been able to find anyone, and I've asked FBOs, owners,
insurance agents, etc, over several years. Does that mean you should
count on it not being done? No. But it's not the big boogeyman some
people are making it out to be, unless perhaps ou have a very high
personal net worth or some other unusual circumstance that makes you a
particularly attractive target.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Also, I have seen many flight schools come and go over the years.
>
> So...let's see: They're pricing it wrong?

Often a school's rental price structure has more to do with local market
forces than it has to do with costs and a proper return on capital investment.
Another factor is that great aviation folks are (way too often) not great
business people.

Vaughn

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:05:56 -0700, xyzzy wrote:

> This is definitely the rub. Club flying is great, except for that
> availability issue. owners can usually take their planes somewhere on
> Memorial day weekend. Most club pilots can't, unless they planned way
> ahead.

For whatever reason, our availability has been quite good. There was at
least one airplane available for me on short notice on Monday, for
example.

But, as I wrote, it's not the same as exclusive ownership. I had to
check, for example, rather than simply heading out to the airport.

[...]


[...]

>> And with multiple aircraft, the impact of any given aircraft being
>> down
>> for MX drops.
>
> This is a big plus. Another big plus is fleet variety. My club has
> four aircraft types ranging from 152s to Mooneys. If you just want a
> local sunset flight, you can fly a 152 for about $60/hr, if you are
> going seriously cross country you can fly a Mooney for over twice as
> much per hour. You seldom have to compromise the airplane for the
> mission.

I agree, but this is something that my club doesn't do as well as I'd
like. It's just 172s and 182s (with one R182). The club used to be more
diverse, but decided at some point on an all-Cessna fleet for safety
reasons.

My hope is that we'll grow the club enough to add aircraft in a diverse
way (ie. perhaps a 152 and a 206) w/o violating that "all Cessna" rule.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:14:14 -0700, xyzzy wrote:

> If an owner can fly that much, every
> month, consistently, month in and month out, then I'm very jealous of his
> lifestyle.


<Heh> That's a good point.

- Andrew

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>> Also, I have seen many flight schools come and go over the years.
>>
>> So...let's see: They're pricing it wrong?
>
> Often a school's rental price structure has more to do with local
> market forces than it has to do with costs and a proper return on capital
> investment. Another factor is that great aviation folks are (way too
> often) not great business people.

And that can make renting more expensive in other ways than direct costs
(i.e., losing the aircraft availability).

[Vaughn Simon]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> And that can make renting more expensive in other ways than direct costs
> (i.e., losing the aircraft availability).

Then most of us just move on to the next flight school/FBO. A quick check
flight and you are on your way. (Of course, if you live in a small town your
choices may be somewhere between limited and nonexistent.)

Vaughn
>
>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And that can make renting more expensive in other ways than direct costs
>> (i.e., losing the aircraft availability).
>
> Then most of us just move on to the next flight school/FBO. A quick
> check flight and you are on your way. (Of course, if you live in a small
> town your choices may be somewhere between limited and nonexistent.)
>

I used to (ten years ago) live in a medium size town (170,000) and there
was one FBO and one club. I recently moved from a small town (30,000), where
there was one FBO and one club with three aircraft.

The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using it
< 100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:14:14 -0700, xyzzy wrote:
>
>> If an owner can fly that much, every
>> month, consistently, month in and month out, then I'm very jealous of his
>> lifestyle.
>
>
> <Heh> That's a good point.

That would be someone using it for business, not merely for pleasure
(outside some Hollyweird celebrity).

[xyzzy]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using it
> < 100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
> inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.

In the aggregate, you're probably right. Because of the higher
insurance and maintanence requirements, plus profit for the owner, it
probably costs more for a rental aircraft to fly 50 hours in a month
than it would cost an owner of the same plane time to fly 50 hours in
the same month. But who flies 50 hours a month?

For individual pilots who don't fly 50 hours a month, and are
therefore sharing those expenses with other pilots, renting is cheaper
for several reasons.

First, the airplane they are renting is flying more hours than an
individually owned airplane would, making the per-hour cost cheaper as
the fixed costs are spread out among more hours. The regular flying
also keeps the engine in better shape.

Second, the party renting the airplane can take tax write-offs most
individual owners can't (depreciation and maint expense), another way
of lowering the per-hour cost. This may even completely offset the
profit margin, which would make increased insurance and maintanence
the only extra cost of renting.

Third, the individual renter has little or no fixed costs. If an
individual renter doesn't fly in a specific month, he pays nothing (or
a nominal amount if club dues are involved).

I think you're making the mistake of making the wrong comparison.
You're comparing the aggregate costs to all renters with the cost to
an individual who flies the same number of hours as the rental
airplane flies in total. That's not a real comparison, hardly anyone
flies his owned airplane as much in a month as a rental plane flies,
month in and month out.

You have to compare what it costs one specific pilot to fly x hours a
month in a rental airplane with what it would cost the pilot to own
the same airplane type and fly it the same number of hours in a
month. And you can't use the peak month someone flies, average hours
per month over a long period is what makes sense, because everyone has
periods of inactivity for whatever reason. And unless the number of
hours is much higher than any of us can realistically fly, renting is
going to be cheaper on that comparison, which is the only one that
matters to the individual pilot.

Not to say that there aren't other, good reasons to own (flexibility,
availability, pride of ownership, etc). But renting is almost always
going to be cheaper.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using
>> it
>> < 100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
>> inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.
>
> In the aggregate, you're probably right. Because of the higher
> insurance and maintanence requirements, plus profit for the owner, it
> probably costs more for a rental aircraft to fly 50 hours in a month
> than it would cost an owner of the same plane time to fly 50 hours in
> the same month. But who flies 50 hours a month?
>
> For individual pilots who don't fly 50 hours a month, and are
> therefore sharing those expenses with other pilots, renting is cheaper
> for several reasons.
>
> First, the airplane they are renting is flying more hours than an
> individually owned airplane would, making the per-hour cost cheaper as
> the fixed costs are spread out among more hours. The regular flying
> also keeps the engine in better shape.
>
> Second, the party renting the airplane can take tax write-offs most
> individual owners can't (depreciation and maint expense), another way
> of lowering the per-hour cost. This may even completely offset the
> profit margin, which would make increased insurance and maintanence
> the only extra cost of renting.
>
> Third, the individual renter has little or no fixed costs. If an
> individual renter doesn't fly in a specific month, he pays nothing (or
> a nominal amount if club dues are involved).
>
> I think you're making the mistake of making the wrong comparison.
> You're comparing the aggregate costs to all renters with the cost to
> an individual who flies the same number of hours as the rental
> airplane flies in total. That's not a real comparison, hardly anyone
> flies his owned airplane as much in a month as a rental plane flies,
> month in and month out.
>
> You have to compare what it costs one specific pilot to fly x hours a
> month in a rental airplane with what it would cost the pilot to own
> the same airplane type and fly it the same number of hours in a
> month. And you can't use the peak month someone flies, average hours
> per month over a long period is what makes sense, because everyone has
> periods of inactivity for whatever reason. And unless the number of
> hours is much higher than any of us can realistically fly, renting is
> going to be cheaper on that comparison, which is the only one that
> matters to the individual pilot.
>
> Not to say that there aren't other, good reasons to own (flexibility,
> availability, pride of ownership, etc). But renting is almost always
> going to be cheaper.

Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.

Would you rent a car from Avis, Hertz, Enterprise rather than buy your own?
:~)

I had to rent an SUV from Enterprise for four days...cost me as much as five
weeks running my own...which was MUCH nicer.

Note to the anal retentive: I know the comparison is sorta "apples-bananas"
(Cliche avoidance).

BTW, the nicest rental aircraft I've seen lately is a 2006 T182. ANd, I keep
remembering what Jeff Foxowrthy said about buying a used rental car -- it's
like picking a hooker for a wife: you don't want to stick your key in THAT
ignition.

[xyzzy]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> >> The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and using
> >> it
> >> < 100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
> >> inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.
> >
> > In the aggregate, you're probably right. Because of the higher
> > insurance and maintanence requirements, plus profit for the owner, it
> > probably costs more for a rental aircraft to fly 50 hours in a month
> > than it would cost an owner of the same plane time to fly 50 hours in
> > the same month. But who flies 50 hours a month?
> >
> > For individual pilots who don't fly 50 hours a month, and are
> > therefore sharing those expenses with other pilots, renting is cheaper
> > for several reasons.
> >
> > First, the airplane they are renting is flying more hours than an
> > individually owned airplane would, making the per-hour cost cheaper as
> > the fixed costs are spread out among more hours. The regular flying
> > also keeps the engine in better shape.
> >
> > Second, the party renting the airplane can take tax write-offs most
> > individual owners can't (depreciation and maint expense), another way
> > of lowering the per-hour cost. This may even completely offset the
> > profit margin, which would make increased insurance and maintanence
> > the only extra cost of renting.
> >
> > Third, the individual renter has little or no fixed costs. If an
> > individual renter doesn't fly in a specific month, he pays nothing (or
> > a nominal amount if club dues are involved).
> >
> > I think you're making the mistake of making the wrong comparison.
> > You're comparing the aggregate costs to all renters with the cost to
> > an individual who flies the same number of hours as the rental
> > airplane flies in total. That's not a real comparison, hardly anyone
> > flies his owned airplane as much in a month as a rental plane flies,
> > month in and month out.
> >
> > You have to compare what it costs one specific pilot to fly x hours a
> > month in a rental airplane with what it would cost the pilot to own
> > the same airplane type and fly it the same number of hours in a
> > month. And you can't use the peak month someone flies, average hours
> > per month over a long period is what makes sense, because everyone has
> > periods of inactivity for whatever reason. And unless the number of
> > hours is much higher than any of us can realistically fly, renting is
> > going to be cheaper on that comparison, which is the only one that
> > matters to the individual pilot.
> >
> > Not to say that there aren't other, good reasons to own (flexibility,
> > availability, pride of ownership, etc). But renting is almost always
> > going to be cheaper.
>
> Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.
>
> Would you rent a car from Avis, Hertz, Enterprise rather than buy your own?
> :~)
>

If I drove as often as I fly, yes.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Matt Barrow wrote:
>> >
>> >> The point is that renting has to be more expensive than buying (and
>> >> using
>> >> it
>> >> < 100+/- hours) as the costs are the same. That FBOs and clubs are
>> >> inefficient business people is only peripherally a factor.
>>
>> Assuming the rental fleet GETS USED enough.
>>
>> Would you rent a car from Avis, Hertz, Enterprise rather than buy your
>> own?
>> :~)
>>
>
> If I drove as often as I fly, yes.

So we come back to the original question: At what point does buying become
more effective than renting?

We've seen a sh&tlo*d of 30-50 hour/year pilots giving their reasons for
renting, but Dan is NOT in that category.

It seems there's a lot of pilots with only slightly more flight hours than
MXMANIAC. :~(

[kontiki]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> It seems there's a lot of pilots with only slightly more flight hours than
> MXMANIAC. :~(
>
Excellent point. The fact is, that those of us that own our own
planes do it because it is a part of our lives, not because it
makes sense based upon some numbers arranged on a piece of paper.

I drive a 1999 Ford Ranger... paid for and well maintained. My
insurance on that truck is $250 a year. I don't play golf, and
I don't have a boat or do a lot of other hobbies that consume
a lot of time or money. For that reason owning a plane is worth
it and within my budget.

We take a lot of weekend trips that would not be possible if all
you could do was drive a car to get there (who wants to drive 6
hours one way just for a weekend getaway!). Renting an airplane
for the whole weekend or a three day weekend is not always possible
or finacially feasable.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"kontiki" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>> It seems there's a lot of pilots with only slightly more flight hours
>> than MXMANIAC. :~(
> Excellent point. The fact is, that those of us that own our own
> planes do it because it is a part of our lives, not because it
> makes sense based upon some numbers arranged on a piece of paper.
>
> I drive a 1999 Ford Ranger... paid for and well maintained. My
> insurance on that truck is $250 a year. I don't play golf, and
> I don't have a boat or do a lot of other hobbies that consume
> a lot of time or money. For that reason owning a plane is worth
> it and within my budget.
>
> We take a lot of weekend trips that would not be possible if all
> you could do was drive a car to get there (who wants to drive 6
> hours one way just for a weekend getaway!). Renting an airplane
> for the whole weekend or a three day weekend is not always possible
> or finacially feasable.

Renting isn't feasible for over-night trips either, especially if you have a
lot of them.

The first year when we (wife & I) started our business, we rented. Had
massive problems with availability, and RON charges were sometimes more than
we made in profit some months.

Then too, my first buy was a T210 that was a real lemon.