Cessna 152

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.

Ed Haywood wrote:
: 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 what I was trying to get at with the wide variations of
things like annuals, etc. If you do a good prebuy, there shouldn't be
that much that's *really* expensive on a 152. Even a new jug or top
overhaul is less than $2k if you do the work. I did intend to put in an
engine overhaul fund, but forgot. If you buy a runout, you can sell a
runout, though. Also many shades of grey on an "overhaul" and what it
costs.

: 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.

Very true. Along with the risk goes risk and financial
management, though. There are *huge* shades of grey on what's considered
airworthy. If you want to run your plane really cheaply, you can do so...
just have to shop around for a mechanic and/or get your hands dirty.
Things really only get out of control when you either do something stupid
(so the insurance should cover it), or have a mechanic that is too anal
(so find another mechanic).


-Cory
--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

In article , "Ed Haywood"
writes:

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


Seeing the problem with this advice came from my mother many years ago. "Don't
pick that up, you don't know where it's been."

It's hard to beat the mind set that goes with knowing who landed the plane last
time, and that no one has flown it in the last two weeks that I coundn't get
out. I think that the breakeven number of hours is more like 75 or 100 when
this intangable is taken into account.

Chuck

"Ed Haywood" wrote in message m...

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

Margy's line is that if it has tires or testicles, it's going to be trouble.

It's hard to beat the mind set that goes with knowing who landed the plane
last
time, and that no one has flown it in the last two weeks that I coundn't
get
out. I think that the breakeven number of hours is more like 75 or 100
when
this intangable is taken into account.

Couldn't agree more. That's why I recently bought into a Decathlon
partnership with another guy. Didn't like wondering if the renter before me
had pulled 8G's. And I wanted the plane to be mine whenever I needed it,
not when the FBO could squeeze me in.

But before I did so, I did a hard cost effectiveness analysis with no
consideration for "intangibles". That way I went into it with my eyes open,
without any delusions of "saving money by owning."

Besides, everyone's intangibles are different, and the value we put on them
is subjective. To you, the most important thing may be comfort with the
maintenance history of your bird. To someone else, the most important thing
may be low hassle convenience, the ability to just hop in and fly it. A
third guy might get his jollies from only flying aircraft that he built
himself. We're all different, so there's no sense trying to build that into
a cost comparison method. Better to do the math, then decide whether the
cost is worth it to you.

Ron Natalie wrote:

Margy's line is that if it has tires or testicles, it's going to be trouble.

Which begs the question: does she really have enough exerience with either group to be able to make so broad
a generalization? :-)

Russell Kent

"Russell Kent" wrote in message ...
Ron Natalie wrote:

Margy's line is that if it has tires or testicles, it's going to be trouble.

Which begs the question: does she really have enough exerience with either group to be able to make so broad
a generalization? :-)

Well, she's had a whole slew of cars, a motorscooter, two husbands and one airplane.

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Russell Kent" wrote in message ...
Ron Natalie wrote:

Margy's line is that if it has tires or testicles, it's going to be trouble.

Which begs the question: does she really have enough exerience with either group to be able to make so broad
a generalization? :-)

Well, she's had a whole slew of cars, a motorscooter, two husbands and one airplane.

Two seems a rather skimpy sample, but then I suppose you wouldn't really want her to renew the sampling... :-)

Russell Kent

He could buy me another airplane :-)

Russell Kent wrote:

Ron Natalie wrote:

"Russell Kent" wrote in message ...
Ron Natalie wrote:

Margy's line is that if it has tires or testicles, it's going to be trouble.

Which begs the question: does she really have enough exerience with either group to be able to make so broad
a generalization? :-)

Well, she's had a whole slew of cars, a motorscooter, two husbands and one airplane.

Two seems a rather skimpy sample, but then I suppose you wouldn't really want her to renew the sampling... :-)

Russell Kent

Russell Kent wrote:

Two seems a rather skimpy sample, but then I suppose you wouldn't really want her to renew the sampling... :-)

Well, that's two *husbands*. That doesn't count the guys she thought weren't
worth keeping.

George Patterson
If you're not part of the solution, you can make a lot of money prolonging
the problem.