Can I afford to buy an aircraft? [Archive]

AN2 Driver

28th Apr 2011, 21:24

Hi,

I operate a classic Mooney. Generally, I can recommend ownership for the very fact that it does give you access to YOUR plane, whenever you want and without "conditions" such as minimum flight time per day of rental e.t.c.

Yet, with 70k, I'd wonder if you would not want to go for a cheaper buy and reserve the rest of the money for running and keeping it. In todays market, you should be able to find deals considerably lower than 70k for fairly interesting airplanes, many of them IFR equipped.

Currently, I see an IFR Arrow I advertized for 40k Euros (G-Reg), another one for 45k, or even an IFR Twin (Cougar) in the UK for around 50k Euros with zero time engines (on planecheck after a 10 minutes search). That is only in the UK! If you go to the continent, you'll find loads of planes IFR certified for considerably less money. This gives you the reserves for unexpected things (they do occurr) and also the money to actually fly the thing or to add what you might want (such as autopilots, other upgrades). And these are "asking" prices, they are most definitly negotiable.

You need to define your profile. What do you want to do? Are you comfortable to fly SE IFR in the UK? If you prefer 2 engines, look at the Cougar just for starters. How many people do you carry? What range do you need?

Check out the aircraft types. Cessnas are nice but usually more expensive than comparable other types such as older Pipers. An Arrow I is not necessarily a C182 when it comes to load. There are Mooneys out there, especcially those with manual gear and flaps are fairly cheap to maintain in comparison with others. I can see several, one of them IFR in France for 45k (M20F, electrical gear). They are more economical than an Arrow will be and this is a long body one.

Ownership below 100 hours per year is problematic, 100 hours is about the minimum where you will "break even" with charter prices in my experience. Possibly you want to involve a 2nd pilot, be it (if that is allowed in the UK) as a "renter" or a "minority owner", which would give you someone to move the plane when, and only then, you don't need it yourself but help you get the hours together. I do that and I am very happy with the way things work out.

Do look around. Find someone you can trust to advise you. Beware of envy ridden folks at the airport pub who will dish out any horror story they can come up with, just because THEY never got to own an airplane and don't want you to give it up. Talk to owners, not sellers, not renters. Owners have been there, got the T-Shirt and will talk shop. They will tell you who to approach for maintenance, for insurance, how much and what else you need to know.

Buying your first airplane is a great adventure and a thoroughly fun thing to do. It took me 3 years, and it was my 2nd, but I learnt a lot.

If I can be of help in any way, do not hesitate to ask. Apart, you have some very experienced owners in here such as IO540 and several others. So you've come to the right place :)

Best regards

AN2 Driver
LSZH

Genghis the Engineer

28th Apr 2011, 21:53

I've sole owned one, and to date part owned six aeroplanes, and done a fair bit of touring.

I don't, personally, think your profile makes sense for a sole-owned aeroplane. Also, I've learned the hard way that if you own all an aeroplane you get all the flying, but all the effort of looking after it. If, say, you own a quarter, you get as much flying in reality, but only a quarter of the effort of looking after it.

Plus, a large chunk of ownership costs are fixed - hangerage/tie-down, insurance, annual - and money saved sharing these, can be spent on flying (or just not spent!).

As several have said, your budget would buy a big share in a very capable aeroplane, and your budget would then cover a lot of flying. I honestly doubt that below 1/6th share, you'll often notice the other owners are flying it, and personally having owned from 1/2 to 1/20th, I've rarely noticed any other owner wanting use of the aeroplane. 100hrs x 6 pilots touring (and trust me, not everybody will fly it that much) is still only around 50% utilisation.

For example, there's 1/8th of a very nice looking C182 for sale on the web at the moment, £11k, then at your budget of £600/mth, 50ish hrs per year; another advert shows 1/5th of an Arrow IV for similar purchase price and will get you about 40hrs.pa for your budget, a TB9 share advertised in Exeter at the moment will get you about 70hrs per year on your budget (in reality of course, eat into your capital slowly, and fly much more).

Also, personally, I'd always rather do more flying in a cheaper aeroplane. I used to drink with a chap who flew about 20 hrs PA in his TB20 share, whilst I was flying 50 hrs PA in a PA28-161 share and spending about half what he was, and had about a quarter of the capital tied up. Why he put up with me pointing this out so often I have no idea.

G

AdamFrisch

29th Apr 2011, 01:21

Exactly echoing Silvaire's comments. It doesn't have to make absolute financial sense. No hobby ever does. We don't ask that from angling or motocross, so why from aviation?

Think about the guys (and we all know those guys), who buy really fancy sports cars. It doesn't make sense financially and trying to justify it in that way is futile. It adds that fifth element, the unquantifiable umami, so to speak. There's no price on that.

I'm a brand new aircraft owner myself. And they way I look at is this: the annual, the repairs, the service is a price I have to pay to join the club and be an owner. It's a price I have to pay no matter how many hours I fly a year. Obviously, engine funds etc are time dependent, but in a way, no. If you overhaul at TBO, then yes, but there's no legal limit to do so. My engines are unsupported anyway, so for me it becomes an exercise in nursing them along, either by replacing them by surplus on condition ones or overhauling tops. A complete overhaul is cost prohibitive.

So the cost for me is simply fuel and oil, that's how I look at it. And when you look at it that way, flying is rather cheap!

selim

29th Apr 2011, 06:30

Gentlemen, thank you so much for your input, all of which is very helpful indeed. I was all up for changing my mind and realizing that a share of an aircraft as long as there were not too many people in the group looks like it makes more sense until I got to silvaires comment which suggests why does it have to make sense, after all it is fun and so what if its a silly decision?

I guess the thing for me is probably to try the shared ownership route for a few years and see how I get on, if I fly enough that I could warrant owning my own aircraft I am sure I can over time convert to that.

Very helpful advice thanks indeed

Final 3 Greens

29th Apr 2011, 07:15

Selim

Having been in a small group for a while, I would second the opinion earlier about the need to keep some capital for emergent problems.

The strangest things can happen, as well as not so strange things. For example, we had one horror year where we failed to meet our target flying hours by a long way and that meant we were short of income to the degree that we had to put cash into the company to remain solvent.

Also, be careful about who you choose as partners - marry in haste, repent at leisure.

We were all straight with each other, didn't always agree, but always reached a viable consensus.

Not all groups have such a relationship, so check on future partners as thoroughly as you can and check out operating agreements - there are some very experienced people on this forum who know a lot about such things.

From personal experience, I liked being in the group and it had many advantages.

A and C

29th Apr 2011, 08:11

It would be interesting to take a look at the £70K C182, I would take a guess at the usual combination of two or three of the following items high time engine, high time prop, poor paint, very old avionics, dog eared seats, poor AD recording, out of production wheels & brakes ETC.

Having seen in the past peope spend twice as much on the first annual check as on the cost of the aircraft please don't think that it is a buyers market, it is not, peope are not parting with good aircraft because the market won't pay the real value of them.

For example I could find any number of C152's for under £15K but if I wanted one with a new annual that could go and work for a living I would have to pay over twice that number to get a reliable aircraft that was well sorted.

My advice would be to go for a well equiped fixed gear, fixed prop type because you will get more flying for your money in an aircraft that will be in better condition giving you a lower cost of ownership.

All that having been said a few years back a very good C182RG was on the market for £80K due to the tragic death of the owner and was priced for a quick sale, you could get lucky............ but don't count on it!

stuartforrest

29th Apr 2011, 08:29

I would say join a group even though I own one. I still run mine as a group. It costs lots more to run than I expect even though I get bags of help from an execellent facility at Blackpool called Pool Aviation.

Contributions from other pilots helps keep the costs reasonable and I rarely find it is not available when I want it (it has happened abuout five times in six years).

If you can afford it and have the extra funds available for unexpected issues which I can assure you you can expect to happen then outright ownership is the best of course. There is nothing like leaving your plane as you want it. In mine you end up plugging in items and moving seats and tidying the plane before each flight. Also I hate the hours clocking up but then it massively helps towards the costs. I may have sold the plane by now because of the financial burden if I didnt have these contributions.

IO540

29th Apr 2011, 08:34

The values of some 'better' planes have collapsed in the last year or so however.

Somebody in the USA is now selling a TB21 for $90k. S/N 559, 1986 so younger than the average old can in the UK, 1780hrs on the motor so close to OH (which would cost about $60k) but avionics probably OK.

Owning outright is wonderful and that's what I do, and have often posted a list of the great reasons, but if you can assemble a group of decent reliable honest people that is better because it reduces costs. It is just really hard to find those people, especially in the GA game where almost everybody talks the talk but few walk the walk.

Conventional Gear

29th Apr 2011, 12:30

It's a good debate of the pros and cons I'm finding interesting to read too.

I've come to a sort of analogy:

I own my house, but it would be cheaper to live in a shared flat.

I don't wake up every morning and think 'I would have to live another 50 years to make those mortgage repayments economical', so I don't really question owning my house.

The problem I've had looking for shares are pretty simple:

You need the aircraft you want available locally (or relocate/travel) - if you like club life, it would be better at your club field than some isolated strip somewhere.

You need to 'fit' in the share group (not always as simple as it sounds)

Many spam can group aircraft **I've seen** are in worse condition than the aircraft I hire - this doesn't inspire one much to the commitment of the group members.

For a group share to make any sense at all over rental there is some 'minimum' hours you have to fly each year. As rental planes usually have an associated maintenance organisation, they are actually quite competitive so it can be difficult to get the numbers to come out in a group share unless you fly an awful lot.

In all I kind of like the idea of coming home to my own house rather than a shared flat where my dinner has been eaten by a flat mate. I think I would also quite like to open a hangar door and see my own aircraft.

There is the option of course of buying and then offering shares yourself if the financial burden is too much, at least then you have some control over who the other group members are and how things are run.

So that leaves me with, if you can find the right share for you go for it, if you can't, jump in and buy it. We all have time I'm sure to become wise afterwards :ok:

I've been looking around for 3 years and yet to find a group I was prepared to invest in, though doing a tailwheel conversion opened up a lot more inexpensive options for me, it's not really what you are looking for.

IO540

29th Apr 2011, 14:06

Groups vary. Some are made up of good people with compatible outlooks and compatible and adequate funding abilities. Most are hanging together "ok". And quite a few are falling apart, with some members taking the micky but nobody dares to do anything about it because the setup would fall apart and they would not have any flying.

And be assured that if you are buying into a group, the existing members are not going to advertise existing issues, either personality/behaviour issues or problems with the plane.

100% ownership is great if you can afford it.

AN2 Driver

29th Apr 2011, 20:59

I've been looking around for 3 years and yet to find a group I was prepared to invest in, though doing a tailwheel conversion opened up a lot more inexpensive options for me, it's not really what you are looking for.

There is one other way of going about this.

If you know what airplane you are looking for, what YOUR requirements are and what YOU want to do, you may well put together a project with a specific airplane in mind (they don't sell that fast today) and then look for people who might want to share or simply buy hours of you. I don't know if the latter is legal in the UK, it is here, as long as you don't make a profit, and heaven knows, not too many who rent airplanes commercially do today :)

That is how it worked out for me. The flight school which owned mine wanted to orient themselfs differently, the Mooney did not fit their profile at all. So they sold it, but had some pilots who had done the conversion and wanted to continue flying. Right now, I have about 5 active pilots on the airplane, who are invited to fly when I don't need the plane. That arrangement fits perfectly, as it produces hours to reach the 100 hrs/year minimum target, therefore helps with the costs without the problems of a group where everyone is equal. If someone were to misbehave, easy (has not ever happened, but that is it). If I do need the airplane, my apologies but it's mine, so go fly another day. So far, that has worked really well.

I own my house, but it would be cheaper to live in a shared flat.

I don't wake up every morning and think 'I would have to live another 50 years to make those mortgage repayments economical', so I don't really question owning my house.

Good analogy. Nobody would suggest you should live in a shared flat, share your automobile or other possessions. It is however symptomatic for the climate in GA these days that outright ownership of an aircraft today is regarded by many as an "unnecessary luxury". So what? In today's envy loaded environment, people have to have the nerve to get over this. Far too many potential owners let themselfs be bullied into submissions by Monday Morning Quarterbacks in the flying pub who will shy away of nothing to make sure that you don't get what they couldn't because their spouses put their foot down and said no!

It is amazing to me how "reasonable" and "logical" people get when it comes to buying airplanes, when they would not waste a 2nd thought at spilling out far more money for other things "everyone" has.... Make your calculations, as you would with a house, a car or a flat, and if it works out for you, then DO IT or end up like many of those old and bitter folks who will never do as much as a trip to Brighton.

AdamFrisch

29th Apr 2011, 21:18

I would argue that owning a simple aircraft, non retractable, fixed pitch isn't much more expensive than owning a new posh import car. So if you really have to justify it for members of your family (or just to yourself), get rid of the Audi S4 RS, get the plane and then bicycle or tube it to your field;)

Kolossi

29th Apr 2011, 22:20

Also I am worried about the 100ll situation, dont want to be left with a pup no one wants!

I haven't spotted anyone picking up on this fine question.

I'm guessing (as a lowly 26 hour student!) that even if 100ll were removed tomorrow and the engine couldn't be converted to run on mogas or mogas+some additive, worst case would be replace the engine (though with what?!), so the whole aircraft won't be a pup - the airframe & avionics will still work with the same physics after any withdrawal of 100ll as before it!

Any thoughts from you properly knowledgeable guys and girls?

IO540

30th Apr 2011, 06:47

100LL is not going to disappear anytime soon.

There are too many planes around the world, and in the USA where it really matters, for it to disappear.

I think that eventually a "100UL" fuel will take over. They have already been developed.

At least I hope so, because we don't have any half decent avtur engines. Mr Thielert, ably assisted by Diamond, has thoroughly p*ssed on the diesel bonfire. The Austro engine is too new to be anywhere near proven, the SMA likewise.

We need another 5 years at least to see a decent picture of these engines. We especially need to see a good number of them out of warranty, at which time real problems (if any) will be freely and honestly discussed on the internet, whereas in-warranty the owners keep their mouth shut because if you do your dirty washing in public, the aviation industry cuts you off from factory support (as I well know).

The only other option is a turboprop, which is a great solution but pricey. You start with a Jetprop (PA46 conversion) which new is $1.7M and a good used one is about $1.2M. For $3.2M and about $1.5M you can buy the rather more solidly made TBM700/850 but that is another 2x higher operating cost and being > 2T you pay IFR route charges too. Nobody has successfully made and marketed a "small" turboprop, yet.

Avgas is a real issue for those touring around southern Europe. A lot of the bigger airports are run by idiots who have priced things to push out GA, and as a result their avgas sales have dropped way down, so they stop carrying avgas... so even if you are happy to pay the £200 landing fee because it is only a one-off visit, you can't refuel there. There is a general shortage of avgas airports anyway, especially if you want Customs as well. In some cases a local aeroclub has found out that they can buy avgas in drums for a lot less than the local oil company franchise ;) (there is a lot of money in selling avgas, contrary to what everybody tells you) so they do that and then.... the airport stops selling avgas because there is no demand but.... the aeroclub doesn't sell avgas to visitors (except via a backhander). For these reasons, Diamond looked such a super option for serious European pilots ... until their engines started to pack up.

AdamFrisch

30th Apr 2011, 06:51

Nobody has successfully made and marketed a "small" turboprop, yet.

IO, it's called the Extra 500.

IO540

30th Apr 2011, 07:00

Yes, I am well aware of that one (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/crete2/e500.jpg). It's not exactly a "small" plane though, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast. It does look a very nice design, and I have spoken to them about it and seen the inside, etc, but it is not selling and I suspect people are worried about the company going bust (again) and being stuck with an unsupported type certificate. This plane is just too unusual to be ok to run on an unsupported TC.

Justiciar

30th Apr 2011, 07:43

Bit of thread drift here!! I don't think our original poster contemplates an Extra 500:)

Strikes me that £70k + £600 a month gives a huge number of possibilities. The thread started with talk of an "IR machine". I am curious to know what he contemplates exactly as to use an IR machine fully you need an IR! Does the type of flying you are contemplating really involve significant amounts of IFR flying?

What seems generally true is that the majority of pilots fly far fewer hours that they plan to when they buy their dream machine. I have seen some very nice aircaft standing idle as a planned 100 hours per year becomes 10 to 20. That translates into a very high cost of maintenance, particularly on a certified aircraft and £50 per hour at 100 hours becomes £100 + as the annual is still coming out between £3k and £5k per year.

A small well run group is an excellent way of discovering if your lifestyle allows you to fly as much as you plan. The difficulty is in finding that group and then of course you are constrained by what is out there within a reasonable range of where you live.

Aviation is a hobby, not an exercise in home economics and only you can say if you are comfortable with the expenditure, but do keep something in reserve, especially if you are buying outright. I would not worry too much about the future of 100LL but if this is a factor a lower powered engine will be a better bet for a future of 100UL than a high compression 250/300 HP variant.

Maoraigh1

30th Apr 2011, 08:04

£70K and £600 per month seem out of proportion. As a group member in a Jodel group. I payed £620 for 9.5 hours in April. All day VFR of course. Not including landaway landing fees. That is the total for flying per hour, and a monthly charge. A share would be £2200.

IO540

30th Apr 2011, 08:06

£600/month is £7200/year.

Take off a £3k Annual, £3k insurance, doesn't leave you much, but if the OP meant £600/m for flying costs that should buy you about 40hrs/year.

Rod1

30th Apr 2011, 08:57

A typical 180hp 4 seat IFR capable spam can annual cost will be very close to;

Maintenance £5k
Insurance £2k
Parking – depends on area but London say £3.5k
Fuel £70 per hour (expect this to increase to around £130 ish over 5 years)

That is way outside your £600 a month, but a 1970’s machine in reasonable condition will cost around £35 - £45k. All you have to do is reallocate your funding. Assume your first year maintenance will be double the above if you are moving to a new engineering co.

Rod1

Justiciar

30th Apr 2011, 09:11

At the risk of this descending into a Permit v Certified debate again, my Pioneer with a hull value of circa £50k costs £1600 per annum in insurance; cost is very much related to hull value. Without knowing how serious the IFR bit is it is difficult to advise further. As a general though rather obvious comment, a 180 hp costing 35 to 40 litres per hur in Avgas is or could restrict the available flying whereas something smaller and frugal will not only burn less but is likely to be cheaper in most other areas as well, except possibly hangerage.

A solution raised before is to buy into a decent group for your four seat IFR stuff and also to buy at the other end of the scale so as to maximise time in the air. If you don't want to buy an old(er) home build then look at those aircraft which were factory built but are now on a permit, eg older cubs, Jodels, Luscombes etc.

IO540

30th Apr 2011, 10:21

expect this to increase to around £130 ish over 5 yearsI now know what you do for a living: a financial adviser :)

I want your email address, because I've got a couple of hundred quid which I want to invest for a ~100% return over 5 years.

On the "IFR" bit, you need legit IFR capability only if flying on the UK IMCR or the full IR. For "informal enroute IFR" you don't need IFR certification; you just need proper equipment and instrument flight capability personally.

selim

1st May 2011, 07:50

Thanks guys, it is looking as though my finances are limiting to a group share.

In response to the IR question it is quite relevant, I have a fair deal of IFR flying under my belt and feel comfortable in those conditions. My job requires me to visit clients around Europe and I would like to fly to these clients myself without too much weather restriction so VFR wont always cut it hence the requirements for a decent instrument equipped aircraft. Of course, in reality I have no idea how much of this I actually will do and could quite possibly end up doing weekend tours of the Isle of Wight VFR!

All the responses so far have been most helpful and informative for which I am grateful. Having never owned an aircraft or seriously considered one before i genuinely had no idea of the costs involved although a general appreciation of the variable costs and how scary they can get.

Kolossi

1st May 2011, 19:17

IO540

1st May 2011, 19:31

Thanks for the reply on 100ll IO540 - so am I right in thinking you are saying any possible future disappearance of 100ll should not play any part in the decision making for purchase of an aircraft/share?

I think I am basically saying that if you can avoid 100L then do so, but the options for doing so are pretty limited and I would not touch any of them with a bargepole if I was going to do "real" flying, in a plane which I bought with my own money.

If OTOH I was running a flying school, and got some kind of "pay by the airborne hour" deal out of Diamond, then it would make a lot of sense because I would be protected from the diesel engine downtime which has brought many flying schools practically down to their knees.

Especially as training is exempt from the diesel fuel tax which is now payable on private flights and which has crippled the economic case for diesel retrofits.

German guy

1st May 2011, 21:01

I'm not so sure about shares - I've heard great, but also horrific stories about them. Much more of the latter, though. Even when (Ex-) close friends start a fractional ownership it is not so seldom that they end up at court. My impression is also that it is considerably more difficult to sell a share than a complete aircraft.

Maybe fractional ownerships run better in the UK than they do in Germany, but over here it is very difficult to a.) find an existing share which you could join or b.) find buddies with whom you could start an ownership. Therefore the often only option is to c.) seek for an fractional ownership via the internet what appears to me to be the riskiest option.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't go this route, but I recommend to very carefully asses this option. Another thing you might want to take into consideration is if you really need a 182 or if something more economical like a 172 or Warrior wouldn't also fulfil your typical 95% use case!?

I also have to say, that I am currently renting Cessnas and microlight trikes in two different clubs and that I really have enough of renting - it is always difficult to take the planes away for a weekend, I always have to plan weeks in advance, I always have to fly daily minimum hours and I quite often notice that something is broken during pre-flight.

No matter if it makes "sense" to own from the financial point of view - as soon as I find the aircraft which am looking for, I'm going to purchase it. Alone. Without any partners. :cool:
What I might however consider is to rent it to pilots who I personally know.

Cheers,

Oliver

wd413

2nd May 2011, 00:28

Owning a light aircraft is really no different to owning a car.
How many people would contemplate sharing their car with a group of others?
Very few I would suggest.
Same goes for an aircraft.
I own a 6-year-old Tecnam Sierra and the annual running costs are only marginally more than operating my elderly Mercedes.
Might be different for a top end machine or an elderly spam can but the new generation of LSA's that run on mogas are a different proposition.
They're also much more fun to fly.

AN2 Driver

2nd May 2011, 03:06

Thanks guys, it is looking as though my finances are limiting to a group share.

why? with your budget, as I told you before, there are plenty of IFR airplanes around, unless you really want the new and shiny. and especcially after what you say, business trips and weekends away, I'd do the utmost to have my OWN plane as opposed to fighting for every flight within a share. Unless you are real good friends who wish to go fly together or plan trips that way, I'd try to go on your own, with possible renters if that is allowed.

Just have a look on the Internet, there are some sites like Planecheck or Avbuyer, where you can have a browse and see what's there. Alone on planecheck I found 2 IFR Arrows in the UK the last time I wrote to you, both significantly under your budget.

@Oliver

I hear you.

Even when (Ex-) close friends start a fractional ownership it is not so seldom that they end up at court. My impression is also that it is considerably more difficult to sell a share than a complete aircraft.

Both, yes. To bring up the analogy, just think for a moment what kind of aggravation only shared houses bring, at least in our part of the world... or the typical rabbitcage style housing estates. The courts are full of fighting neighbours and ex shareholders in all sorts of enterprises.

Frankly, for me it became very clear very soon: Either I can afford to own alone or I'll refrain. Sure glad I didn't.

No matter if it makes "sense" to own from the financial point of view - as soon as I find the aircraft which am looking for, I'm going to purchase it. Alone. Without any partners.

One only lives once. And I can see enough grumps around who will draw the line at the fall of life and muse over missed chances. Financial sense is one of the killer arguments of such people, and look where it got them. Of course, one has to be prudent and has to be able to afford any sport or recreation one chooses, but if so, there are not many viable reasons to hide under a bench while those faint of heart hide under the benches.

What I might however consider is to rent it to pilots who I personally know.

that is what I do and it works out well.

Best regards
AN2 driver

IO540

2nd May 2011, 07:53

It is very true that many groups are falling apart; possibly the majority depending on how you define "falling apart".

Of the groups I am familiar with, one which is working well is one around a C152 where one man is in charge of all admin stuff, and the other members (about 25 of them!) get obviously very cheap flying. They lease the plane in so no cost suprises. They used to own a C150 and that worked well too because with 25 members money was not a problem. Their Annual costs were eye watering, about 2x to 3x what I pay on my TB20, but with 25 members who cares? But that group works because they have a niche: very cheap flying, and everybody knows they cannot do any more than a little bimble, not too far away. A lot of pilots are happy with that.

If you want to have 2-week holidays with the plane, you need a very small group made up of understanding people.

One other group I know that's working well is 2 people around an IFR plane. Both have enough money and do similar flying. Such groups are very hard to set up though because finding people with money and competence and the desire for full IFR capability is very hard. Almost everybody with an IR already owns his own plane; it's a bit pointless doing an IR if you cannot afford to buy a plane afterwards.

However, a group is simply the best option for somebody who cannot afford to buy 100%.

Renting is a very poor option; you either fly junk, or you pay loads of money per hour which is a disincentive to currency and usually means no long trips away.

Genghis the Engineer

2nd May 2011, 08:12

IO540, if I recall correctly, you are in the UK? UK law limits syndicates to 20 members.

G

IO540

2nd May 2011, 08:17

Only on a (what was) Private CofA G-reg aircraft. Min share is 5%.

On (what was) a Transport CofA aircraft, there is no limit on syndicate size, and (by extension) you can have equity down to zero (i.e. pure rental). That's what flying schools do, for example.

Today, the line lies according to the actual maintenance regime.

The above is for G-reg.

BackPacker

2nd May 2011, 08:20

What I might however consider is to rent it to pilots who I personally know.

I thought that if you owned a plane yourself, or as a (<20) group, you could keep the plane on a lower maintenance regime compared to the situation where the plane was rented out (either wet or dry) and/or used for flight training. Is this true, and if so, do the higher income from renting the plane to non-owners offset those higher maintenance costs?

Or is this whole point moot now with EASA CAMO and such?

And what about insurance requirements? I've heard insurance policies that specifically name the pilots that can fly the plane. Are they significantly cheaper than "anonymous" (for lack of a better word) policies?

Maoraigh1

2nd May 2011, 08:35

"how many people would contemplate sharing their car with a group of others?"
How many people keep their car miles away from their house? How many people keep their plane at their house?
How many people use their car every day? How many people use their plane every day?
How many people just hop in their plane, without checking wx and notams, booking out with ATC and going through security?
Has anyone ever had an aircraft annual done for the same cost as a car service + MOT?
You don't want a group of bar buddies. You want people who will usually use it at different times, and can't afford to use it too much. I'm the second longest time in our group, at over 21 years.

IO540

2nd May 2011, 08:37

If it is a G-reg, it cannot be rented out unless maintained accordingly.

An N-reg maintained to the standard FAR Part 91 can be rented out.

Yes, you need the right insurance. Named pilots, up to a point, will be cheaper than "club use" which is for open rental. It is pricey; my TB20 was £6k for club use and is now £2.9k (one named pilot, 1k+ hrs, CPL/IR). The extra insurance cost makes it hardly worth renting out - unless you open it up to every tom dick and harry with a PPL and then your precious plane will gradually get wrecked. I went down that road because I was dim back then and got conned by a crooked instructor/CFI. He vanished not long afterwards (for other more interesting reasons).

There are also tax angles. The owner/operator has strict liability for 3rd party damage (UK Civil Aviation Act) so you will want to have the plane in a limited company to protect yourself from some renter landing in a convent / school / LIDL / etc. This in turn gives rise to BIK issues. HMRC hate people who set up businesses around activities they like as a hobby. They run a policy of hitting them with investigations just for a laugh; a half clever inspector can run dozens of these concurrently and can collect many times his salary because most people will give him £10k rather than go to the Commissioners.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt :)

My advice is: don't bother. If you can afford sole ownership, nothing gets even close to the privileges. I could not have done the great trips I have done if I didn't own outright. Otherwise, try to dig out a few mates with appropriate funding, attitudes, etc and set up a group.

Or, of course, you can do what most PPLs do which is to cost share as many flights as you can. The "seat sharing" websites are primarily aimed at cost sharing but you cannot call it that because cost sharing cannot be openly advertised. I don't cost share myself (illegal in an N-reg in UK airspace) but everybody else seems to in a G-reg.

The big secret in long term flying is to pitch things at a level which you are very comfortable with financially. Worry is very corrosive - as is a lack of family support, etc.