Considering buying a share

Jay Honeck wrote:

The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well

That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is
NOT
going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you
really
want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?

That's what I was thinking as well. Providing instruction in the
plane tends to double or triple the cost of insurance. Is the "lead
guy" making up the difference? Is he instructing under the standard
business/personal policy without telling the insurance company? If
it's the former, then my only concern would be the type of instruction
(i.e. IFR dual instruction only might work). If it's the latter, I'd
drop the deal like a hot potato.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jay Honeck wrote:

The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well

That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is
NOT
going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you
really
want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?

That's what I was thinking as well. Providing instruction in the
plane tends to double or triple the cost of insurance. Is the "lead
guy" making up the difference? Is he instructing under the standard
business/personal policy without telling the insurance company? If
it's the former, then my only concern would be the type of instruction
(i.e. IFR dual instruction only might work). If it's the latter, I'd
drop the deal like a hot potato.

Really, even if you're doing regular and good-quality maintenance?

How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Jay Honeck wrote:

The lead guy in the partnership instructs in the plane as well

That would kill it for me right there. (a) Your insurance company is

NOT

going to smile on any plane being used as a trainer, and (b) do you

really

want to own a plane that's doing "smash and goes" all day long?

That's what I was thinking as well. Providing instruction in the
plane tends to double or triple the cost of insurance. Is the "lead
guy" making up the difference? Is he instructing under the standard
business/personal policy without telling the insurance company? If
it's the former, then my only concern would be the type of instruction
(i.e. IFR dual instruction only might work). If it's the latter, I'd
drop the deal like a hot potato.


Really, even if you're doing regular and good-quality maintenance?

How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?



There's a difference between owning an airplane that was a
rental/trainer many years ago, and owning one that's a rental/trainer now.

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

Really, even if you're doing regular and good-quality maintenance?

Yes. Training aircraft tend to get beat up more than average due to
the lower experience levels of the students (I'm referring to primary
training). Who is going to pay for that extra wear and tear. The
partners?

How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?

Mine spent a several hundred hours on the rental line in its younger
days. It also got some pretty significant damage during that time.

To me, there is a big difference in owning a plane that was once used
as a trainer, compared to owning one that is currently being used as a
trainer.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

How many 172s, Warriors, and 140s out there haven't spent at least a
thousand hours on a rental line at some point in their lives?

My old Warrior spent many years on the line, being ridden hard and put away
wet. I spent a bunch of dough, and a gazillion hours making everything
right again, and it's not something I would want to do over. If it had
still been on the rental line, I wouldn't have bothered.

One major advantage of owning a plane is knowing who flew it -- and landed
it -- last. If your lead guy is instructing in the plane, you have lost a
huge reason for ownership, right off the bat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

My question is what do the students do when its time to solo?

I had a plane in leaseback, and it suffered pretty good levels of abuse with
little damage to show for it. Making everything right again was not very
expensive compared to the money I saved with the leaseback. However, being a
part owner and not getting the benefits of the rental would not seem right
to me.