Another ownership question

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

There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr. But if you can
fly 100 hours or more, the costs are close enough that the overwhelming
benefits of ownership (predictability, scheduling, flexibility, pride, etc.)
make it a great way to go, provided you want and have the extra time to
spend managing the ownership aspects (maintenance, keeping it clean,
paperwork, etc.).

Below 100-hours, ownership really doesn't make economic sense so I advise
people flying the typical 50 or 75 hours per year to try and find a 2- or
3-way partnership.

- Mark

"markjen" wrote:

There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr.

For my 1972 Skyhawk, the break-even point has been around 90-100
hours/yr, counting the value of my own fairly unskilled labor as zero.
That's with a pretty cheap hangar ($135/mo), reliable plane
(unscheduled maintenance has usually been avionics), and cheap
insurance ($700/yr). It does include an engine reserve. Beat-up
172's are renting for around $85/hr wet where I live.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

I fly about 75 - 100 hours a year. I own a '65 Skyhawk/IFR/180HP. I
agree, the hours do not meet the financial requirements on owning, but
there is something to be said that MY plane is in the hangar with I want
to fly, and I do not have to try and schedule a plane after a week of
bad weather, only to have everybody else trying the same thing.

Partnership would be an alternative, maybe.

markjen wrote:

There are a lot of variables, but it usually works out that the "break even"
point between owning and renting is around 150-200 hours/yr. But if you can
fly 100 hours or more, the costs are close enough that the overwhelming
benefits of ownership (predictability, scheduling, flexibility, pride, etc.)
make it a great way to go, provided you want and have the extra time to
spend managing the ownership aspects (maintenance, keeping it clean,
paperwork, etc.).

Below 100-hours, ownership really doesn't make economic sense so I advise
people flying the typical 50 or 75 hours per year to try and find a 2- or
3-way partnership.

- Mark

Good lord, I hope Margy Natalie doesn't get ahold of this. "even though"?? I'm
not sure what being a woman has to do with liking to tinker. Some of them even
get tinker's licenses from Sammy Unkle.

Jim


"Wendy"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

I fly for enjoyment, and even though I am a
-woman I don't mind tinkering around with things
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
news

Good lord, I hope Margy Natalie doesn't get ahold of this. "even
though"?? I'm
not sure what being a woman has to do with liking to tinker. Some of them
even
get tinker's licenses from Sammy Unkle.

Jim

Good point I spent a few years in the Caribbean on boats- I didn't care
much for the tinkering initially but after a while it got kinda interesting.
Except for the toilets. That never got interesting.

Wendy

Wendy--

there are two answers -- one very quantitative and based on rental vs
usage cost. Then there's the qualitative answer which will usually
take priority. Owning the aircraft means it's always available (unless
it's in the shop), you know exactly who's been flying it and how,
and it's always fun to watch the reaction on non-pilots faces (even
funnier on men!) when you admit to owning an airplane.

And you never have to worry about getting home from a trip because
the airplane is reserved by someone else.

Some very good comments so far.

A couple of other items for consideration. If your use requires overnight
or multiple days, by owning you won't have "minimums per day" costs. For me
that discouraged renting and paying for an aircraft while it sets.

Another one, is if after a year or so, if it isn't getting the flying time
for break even, you can always consider a co-ownership at that time and sell
1/2 of it. You would be in a good position, as you wouldn't have to rush
into it and could be selective on whom you sell to. Over the long term, a
well maintained used aircraft will usually appreciate. For example, in
1984, when I was considering starting a co-ownership, the local college was
selling their 1976 C172 for $10,000. It was nicely equipped, as they used
it for IFR/Commercial training, but was getting high time on the engine and
the interior was showing its wear. Today $40,000?

Good luck and enjoy.


"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

ks_av8r wrote:


Another one, is if after a year or so, if it isn't getting the flying time
for break even, you can always consider a co-ownership at that time and
sell
1/2 of it.

Another factor to consider, beyond hours flying, is the hours spent with the
aircraft sitting away from home. Renting, this costs. Owning, it's free.

That's a "column" that pushed me heavily towards club membership (something
like ownership with training wheels {8^).

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:


Another factor to consider, beyond hours flying, is the hours spent with the
aircraft sitting away from home. Renting, this costs. Owning, it's free.

That's a "column" that pushed me heavily towards club membership (something
like ownership with training wheels {8^).

Yup, I went with club membership. It has almost all the advantages of
owning but few of the drawbacks. At least in my club the fleet is big
enough that scheduling is seldom a problem, except on the exceptionally
nice weekends when you wait until Thursday to schedule . I pay
monthly dues that include insurance as a named insured, and cost less
than buying insurance on the open market. The wet rate for a 20 year
old Warrior II is about the same as the wet rate for a 30 year old 172
at an FBO but the Warriors are better equipped (gps, autopilot). There
is a pool of instructors associated with the club that use a common
syllabus and meet club requirements, and regular ground schools are
held. Maintanence is handled by the club, with help from members
volunteering their time under A&P supervision. Also the cameradarie is
a big benefit.

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.

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