Plane ownership is the way to go. It's ready to go when you are. It's calling
you to go flying. You know the thing is in proper repair. However, you will
NEVER be able to financially justify buying over renting. Don't even try.

Here's a little unsolicited advice from somebody who has owned planes for the
last 20 years (C-150, Cherokee 140, C-model Bonanza, another C-150,
Musketeer)... When it comes to fixed gear, fixed prop metal airplanes,
maintenance will cost you about the same whether it's 2-seat or 4-seat.
Insurance and gasoline will be more on the 4-seat, but repairs will be the same
as a 2-seat. So you might want to consider widening your search a bit when
looking for a plane. Also, if you like C-152, consider that you will likely get
more plane for the money with a C-150 or a Piper Tomahawk.

Having said that, don't let anybody tell you that you won't like owning a C-152.
If that's what you want, then go for it! Yes, you may get tired of it in a few
years. So what if you do? You will be able to sell it for probably more than you
bought it (as long as it's well-maintained.) Then you can buy whatever else
stikes your fancy.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer Super III

Ed Haywood wrote:

wrote in message
...
: Also, don't make the assumption that you save money by owning. As a
rule of
: thumb, you must fly about 200 hours a year to make owning more cost
: effective than renting.

That seems a bit high to me. Trouble with "rules of thumb" is
that nothing in aviation makes any sense.

Well, I would agree with you that rules of thumb are not always correct.

Granted, the C152 is easier to operate cheaply than most airplanes. You
make a good point: by helping with annuals, running mogas, and keeping it
tied down instead of hangared, you can get the breakeven cost of ownership
down. Self-insuring the hull would help too.

But ... you're basing all your cost estimates on "best case". You don't
consider the opportunity cost of money, and you don't run a rebuild fund.
Also, don't discount the possibility of major maintenance problems or minor
accidents.

That's the thing about ownership. There is the hidden cost of "risk". If
an expensive problem happens, there's nobody to absorb the cost but you.

Don't get me wrong. Owning is great on many levels. But if saving $$ is
your only criteria, think twice and look at the worst case as well as the
best case. Run some spreadsheets and vary the estimates to see what it does
to your hourly cost. That 200 hour rule of thumb was made up by guys with a
lot more experience than me.

If it flies, floats, or flirts, rent it.