Own vs Rent Break Even?

[Archerboy]

Hello all!

First post on the forums. Hope it's the right forum for the question. Got a FAA PPL but havent flown in near 2 decades and want to get back into aviation. Mainly life got in the way, but generally didnt get back in as flying for me is a do it 200% or dont do it at all thing. Not like driving a car you know. And so the cost of it kept me away.

Currently been doing homework on rent vs own. Rental of 172s is around $185/hr wet in my neck of the woods. I'd be wanting to fly around 100 hours a year so that'd be on the order of 18K/year + flight instruction (want to start from scratch and get Canadian certifications).

So far i'm looking at aircraft in the 40-50K range for purchase, and trying to run some ownership costs. 100LL is around $2.50 these days, so on the order of $60-70/hr for fuel. $1000 for annuals, $700 insurance, say another $1000 for misc maintenance and the biggest variable appears to be tie down vs hangar. Like $800/year vs $6000/year.

So for 100 hours/year, every $1000 in fixed cost is like $10/hr. So with like $9K yearly costs i'd be looking at $150-160/hr which is not far from the rental rates. But with something more reasonable like $4K/year we are closer to $100/hr for owner cost which is a decent saving vs rental rates.

But aircraft in the 40-50K range are generally VFR only, and for safety and IFR training I'd want to upgrade avionics a bit. Seems those can run 15-25K easy.

So in the end, worth all that headache to invest 60-70K and potentially end up only saving $40-50/hr compared to rentals?

Is it wise to go into ownership without much experience?

THanks
Archer

[WANP]

I would, and have, always chosen to own, over rent.
It is available on your schedule then, not someone else's, you know what maintenance is getting done, how its being flown, and more.
When you're done with it someday, you can sell it, and historically GA plane prices have been going up steadily for many decades.

[photofly]

Hello all!

First post on the forums. Hope it's the right forum for the question. Got a FAA PPL but havent flown in near 2 decades and want to get back into aviation. Mainly life got in the way, but generally didnt get back in as flying for me is a do it 200% or dont do it at all thing. Not like driving a car you know. And so the cost of it kept me away.

Currently been doing homework on rent vs own. Rental of 172s is around $185/hr wet in my neck of the woods. I'd be wanting to fly around 100 hours a year so that'd be on the order of 18K/year + flight instruction (want to start from scratch and get Canadian certifications).

So far i'm looking at aircraft in the 40-50K range for purchase, and trying to run some ownership costs. 100LL is around $2.50 these days, so on the order of $60-70/hr for fuel. $1000 for annuals, $700 insurance, say another $1000 for misc maintenance and the biggest variable appears to be tie down vs hangar. Like $800/year vs $6000/year.

So for 100 hours/year, every $1000 in fixed cost is like $10/hr. So with like $9K yearly costs i'd be looking at $150-160/hr which is not far from the rental rates. But with something more reasonable like $4K/year we are closer to $100/hr for owner cost which is a decent saving vs rental rates.

But aircraft in the 40-50K range are generally VFR only, and for safety and IFR training I'd want to upgrade avionics a bit. Seems those can run 15-25K easy.

So in the end, worth all that headache to invest 60-70K and potentially end up only saving $40-50/hr compared to rentals?

Is it wise to go into ownership without much experience?

THanks
Archer

Where are you? I think most of your budget prices are low by at least 50%.

There's very very little to purchase in Canada at the $50k level, certainly not an even half-decent old-style 172. Annuals are going to be at least $2k, insurance $1500, add another $2k for other maintenance, and the cheapest tie-down within two hours drive of here is $2400 annually. Hangarage for a 172 could be as much as $20k a year, depending on location. Nor is fuel going to stop at $2.anything for very long. Don't forget to have a contingency for engine repairs - a new jug installed for a few $k, top overhaul at $15k, or pull the plug and do the whole overhaul at $30k, if your engine condition dictates. You may have to install a diversity ADS-B transponder system in a couple of years, depending on where you want to fly - figure on $5k+. You'll need it sooner than that if you want to fly into the US. So there's a lot of things to budget for.

My point here is not to scare you with costs - just to point out that you're responsible for a lot, when you own an airplane, and you can't divvy everything up into $x per hour. Owning an airplane isn't an alternative to renting merely to be chosen on budget terms; they're totally different experiences. Owning an airplane is a lifestyle choice, like buying a boat. Go where you want, when you want, and nobody will ever hand you the keys and tell you you had better be back by 11 or else, because the plane's booked out by a student then.

Where are your hundred hours per year going to be spent flying to and from? Heading out to the practice area for steep turns, stalls and slow flight gets pretty dull on your own after the first 4 hours; that leaves you another 96 to fill. Then there's next year. And the year after. What are your plans?

[digits_]

If you need an ifr equipped plane, then buy an ifr equipped plane. There is no realistic way a vfr airplane can be converted into an ifr one for 15k nowadays.

If you are looking at economics, I would just rent for training. If you want to own an airplane, then by all means buy one. But do it because you want to, not because you think it will be cheaper. It likely won't be.

[photofly]

If you need an ifr equipped plane, then buy an ifr equipped plane. There is no realistic way a vfr airplane can be converted into an ifr one for 15k nowadays.

+1 to this. I missed that comment from the OP.

[PilotDAR]

I would, and have, always chosen to own, over rent.
It is available on your schedule then, not someone else's, you know what maintenance is getting done, how its being flown, and more.
When you're done with it someday, you can sell it, and historically GA plane prices have been going up steadily for many decades.

I agree with this. If you have any thought that you'd like to take the plane on some long trips, the freedom of owning is great. But, if you're not going to use it 100 hours a year, you're probably better renting.

I wouldn't buy thinking that you'll make a buck selling it later, but breaking even is hopeful. If you break even after flying 500 hours, then you really did get your money's worth. That said, more and more, aging aircraft inspections and AD's are being introduced, and some will be expensive. Have a really thorough pre purchase inspection done, with consideration to the most detailed inspection requirements appropriate to the airplane - in the case of a Cessna, the "SID's". If such inspection reveals a structural defect, best determine what the repair will be before you buy.

[JasonE]

I broken even after close to 400 hours on a Cherokee.

Renting can work if you have a good non-profit flying club around.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hello all!

First post on the forums. Hope it's the right forum for the question. Got a FAA PPL but havent flown in near 2 decades and want to get back into aviation. Mainly life got in the way, but generally didnt get back in as flying for me is a do it 200% or dont do it at all thing. Not like driving a car you know. And so the cost of it kept me away.

Currently been doing homework on rent vs own. Rental of 172s is around $185/hr wet in my neck of the woods. I'd be wanting to fly around 100 hours a year so that'd be on the order of 18K/year + flight instruction (want to start from scratch and get Canadian certifications).

So far i'm looking at aircraft in the 40-50K range for purchase, and trying to run some ownership costs. 100LL is around $2.50 these days, so on the order of $60-70/hr for fuel. $1000 for annuals, $700 insurance, say another $1000 for misc maintenance and the biggest variable appears to be tie down vs hangar. Like $800/year vs $6000/year.

So for 100 hours/year, every $1000 in fixed cost is like $10/hr. So with like $9K yearly costs i'd be looking at $150-160/hr which is not far from the rental rates. But with something more reasonable like $4K/year we are closer to $100/hr for owner cost which is a decent saving vs rental rates.

But aircraft in the 40-50K range are generally VFR only, and for safety and IFR training I'd want to upgrade avionics a bit. Seems those can run 15-25K easy.

So in the end, worth all that headache to invest 60-70K and potentially end up only saving $40-50/hr compared to rentals?

Is it wise to go into ownership without much experience?

THanks
Archer

Where are you? I think most of your budget prices are low by at least 50%.

What he said /\

Ownership has many advantages but saving money isn't one of them. Personally I think partnerships for recreational fliers is the way to go. I was in a partnership for 12 years. All fixed costs are cut in half and I can only think of 3 times were we both wanted to use the airplane at the same time.

[cargocowboy]

Very, very few PPL's fly 100hrs per year. Maybe rent for a year and see how many hours you'll actually fly. It might change your equation a bit.

[CpnCrunch]

Insurance is about 2k.
Figure at least 2k for misc maintenance. In the last year I spent $1500 to replace a flap cable, carb heat cable, and voltage regulator. The year before I spent $2k fixing a flap problem, changing the battery, replacing a failing magneto, fixing a door handle, etc. I also spent $5k to deal with what turned out to be dead brushes on an S-TEC pitch servo. With proper troubleshooting in the first place it would have been about $900. Also figure about $600 or more every 2 years for the ELT and pitot static checks.

Also, the $1k annual cost is only accurate if nothing needs done. My first annual was $1600 as I wanted the plane fogged with ACF50 and the prop balanced.

[Bede]

Basically what photofly said but depending on where you are hangarage & tie down can be cheaper. My dad pays $300/mo for a spot in a hangar split with 2 other airplanes in YKF.

I started a thread on here a year or two ago with my actual costs of ownership and comparing to rental. If I recall, I broke even at 50 hours, but that was with 3 other partners splitting the maintenance, tie down & insurance cost.

[Archerboy]

Sorry for late reply. Thread was in moderation for some days so did not notice the replies until today.

I would, and have, always chosen to own, over rent.
It is available on your schedule then, not someone else's, you know what maintenance is getting done, how its being flown, and more.
When you're done with it someday, you can sell it, and historically GA plane prices have been going up steadily for many decades.

That was one of things I was curious about. If planes do not depreciate like cars, then the cost of acquisition could in theory be called an investment if the plane is maintained well enough to keep its value for potential future re-sale. Then again, how difficult is it to re-sell airplanes these days?

Where are you? I think most of your budget prices are low by at least 50%.

There's very very little to purchase in Canada at the $50k level, certainly not an even half-decent old-style 172. Annuals are going to be at least $2k, insurance $1500, add another $2k for other maintenance, and the cheapest tie-down within two hours drive of here is $2400 annually. Hangarage for a 172 could be as much as $20k a year, depending on location. Nor is fuel going to stop at $2.anything for very long. Don't forget to have a contingency for engine repairs - a new jug installed for a few $k, top overhaul at $15k, or pull the plug and do the whole overhaul at $30k, if your engine condition dictates. You may have to install a diversity ADS-B transponder system in a couple of years, depending on where you want to fly - figure on $5k+. You'll need it sooner than that if you want to fly into the US. So there's a lot of things to budget for.

My point here is not to scare you with costs - just to point out that you're responsible for a lot, when you own an airplane, and you can't divvy everything up into $x per hour. Owning an airplane isn't an alternative to renting merely to be chosen on budget terms; they're totally different experiences. Owning an airplane is a lifestyle choice, like buying a boat. Go where you want, when you want, and nobody will ever hand you the keys and tell you you had better be back by 11 or else, because the plane's booked out by a student then.

Where are your hundred hours per year going to be spent flying to and from? Heading out to the practice area for steep turns, stalls and slow flight gets pretty dull on your own after the first 4 hours; that leaves you another 96 to fill. Then there's next year. And the year after. What are your plans?

I'm in Calgary, I'd probably be flying out of YBW. I'm just familiarizing with the aircraft marketplace. When I got my FAA PPL in the states, gas was $3 a GALLON, the Warrior i flew was $76/hr wet and my instructor was $35/hr. Calgary rentals are $182/wet and instructors $65-70/hr.
The Archer i flew I think was sold for like 40K USD (this was like 15 years ago). On YouTube, I keep seeing "top affordable aircraft" and many are in the 25-50K range for 152s, Tomahawks, and even some 172s. But browsing Controller.com, seems there is almost no good 4-seater for under 80K CAD, most good ones are 90-110K. Twins about to go into overhaul can be had for 100-130K, but most good twins are upwards of 150K. The ownership costs I just grabbed from an online calculator...I think they were USD not CAD.

RE: the 100 hours/year

I have 130 hours flown in the US. The reason i never got back into it is because of costs to some degree but mainly those associated with keeping current and safe. I always felt you cant have one foot in the water in aviation, because being a bad GA pilot will get you killed. So would not pick it up if I'm flying once a month or once every two months. My intent with the 100 hours would be to make avaiation part of my life again, and primarily at first I'd be training as well as practicing a lot, with occasional leisure flights. Eventually, as my competency and confidence increased, I'd be going on cross-country IFR trips on top of more local flights. For example, although I have an FFA PPL, I'd start from scratch as a student pilot and get my CAA PPL and essentially get consistent training all the way to a Commercial / Multi-IFR and Instructor ratings.

The 100 hours would both allow me to fly often enough to remain proficient, allow me to progress through ratings. The idea of owning a plane would be that if I'm going to commit that much to flying, might as well invest in a plane and perhaps it'll also teach me a few things about maintenance.

RE: IFR vs VFR planes

Safety is quite important to me, especially on IFR flights over water or mountains or cities and with family/friends, so that's why I always wanted a twin piston, as the thought of losing the only engine on an aircraft in IMC over a city or mountains just seems like a death sentence. At least with a turbo-twin you can maintain altitude and reach an airport.

For IFR flying, i'd probably want max situational awareness through a good GPS and PFD, reduced workload from an autopilot and back-up steam gauges. If i bought a single piston, I'd probably never fly IFR unless for an emergency.

I do agree with the recommendation to start off with a flying club/rentals to understand exactly what it is I'd be doing in the first place, the type of flying, before committing to owning a plane.

Thanks
Archerboy

[PilotDAR]

If planes do not depreciate like cars, then the cost of acquisition could in theory be called an investment if the plane is maintained well enough to keep its value for potential future re-sale.

Don't look at it this way. It might work out that way, it might not. Buy the plane with the intent of using it well, and getting your value by "using it up". Sure, it is likely that you can sell it when you want to move on/up, but don't enter ownership with this as an expectation. Twenty years ago, yes, now, not so much. A major factor is that the legacy planes are getting more and more consideration for the effects of aging, and there are more inspections and what could be expensive fixes. Requiring an "unaffordable" repair is rare, but you may need to do a repair which eats up what you "hoped" would be a profit. A really great pre purchase inspection can really reduce such risk, but that puts up the purchase price for you, and more assures that you're actually paying what the plane is worth rather than getting a deal.

In the case were an airworthiness directive, or other inspection requirement is imposed upon the plane, at best it's just an additional inspection - wise and not terribly costly. But it could require a repair or parts replacement which may be costly, or at worst case, difficult parts availability. Knowledgeable buyers (which everyone should be) will know to offer what the plane is really worth, and not over pay. Perhaps that means buying a plane with a known defect, when you know what's involved in repairing it. My first airplane was this, and an awesome deal - but that was 35 years ago, and repair parts are not quite so available and low cost as those days.

I still encourage ownership for the reasons given here, but I also encourage buyers to buy the plane to use it, and get their value out of it in the use, rather than seeing it as an investment. If you sell it for a profit - bonus!

[photofly]

and essentially get consistent training all the way to a Commercial / Multi-IFR and Instructor ratings.

More flight training makes you a better student, not a better pilot. More flying makes you a better pilot.

My comment here is that having a CPL doesn't mean anything, and having a group 1 instrument rating doesn't make you a competent pilot to fly mult-engine IFR trips. And having an instructor rating doesn't make a competent instructor. All those things are entry tickets, not proofs of competence. all those things need a lot of work after receiving the licence. Unless you actually intend to devote a significant amount of time working at a flight training unit as an instructor, don't bother with an instructor rating.

The 100 hours would both allow me to fly often enough to remain proficient, allow me to progress through ratings. The idea of owning a plane would be that if I'm going to commit that much to flying, might as well invest in a plane and perhaps it'll also teach me a few things about maintenance.

But you still haven't worked out what you're going to *do* with 100 hours per year. Like I said, going to the practice area for stalls, steep turns and slow flight, solo, gets pretty dull, pretty quickly.

I believe competent pilots are created out of people who have a need to travel, and use a plane to do so. A lot. Not out of people whose travel is created by a desire to become a competent pilot. I could be wrong though.

Safety is quite important to me,

Safety is important to everyone.

especially on IFR flights over water or mountains or cities and with family/friends, so that's why I always wanted a twin piston, as the thought of losing the only engine on an aircraft in IMC over a city or mountains just seems like a death sentence. At least with a turbo-twin you can maintain altitude and reach an airport.

You're fussing about the wrong things.

The most dangerous component of any aircraft flown by an amateur pilot is the thing holding the yoke. You're about 10 times more likely to die mishandling a small piston twin in unsuitable weather (and, frankly, most Canadian weather is unsuitable for a small piston twin) than in a single engine airplane. The benefit of a single engine VFR equipped airplane is that it stays on the ground when the weather is bad, and the pilot and the passengers don't get themselves into trouble they can't handle. If safety is important to you as you claim, don't buy a twin and don’t fly in weather: go by airline, like everyone else.

For IFR flying, i'd probably want max situational awareness through a good GPS and PFD, reduced workload from an autopilot and back-up steam gauges. If i bought a single piston, I'd probably never fly IFR unless for an emergency.

What I understand from this statement is that your personal sense of danger is mitigated by having more engines and fancier equipment. This is a beginner attitude.

Also: if budget is even a remotely a consideration, forget all about operating a small piston twin. Operating costs are through the roof: there’s a reason why they’re cheap to buy.

I do agree with the recommendation to start off with a flying club/rentals to understand exactly what it is I'd be doing in the first place, the type of flying, before committing to owning a plane.

That seems sensible.

[digits_]

You're about 10 times more likely to die mishandling a small piston twin in unsuitable weather (and, frankly, most Canadian weather is unsuitable for a small piston twin) than in a single engine airplane.

Where did you get that number?

What I understand from this statement is that your personal sense of danger is mitigated by having more engines and fancier equipment. This is a beginner attitude.

Hmmm.... I find that attitude also surprisingly common between pilots who fly twins often, commercially or privately.

Once you get used to a twin, you might be quite uneasy flying a single.

Also: if budget is even a remotely a consideration, forget all about operating a small piston twin. Operating costs are through the roof: there’s a reason why they’re cheap to buy.

Depends. If you calculate it per hour: ow yeah. If you calculate the costs per mile travelled: not that much.

Twin commanches are surprisingly economic, especially if you compare it to singles with 6 cylinder engines.

If you're looking at old small airplanes, count the number of cylinders you will need to maintain. That will give you a fairly accurate comparison across airplanes. Using that approximation a twin commanche will cost you 33% more in maintenance than a 182 for example, and will likely give you 25% more speed. So more expensive, yes. Through the roof? That will depend on your roof

[Squaretail]

You're about 10 times more likely to die mishandling a small piston twin in unsuitable weather (and, frankly, most Canadian weather is unsuitable for a small piston twin) than in a single engine airplane.

Where did you get that number?

I seem to recall that stat from somewhere. While Twins are no more accident prone than singles, the fatality rate for light twins is way higher than that of singles and the probability of type of accident shifts away from the take off and landing type mishaps common to light singles, to approach and departure phase accidents. Not sure if 10 times is 100% accurate, but the point is true that its a lot more.

Edit: some quick googling finds this NTSB document which puts the engine failure fatality rate of light twins as 4 times higher than the same for singles.

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-fu ... S79-02.pdf

[photofly]

I think if you want an unbiased look at accident rates between different types of aircraft, you should turn to the insurance rates for them. How much more do you think it would cost to insure a low-time pilot on a turbocharged twin, vs a C172? Do you think a low time pilot could get insurance on a turbocharged twin, these days?

If you're looking at old small airplanes, count the number of cylinders you will need to maintain.

Two turbochargers, plus the hyrdaulic systems, the retractable gear, that old Janitrol heater, two constant speed props, more fuel tanks, de-icing systems, autopilot...

[digits_]

I think if you want an unbiased look at accident rates between different types of aircraft, you should turn to the insurance rates for them. How much more do you think it would cost to insure a low-time pilot on a turbocharged twin, vs a C172? Do you think a low time pilot could get insurance on a turbocharged twin, these days?

If you're looking at old small airplanes, count the number of cylinders you will need to maintain.

Two turbochargers, plus the hyrdaulic systems, the retractable gear, that old Janitrol heater, two constant speed props, more fuel tanks, de-icing systems, autopilot...

Well yes, you can definitely go expensive and crazy, but you don't necessarily have to, to fly a twin if you so choose.

Lots of twin comanches or travel airs without turbochargers or de-icing systems.
Autopilot maintenance is usually the same for a twin vs a single.

If you go for a turbocharged deiced single, you'll also pay a lot of money for maintenance and insurance. That's not necessarily related to your choice of buying a twin. But it can be, yes.

Are we comparing a Bonanza to a twin comanche or a 152 to a Beech Baron? There will be different conclusions.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Out west the minimum airplane to be able to regularly fly IFR is a turbocharged, FIKI equipped machine. There are very few piston singles that fit that bill so realistically you are looking at a twin. One fellow I know who owns one budgets 40 K a year to own the airplane and that is before he puts any gas in it. With today’s Avgas prices you are looking at over $ 300 an hour.

Then you have to address how you are going to get the 4 season weather and operational smarts to safely operate this class of airplane

I had a similar conversation with a fellow awhile ago who was financially able to by a new Baron (1.3 M USD). I told him to by a new C 182 instead. Fly the pants off it going places VFR and when he has 500 hours he will know what he is both capable of and what he wants.

[photofly]

Well yes, you can definitely go expensive and crazy, but you don't necessarily have to, to fly a twin if you so choose.
...
Are we comparing a Bonanza to a twin comanche or a 152 to a Beech Baron? There will be different conclusions.

Well let's see what the OP wrote. In the first place he's looking at a $40k 172, then suddenly...

... I always wanted a twin piston, .... At least with a turbo-twin you can maintain altitude and reach an airport...
For IFR flying, i'd probably want max situational awareness through a good GPS and PFD, reduced workload from an autopilot and back-up steam gauges.

So I don't know what we're comparing. But for anyone who's so budget conscious they're looking at buying an old 172 to save six dollars an hour on rental prices, it seem a bit odd to suddenly be talking about turbo twins with autopilots and glass panels. Because you don't buy those when "$700 insurance" is worth even a mention as a line item in your flying costs.