|
Own or Rent
So now you've got your pilot's ticket - you of course want to
fly. But you realize that your dreams of going 400 miles for the
weekend in two hours are tempered by the fact that your plane is
costing you $70, $80, even $90 an hour. But it gets worse - that
two hours each way is $300 or so for the weekend. That isn't so
bad relative to gas and time and meals. Then suddenly you
remember your FBO has a policy that all day rentals require a minimum
of 4 hours day. Now that weekend is looking more like $600 or
$700. So the weekend is ugly and taking a week to tour some piece
of the country is completely out of the question.
Okay - so it's time to buy a plane. But is it? The fixed
costs of owning a plane are substantial.
First - these numbers assume a typical single-engine "entry
level" plane - a Cessna 172, a Piper Warrior, maybe a 177, 182 or
a Piper Arrow at the high end. Given real world weight and
balance you are not going to take your family of four with teenage sons
and baggage for the weekend. If you do have that problem then
look a little farther down the page. But assume it's you and your
partner, maybe a small child or two and things fit weight wise in that
600-800 pounds of payload.
What are your costs? First is fixed costs, here's typical
rundown here in the Bay Area where I live - a few places are more and
plenty of places are probably a bit less - but most of the expenses
don't vary a lot geographically.
You have insurance, your annual inspection, tie down or hanger fees,
taxes and registration. Assuming a small 4-place single engine
fixed gear - your insurance as a new pilot will run maybe $1000 a
year. A basic tie-down runs $100 a month out here (This is one
item that varies greatly geographically - some places as cheap as $25 a
month, some places even more than $100). You'll drop
$1500-$3000 for a typical annual for an older plane (this factors in
the occasional major item like a new radio, rebuilt gyro, etc. that
comes along). Finally - in California taxes will set you back
about $500 a year (the other thing that varies a lot
geographically). So you're looking at maybe $4000 a year in fixed
expenses.
Now you need to fly. Most of these planes are 140-180hp 4
cylinder engines that will burn 7-9 gallons an hour on average.
So we'll say 8 gallons an hour and 100LL is not cheap these days -
about $2.70 a gallon average around here. You'll also need to
rebuild that engine some day so assume $10,000 and 1000 hours of flying
before that happens. So we'll call your variable expenses $35 -
factoring a $3 an hour fudge for oil, wax and such.
So at a typical "wet" rental of $75 an hour you save about
$40 an hour. Dividing that against our fixed expenses you need to
fly about 100 hours a year to cover your fixed costs.
But wait - you have to pay for the plane. That's a harder item
to factor in. The capital cost of the plane is not really an
"expense". Planes are not like cars - they hold their
value very well. But until you get to told to fly you're not
likely to get rid of the plane and recover that value. Plus for
those of us with "normal" finances cash flow is
everything. So assuming you finance $15,000-$30,000 of your plane
you are looking at $300-$700 a month in payments of which most will be
interest initially. So you need to fly another 90-200 hours a
year to cover those costs. That puts us at roughly 200-300 hours
a year to make it worth it.
However - this is not a 100% cost justification
decision. We're also paying for the flexibility to fly when
we want, to not have the pressure to fly when we don't want to because
the plane is due back, and the chance to make the kinds of trips you
normally just can't afford to as a renter. For me (and I think
most pilots serious enough to be seriously looking at owning) this is
worth quite a bit. For me I'll value this at a couple of thousand
dollars (a few hundred a month) so my magic number is 150-250 hours a
year - which is remarkably close to what most books and articles will
tell you.
So I'm planning on buying a plane. My barrier is the capital
cost - the down payment - but I'll get there because it's a
priority. It may mean flying a little less that I would like in
the interim and might mean putting off that next rating until I own so
I can make that initial jump (and then have my training be that much
cheaper).
Group Ownership
All of the above equations assume you're on your own. If you
have 1 or two people you trust the financials change greatly.
Most of your fixed expenses stay the same (the insurance will scale
with more owners but less that what you would pay collectively for
individual). I think 2-3 owners is ideal. More than that
and you start to not be able to fly enough to make it worth
owning. So your share of fixed expenses drops 40%-60%. Plus
the plane flies more so the fixed expenses are amortized out over more
flight hours. With two owners just 100 hours a year can easily be
cheaper than renting - with three owners even 75 hours a year is
viable.
The key is you have to trust your co-owners and be able to work out
how to share. Even if it's the best of friends a formal policy is
probably good to allow you to defer conflict to the policy. Also
- assume the worst case - it doesn't work out. Have a written
purchase agreement (your insurance and finance company will probably
require this anyway) that includes buy-out and termination
clauses. That way if it doesn't work out you already have agreed
what the solution is back when you were still talking. This is
the same advice you would give people buying a house or car or any
other major purchase together. But it it works it may be the only
realistic way for most of us to get into plane ownership.
Also - down the road - when you _do_ have those two teenage sons and
you and your wife have put on a few pounds of your own the partnership
may give you the resources to get into a plane you couldn't otherwise
afford.
What to Buy
If you're just tooling around for the day there's lots of choices.
If you want to take a family of 4 plus baggage it gets a little
tighter. Planes quote "useful load" but that is their gross
weight minus empty weight which means fuel comes out of that.
"Payload" is available weight after full fuel. Many (most) 4
seat single engine planes can't really take 4 real adults with full fuel,
not even counting baggage.
Most single-engine 4 seat aircraft like Cessna 172s/182s, Piper PA28s (Cherokee, Warrior,
Arrows) have a real payload of only 650-750 pounds. A few (the older
Pipers mainly) get up to a hair over 800 pounds payload. The
gross weight of these planes doesn't change - the type certificate
fixes that and it's too expensive to change - but the older planes tend
to have a lower empty weight because of less sound-proofing and
crash-protection. Most of these
planes have about 40-50 gallons of fuel or about 250-300 pounds.
Fuel is 6
pounds per gallon for AvGas (100/100LL). JetA (and Kerosene) is heavier, about
7. You can do a
partial fuel load. The Pipers have calibrated "tabs" that
give you 34 gallons - giving you 84 more pounds to play with - but you
loose about 90 minutes of endurance. So there isn't a lot to play with.
These planes will set you back from $20,000 to $80,000
typically. That is a big spread and the difference is a very
variable mix of age, airframe time, engine time, instrumentation and avionics.
One little guy I've gotten pointers at on the low end are the Piper
Cherokees (PA28-140/150/160). They run $20k-$30k less than the
Warriors and the 172s and a flyable IFR certified plane can be gotten
for under $30,000. The 140's are the best deal - many have been
STCd to 160hp. If they haven't you can do at at the next overhaul
for a reasonable extra cost added onto the normal overhaul. Or
they may have the older Lycoming engines that allow you to burn Mogas
(86 octane) - saving you $1 a gallon or more where you can get 87
octane fuel (this translates into several hundred dollars a
year...). With the speed mods that almost 1/2 of the Cherokees
out there seem to have you end up with a climb, stall speed and cruise
as good as or better than the factory 160hp Pipers (PA28-160/161) and
Cessna 172s.
Of course you need perfect weather all the way or an IFR ticket and
an IFR certified plane -
and even then you need tops under 18000 or no icing unless you're
flying something much fancier - which I wouldn't. Cycling the boots
manually for 4 hours isn't my idea of fun. Bigger jets do de-icing by
routing hot jet air through ducts in the wings - the smaller planes use
rubber boots for the wings, alcohol for the windshield, and alcohol or electric heating for the prop. There is good research happening in
piezo-electric vibrators but that's a ways off.
Of course you're now burning 15-20gph instead of the 7-10gph you'll
burn in a 160-180hp trainer at cruise. But you cruise at over double speed and
you climb more than twice as fast (makes it more practical to get to
higher altitudes for better speed) so your actual MPG stay about the
same. At least for longer trips - for tooling around locally slow enough to see
and react to traffic you can only get the fuel burn down to about 15gph
at 55% power.
If you and your partner come to 400 pounds for the two of you and
you really do have those two teenagers you have much more limited
options.
For "certificated" (production) aircraft there are only a
few single engine props that come close. The Cessna 200s (Centurions,
210, 208, etc) have usable payloads of up to over 1000 pounds.
The
"Cherokee Six"s (Piper PA32-360 and PA32-300s) have similar
payloads. The C210s are pretty high end with retractable gear, slightly
taller cabin spaces, pressurized and turbo models (T210 and P210), many
with radar, and a few equipped for "known icing". They range
from $50000 for a very old 210 to $300k plus for a recent one with all
goodies.
The Cherkokee Sixes are fixed gear. Piper did make an R/G version -
the Lance, but they never had the payload of the originals. They range
from $190k down to $50k. They have similar payloads to the 210's and
many have club seating (2nd row faces to rear 3rd row for a nice
foursome) and removable seats and an oversized loading door on the left
side of the plane (the low wing single engine Pipers only have a single
door on the right normally). For passengers plus baggage they are
probably a nicer ride than the 210's but they don't have options like
known icing. They are probably a little easier to fly than the 210's
due to not having to manage the r/g and a somewhat simpler fuel setup./
Beyond these there are two special big singles - the Cessna Caravan
and the Piper Malibu/Mirage. These start at about $300k used and run to
over a million new (both are still manufactured new - the Pipers by the
New Piper Aircraft company). They are both big with payloads of over
$2000. Both also have turbine (turboprop) versions. Turboprops are a
mixed bag - you burn more gas but it's cheaper stuff (JetA is little
more than filtered kerosene). A turbine engine is actually cheaper to
buy and much cheaper to maintain. Rebuild on a small turbine is maybe
$5000 - typically inspecting blades and replacing the combustion
chamber lining. Rebuild on a big piston (a 300+HP six) can run over
$20,000. Over the life of an aircraft the turbine is cheaper per mile
(in the kinds of planes they are installed in).
There are also of course the twins - you'll often here the debate
about "light twins" versus "heavy singles". It's
really not much of a debate. If you want maximum payload the heavy
singles always win. The light twins beat out in speed and being more
likely to have pressurization and be equipped for known icing.
You actually have to go to at least a "medium" twin to match the
payload of the heavy single. A Twin Seneca (a popular Piper light twin that
is one of their newer designs) has a payload at full fuel less than a
Warrior of the same age.
I believe the multi-engine safety issue is a myth for most private pilots. Yes
the twin gives you a 2nd engine for failure - but it also produces an
aircraft that much harder to fly and land and barely climbs to a little
over half it's normal ceiling. Remember -
all planes are pretty good gliders. If your engine goes out over sane
terrain you should be able to land your plane in restorable condition
and walk away from your landing. Over nice terrain (fields,
roads) you might even land in flyable condition.
Plus - double all those maintenance and rebuild costs. A twin does
benefit users who really do a lot of long haul travel where they'll
benefit from the extra 100-150kts of travel speed they get (combination
of faster and higher altitudes).
"But what about engine out at night over mountains". Well
- 1 or 2 engines as a recreational pilot at altitudes not requiring
pressurization I have no intention of being over mountains at night.
I need 15,000+ to safely clear the portions of Sierras just to my east
and 10,000+ to clear most of them. Most twins won't go that high
on one engine either.
Also less than 1/2 of all engine failures are true mechanical
malfunctions (and over 1/2 of those can be tied to improper maintenance
and not "true" failures). The rest are other causes - most of
which would kill both engines (fuel management problems, flying into
unfriendly air conditions, engine mismanagement, etc). See my
comments on safety on my Thoughts
on Flying page.
I kind of rambled but hey.
Buy or Build
See me Building a Plane page for my
thoughts on kits (something I am planning on doing).
|
