How common are aircraft partnerships compared to outright ownerships?

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:


I think you really know what I meant and are just being argumentative.

Eh? I disagreed with your comment about the three hour checkout and
provided the reasons for my disagreement. You now dismiss all of this as
argumentative and hide behind the excuse that I knew what you meant all
along, as if I am some type of mind reader? That's just silly.


Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs but
the older "plain old Skyhawks."


If you look again at my first post in this thread, it only asked what
model
to which you were referring. You are welcome to quote the words from my
post that you interpreted as argumentative.

Need I remind you that in your follow-up, it was you who lobbed a personal
barb by questioning how many hours it took me to solo, as if you expected
this to demonstrate some level of incompetence.

That was a joke. You had made a comment that the Carb heat issue would take
3 to 5 hours of check flight time to learn. If that is the case for you and
as I said I didn't think would then the learing to fly the whole plane would
be on the order of 3 or 4 hundred hours. Like Newp so perfectly put it.
"Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
arc. There. You're checked out."

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:

Peter R. wrote:

I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage
if
I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model.

Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
arc. There. You're checked out.

Thanks. If it is really that easy, then why are there so many NTSB
accident reports that list carb icing as a contributory cause?


Because there are a lot of folks out there who forget. Many of these are
those that switch between injected and carbureted engines. No amount of
check ride is going to make you remember. That is why we have checklists and
the checklists are different for each aircraft. It's no different that those
that have non mechanical failure gear up landings.

xyzzy wrote:

I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
172's, because the Warriors are aging and the club wants newer (but not
brand new) planes, but the vintage the club wants was when Piper was
bankrupt and/or struggling so there aren't many Warriors of the desired
age to choose from, but there are plenty of 172s.

xyzzy, for my and Gig's benefit, could you clarify the above? Is your
club considering the fuel-injected C172 models made in 1997 or later
(sorry, I incorrectly thought 1998 was the year the first 172 was delivered
after Cessna's resumption of production)?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

That was a joke.

From the Steven P. McNicoll school of comedy, no doubt.

You had made a comment that the Carb heat issue would take
3 to 5 hours of check flight time to learn.

Well, at least get the quote correct. For the record, I stated the
following:

"I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model."


"Probably need a couple hours" is not three to five hours, at least in my
book.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Peter R. wrote:
xyzzy wrote:


I think it's actually a long-term plan to replace all the Warriors with
172's, because the Warriors are aging and the club wants newer (but not
brand new) planes, but the vintage the club wants was when Piper was
bankrupt and/or struggling so there aren't many Warriors of the desired
age to choose from, but there are plenty of 172s.


xyzzy, for my and Gig's benefit, could you clarify the above? Is your
club considering the fuel-injected C172 models made in 1997 or later
(sorry, I incorrectly thought 1998 was the year the first 172 was delivered
after Cessna's resumption of production)?


Last I heard they were shopping for 172 SP's, 2000ish vintage.

The current fleet of warriors are -161's, 1978-1982 vintage, with DME,
GX60 GPS, and coupled autopilot.

A quick check of controller.com shows asking prices in the 110-120K
range for the 172's in that age range, with a couple of dozen listed for
sale. Equivalent Warriors are about 10K more and there are only 3 of
them listed.

xyzzy wrote:

Last I heard they were shopping for 172 SP's, 2000ish vintage.

Thanks.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"xyzzy" wrote in message
...
Peter R. wrote:
xyzzy wrote:


Last I heard they were shopping for 172 SP's, 2000ish vintage.



That changes everything. Cessna really should have changed the name or
number on the plane if they are going to make the kind of changes they did.

xyzzy wrote:

club flying does not get cheaper as the hours
increase

It does, but it's dependent upon *everyone's* flying; not just one person's.
A partnership would yield the same behavior, but with each person's flying
having that much more of an effect (presuming a lower pilot/plane ratio in
a partnership than in a club).

- Andrew

("xyzzy" wrote)
http://www.wingsofcarolina.org

(rates haven't been updated, they went up in June, Warrior is now $80,
Mooney is now $120, not sure what the 152's are now).


(From your link)
"To join the Club, a $100 application fee and a $300 refundable security
deposit are required, along with the first month dues of $45. (Security
deposits vary with aircraft type, see rates table for exact amount.)
Aircraft charges, priced only to recover the Club's costs, are based on the
time the engine is running and include fuel and oil. Instructors are paid
separately."

Looks like you only pay 100 dollars to join - then pay $45 per month. Cessna
152 is $58 wet. Insurance is included.

Flying deposits of $300, $600, $1,200 look to cover (approx) 5, 7.5, or 10
hours depending on plane type.

I see nice pads in the pics of the planes. Hangars? Are they in the works?


Montblack

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs but
the older "plain old Skyhawks."

Well, Gig, I have to thank you. Your statement above was screaming for a
reference to back it up but instead of putting the burden on you, I decided
to try to prove or disprove it myself.

Therefore, I visited the FAA website and discovered that the FAA registered
aircraft database is offered there as a free, downloadable zip file.

Without a database management tool on my PC, I then downloaded the Open
Source database product called MySQL. Fortunately for me, there was a
Windows install routine that made installation and configuration rather
painless.

I then created a couple of tables and imported the aircraft reference data
and the master registration data from the FAA zip file (data current as of
August 5th, 2005).

The end result? I was able to query the two tables to see exactly how many
C172s manufactured from 1997 onward are registered compared to the number
of C172s manufactured prior to 1996.

Note that it appears that 1986 was the year Cessna ceased production of
C172s until the GA Revitalization Act, but for some reason there are three
aircraft in the database with a 1988 MFG date and 1 with a 1994 date
(perhaps this was a test A/C?).

Of course, there is the legitimate argument that not all aircraft
registered are actively flown. Logic suggests that this would be more
applicable to older aircraft than newer, so the pre-1996 numbers could be
lowered by some degree. Here are the results:


Number of C172s registered, pre- and post-General Aviation Revitalization
Act (C172s produced from 1997 onward are all the modern, fuel-injected,
more advanced avionics models we have been discussing):

1997 onward - 2,305
1986 and prior - 24,251

So, about 91% of all registered C172s are pre-1996. I suppose that
qualifies as a vast majority.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----