How many shares are too many in a plane?

[Pop n Fresh]

Let's say you buy a 172 for $60k, then sell shares to pay off the loan and start sharing fixed costs.

If you sold 12 shares the initial buy in is only 5 grand and fixed costs are going to be somewhat cheap. Everyone only pays one month hanger rent for example.

Of course you only get around 4 Saturdays per year also so there is potentially some down sides.

[nbinont]

As with many things in life "it depends". Points to consider:

You should have enough people in the partnership such that:
-The plane flies often enough to keep the engine active (so that it doesn't sit without running for too long and corrode). Usually flying at least once a week is good.
-The plane flies enough to remain economical (usually 100hr+/yr).
-Upgrades/maintenance doesn't seem dauntingly expensive when they happen (and they will happen!)

On the other hand, the following would be signs that you have too many people in the partnership:
-There are frequent scheduling conflicts {either a) you can't get the longer trips you want to do or b) the aircraft isn't available when you need it (recognize that there will be different definitions of "need").}
-There isn't reasonable opportunities for all partners to fly enough to retain proficiency.

Obviously the last three points are subjective and will depend heavily on the partner's plans/needs (and aircraft) and the partner mix. For some partner combinations, a 2 person partnership could run into enough scheduling challenges that 2 partners are too many, other partner combinations could work well closer to 10 partners. Speak to the other partners. YMMV.

[AirFrame]

Two.

[Posthumane]

I would say that anything more than 5 is overkill. There is a diminishing return in purchase and operating costs but I think the headaches with managing ownership with more people increase linearly or exponentially with the number of partners. There will not only be scheduling conflicts but also differences of opinion on how different things should be handled - what maintenance should be done by whom and when, what things to upgrade, best leaning techniques, etc. Often what happens in a small group is that one person takes charge as the manager of the aircraft, but of course as a group gets large there tends to be more than one person who wants to be in that position and conflict arises.

I would say 2-4 is ideal.

[LousyFisherman]

It depends on the plane, it depends on the partnership agreement.

I'm in a 10 person partnership which owns a C150. It works like a charm, I have had one
scheduling conflict in 7 years. The plane only flies 100-150 hours a year.

3 people fly regularly, 3 people fly occasionally, 4 people rarely fly.

$60/month, $30/hour dry, no restrictions on usage as long as it is legal.

YMMV
LF

[New_PIC]

Two.

That was my first "knee jerk" reaction as well. I imagine it depends on how much plane you need/want and how many partners you can afford to do without.

[Liquid Charlie]

Two.

I'm with that --- seems the choices should be modified

[co-joe]

If you stay with a 172 you won't want to go owner maintenance since it hurts resale. That said you will need a 200 hour inspection annually AKA "an annual". so aim for 200 hours usage to maximize cost to maintenance ratio. Unless someone can correct me...it's been a while.

Big thing is who covers what for maintenance? If something always breaks when one particular partner is at the helm is everybody else going to get pissed?

Why a 172? They are a pretty useless aircraft for the money. A lot of money for a 90 kt machine with mediocre useful load OR range? unless you're wanting to train on it, but then wear and tear is going to be high.

[iflyforpie]

200 hour inspections don't apply to private aircraft. One annual inspection per year regardless of how many hours it flies. Oil changes are another matter.

I don't know. The 172 is great--like all Cessnas are great--because they are good all rounders. Sure.. they won't go as fast as a Mooney or even equivalent spam-can Pipers... but they cruise pretty decently for what you burn for fuel and can carry. Sure.. they won't get into the tight bush strips you can take an older Maule or Sedan into... but it will be way better than most planes that are faster than it on the same power. Support is great, every AME knows them, there are tons of spares either new or from wreckers.

Plus really.. how many times do you need a four seater aircraft to go long distances? Chances are for x country it will be two people plus bags.. and three of four seat will be used for local joyrides.

If you need the extra room and power... step up to the 182... no brainer... but for most people it winds up being too much airplane. Then they wind up sitting because the owner is not willing to part with the $100/hour in fuel and oil to run it... rather than taking their 172 or 152 around the pattern...

[Rookie50]

2. I fly my 182 myself but I'd rather share on one 4 ways than step down if it came to it. So much more room, and speed for x country. Depends on ones intentions.

[Pop n Fresh]

Why a 172? They are a pretty useless aircraft for the money. A lot of money for a 90 kt machine with mediocre useful load OR range? unless you're wanting to train on it, but then wear and tear is going to be high.

Just picked it because it's common, easy to fly for those who only go a few times a year and could certainly be usefull for people who want to start flight training.

Plus I was teasingly talking about buying a plane at work because it was the 15th year anniversary of me not having much hope in that plan I had to buy an airplane.

I had two guys considering buying a share just because it would be cool to have a plane. Found a 172M for $40k, 10 grand each if we had 4 guys, said I could go fly it back if we bought it. There was a nice Cherokee 6 for another $8000 but it was in the USA.

Might have to start a new thread about how that fits into, "Flying for hire or reward." Selling shares to non pilots so you can buy a plane for cheap.

At any rate I am currently failing my, "Fly once a month." Plan miserably. So buying is a losing proposition because you needed to fly about 100 hours a year before you are breaking even. With the rising costs of everything it must be more now.

[Pop n Fresh]

Wow, I picked terrible numbers. Changed them, you might want to re-vote.

[New_PIC]

...
At any rate I am currently failing my, "Fly once a month." Plan miserably. So buying is a losing proposition because you needed to fly about 100 hours a year before you are breaking even. ...

Not breaking even financially is not necessarily "losing". Actually, I think saving money is pretty low on the list of reasons to buy a plane and probably not a realistic goal for most people.

[Shiny Side Up]

I don't know. The 172 is great--like all Cessnas are great--because they are good all rounders.

The 172 is the perfect airplane for 90% of private pilot owners, though most of them don't know it. It won't do anything spectacular, but it will be able to do most everything they need. The product of long compromise, every bit of its design was created with this in mind. At the end of the day, it's a good airplane, and while much maligned, general aviation wouldn't be what it is if someone wouldn't have made in numbers what arguably is one of the world's most important aircraft. If Cessna hadn't made the 172, probability dictates, that someone else would have arrived at the design. As a working airplane, it can't be beat for its utility.

[iflyforpie]

I think saving money is pretty low on the list of reasons to buy a plane and probably not a realistic goal for most people.

Yes... but there is blowing your money wisely and then there is going absolutely crazy with it.

Private aviation is a frivolous expense... there is no possible way of rationalizing it. It won't save you time. It won't make your travel safer. It won't provide a return on investment.

But rather than tying up a bunch of capital (or borrowing money) plus paying fixed and direct costs to fly only 25-50 hours a year.. it does make a lot more sense to rent, join a flying club, or have a partnership in an airplane. Generally the less you fly, the smaller your stake in aircraft ownership should be.

Also.. the typical aircraft ownership is a lot like the typical marriage. There is a lot of passion and uh... 'activity' in the first years and then it sort of peters out... ..the occasional playful romps being greatly overshadowed with chronic problems and huge expenses. Those who hope to 'break even' from renting by flying over 100 hours a year are often flying a mere fraction of that a decade later.

Personally.. I think for one aircraft, a total of two partners is more than enough. Scheduling conflicts will be almost non-existent, Your ownership and fixed costs go down by 50% with one partner vs only another 16.5% with a third partner and only another 8.5% with a fourth. All the while, your direct operating costs remain the same, so the overall savings doesn't wind up being as great.

Two people can usually work through big decisions regarding mods, overhaul, aircraft replacement, prangs... etc. Once you get more than two... you've got yourself a committee with Mexican standoffs and vetos being exercised by the cheapest and least fun member (who probably doesn't fly much and resents subsidizing other people's flying).

The other option is joining or setting up a club with several aircraft and lots of partners. Two or three aircraft split between a dozen or more pilots will give you really low costs.. but generally there is less of a chance of maintenance or scheduling conflict interfering with your plans.

[digits_]

Your ownership and fixed costs go down by 50% with one partner vs only another 16.5% with a third partner and only another 8.5% with a fourth.

I have seen this wrong calculation a few times now. So in case people are considering this:
- If you add a partner (2 owners), your costs go down 50%
- If you add another partner (3 owners), your costs go down from 50% to 33% of the original, which in itself is a 34% saving by adding a partner
- If you add another partner (4 owners), your costs god down from 33% to 25% of the orignial, which in itself is a 24% saving by adding a partner
etc.

So yes, the first few partners are more important, the additional ones still generate a substantial save.

[iflyforpie]

No.. the calculation is right, digits... if you consider what the 'additional' savings is by adding each partner in comparison to the 'entire' costs. This is applicable to the original premise of this thread.

Let's say you buy a 172 for $60k, then sell shares to pay off the loan and start sharing fixed costs.

Yeah... calculating it your way you're saving 34%... but only off of the other 50% of the aircraft.

[davecessna]

I thumb my nose at the peasants who don't have 60 large lying around.

[CpnCrunch]

Might have to start a new thread about how that fits into, "Flying for hire or reward." Selling shares to non pilots so you can buy a plane for cheap.

At any rate I am currently failing my, "Fly once a month." Plan miserably. So buying is a losing proposition because you needed to fly about 100 hours a year before you are breaking even. With the rising costs of everything it must be more now.

I think you just need to quit whining and actually do something about it

Three Hills flying club has a fly-in on the first sat of the month (today), and Olds Didsbury has one on the second sat (next week). You can just drive there and get free coffee and treats, talk about flying, and see lots of interesting planes. Also both clubs have cheap planes you can rent without most the hassle of FTUs.

[digits_]

No.. the calculation is right, digits... if you consider what the 'additional' savings is by adding each partner in comparison to the 'entire' costs. This is applicable to the original premise of this thread.

Let's say you buy a 172 for $60k, then sell shares to pay off the loan and start sharing fixed costs.

Yeah... calculating it your way you're saving 34%... but only off of the other 50% of the aircraft.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. But if you look at the effect of adding a partner, you should compare what you pay before the partner with what you pay when adding a partner. So adding a 3rd saves you 34%.


Let's look at it the other way: you are joining a 3 person partnership, so now there are 4 people in total. Let's say annual costs are 4000 CAD, so 1000 CAD each.
One partner leaves, so you switch to a 3 people partnership. Your annual costs are now 1333 CAD each. Does this mean your costs went up by 33% or by 8% ?
I'm pretty sure most people would consider this a 33% increase, even if 333 CAD is only 8% of the total cost.

To analyze an effect you have to compare the situation with and without that effect.