Ball park figure for ownership costs

I wouldn't think that owning would make sense unless you are likely to do a lot more hours over the next couple of years. Better to rent for a while, get more experience. This will also help to bring down the insurance costs.

A figure that keeps coming up in the owning-vs-renting debate is 80-100hrs/year. If you fly less than that, renting is usually the better option, above, ownership. This of course totally ignores the convenience of owning one's airplane, but in the economic sense it, ahem, makes sense!

Surely that very much depends on how much value the person attaches to stuff like

• availability
• ability to take it away for a long trip
• no pressure from the school if stuck somewhere due to bad wx
• plane maintained to your standards, not somebody else's dubious ones
• knowing nobody else has bent in on landing
• knowing nobody else has bent it during flight (just been reading about a TB20 which somebody bent during flight - has interesting ripples on the upper wing skin, and that takes SOME doing on a TB20...)
• being able to keep your stuff inside
• knowing nobody has been messing with the kit (reprogramming the GPS, etc)
• nobody's kids have been puking up in it
• nobody else has been lying about how long they flew it (happens very frequently) so they pay less
• nobody else has been lying about how much fuel "should" be in the tanks
• etc

Also, ownership has the lowest marginal (hourly direct) operating costs. Renting has the highest hourly costs and thus the greatest disincentive to keeping current. In the UK for sure, most renters have such poor currency they are only just hanging in there, which (due to risk compensation) means they basically never fly past the nearest crease on the map.

Ownership, if you can afford it, is priceless

but in the economic sense it, ahem, makes sense!

Economically, one would stay in bed and travel by hitch-hiking

Economically, one would stay in bed and travel by hitch-hiking

Bed parked by side of road ?

;-))

Peter, you are right and I don't believe in a fixed hourly amount to rent vs buy however I think 10 hours/year is not economic to buy and even in a group structure isn't worth the hassle.

Aircraft not used much have higher maintenance costs.

nobody else has been lying about how long they flew it (happens very frequently) so they pay less

Oh yes, I remember that very well... when we were renting our Seminole, the record logbook entry was 1:10 for a flight from Stuttgart to Hamburg which would have required a groundspeed of 250kt (in an aeorplane that has a TAS of 150kt...). When we enquired with the pilot, he came up with some lame excuse that he mixed up local time with UTC when filling in the logbook. To save flying time and money, renters also like to fly flat out all the time. Without leaning or anything. When I fly a Seminole, it consumes 80 to 90 l/h. We had renters who managed 130 l/h and more. Figures like that can totally ruin your calculated hourly cost. Unless you rent the aircraft dry, but then the only way to prevent cheating is that they top up the aircraft after the flight which may result in mass and balance problems for the next renter.

however I think 10 hours/year is not economic to buy and even in a group structure isn't worth the hassle.

Well, yes, if someone is planning to fly just 10hrs/year then ownership cannot make sense.

If I was going to do just 10hrs then I would try to find a friend to fly with, and come on trips, cost sharing perhaps. It will be a lot more enjoyable than flying alone, especially if doing so few hours. I could not fly the TB20 10hrs/year - would struggle to find the hole for the starting key!

Figures like that can totally ruin your calculated hourly cost. Unless you rent the aircraft dry, but then the only way to prevent cheating is that they top up the aircraft after the flight which may result in mass and balance problems for the next renter.

I used to rent out the TB20 2002-2006, aiming at putting together a group of good quality flyers, and failed miserably. No doubt I have written more about this adventure previously but basically renting is not a business that will ever attract any significant number of quality customers. The quality customers are nearly all owners (or in syndicates) already.

A well known UK SR22 "zero equity" operation, with ~ 5 planes, has just dissolved. They were over £300/hr. A sign of hard times I suppose, but you have to have a serious "mission requirement" (i.e. taking out a girl with serious potential ) to pay that sort of money for a plane which (due to the rental) is basically no good for anything but short trips to France.

Seems to look like that the C150 I currently hire for £95 wet plus landings is not a bad price

Yes, that's not a bad price. I pay £100 an hour + £150 per month for a Piper Archer II 1/4 share. These prices are slightly inflated because we need to build up some more equity to fund a re-spray soon. But I would echo all the points Peter made at 14:53 and that to make your money (and your plane) go further it is best to share the trip with someone else.

Since I bought my share (pre-recession), I have no doubt I have lost a not insignificant (well to me anyhow) amount of money as 1: the hull value has come down quicker I think in the recession and 2: needing the engine overhauling earlier than expected. BUT, I have absolutely no doubt that I would not have had the experiences, the joy, the ability to use the plane properly and at my leisure, the added skills and so on, had I just been renting. In fact I'd have thrown the towel in by now.

For reference I do about 60 - 70 hours a year. I decided that anything less than 50 per year didn't make practical sense.