If you are REALLY serious about it, negotiate a long term loan to BUY
a 172 and put it on leaseback. *Even a well-used 172 with some decent
avionics and stuff that isn't falling apart will garner enough income
to pay off the loan. *Then your flying is costing you nothing but
fuel. *That's the smart person's move.

Thanks,

Jim

If you think that is true in general, particularly in today's economy, and
not highly dependant on the level of activity at the airport, I have some
prime beach front property in Montana to sell you.

In the AOPA archives somewhere is an article that discusses the many things
that happen when you fly your leaseback without paying the rental fee as
just another renter and it is well worth reading.

I'm not saying this won't work, just that one has to do a lot of homework
first to try to ensure one doesn't wind up with an airplane payment with
insufficient income to cover it.

--
Jim Pennino

I have to agree with Jim P - if there was an ironclad guarantee you'd
cover the costs of the leaseback plane 100% then *everybody* would be
doing it. I had this conversation years ago when I was instructing,
and the school owner debunked the theory handily for me. He said the
*best* you could hope for was having your own flying paid for but
nothing beyond that. If a plane is flying enough every month to
generate a profit, the increased maintenance would eat it up quickly.

Two years ago a flight school in nearby White Plains NY (a wealthy
area) tried to sell me a nearly-new Cessna 400 at a discounted price
with the idea that I could lease it back to them and cover the monthly
payment. With no guarantees the plane would rent enough to cover a
$2600 monthly payment (never mind maintenance) I had to politely
decline. Now, a 30 year old 172 may be a safer bet than a $600k Cessna
400, but I'd want to see rental records showing consistently high
utilization before I'd make the leap.