Coming home from Houston Sunday...

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Yeah, it's the way to go if the other guys aren't ****s, especially in
your
part of the world where the costs are outrageous. Do you have to chip in
for things like rebuilds on top of that, or is that rate all inclusive?

There's usually a monthly payment that covers hangarage, insurance and
'routine' maintenance. Some groups also use this monthly payment to build
up
an engine fund for when the donkey needs to be replaced. However, some
groups *don't* do this, on the theory that the money is better in the
group
members accounts earning interest, than in the group account (better for
the
members that is).

It's something I always check when enquiring about a group though, whether
the monthly payment includes some sort of 'extra' as a contingency.

Back when I belonged to a club they really had their act together. The
monthly payment covered hangar, insurance, and some of the maintenance. So
your monthly dues covered all of the costs to keep the plane airworthy if it
flew 0 hours per year. The hourly rate included all of the costs associated
with operating the plane, including an engine fund, a prop fund, and a
general maintenance fund. The fixed costs just covered what a "basic"
annual would cost.

They also charged a wet rate that changed each month if the price of fuel
changed on the field. If you refueled somewhere else, they only reimbursed
at up to the home field rate. Paying a wet rate actually worked out better
because you didn't have to worry about someone else shorting you on fuel and
if you brought the plane back after the FBO closed, it was no big deal.

The problem with throwing "extra" into the monthly rate as a contingency is
it means everyone pays that equally, but it's really those who put the most
time on the plane who should be paying more if the plane breaks. Putting
the "contingency" on the hourly rate works out to be a bit more fair.

The biggest problem I had with the club environment is sometimes it's hard
to get people to go along with making improvements to the plane. If you
want something like an HSI or a nice autopilot, but most of the members are
VFR only, you can forget it.

"Mike" wrote in news:qFwik.67$JH5.22@trnddc06:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"RST Engineering" wrote in
m:




Good grief.



I was pointing out that if you gotta tell 'em who ya are...



In any case the term is crap and poor usage coming from a percieved
need to
"sex it up"

Civil Air Patrol reports "wheels up" and "wheels down" times back to
mission base and has ever since their planes have had radios.

Oh well, if the sily ass patrol does it, then it must be standard..



Practically every one of their fleet of over 500 aircraft are fixed
gear. I've also heard Blackhawk helicopter crews use the term as
well.

I've never thought of the term as all that sexy, but whatever does it
for you.

Not me...


Bertie

george wrote in
:

On Jul 26, 12:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
george wrote
innews:5c4baaa9-36dc-41fa-9897-01f9ba30db81
@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.co
m:



On Jul 26, 8:43 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
george wrote in
news:5b0ac7ca-6f0a-4a77-8a7d-cd38289a8fd9
@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

Aha.
The Vampire -was- the jet fighter of choice for our Air Force

Bertie you've got to save your pennies and come out to Warbirds
over Wanaka.
They generally have two Vampires and sometimes a Venom.
And lots of twitchy little Russian beasties (Polykarpovs)...

Yeah, I've seen the Polikarpovs on TV. Amazing recreations!
There's been quite a few reproductins of fighters down there.. Too
much time and money on your hands!

Not reproductions they were dug out of deepest Siberia, rebuilt and
shipped out here

OK. But there's very little left of the originals, eh?

I read about them years ago when tye were first done and have seen
some video of them flying OK. I must look up some detailed info on
them There was an FW 190 project down there as well, wasn't there?


What mark was the Stuka trainer?
It's one of them


Stuka trainer? You lost me there. They used a 190 as a Stuka trainer?


Bertie

"Mike" wrote in news:xCxik.44$iM5.32@trnddc07:

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Yeah, it's the way to go if the other guys aren't ****s, especially
in your
part of the world where the costs are outrageous. Do you have to
chip in for things like rebuilds on top of that, or is that rate all
inclusive?

There's usually a monthly payment that covers hangarage, insurance
and 'routine' maintenance. Some groups also use this monthly payment
to build up
an engine fund for when the donkey needs to be replaced. However,
some groups *don't* do this, on the theory that the money is better
in the group
members accounts earning interest, than in the group account (better
for the
members that is).

It's something I always check when enquiring about a group though,
whether the monthly payment includes some sort of 'extra' as a
contingency.

Back when I belonged to a club they really had their act together.
The monthly payment covered hangar, insurance, and some of the
maintenance. So your monthly dues covered all of the costs to keep
the plane airworthy if it flew 0 hours per year. The hourly rate
included all of the costs associated with operating the plane,
including an engine fund, a prop fund, and a general maintenance fund.
The fixed costs just covered what a "basic" annual would cost.

They also charged a wet rate that changed each month if the price of
fuel changed on the field. If you refueled somewhere else, they only
reimbursed at up to the home field rate. Paying a wet rate actually
worked out better because you didn't have to worry about someone else
shorting you on fuel and if you brought the plane back after the FBO
closed, it was no big deal.

The problem with throwing "extra" into the monthly rate as a
contingency is it means everyone pays that equally, but it's really
those who put the most time on the plane who should be paying more if
the plane breaks. Putting the "contingency" on the hourly rate works
out to be a bit more fair.

The biggest problem I had with the club environment is sometimes it's
hard to get people to go along with making improvements to the plane.
If you want something like an HSI or a nice autopilot, but most of the
members are VFR only, you can forget it.


How do you reckon they're improvements?

More weight, for one thing..


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:xCxik.44$iM5.32@trnddc07:

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Yeah, it's the way to go if the other guys aren't ****s, especially
in your
part of the world where the costs are outrageous. Do you have to
chip in for things like rebuilds on top of that, or is that rate all
inclusive?

There's usually a monthly payment that covers hangarage, insurance
and 'routine' maintenance. Some groups also use this monthly payment
to build up
an engine fund for when the donkey needs to be replaced. However,
some groups *don't* do this, on the theory that the money is better
in the group
members accounts earning interest, than in the group account (better
for the
members that is).

It's something I always check when enquiring about a group though,
whether the monthly payment includes some sort of 'extra' as a
contingency.

Back when I belonged to a club they really had their act together.
The monthly payment covered hangar, insurance, and some of the
maintenance. So your monthly dues covered all of the costs to keep
the plane airworthy if it flew 0 hours per year. The hourly rate
included all of the costs associated with operating the plane,
including an engine fund, a prop fund, and a general maintenance fund.
The fixed costs just covered what a "basic" annual would cost.

They also charged a wet rate that changed each month if the price of
fuel changed on the field. If you refueled somewhere else, they only
reimbursed at up to the home field rate. Paying a wet rate actually
worked out better because you didn't have to worry about someone else
shorting you on fuel and if you brought the plane back after the FBO
closed, it was no big deal.

The problem with throwing "extra" into the monthly rate as a
contingency is it means everyone pays that equally, but it's really
those who put the most time on the plane who should be paying more if
the plane breaks. Putting the "contingency" on the hourly rate works
out to be a bit more fair.

The biggest problem I had with the club environment is sometimes it's
hard to get people to go along with making improvements to the plane.
If you want something like an HSI or a nice autopilot, but most of the
members are VFR only, you can forget it.


How do you reckon they're improvements?

More weight, for one thing..

They aren't. They just make IFR flying more difficult and less practical.
I don't know what I was thinking.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:qFwik.67$JH5.22@trnddc06:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"RST Engineering" wrote in
m:




Good grief.



I was pointing out that if you gotta tell 'em who ya are...



In any case the term is crap and poor usage coming from a percieved
need to
"sex it up"

Civil Air Patrol reports "wheels up" and "wheels down" times back to
mission base and has ever since their planes have had radios.

Oh well, if the sily ass patrol does it, then it must be standard..

The CAP squadron I belong to has retired airline captains, and professional
pilots, and no cadets as members. All but one of the members are pilots and
almost all have advanced ratings including several ATPs and CFIIs. We also
have a B17 pilot from WWII who still has a current medical and more than one
pilot who has 30,000 hrs. We fly all types of missions on a regular basis
including disaster relief, search and rescue, fire spotting, low level
military route surveys, and searching for missing pieces of space shuttle
Columbia, just to name a few. Perhaps you think that's silly, but then you
spend a good proportion of your time trolling usenet desperately in search
of something you think is clever to say, so I'll consider the source.
Perhaps sometimes you succeed, but in this case you're waffling, but not man
enough to admit it.




Practically every one of their fleet of over 500 aircraft are fixed
gear. I've also heard Blackhawk helicopter crews use the term as
well.

I've never thought of the term as all that sexy, but whatever does it
for you.

Not me...


Bertie

"Mike" wrote in news:WZDik.88$aA5.82@trnddc05:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:xCxik.44$iM5.32@trnddc07:

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Yeah, it's the way to go if the other guys aren't ****s,
especially in your
part of the world where the costs are outrageous. Do you have to
chip in for things like rebuilds on top of that, or is that rate
all inclusive?

There's usually a monthly payment that covers hangarage, insurance
and 'routine' maintenance. Some groups also use this monthly
payment to build up
an engine fund for when the donkey needs to be replaced. However,
some groups *don't* do this, on the theory that the money is better
in the group
members accounts earning interest, than in the group account
(better for the
members that is).

It's something I always check when enquiring about a group though,
whether the monthly payment includes some sort of 'extra' as a
contingency.

Back when I belonged to a club they really had their act together.
The monthly payment covered hangar, insurance, and some of the
maintenance. So your monthly dues covered all of the costs to keep
the plane airworthy if it flew 0 hours per year. The hourly rate
included all of the costs associated with operating the plane,
including an engine fund, a prop fund, and a general maintenance
fund.
The fixed costs just covered what a "basic" annual would cost.

They also charged a wet rate that changed each month if the price of
fuel changed on the field. If you refueled somewhere else, they
only reimbursed at up to the home field rate. Paying a wet rate
actually worked out better because you didn't have to worry about
someone else shorting you on fuel and if you brought the plane back
after the FBO closed, it was no big deal.

The problem with throwing "extra" into the monthly rate as a
contingency is it means everyone pays that equally, but it's really
those who put the most time on the plane who should be paying more
if the plane breaks. Putting the "contingency" on the hourly rate
works out to be a bit more fair.

The biggest problem I had with the club environment is sometimes
it's hard to get people to go along with making improvements to the
plane. If you want something like an HSI or a nice autopilot, but
most of the members are VFR only, you can forget it.


How do you reckon they're improvements?

More weight, for one thing..

They aren't. They just make IFR flying more difficult and less
practical. I don't know what I was thinking.



there ya go.

Bertie

"Mike" wrote in news:rhEik.91$aA5.57@trnddc05:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:qFwik.67$JH5.22@trnddc06:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"RST Engineering" wrote in
m:




Good grief.



I was pointing out that if you gotta tell 'em who ya are...



In any case the term is crap and poor usage coming from a percieved
need to
"sex it up"

Civil Air Patrol reports "wheels up" and "wheels down" times back to
mission base and has ever since their planes have had radios.

Oh well, if the sily ass patrol does it, then it must be standard..

The CAP squadron I belong to has retired airline captains, and
professional pilots, and no cadets as members. All but one of the
members are pilots and almost all have advanced ratings including
several ATPs and CFIIs. We also have a B17 pilot from WWII who still
has a current medical and more than one pilot who has 30,000 hrs.
We fly all types of missions on a regular basis including disaster
relief, search and rescue, fire spotting, low level military route
surveys, and searching for missing pieces of space shuttle Columbia,
just to name a few. Perhaps you think that's silly, but then you
spend a good proportion of your time trolling usenet desperately in
search of something you think is clever to say, so I'll consider the
source. Perhaps sometimes you succeed, but in this case you're
waffling, but not man enough to admit it.


Nope.

Bertie

On Jul 26, 9:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Stuka trainer? You lost me there. They used a 190 as a Stuka trainer?


The aircraft in question is a Messerschmitt Bf-108 Taifun
See http://www.warbirdsoverwanaka.co.nz/...sp?id=aircraft.

george wrote in news:e08ec72c-2688-447c-9c4f-31f590146625
@a21g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On Jul 26, 9:23 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Stuka trainer? You lost me there. They used a 190 as a Stuka trainer?


The aircraft in question is a Messerschmitt Bf-108 Taifun
See http://www.warbirdsoverwanaka.co.nz/...sp?id=aircraft.




OK, but i doubt they ever used that as a Stuka trainer either. That's still
considered to be one of the most efficient airplanes ever made and I cringe
to think what would happen if you pointed it straight down for any length
of time!
Mostly the Taifun was used as a liason aircraft. I doubt many were used as
trainers. Mostly they used the FW 44 for that. Come to think if it that
would make a good dive bomber trainer.


Bertie