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.