We are buying a Cirrus SR-20 for non-equity flying

[dom175b]

Is there anybody out there who would be interested in a non-equity based club offering a number of complex aircraft. We have purchased the following:

Cirrus SR-20 - Full Glass Avionics

Cirrus SR-20 - Moving map, part galss avionics

Plus potentially an SR-22 GTS, Columbia and a twin Seneca II

The aircraft will have new special company paint schemes and brand new company logoed full leather interiors, we are taking things to a new level.

We are looking at basing the aircraft once in the UK near to London, probably Elstree direction.

We will be offering a fixed monthly payment for the amount of hours you wish to fly per year, it will cut out the surprise's. Fuel will be an extra charge but at the prevailing rate! There will be a membership fee which is valid as long as you continue to have a monthly subscription but it will be very low, non of this £12,500 upfront fee's - they are just to much!

The rental charges will be lower than any of the other companies, they will include insurance, maintenance and all other assoicated aircraft costs.

Let me know what you think?

Do you have any good idea's that you think we should include in the membership, what are we missing!!!!! Any thought would be much appriecated!

Cheers

[Rod1]

A selection of very nice but very thirsty aircraft. The cost of fuel has more than doubled in short order and is probably set to do it again even more quickly. I would have thought this alone would have made this a big risk. Fuel will dominate the cost of operating such thirsty touring aircraft.

Rod1

[dom175b]

I do agree, but from a safety, performance and ease of use side of things, they are great machines, capable of covering many mile effortlessly!

What would you choose?

I had never looked at things in that respect, great point!

Cheers

[Cobalt]

Too mixed a bag of aircraft, IMO. Would prefer 3x the same type to allow good availability. Hard to be current on a classic SR20, a G1000 Columbia and an Avidyne SR20 at the same time, especially for IFR where the ability to use the avionics without much thinking is essential.

If you do anything at Biggin with deice and turbo, would be tempted... equity or not.

[Fuji Abound]

I would forget the Cirrus - as excellent an aircraft as they are.

If you are running it as a business three DA42s for a similiar cost would make more sense with very nearly equivalent performance - and even if tax is introduced on A1 they are still only burning around 12 gph.

Moreover a fleet of the same aircraft makes all sorts of sense from the point of view of serviceability and ease of use.

[englishal]

The Seneca will burn £160 per hour in fuel. The Twin Star will burn £35 in comparison for only a 10kt reduction in speed.

If you had a DA42 I'd be interested........but not the Avgas guzzling ones I'm afraid. I was in a non capital group like this, and despite a "good" dry rate, by the time you have refuled, paid the landing fees, it would have been cheaper to rent from someone (who includes fuel and landing).

I don't mind a monthly direct debit for hours, but I wouldn't pay a membership fee. I would pay a refundable deposit to cover insurance deductible though, as long as I get it back when I leave.

[IO540]

The Cirrus is a very capable aircraft, and the fuel cost is not a problem relative to the VFR/IFR mission capability. People are not going to be renting these for a burger run.

I agree that a uniform fleet is a much better idea, especially with advanced avionics.

However, how reliable is the DA42 nowadays, especially on the engines? I am quite reliably informed that not a single Thielert engine has yet managed to even approach 1000 hours without major work, and that (suprisingly) includes the DA42. Perhaps this would not worry a renter flying a twin, but it would be an issue for the operator. There are reports of a total breakdown between Diamond and Thielert over this matter and it will be interesting what the outcome is over the next year or two.

I have some (limited) experience of operating a rental group around an IFR tourer, and it isn't easy to find renters. One does want people who are reasonably well qualified, as well has avoiding those with "attitude problems" (no shortage of them in GA) but this narrows the market considerably. If one requires an instrument qualification it narrows it far more. This is because most people who are good and current and well enough funded to remain current while renting have already taken the obvious step and bought their own plane...

Nowadays, the glass cockpits require a lot of hours to become competent and I would predict that it's going to be difficult to impose the minimum level of initial conversion training on prospective customers. My estimate for converting a good dedicated ex spamcan pilot to even a TB20 with 1990s avionics would be a minimum of 5 hrs and a conversion to a G1000 or similar would be 2x to 4x that. This translates to the customer having to pay out many hundreds of £ before they can take their bird to Cannes, and it doesn't go down too well...

Not saying it's not going to work. Just pointing out that customers with the appropriate funding may be rather thinner on the ground than one might expect - unless one drops one's competency requirements very low.

One has to go for some sort of customer commitment and I don't think a zero equity group is the way to work the more advanced types. Not until there are a lot more of them on the UK PPL training scene, and that will take 10-20 years. It's slowly happening in the USA.

[englishal]

But to move forward in GA in Europe, AVGAS is NOT the way to go.

To fly the Seneca to Prague will cost £577, to fly the DA42 to Prague will cost £132. There is no point paying more than you have to (at least that is my opinion), you may as well take EasyJet and sip Vodka and Tonic and let someone else fly. The Seneca is old technology, can suffer engine damage by mishandling, and IMO is more likely to be stuffed into the ground - every "rental" seneca I have come across has suffered some sort of landing incident at some time or other.

I am probably a typical "non capital syndicate" type - I earn a good living, but couldn't afford / justify buying a hardcore European IFR tourer - I have no need to travel on business. But I would like to tour europe for 50 hrs per year in a hard core IFR Twin, in the FL's, through bad weather and over mountains, but I don't want to pay any more than I have to, and if the choice was a JET burning diesel or an AVGAS burning twin, I'd go for the diesel every time.

At the moment I just go to America and get it out of my system 3-4 times per year, where a DA42 wet rate is about £130 per hour. In Europe I fly simple (yet fun) VFR stuff.....

[Fuji Abound]

However, how reliable is the DA42 nowadays, especially on the engines? I am quite reliably informed that not a single Thielert engine has yet managed to even approach 1000 hours without major work, and that (suprisingly) includes the DA42. Perhaps this would not worry a renter flying a twin, but it would be an issue for the operator. There are reports of a total breakdown between Diamond and Thielert over this matter and it will be interesting what the outcome is over the next year or two.

That may be true, but from the posters point of view, the engines are covered by warranty so the cost is not an issue. I would have thought if you were setting up this sort of operation you would not want to keep the aircraft for more than two or three years anyway. PS - it is the same engine in the 40 as the 42 so you would expect largely the same problems I guesss - although the new engines are now being fitted to all aircraft including those having engines replaced.

My estimate for converting a good dedicated ex spamcan pilot to even a TB20 with 1990s avionics would be a minimum of 5 hrs and a conversion to a G1000 or similar would be 2x to 4x that.

I would have agreed previously. However, I think the G1000 is so easy to use that most pilots can extract enough from the system after only a few hours. I would agree that using the system in earnest on an IFR flight plan with a procedure at one or other end is a different matter but for those using the aircraft regularly they will be quick to pick this up.


It is interesting that no one seems to what to fly the old stuff any more. Have a perfectly good Baron, Aztec or Seneca on the fleet and you will find it hard to get many takers even though some of these are far more capable than the 42. I suppose the grass is always greener .. .. ..

[dom175b]

This makes everything very much more costly for myself having to purchase a number of $600,000 aircraft in basic form! Also not everyone is well versed on multi engine aircraft.

Are there no other older aircraft which you all would love to fly on a cheaper rental scheme!

I am trying to enable the average pilot, regular trips for very little cost rather than fleece them like present companies.

I know nice new polished aircraft are lovely, but they will cost a huge amount to hire out....am I missing the point!

Great responses anyway, Cheers.

[Fuji Abound]

Hmmm, well you will need to crunch the numbers.

Old(er) aircraft are cheap(er).

However a good SR22 will only be a third cheaper than a DA42. That difference will quickly be made up in fuel saving if the aircraft is used a lot.

On the other hand a Seneca is very cheap. From your point of view the capital outlay is small, but if the rental cost is sufficiently high to cover the fuel and the inevitably higher maintenance then are many going to rent it?

I suppose it all boils down to what you are seeking to achieve.

[dom175b]

I agree, this is a career change, so hopefully I can build a good size fleet quickly. I will look into things, if anyone knows dealers with nicely priced DA42 let me know.
Cheers

[Fuji Abound]

PM sent .

[Rod1]

Maybe some well equipped DA 40’s would be worth a look? I agree with the point that most of the regular touring types will already have their own machine. The point I made about fuel has bee echoed by several examples of current cost, remember this is likely to double in a very short timeframe. The cost of operating even a 180 hp IFR machine is dominated by fuel cost (I ran an AA5B which I sold 2 years ago). You may want to look at the recently announced Tecnam twin with modern construction and 2 100hp engines, but I have no idea if it is IFR capable.

Rod1

[Mikehotel152]

I think this chap needs encouragement. There aren't enough no-equity groups out there, but there are plenty of people looking to pay less than the flying clubs charge.

As for the type of aircraft, I'd pay a little more to hire something more capable, more 'sexy', and better equipped.

I agree that the numbers have to be crunched in order to make it work for the owners, but surely if flying schools can make it work, a non-profit-making enterprise could succeed?

There are people who have experience in complex aircraft but don't hire them because there aren't many around or when you find one the club fleeces you or treats you like they're doing you a favour.

[deice]

You have an interesting proposition and although I won't be able to join in the group I can't resist the avgas vs jet debate and aircraft.

I would agree that the Thielerts need to prove their worth in terms of reliability, but having said that, we operate 7 engines in total in our school and have had one major issue with one engine - a cracked crank case(!). The Seneca we used previously spent most of its time in the shop due to maintenance and all sorts of problems, metal filings in the oil, avionics etc.

Most of the issues we've had with the Diamonds have been related to the avionics system (all G1000 equipped), the engines have been very reliable. There was one case of a rough running engine on run up that was identified as a loose cable attachement to the alternator, hardly the engine's fault.
Our fleet has about 1500 hrs total time, so they're all very new aircraft.

I don't know how this non-equity group will work but in terms of operating costs I wonder if a Cirrus really is cheaper than a DA42? Service is every 100 hrs. The engine is under warranty and includes major replacement parts such as the gearbox every 600 hrs - the rest is oil change and filter. No sparks, no timing, no magnetos etc. The ECUs aren't replaced or overhauled and neither is the engine - you get a new one at TBR.

There's a group operating a DA42 here in Sweden charging about 235 EUR/hour wet. By comparison the Seneca 1 that I've rented from a friend costs me 315 EUR. It's easy to choose between the two...

Personally I think Jet A1 is the way to go, and even though many pilots may not be qualified in twins that could be an added offering. That's what's happening in our little pond up here. People who never thought of flying twins are flying the DA42 because it makes sense economically, and adds a measure of safety with the extra engine, anti-ice and other gadgets.

Two friends transitioned from their Commander 112TC to the DA42. It uses less fuel, cruises faster in the lower levels and has a payload that actually allows passengers and trips of 4 hrs or more. The added engine makes alot of sense when you're flying across the Baltic this time of year...

[englishal]

I can see the dilema with regards to buying old aeroplanes cheaper and newer ones for much more money.

However that is the selling point. If I could rent a DA42 from say a convienient location with no daily minimums, web booking, and commit to say 50 hours per year at a reasonable rate, I'd do it like a shot. That would give me the IFR "go places" capability I currently don't have with my simple SE aeroplane (which I'd still use for simple SE stuff and having fun)

[10069]

Brilliant Idea should make flying a lot cheaper!
But what about having a standard VFR aircraft like a DA40/PA28/C172 or maybe even a DA20 for low hour ppls so they can use the aircraft to tour as well. But Brilliant idea and keep us posted on any progress

[BoeingMEL]

May I ask...

..have you actually received a Cirrus aircraft yet.....or any other type of aircraft? Cheers, bm

[gcolyer]

Originally Posted by Rod1

Valid point, but decent touring aircraft are not going to be the most economical things.

Originally Posted by dom175b

I had never looked at things in that respect, great point!

Are you for real??? You want to rent out shares on non capital and you have not even looked in to the fuel economy/burn/running cost of the aircraft???

Infact you want to rent out shares and you have not even looked in to the fuel economy/burn/running cost of the aircraft???

Especially as you want to rent out dry.