buy or rent a 2006 182

Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.
But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured.
Not all are as you describe above.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400, john smith wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner
aircraft. But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this
becomes less of an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured. Not all are as you describe
above.

Not all clubs are like this, true. But are not all clubs with members as
owners like this? I admit I don't know of all clubs laugh, but how
could owners not have at least a voice on such matters?

- Andrew

In article ,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Mon, 28 May 2007 13:31:32 -0400, john smith wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner
aircraft. But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this
becomes less of an issue.

That depends on how the club is structured. Not all are as you describe
above.

Not all clubs are like this, true. But are not all clubs with members as
owners like this? I admit I don't know of all clubs laugh, but how
could owners not have at least a voice on such matters?

I am not a part-owner in either of the two clubs of which I am a member.
I simply rent the aircraft. All of the aircraft are lease-backs in one
club and the club is incorporated and the corporation owns the other.
There are nine airplanes in the one club and one in the other.

On May 28, 12:38 pm, Andrew Gideon wrote:
The members/owners control issues like MX, upgrades, paint schemes, etc.
Scheduling is, in theory, more complex than with a single-owner aircraft.

This is definitely the rub. Club flying is great, except for that
availability issue. owners can usually take their planes somewhere on
Memorial day weekend. Most club pilots can't, unless they planned way
ahead.

But as the number of aircraft in the fleet goes up, this becomes less of
an issue.

It's a question of how many members there are per plane. This may not
be even even across the club, for example my club has two Mooneys and
only about 20 pilots fly them, but over 50 vie for 2 172's. The
Mooney pilots think availability is great. The 172 pilots have a
different perspective.

And with multiple aircraft, the impact of any given aircraft being down
for MX drops.

This is a big plus. Another big plus is fleet variety. My club has
four aircraft types ranging from 152s to Mooneys. If you just want a
local sunset flight, you can fly a 152 for about $60/hr, if you are
going seriously cross country you can fly a Mooney for over twice as
much per hour. You seldom have to compromise the airplane for the
mission.


It's not the perfect replacement for single-ownership. You have to adjust
the seats, and there are limits on scheduling (ie. you cannot keep an
aircraft at your vacation home for "the season"). But it's also cost
effective at under 300 hours/year (or whatever number is considered the
proper break-even point nowadays {8^).

Yes. My fixed aviation costs are under $100 a month --club dues and
XM fees for my GPS396. In a month when I don't fly much, I don't pay
much. Also I don't own an airplane I'd have to unload in a down
market if something happened like losing my medical, or job, etc.

The final benefit is that you're never making choices in a vacuum; there
are always older and more seasoned members of whom to seek advice.

This is a HUGE benefit to club flying.

On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:05:56 -0700, xyzzy wrote:

This is definitely the rub. Club flying is great, except for that
availability issue. owners can usually take their planes somewhere on
Memorial day weekend. Most club pilots can't, unless they planned way
ahead.

For whatever reason, our availability has been quite good. There was at
least one airplane available for me on short notice on Monday, for
example.

But, as I wrote, it's not the same as exclusive ownership. I had to
check, for example, rather than simply heading out to the airport.

[...]


[...]

And with multiple aircraft, the impact of any given aircraft being
down
for MX drops.

This is a big plus. Another big plus is fleet variety. My club has
four aircraft types ranging from 152s to Mooneys. If you just want a
local sunset flight, you can fly a 152 for about $60/hr, if you are
going seriously cross country you can fly a Mooney for over twice as
much per hour. You seldom have to compromise the airplane for the
mission.

I agree, but this is something that my club doesn't do as well as I'd
like. It's just 172s and 182s (with one R182). The club used to be more
diverse, but decided at some point on an all-Cessna fleet for safety
reasons.

My hope is that we'll grow the club enough to add aircraft in a diverse
way (ie. perhaps a 152 and a 206) w/o violating that "all Cessna" rule.

- Andrew

On 2007-05-25 09:08:26 -0700, "Dan Luke" said:

Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so, I've
been kicking around options for future flying.

The major reason for owning a plane is convenience. It never seems that
there is a rental plane available when you want one.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"C J Campbell" wrote:

Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so, I've
been kicking around options for future flying.

The major reason for owning a plane is convenience. It never seems that
there is a rental plane available when you want one.

True, alas. The flying club I used to belong to had good availability, but
nothing more capable than Skyhawks.

I really like the new 182 for rent at the local flight school...but so do
several other people, apparently. It's booked up this holiday weekend.

--
Dan
? at BFM

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007052607205975249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-05-25 09:08:26 -0700, "Dan Luke" said:

Since it looks very much like I will be sans airplane in a week or so,
I've
been kicking around options for future flying.

The major reason for owning a plane is convenience. It never seems that
there is a rental plane available when you want one.

At least something with performance.

One can always find a 172 or similar. Even here at 6,000 feet it's hard to
find anything turboed.

If you're just doing orbits around the pattern, that might be fine, but try
doing any sort of business or anything 500 miles away.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

So I ran a few
numbers to see how buying and renting the same model airplane would
compare, based on costs here in Mobile:

I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
the same or more?

Both aircraft are insured (and, apples to apples, I assume they're insured
identically). Both would have the same hourly into engine/paint/interior
reserves. Both use the same fuel and oil. both get the same annual, etc.

Renter's insurance is an added expense on the rental side, as is funding
the 100 hour inspections.

You're right that the renter avoids financing costs (whether aircraft is
bought for debt or cash). But the owner of the rental presumably knows
this and figures it into the hourly, making the per hour charge for the
rental slightly higher.

What am I missing that would "break" what I've described?

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:08:26 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

I've a problem with your numbers; I don't see how they can be correct.
It's not any specific number you've described, but the overall sum.
Essentially: how can the two work out to anything but the rental costing
the same or more?

Several reasons:

The main economic difference is probably that the rental aircraft should have
much higher utilization because it is available to far more pilots. This would
distribute the fixed costs among far more flying hours.

Another reason is leasebacks. Leasebacks are often a rather bad deal for
the airplane owner. Owners either enter into the leasback because they have
been "sold" on the idea along with the purchase of a new airplane, or they
already own the plane and are trying to reduce their ownership costs. Simple
fact: if it were cheaper for flying schools/FBOs to own their fleets outright,
that is what more of them would be doing.

Anytime anyone tries to convince you that any form of aircraft ownership is
cheaper than renting, check the figures several times and then go get a second
and third opinion before signing any dotted lines.

Vaughn