Aircraft financing - how does it work?

[AdamFrisch]

Hi.

This is mainly a question for you who own your own aircraft and have it financed.

I'm reading up and trying to inform myself about aircraft ownership. I'm toying with the idea to some time in the future buy my own plane as the type of flying I want to do isn't really conducive to rental (fly camping, traveling). I've always had a thing for Lake Buccaneers/Renegades and have dreamt about one day having one of those of my own, but they'd have to be financed. A smaller C150 or something I could buy outright which would probably be the most sensible. But why not go for what you really want?

So I have a couple of questions.

How does aircraft financing work? Is it pretty much like car financing? What are the normal deposit percentages and rates you pay?

In this field, are there any recommended players and providers for the UK market and are there ones you've had bad experiences with?

Thanks.

[IO540]

There are very few private owner pilots who bought their plane with a loan.

It is rather more common in the USA, from what I hear.

IMHO it is foolish to borrow money for something depreciating fairly fast, but others will differ :)

[AdamFrisch]

But they don't seem to depreciate that much. Most Cessnas and Pipers have a higher price today than they had new, if kept after.

[Pilot DAR]

My opinion is that if you have to borrow money to buy the plane, don't buy it, because you can't afford to maintain and operate it after you get it. Buy what you can afford - no more.

Lake amphibs are great aircraft for what they were designed for. They are a delight to fly, and handle very well and safely - if flown properly. Training on type (not floatplane training - must be on flying boat, 10 to 25 hours) is vital - you just will not get insurance on a Lake at any price without it! (and you won't get financing without insurance!) If you fly the aircraft without training, your first landing on water will probably be your last. When flown as intended, they are very forgiving, and amazing on the water, but the floatplane landing technique is not the flying boat technique!

As any aircraft does, Lakes do have their limitations, and special maintenance requirements, which you must be aware of. They do a different job than float planes. They are better in some regards, and less sutiable in others. Make arrangements to do a few hours of flying in one before you make your decision. If you seriously need to make it happen, PM me.

As for financing aircraft purchases, I have no idea - I bought my C150 for cash 23 years ago...

Pilot DAR

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks.

I would certainly do specific training. Either with Team Lake in the US or on Aero Club Como's one in Italy, maybe both.

[IO540]

But they don't seem to depreciate that much. Most Cessnas and Pipers have a higher price today than they had new, if kept after.:)

That is true for perhaps any plane IF it was bought long enough ago - say 30+ years ago.

Of course the reason for this is that vastly more money (than its value) was spent on maintenance in the meantime, which nobody would do with a car unless it is a rare vintage type.

It also used to be true that new price inflation would protect your depreciation. This I think was the case for many years. I have not been flying that long but for example I bought a new plane in 2002. In 2003 the same plane was listed at 10% more (I checked for hull insurance purposes).

In those days everybody thought this would continue, because it had (at the time) continued for many years.

But c. 2005 the bottom fell out of the market.

Now, 7 years later, my plane would sell for about 70% of what I paid for it and believe me this is a damn good price relative to most others. Only a few other choice items (no longer made, like mine) would fetch that. Most others are down to maybe 50%, and the "popular plastic" ones (e.g. Cirruses) have suffered massively with some being worth maybe 20%. (There was a long thread here on the Cirrus recently).

But if you took out a loan, you will be repaying the full amount :)

And then if/when you sell, you will have a huge shortfall to fund.

My opinion is that if you have to borrow money to buy the plane, don't buy it, because you can't afford to maintain and operate it after you get it. Buy what you can afford - no more.I would agree totally, but many UK pilots would jump on you for the first sentence there :) because the same argument would be (correctly IMHO) applied to so much else in GA not to mention the rest of one's life, and most people don't like to be told they "can't" do something.

For example if one cannot afford to get one's PPL (in the UK, at UK prices) one will not be doing much (or any) flying afterwards, because the ongoing cost of flying will over many years come to many times the PPL cost.

Anyway, re the purchase price, also allow a margin for mishaps and maintenance suprises. Insurance should cover mishaps but you need to be able to fund stuff like engine rebuilds. I guess that at the C150 ownership level you need to always be able to write a cheque for £10k or so.

[sternone]

Don't loan for toys. It's bad Karma.

Join your local flying club and rent a plane. Fly according to your budget.

[dont overfil]

I borrowed some of the cost of an aircraft for my company a few years ago.
My bank offered an overdraft. Too expensive. Although I dealt with finance companies on a daily basis I could not get any of the big names to lend for an aircraft. One said they had been left with five Boeing 737s some time ago and did not now get involved with aviation. I eventually used Air and General finance, now Close Brothers. They insisted on a mortgage although the loan was only 5 years.
I think the cheapest way now for a private buyer would be to take out a personal loan and say it was for a house extention.
DO.

[AdamFrisch]

I am a member of a flying club and that's precisely why I think I'd rather own!

Don't get me wrong - the flying club is great and has good people, but yesterday I was up for one hour exactly, did one landing, C152. £138. That adds up pretty quick if you want to do more than 10hrs/year. At some point not that far off, it will add up enough to be more costly than owning. Don't know exactly where the break is, but I'm assuming around 30-40hrs.

There's also other considerations with flying club aircraft and that is the practical aspects. Friday I was supposed to go up to London for a job, got snowed in like everybody else and sat in the car for 5hrs like a muppet. Lost the job (they had to get someone else in), yet the skies were clear and I could have made it to my airport and flown up to Southend in time. But I'd have to leave the plane there overnight and fly back the day after as my work takes me into the nights. Or if the weather had been bad, it might have had to sit for more days. This is impossible to do with flying club aircraft as they're always booked out on training flights the day after or something.

And this summer I really want to fly home to Sweden to visit. That's a good 8hr flight in a C152 at a flying club cost of £1104 - one way!

These are my reasons for considering ownership. I hear you about not financing toys, and I agree, but at the same time it doesn't have to be bad business. One could make the same argument about not getting a mortgage buying a house, but few of us would have a house then.

[IO540]

Indeed Adam - this has been done to death here many times and there are huge advantages to ownership, which one cannot put a value on, like total access, maintenance to YOUR standards, knowing nobody else has been messing with it, the lowest possible hourly (marginal) cost, etc.

You just need to find the money - but with a margin on top as I mentioned earlier.

If you can't, assembling a group of like-minded and trustworthy (and financially- and attitude- and mission-profile-compatible) people is the next best way. Not easy; I tried it and failed miserably. But lower downmarket it should be easier than what I was doing.

But be prepared for a steep learning curve on stuff like maintenance, who to trust (not many you can trust in GA), airfield politics, etc. It's all worth it in the end, and I would never go back, but it is not for the faint hearted who think they can treat a plane like a cheap boat in some marina :)

[dublinpilot]

My opinion is that if you have to borrow money to buy the plane, don't buy it, because you can't afford to maintain and operate it after you get it

I have to agree with that. I'm not an owner, but see our club's maintenance bills. The cost of the aircraft is not the most significant cost of ownership, but a long way! Something like a C150 will be old, and require lots of maintenance. You can expect a LARGE maintenance bill every couple of years, which won't be too far off the realistic value of the aircraft.

Only a while ago, there was someone on here looking to scrap a PA28-140 because the cost of maintenance exceeded the value of the hull.

Our club also found ourselves in a similar position with an aircraft recently.

Maintenance is the real cost of ownership of an old aircraft....not the purchase price of the hull.

If you really want to buy something with lower maintenance bills, where the hull represents the cost of ownership, then you need to buy something newer. If that is to fit your budget, then it may need to be a microlight of some sort, or one of the new VLA's.

There are many good reasons for buying your own aircraft, but I don't think cost saving is one. Often ownership is a more expensive way of flying.

If you want to save costs, try group ownership.

dp

[doubleu-anker]

Never forget the age old saying. "If it s:mad:s, floats or flies then rent it!!! If I had followed that sensible advice I wouldn't be still working for a living at my age!. :}

[IO540]

You will probably have died of some disease a long time ago though!!

Because if you can rent it and f:mad:k around with it, everybody else can do the same :)

The exception is if you can find the fairly unusual setup where you can rent something of good quality. It is damn difficult to make a business model around something decent (because the depreciation will eat away the profit) but these setups do exist around the place. They can either be flying schools (generally those operating the DA40s) or other business type ops looking to defray their operating costs and willing to take a loss while doing so.

[Pilot DAR]

got snowed in like everybody else and sat in the car for 5hrs like a muppet. Lost the job (they had to get someone else in), yet the skies were clear and I could have made it to my airport and flown up to Southend in time.

This is a poor reason for owning a plane. Though there are a few occasions where weather would allow you to fly, but not drive, they are so rare, you're fooling yourself into thinking that an aircraft is the way around weather. This rule changes somewhat when the aircraft under discussion is a fully IFR turbine twin, but we're not even close to that discussion.

I'm not an expert at snow in the UK, but I am pretty experienced at flying in Canadian snow, and when not to attempt to fly in it. An occasionally rather scary learning curve, I assure you! The snow is coming from somewhere, maybe clear skis where you're looking, but there's poor weather somewhere close by...

A light aircraft is not a means to travel, when weather is the least concern for any other mode of transport. I have used my plane to commute to jobs for 23 years, and my car for much longer. But, if I really have to be there on time, I buy a ticket on a commercial flight, and leave the plane at home.

Though light aicraft can be a business tool, they certainly are no more dependable than a car as one. It's tough to sit stuck in traffic, looking up, but remember the well used avaition saying: "It's better to be down here wishing you were up there, than up there wishing you were down here!". Wishing the former is fun, wishing the latter is very scary!

[AdamFrisch]

It was just an example of when it had been useful. I realize that relying on it for commuting would be insane.

In the end, nothing about private flying can be justified in costs - it's just a a loss/loss game financially speaking. There's no rationalization. But other people might waste the same amount at the pub or buying fancy cars - at least I don't have that problem.

[jxc]

I would say buying into a group of up 6 is the bes way to go even if someone else has it booked chances are you really need it and not just for a bimble they would give up there slot ?
I'm in a group 172 done 42ish hours this year and in total it has cost me £70 p/h
and we have a healthy fund

Cheers

Jxc

[jxc]

I just noticed you are in Hastings may be moving down that neck of the woods mid next year so will be needing a new group though not many places near you except Lydd possibly a farmstrip but if like ours deep in snow and ice

[IO540]

You can commute in a plane.

It all depends on what you mean by "commuting", or "flying on business".

This stuff ranges from trips which are absolutely critical (doing a formal customer visit; you have to be there so a GA flight cannot be done unless the weather is assured) all the way through a broad spectrum, to trips which are really quite discretionary because the people you are seeing, or the conference/presentation/exhibition you are going to is not exactly life-critical. Customer visits are tricky anyway because generally you do not want the customer to discover you have a plane (obviously).

I think it is safe to say that if you want to do formal customer visits, or commuting to a 9-5 day job where you don't own the company, i.e. a 99%+ despatch rate, you need a de-iced plane, oxygen, an IR, the lot. Or balls made of solid brass but that is not a good long term weather strategy :)

Below that level, you can do quite a lot, but an instrument capability is still necessary. A purely VFR pilot who cannot go into IMC will be scrapping at least half his flights (if he has to go every day, all year).

I have met people who more or less commuted to some place of work but in all cases I know of they are in a pretty flexible situation where they can work from home if they can't fly, etc.

If you can go the day before or after, in the UK frontal weather pattern this dramatically improves the despatch rate. One person I flew with commuted from UK to Holland, flying home for the weekend - for years. If he couldn't depart for the UK on Friday evening he would go Saturday morning, etc. He had an IR.

I have done a lot of long trips across Europe and generally avoid flying through fronts (operating ceiling 20,000ft but no overall de-ice, or radar, so go for VMC on top enroute) but nearly always manage to get away on the planned date plus or minus 1 day.

Subject to the above, a light plane, IFR, works well for anywhere in France, or near Europe, and beats any other means of travel hands down. Forget the stupid naive rigged Top Gear car/plane comparison stunts. It even works within the UK, on certain routes like the SE to N Wales for example.

[AdamFrisch]

Lydd is a good airfield. Cheap to fly from and with friendly and good ATC. Only problem is it's in the middle of nowhere. Even though it's just a stone throw with a polio arm on the map, the useless A259 from Hastings to Rye takes 45min. And if you get stuck behind a tractor or lorry, you're had.

There is a small grass strip at Spilsted Farm, but I have not had any response from the owner about landing there. Maybe they're not so keen. I'll drive by one day.

There are loads of groups at Lydd, so if you want to join a group there won't be a problem. At the moment there are at least 3 shares in PA28's available, one in a TB200, Cheetah (I think) and one in a new-ish Saratoga.

IO540 - thanks for keeping the dream alive:ok:

Yeah, for serious commuting an IR and a capable plane would have to be a must. I can normally tailor so that I can be there a day ahead, but on the day if I don't turn up, it's a disaster. People depend on me being there. So that will have to happen in the future sometime, if ever (I'm hoping that by the time I get around to an IR, they've changed the rules and made it less a**l).

[eurostat]

@AdamFrisch how long is the runway on Lydd?

[englishal]

How does it work?

You borrow money and use the borrowed money to buy a plane. In return you repay the lender more than you borrowed...or have I missed something....:confused:

[AdamFrisch]

I understand that, obviously.

I was more after what the terms are. Is it like a car loan where you have to pay the remainder after 36 months? Or does it run over a longer period? What's the interest rates etc? Cash deposits?

Also, it's very likely that the aircraft you're buying comes from somewhere abroad, so you have to be able access the funds as it's not going through a dealer. How does that practically work? Does the aircraft need inspection by the lender, etc, etc.

I wanted some shared experiences, but it's clear that no one on this forum has financed their aircraft this way.

[dont overfil]

Look again at post 8.
The amount you can borrow and the required deposit will depend on your personal circumstances.
PCP payment schemes are available only on new aircraft and over a period of up to 10 years.
For most people a personal loan is the way to go then nobody else has a lien on the aircraft. The money is in your account so you can buy from anywhere.
DO.

[AdamFrisch]

Thanks, DO.

[AdamFrisch]

I thought maybe this would be interesting.

Spoken to Close Aviation now and basically they finance against the aircraft, but quite conservatively. They look for re-salability. High time engines, high timed aircraft are obviously less attractive.

They said that for a very common type of aircraft, like a Cessna, Piper or Cirrus, 20-25% down is the norm. For more exotic types that there isn't a huge base of in Europe (like the Lake), it'd be around 30-35%. The loan runs over 5 years and can either have a ballon payment at the end, or be mortgaged down. It is possible to remortgage for engine service and upgrades. They didn't want to give me a rate (as it's variable), but they said it'd be in the range of a "car finance APR".

[Utfart]

Hi,

I have discussed the same thing in Sweden with Siemens, GE, and a couple of others. The terms they offered were similar to your description, with about 15% down payment and a 5 year term with a balloon payment at the end that is typically rolled over to another 5 year term.

I was mainly interested in N-reg aircraft, but no one here was interested unless it was for biz jet type money.

I believe financing this kind of purchase is intelligent because it keeps your money free to work with. I have always made more with my money than what the interest payments to the bank are. However, with the amount of money you're talking about I guess it's easiest to pay cash, or use a line of credit.

If money is the main concern, I would suggest a joining solid group with a suitable aircraft and less than 10 members. I have been unable to find a decent group in Stockholm, and as result, I belong to several flying clubs and still can't get an aircraft on short notice or a weekend.

Good Luck!

[IO540]

I have always made more with my money than what the interest payments to the bank are.

I would like to meet you ;)

Perhaps you are one of the smart ones. But an awful lot of "City types" thought the same, until the economy took a dive, and then their vast geared-up paper fortunes were worth zilch. One would think somebody worth $100M would have stashed away $10M for a rainy day, but these people thought that that would be a waste, reducing their working capital by 10%... so all they ended up with was some Ferrari (bought on finance too), and a house with a 100% mortgage :)

[AdamFrisch]

Just to get a rough quote, I contacted Hayward Aviation about insurance for a Lake and this was their response:

"Many thanks for your proposal form unfortunately we are unable to provide any terms for this Risk at this moment in time"

WTF?

The form they made you fill in was also pretty strange and not very straightforward - it would have been better if I could have been guided by someone over the phone and talked to a human being.

I didn't know what to put down on "liability", so I put down £250.000. Maybe that's what they didn't like. For "hull replacement" I put down £0. Maybe they didn't like that either. Any which way, I was just guessing - how are you supposed to know if you can't talk to anyone before submitting a form?

I'd like to talk to a human being - so what other aircraft insurers/brokers are there out there?

[dont overfil]

Adam,
Try Terry Joint at Joint Aviation Services Ltd. 0142088664.
Good to deal with and competitive but I've never had to make a claim.
I think valuing the hull at 0 was some of the problem and the liability too low.
www.jointaviation.com (http://www.jointaviation.com)
DO.

[SlipSlider]

Adam, if you look at the G-INFO UK register database on the CAA website, and search for a Lake as a sample eg G-BASO you will find the minimum liability insurance required by law for this aircraft for non-commercial operation is shown as an estimated £3,228,720 (specifically 3.3M SDRs which is a contrived 'basket' of currencies). I suspect this may be where your form fell short - by nearly £3Million!! Hull insurance is not mandatory, so £0 there should not have been a problem.

Personally I have insured my machine with Traffords for some years; I am pleased with their price and admin service, but I've not had to claim and I hope I never will.

Slip

[Pilot DAR]

Adam,

You are probably running into a lack of famialiarity with the Lake as a type. They are not a common aircraft, and insurer's sometimes aren't familiar with how to assess their associated risks. Some of those risks are:

Land on the runway with the wheels retracted = bad. Some damage and some recovery costs. Land in the water with the wheels extended = destroyed airplane, people in the water (maybe drowning) and much more expensive recovery ('cause it was not at an airport, and possibly not even near a road). Pull the plane too far onto the beach, then push it back in and takeoff on the water, and you could be taking 500 pounds of water with you unexpectedly = bad for gross weight and C of G. Allow water in the bilge to freeze during your flight, and the flight controls can freeze solid = bad for landing. A trained float plane pilot will have a real challenge flying a Lake well. They fly very differenly on the water that a float plane - though excellently. They can be challenging to dock compared to the float plane, so things can get broken off the plane (or dock I guess!). After those risk factors, you have to add all of the variability of flying off the water at all.

They are a very good airplane, for the use for which they are intended, and a delight to fly. If you want more information, and are serious, I suggest you come to Canada, and fly one first. One of my clients is the Canadian expert on Lakes. His company is: Lake Central Air Services (http://www.lakecentral.com/)
Check out the section on the Lake fly in every September.

The following is a Lake I did the design approval flight testing on, which included active vibration testing of the boom (shaking it with a motor in flight to see if it comes off), a dive to 110% of Vne, and spinning. The plane was a delight, and serves its owner well doing its work. There is also an amphibious flying boat expect in Norway with whom I could connect you if you would like to PM me.

Pilot DAR

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/LA4boom.jpg

[AdamFrisch]

I suspect you're right DAR.

I had come across your friends website, but not emailed him. I was going to do the factory Lake course in Florida (if I decide to buy a lake), but Canada certainly could be interesting. I'll drop him a line.

Thankfully, you don't need to go through all that TSA nightmare to do a seaplane rating in the US (as long as you have the piggyback) and I'm sure Canada is even easier. Speaking of which - do you need a Canadian validation to be able to train there?

Some of them who've responded recommend a float plane SES first and then transition to Lake, but I'd rather spend all that time in the Lake getting that right. The factory one is 10-15hrs, depending on skills. I could do it on the cheap in Arizona in 5hrs, but I think that would be cutting it a bit close to the bone.

SlipSlider - yes there are 2 Lake Buccaneers on the register, 4 if you count Renegades. I've been trying to get a hold of the owners to hear about their experiences servicing, insuring etc, but no luck yet. Thanks for you tip.

[Pilot DAR]

Adam,

You will find the water flying opportunities in Ontario much more realistic and varied than those you could find in Florida or Arizona. There are thousands of different lakes (the water filled type) around here, which offer a broad range of challenges, and touring opporunities.

I suggest that if a Lake amphib is your objective, get your float rating in that type, and avoid the float planes for now. Not to say that float plane flying is not wonderful, but you'd have too much to unlearn to transition to a Lake.

Another choice would be a Teal. tail dragger, and challenging on the runway, but great in the water (same as a Lake) and more versitile than a Lake when it comes to beaching or parking against the bottom (on the wheels in the water).

I can offer more info if you need it.

Here is one of the Teals I fly (#34), on Georgain Bay (Lake Huron)

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/34atHopeIsland.jpg

Here is the other (#19) before paint, on a bay of Lake Ontario

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Family/IMG_8457.jpg

[BeechNut]

A light aircraft is not a means to travel, when weather is the least concern for any other mode of transport.

Light aircraft: a rapid means of locomotion for those not in a hurry...

Mine, alas, is strictly a toy in spite of great ambitions of business flying.

In my early aviation "career" (a term I use rather loosely!), I had a C-150 based in Alexandria, Ontario and a girlfriend (now my wife) based in Kingston, Ontario.

A few interesting observations: one, in a stiff headwind I could just about keep up with the trucks (sorry, lorries) on the 401. The Turbo Train would blast by me however, as would some of the scofflaws on the road.

Second, once I flew out on a weekend to see her. Unfortunately the weather went sour by the end of the weekend. I had to leave the plane there, and take the train home (with connection in Montreal, very long...). I paid for a week's parking for the plane, and two train fares (home and back to fetch the plane). Daily parking is a lot more expensive than annual tie-down fees, per day. I paid something like $21 for parking (this was in 1982), plus I forget how much for train fare. And it was a royal PITA.

Third, airports are not always conveniently located. Kingston airport for instance was maybe 15 min. from my GF's apartment. Throw in a half hour to drive to the plane and another half hour to prep it, fuel it and file a flight plan, and 15 min. at the other end to park it and tie it down, and I've just burned up 1h30 min. The drive to Kingston was about 3 hours by car at reasonable speeds (i.e. one that won't get you arrested). The plane, with no headwind, would just about do 100 mph, and the car averaged about 55 mph. The road there was relatively straight. So the plane would take just under an hour and a half of flying, plus an hour and a half of all the other stuff... result is that door to door, the car was just about as quick. Throw in a headwind and all bets are off...

Still no better way to put a smile on my face than a couple of hours aloft though :)

[Pilot DAR]

Beechnut,

Turbo Train would blast by me however

You're dating yourself! But, it used to blast past me in the 150 as well!

[C42]

I own my own aircraft (3 at the moment) and i would say do whatever you can to own it youself, I have seen lots of pilots get their licences and then just disapear due to the cost/inconvenience of club plane flying. we are always poping to spain etc for the weekend in groups of 4 or 5 planes. its a good adventure every time!

if you pick the right type of plane depreciation can be very low. RVs are good value to buy, (you can get a just finished one for 60-70K) they dont depreciate and tour better than any of the club planes (170kts is easily achieveble in the cruise) I Loved my RV6 so much i have just ordered an RV8 to build.

you could buy a CTSW (microlight) or CTLS (group A) there are about 8 of these at our field (oops 7, one is up a tree;) ) and the last one i saw sell at 16 months old sold for a good profit over new. they cruise at 100+ knots, 1000 miles range and very cheap to run. or an Ikarus C42 (not as fast) but they do a cheap float set for them that is easily removable)

You have just got to look and think outside the box a bit. Your not far from Damyns Hall (EGML) by the Dartford crossing. pop in and someone will take you for a ride in any of the recommended planes above.

Dave

[greggj]

how about buying an aircraft in share with some club, and have month-two a year for yourself, dry ?
Possible ?
70 quid an hour, in shared aircraft seems a bit high doesn't it.

[jxc]

I don't think £70p/h is alot of money considering that includes the hourly rate and my monthlies . I have not had to put my hand in pocket for anything that has needed to be done since feb this year we have done 500hr mag service, annual, a few 50hr checks, shimmy damper, brakes over hauled and we still have a very healthy engine fund !

I don't think a group should skimp on the hourly rate that extra £10 p/h soon adds up in the kitty

[greggj]

so it is dry,right ?

Am I right thinking the following:

When you borrow a plane from club, or something - and you want to go for 6-8h, that you:
a) pay for the engine running, and probably overnight - if it is longer than a day,
b) fuel is included,
c) that is pretty much the only charge.

If that's all true, than it sounds really good in comparison.

In a shared environment, the whole reason for paying the share cost seems to be to cut any unnecessary costs of flying. Thus £70/h still sounds pretty high. But probably depends on how much you fly, that is, it is probably less an hour if you fly a lot - cos the cost is constant per year/month/whatever.

[IO540]

£70/hr could be the wet cost of something like a C152, or a dry cost of something like a TB20. I used to rent out my TB20 for £80/hr dry, and would have made a profit on that had I reached any reasonable level of utilisation.

The key thing is that one must not see a syndicate as what one can get out of it. That is how renters see things. But a syndicate must be seen as a group venture, and the total cost has to be recovered somehow...