Another ownership question

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
: Yup, I went with club membership. It has almost all the advantages of
: owning but few of the drawbacks.

Biggest problem I had with flight club was no percieved cost
benefit to just renting from an FBO. A flight club cannot afford to run a
shoestring budget, and must bill real (expected) costs per hour. The fact
is that airplanes run best and are the cheapest when they're flown a lot.
If you fly 75 hours a year, buying your own (or better yet partnership)
might be a break-even point to renting. Difference is if you own it, you
only immediately see the direct operating costs (fuel/oil). For me it's
easier to justify a nice 2-hour afternoon flight after work if I can stop
by the gas station on the way to the airport and refill my Cherokee for
$20. If I had to pay $144 for 2 hours of club rental, I wouldn't do it.

: Persoally, I can't see ever owning while the club is available to me.
: Heck, I've figured that if you GAVE me an airplane it still would cost
: me more (insurance, taxes, tie down, annuals, etc) than I pay to fly in
: the club. Btw I fly about 50-75 hours a year.

Again, for that useage, it's probably a break-even point for solo
ownership. For me it's the direct perceived cost of taking a flight that
will encourage/discourage it. Flying a 1100nm round-trip to see my folks
a month ago directly cost me $150 in fuel. For $750 club PA-28 rental,
there's no way in hell I would have gone.

YMMV
-Cory



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

wrote:

TTA Cherokee Driver wrote:
: Yup, I went with club membership. It has almost all the advantages of
: owning but few of the drawbacks.

Biggest problem I had with flight club was no percieved cost
benefit to just renting from an FBO.

You are right. I pay about the same per hour to fly in the club as I
would with the FBO. The benefits I see of club membership over
similar-cost FBO renting a

1. The club has a fleet of 9 airplanes of three types with good
availability but the FBO only has one 172 (well did until it was wrecked
recently but they are replacing it) and one 182 with very tight
availability -- if you aren't a primary student at the FBO, forget about
it on the weekends.

2. The club's planes are better equipped (autopilot, gps)

3. If I fly with the FBO I would have to buy renter's insurance that
costs more than the club's dues, and those dues include insurance that
is better than what I could buy on my own, and also include the club's
facilities including a club hangar (that I have access to 24/7 so if I
want to fly on the spur of the moment I can even when the facility is
closed and locked up for the day) and a very nice weather downlink
briefing setup. Plus I like the cameraderie.

4. The club has 6 instructors to choose from while the FBO only has one,
see point #1 about availability

(remember the above is comparing the club to FBO renting, not comparing
it to owning

Difference is if you own it, you
only immediately see the direct operating costs (fuel/oil). For me it's
easier to justify a nice 2-hour afternoon flight after work if I can stop
by the gas station on the way to the airport and refill my Cherokee for
$20. If I had to pay $144 for 2 hours of club rental, I wouldn't do it.

This is a very good point, though it's more emotional than practical. I
do sometimes cringe when writing those large checks for long flights.
However on the flip side if I owned I think I would cringe in the months
when I would have to write large checks for all the fixed costs but I
didn't fly the airplane very much if at all. And given my flying habits
that second cringe would amount to far more money over time.

: Persoally, I can't see ever owning while the club is available to me.
: Heck, I've figured that if you GAVE me an airplane it still would cost
: me more (insurance, taxes, tie down, annuals, etc) than I pay to fly in
: the club. Btw I fly about 50-75 hours a year.

Again, for that useage, it's probably a break-even point for solo
ownership. For me it's the direct perceived cost of taking a flight that
will encourage/discourage it. Flying a 1100nm round-trip to see my folks
a month ago directly cost me $150 in fuel. For $750 club PA-28 rental,
there's no way in hell I would have gone.

I can see that view, however I would come out ahead that way because I
did not pay several hundred dollars in fixed costs for the previous
months when I only flew a few hours due to travel, weather, etc.

In fact my brother-in-law owns an Archer which he's had for a long time
and has long since paid off. I was envious, until I learned he hasn't
flown since January and the plane is just sitting there rotting because
he can't justify keeping up with the fixed costs for the flying he's
doing (it doesn't help he's been laid off and is in a tight spot).

Which brings up the other advantage of the club over ownership: it's a
lot easier to walk away if something happens medically or financially to
make flying impractical.

Of course all this doesn't mean I don't fantasize about owning an
airplane, but for me that fantasy also includes getting a windfall of at
least $100,000 first

YMMV

We agree on this, it is a wise statement indeed

Mike
--
PP-ASEL
PA28-161
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org
Note: email invalid. Respond on newsgroup

("Wendy" wrote)
The answer my research in r.a.o seems to yield is "maybe", and anything
less
than 150 hrs would be "no". I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
woman I don't mind tinkering around with things; an airplane would
obviously
involve a lot of tinkering


Someone else (or two) helping split the fixed costs might mean you wouldn't
have to fly 100 hrs to break even vs renting. I think I read 3 people on a
non-money pit 172 = (about) 75 hrs vs renting. That's only 6 hours per
month before you pass the break even point.

--
Montblack

Wendy wrote:

If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a year?

If you ignore the potential income from the money you used to buy the plane,
yes, you can. I recommend this, since the "potential income" on my investments
ran about negative 60% over the last few years.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Wendy wrote:

If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a
year?

If you ignore the potential income from the money you used to buy the
plane,
yes, you can. I recommend this, since the "potential income" on my
investments
ran about negative 60% over the last few years.

Yeah those Xians are a moral bunch alright. Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swargard,
Jim & Tammy Baker, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton, Hitler! VBG

JT


George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a
gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful
that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon,
and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of
Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no
longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian
marriages.

There is some working data on buying, groups, and renting on my website at
http://www.macinnisaviation.com/handy.htm

I have a spreadsheet that might be handy too, let me know if you want it.

Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.

Cheers

Duane
++++++++++++++
Duane MacInnis PE
Flight Instructor
Cell (604) 454-7415
www.macinnisaviation.com

Grumman Cheetah C-GVJF






"Wendy" wrote in message
rvers.com...
I've searched through the archives, and there is a lot of useful
information
there concerning buying and affording an airplane. My question,
specifically, is this: If I bought a 1977-ish Cessna 172 that is IFR
equipped with a low time engine for, say, around $45,000, can I beat the
rental cost ($77/hr) over the course of a year flying 150-200 hrs a year?
(The purchase price is based on looking through aso.com at $50K asking
price- surely the asking price is not going to be the selling price?)

The answer my research in r.a.o seems to yield is "maybe", and anything
less
than 150 hrs would be "no". I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
woman I don't mind tinkering around with things; an airplane would
obviously
involve a lot of tinkering

TIA-

Wendy

Duane MacInnis wrote:
Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.

"Ross Oliver" wrote in message
...
Duane MacInnis wrote:
Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.


I don't think anything Cessna, Cirrus or any of the others are doing is
affecting the value of my 56 year old airplane. I suspect that holds true
for 99.5 percent of the fleet.

(Ross Oliver) wrote:

Duane MacInnis wrote:
Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.

I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.

I paid $32.5K for my 1972 Skyhawk in 1992. Book value is now around
$40K, including the additional hours put on the plane in the last 11
years. Not lots of appreciation in value but clearly greater than
zero.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

On 17-Nov-2003, (Ross Oliver) wrote:

Beautiful part about older (but serviceable) airplanes, is that they
actually *appreciate* in value.


I would like to see some hard data to support this claim. While this
was true of certain aircraft in the late '80s and early '90s, once
Cessna restarted production and Cirrus and Diamond are now delivering
in significant numbers, I seriously doubt this still holds true.


The '79 Arrow IV we bought in 1996 for $48K is worth at LEAST $80K today,
assuming similar engine SMOH. That corresponds to an average aggregate
annual value increase of more than 7.5%. Not a bad investment at all!

Due to the Bush-whacked economy over the past 2 years (and NOT because of
production of new models) used airplane prices have been very soft, but then
so have values of other types of investments.
--
-Elliott Drucker