Snoopy wrote:
Exceeding limitations (eg max cruise power settings as per contract) and negligent operation will be comprehensible.
Hard landings / bad airfields? Hangarage stupidities? Taxiing into some pole? Broken switch? Overspeed / structural damage?
Never say it won’t work. But it’s a lot of money and heart involved. I couldn’t care less if it was about a car. But on a plane everyone flying it should have about the same risk, so either all are co-owners (which reportedly leads to no upgrades being done anymore) or no one (leasing the plane from a company).
@Snoopy, for me four people is not enough, many (including myself) didn’t buy an aircraft not because of the capex but the opex and 400 per month for 3 hour of flyng per month is too much money for not enough flying. If it was, say ten people (or more), it would make sense.
At the moment I’m a member of a non-equity group here. You are almost a renter, only pay more per month (substantially) which gives you already a few hours per month (could take more at a discounted rate), with fuel included.
If there was a way to join a group with a better equipped aircraft, I’d do that and would pay more of fixed costs.
I don’t think it makes sense with 10 people. Availability will become an issue. Tracking who did what (if) becomes an issue. As owner, you want to be in control of your plane, and it doesn’t make a difference if 4 people pay fixed costs/4 or costd/10.
The idea here is for a low number of flyers to understand that in return for shouldering the costs they get access to an excellent airplane as well as „almost“ ownership benefits without fronting a few hundred K euro and without the risks associated with sole ownership.
The main issue is not the finances (not saying they are easy, but they aren’t the main issue) – it is people.
Why does someone go into a “syndicate” rather than buy outright? Partly lack of money, partly they want no responsibility. The 2nd one is a huge motivator behind syndicate joining; renting would be better for that but the planes are usually junk and the hourly rate is high. Do a search here on
syndicate*
and you get loads of threads on why so many have problems. Basically by setting up a syndicate you are setting up a pass-through filter on various undesirable human characteristics 
It can be done, and has been done, but it is a challenge to find the right sort of people. With an SR22, probably the biggest is that you want an IR holder, but most IR holders who are any good already have their own plane, or something equivalent.
This is another good thread, and post #9 from me contains some views…
There is this thread which is more specific.
Peter wrote:
Why does someone go into a “syndicate” rather than buy outright? Partly lack of money, partly they want no responsibility
We did that with a Super Decathlon this summer for aerobatics. Partly because the club could not finance it, not enough usage within a club to finance it with hourly rates. Partly because one person (at least none of us) would fly that much aerobatics for it to make sense. In principle one person could purchase it, and then rent it out to the rest of us, but that is a bit silly as well.
I don’t expect any problems with our arrangement. It is the same arrangement the airplane had before at another place. They sold it because people were starting to get old and lacking medically. They have had it for more than 10 years.
This is a bit different perhaps? There is no disagreement of what it shall be used for: Flying and instructing aerobatics, and with a solid contract between us. When someone gets tired of loops and rolls, just sell the share to someone else. The plane will definitely not loose value within the next 10 years. They are in high demand and suitable for more than aerobatics.
The difference here is that Snoopy is trying to do some version of N147KA, which had a ~£400/hr hourly rate, plus an hour block purchase to incentivise people away from just ignoring it (which is what happens with all pure rental).
This kind of thing works in a very high net worth individuals market.
I come across few Cirrus rentals, they seem to work pretty well, the availability is usually very good and people fly them on touring whole weekends but it seems to be down to 3 ingredients 1/ the pilots have IR with plenty of experience and high monthly cash-flows 2/ the owner runs some business and aircraft is one of many business asset 3/ the owner has literally zero emotional attachment or financial dependency to it 4/ usually operated in 1000m paved instrument runways with full ATC
Good luck, the main problem is finding the right people and keeping them, they go and buy their own aircraft in 2 or 3 years 
Yes – you are going for the froth on the coffee, and we all know how long it lasts for. The 147 SR22 deals all disintegrated AFAIK (N147KA was converted to a submarine by the RBS “banker”). When I tried to do this 2002-2006 it became obvious what the problems would be. There can also be BIK (or national equivalent – every modern country must have “BIK” tax) issues, if the owner is a pilot too.
The only long term groups around high end GA planes were ones with 2 or 3 wealthy people.
Snoopy wrote:
I don’t think it makes sense with 10 people. Availability will become an issue. Tracking who did what (if) becomes an issue. As owner, you want to be in control of your plane, and it doesn’t make a difference if 4 people pay fixed costs/4 or costd/10.The idea here is for a low number of flyers to understand that in return for shouldering the costs they get access to an excellent airplane as well as „almost“ ownership benefits without fronting a few hundred K euro and without the risks associated with sole ownership.
@Snoopy, I’m just describing the situation from a consumer perspective. If I could pay handreds per month just for my share of fixed costs, I’d consider a share in the same type of a/c, or just buying it ourtright. That’s why I say four people is meaningless to me. About availability – it depends. When I’m flying regularly, I’m flying three times a month, few hours each flight. But! I’m not flying all the time, sometimes I have to stop for a few weeks, then I resume, same for many people around me – we all have other priorities as well. That’s why some options like even twenty people in a group might work as well.
To sum up: if you find the right people for your project – why not, but they are likely to move on soon.
Good luck! I hope something works out.
To me, this sounds awfully lot like a model predestined for desaster the moment something goes wrong, i.e. a damage appearing ‘out of nowhere’, or a sudden engine issue or any other expensive repair. It just asks for trouble, because the renters will always feel somewhat inferior compared to the owner. Because you cannot emulate ownership, you have to contribute capital to do that. Someone without a capital commitment doesn’t understand and doesn’t appreciate the joy and pain coming along with it.
I own a plane together with one other person. The maximum long term realistic number of owners in such a co-ownership model, in my personal opinion, is three.
We both own 50% and we share all the cost, the pain, the joy and all the responsibility for everything. And because we are only two, there is no overlap in use. A model of three would probably work, but not more. And we sometimes charter the plane out to pilots we know and have flown with at a wet hourly rate. We wouldn’t even dream to mix both models.
