I would have thought the difference is obvious.
The motorcycle does not require hangarage or airport parking which runs to hundreds of currency units a month. It also does not require expensive maintenance. It doesn’t drink expensive fuel at 10+ gallons an hour.
I can certainly see your point on the hangar cost – that is by far my biggest cost associated with aircraft ownership. My solution was (1) to keep two planes, a car and a number of motorcycles in the hangar, which also has a workshop for all of the above, spreading the cost of a hangar which is actually priced low-ish to begin with; and (2) to live in a small house and set up the hangar as as an ‘annex’, a place to socialize – just about any party we have is held there to this day. The change over the last few years has been a bigger house but the rented hangar still adds more to our life than aircraft storage, for about 20% of my house mortgage cost, less than the house property tax.
The hangar is also where the planes are maintained, I don’t typically pay for expensive service (for planes or motorcycles either) and fuel cost would not be reduced by having partners in the plane – I cannot imagine having more than one partner in the plane at a time would happen often, particularly argumentative partners
There are very obvious benefits to outright ownership – that much is obvious. The value you put on those benefits is a personal thing, and probably depends principally on (a) how much flying you do or intend to do, and (b) how much money you have.
I think the attraction of aircraft partnerships to those so inclined would be to people who want access to a more expensive plane, who don’t see flying and owning a plane as an enjoyable lifestyle, just as a tool, and for whom dealing with partners is an acceptable trade off to gain utility.
The engine is a Subaru, which have had problems in some aircraft. I had a flight in one, with a Rotax, in return for its owner getting one in our Jodel. Rotax engine might be better. That one has a lot of electronics in a very pleasant but very light aircraft.
Only your local guys could tell you how easy it is to keep that reg in your country.
Is this “experimental”? If so, you need permits for most places in Europe.
It’s not an EASA aircraft. The autopilot surprised me.
Is this “experimental”?
Yes. According to the owner it can be flown with an EASA license (no national ul license required).
Quite a few early C210 on Barnstormers – 185 Skywagon/182C fuselage, with the early 185 -470 engine. Basically an early Cessna 182RG.
They are much cheaper stateside because of the need for lots of TLC on the main gear saddles.
I like the Cessna wing with struts.
Not sure a vintage retractable fits the title of the thread :)