cost of ownership

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:PRwsc.109351$536.19458583@attbi_s03...

Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.

Owners typically think they will fly 150-200 hours per year but very rarely
do owners fly more than 50-100 hours per year.

Take a look at Trade-A-Plane and see how many airplanes you find with more
than 100 hours per year since they were made.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
s.com...

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:PRwsc.109351$536.19458583@attbi_s03...

Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.

Owners typically think they will fly 150-200 hours per year but very
rarely
do owners fly more than 50-100 hours per year.

Take a look at Trade-A-Plane and see how many airplanes you find with more
than 100 hours per year since they were made.

I wonder what's the rates between those who have it for "personal" use as
opposed to "business" use.

Richard Kaplan wrote:
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:PRwsc.109351$536.19458583@attbi_s03...


Mainly because virtually no renter would fly as many hours as an owner.


Owners typically think they will fly 150-200 hours per year but very rarely
do owners fly more than 50-100 hours per year.

That's a fair point. I planned on 120 hours/year myself -- my logbook tells
me that I flew 144 hours in the first year I owned my Warrior and have flow
64 hours in the first six months for my second year (though much of that was
winter--the hours will get higher in the nice weather). My plan is to keep
aiming for 120 and to take on a partner if my annual hours drop below 100 a
couple of years in a row. I cannot imagine going back to renting. I might
also look for a partnership if I need a bigger or faster plane some day.

I agree that we see lots of planes just sitting on the field in the same
spot, week after week, month after month. This is completely unscientific,
of course, but it feels like there is an inverse correlation between the
ownership cost of a plane and the amount you fly. The Bonanzas and Barons
seem just to sit around most of the time, the 182s fly a bit more often, the
Cherokees and 172s fly a lot, and probably the most-flown privately-owned
plane on our field is a little 152.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...


ownership cost of a plane and the amount you fly. The Bonanzas and Barons
seem just to sit around most of the time, the 182s fly a bit more often,
the
Cherokees and 172s fly a lot, and probably the most-flown privately-owned
plane on our field is a little 152.

I think this may be true, but to the extent that it is due to economics I do
not think the owners are saving that much money by not flying. I believe
very much that between the range of flying 50 hours per year vs. 200 hours
per year, maintenance is due not to tach hours but to calendar hours. The
Bonanza or Baron sitting on the ramp will probably require as much -- if not
more -- maintenance in a year of flying 50 hours as in a year of flying 200
hours.

Part of your observation may also be due to the fact that it is easy to find
a qualified pilot to borrow or rent a C152 or C172 but the more rare or
complex an airplane gets it gets harder to find a qualified/insurable pilot
to share its use.

Supporting your original observation, I have made an anecdotal but
interesting observation among pilots who schedule IFR recurrent training
with my flight school. I encourage pilots to plan on a combination of
instruction in their airplane and my simulator, and single-engine pilots
almost always readily agree to this as long as there are not weather or
maintenance concerns. Yet twin-engine pilots are often reluctant to use
their airplane for training -- not just for engine-out work but even for
basic instrument approach practice. Their reasons are usually not directly
stated but I get a sense that the cost of flying the airplane is a major
factor.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com