Cost of flying

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

Brian and the group:

"Maybe it's just me, but as nice as owning a plane outright on your own seems really nice, a partnership I think makes much more sense."

As for the 'making sense' side of things (if owning any portion of an aircraft can be a utilitarian, practical decision), there are many similar partnerships that support your view. I couldn't agree more. I think it's a real shame to drive down my airport's 'hangar row' and see all those doors closed (or owners sitting in their Barco-loungers chewing the fat) while so few a/c are flying.

For those who struggle with the concept of spending a lot of money for a 'hobby' like aviation and might be tempted to consider co-ownership, I would just add that our last partnership (4 co-owners) didn't have a single scheduling *conflict* in the 5 years we were in it, and it's still operating 12 years after we left with the same record. (Anxiety over not being able to use an a/c - which is almost never used anyway - only exists because it's one of the simplest issues to imagine, not because it's frequently reported to be a problem.) Beyond the fact almost every GA a/c is almost always available to be flown is the self-correcting nature of a partnership. Each co-owner is persuaded to be flexible with his/her sked because it creates a climate of flexibility that s/he later benefits from. ("Yes, it's my week but No, I'm not planning to use the plane on Thursday so go right ahead. Do I want a day in your next scheduled week? Naw, not right now. When I do, I'll call...")

Besides, even co-owners actually own an a/c "outright". They just find it easier when it's time to wash and wax the a/c. <g>
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
User avatar
designrs
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Post by designrs »

Jack Tyler wrote:"Yes, it's my week but No, I'm not planning to use the plane on Thursday so go right ahead. Do I want a day in your next scheduled week? Naw, not right now. When I do, I'll call..."
Now that's a great partnership attitude of cooperation & flexibility.
This quote says it all!
User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by zaitcev »

I don't know guys where you find those $100/mo hangars. Around here it's $325/mo with a waiting list. I heard about those mythical $199/mo hangars at Deer Valley near Phoenix but I'll believe it when I see it.
howardnmn
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:20 pm
Location: san francisco bay area (mill valley)

cost of flying

Post by howardnmn »

i just filled up my 100hp rotax S-LSA bird with 100LL after three neighborhood 1hr+ flites: $64.18. oil & filter change every 25hrs less than $50 and 30 minutes work. annuals by LSRM less than $500 including eight $3 sparkplugs. what a pleasure after a cessna TR182 & C310. get a good buy on decent late model a/c and depreciation will be minimal. want cheaper thrills? buy a motorcycle and be a real daredevil. just my humble opinion but i feel that for those who want to fly-for-fun, LSA best thing since...GA
Remos GX nXES. N999GX
smith ranch/san rafael airport (CA35)
california
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

"I don't know guys where you find those $100/mo hangars."

Exactly. Apparently, there are cheap hangars available somewhere...but I don't think it's anywhere in Florida unless one is sharing a hangar. And just like a/c, not all hangars are created equally. I can point to hangars that lack electricity, that have weak, elderly roofs or rusted out walls, that are located at U/L fields with short, grass runways, that lack proper drainage, are far distant from where most of the local population lives, and so forth. But these are all outliers WRT what most a/c owners think is the purpose of renting a hangar. My sense, based on the various forum discussions I read and message lists that many of us subscribe to, is that an appropriately sized hangar with adequate related infrastructure (decent taxiway access, fuel on the field and such), is that a $300/mo. hangar cost is - roughly - the best one can hope for in many parts of the country. For parts of the country with extreme climates, it might even be greater.

Just to offer a couple of data points on a FWIW basis, here are several hangar prices in the Jacksonville, FL area:
-- KCRG is the primary GA airport serving this county population of 900,000. One of the main FBO's there offered us their smallest, cheapest hangar. Built in the 1940's and in relatively poor condition, some of the smaller GA a/c (e.g. PA28's) have to have their nose raised in order for their vertical stab to clear the door. Our (also small Grumman) horizontal stab wouldn't fit the cutout at the back of the hangar. $300/mo. with little of that money apparently being spent on maintenance (and certainly not upgrades), electricity extra (but negligible since the circuits will carry little current). Very nice FBO, very nice folks, controlled field with ILS approach...but the hangar was subpar and getting one is difficult.
-- KHEG is a rural 'recreational' airport with skydiving, soaring and GA power flight sharing the field. Facilities are first class, uncontrolled field with only RNAV/GPS and NDB approaches, and a constant effort is made to keep the hangars, taxiways & runways in excellent condition. Many hangars are being vacated here because this 'outside the city' airport was the 'low cost' alternative for many and, as the cost of flying increases, some simply can't afford the hangar (or even the a/c). By coincidental luck, we got one of the 'old' (1990 or so) inexpensive hangars: spacious, electric lift door, new roof and skylight with new lightning ground, electricity included and the rent is $310/mo. This 'optimum choice at a bargain basement price' would seem to discount what I said above...but this package is made possible by the Jax Aviation Authority subsidizing the GA airports with the revenue they get from the city's commercial airport (KJAX). How much longer will that go on? The word's now out: No longer.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
jnmeade
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:58 am
Location: Iowa

Post by jnmeade »

There are gliders and LSA that fold up easily in minutes and go in your trailer or trail on their own. Assemble yourself at the airport. See it every weekend soaring.
Here is a listing of a few (not all)
http://www.lightsportaircrafthq.com/Fol ... ng-LSA.htm
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

I heard an interesting viewpoint last night - related to the cost of LSA a/c and SP flying - and while I don't know how valid it will prove to be, I thought it was worth posting since it ties in with this topic.

The fellow who offered the opinion manages two flight schools (here and in Colorado Springs), has ordered (and is being told he is about to receive) a Skycatcher, has an instructional fleet that's sufficient to teach everything from SP up thru ATP and up thru multi-engine instrument ratings. He's been doing this job for 2+ years and his prior aviation experience was as a Comm Air pilot and a Navy (P-3) pilot and later instructor. (He also owned & operated a diving business for 12 years and also owned an historic homes restoration biz, both successful until the economy tanked). The point of the bio is to say he's got some substantial biz experience, not just aviation experience.

His provocative comment, when asked about his view of the SP license, was that he thought the '5 hours/make & model' requirement was going to eventually choke off the license. He explained that what he's been seeing in the industry is a lot of LSA models being introduced but almost all of them having little penetration into the training market, and those that are used as trainers tend to come and go. When viewed from the SP customer's perspective, he explained, this situation inevitably results too often in the FBO/flight school saying 'Yes, we can rent you that LSA...but the training you got last year from us (or from that other school) was in another model, so you'll need 5 hrs instruction before we can let you have it.' His argument was that not much of that needs to happen before folks who are considering the SP license begin to wonder just what the future holds, once they get their ticket.

Some of you might have differing or complimentary views on this. What I found interesting is that I hadn't heard the '5 hr, make/model' requirement being stressed as a choke point before, and that his assumption (lots of coming & going of SP training operations and LSA a/c choices) does somewhat accurately describe the aviation training scene and LSA marketplace I've been seeing.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

Jack Tyler wrote:he thought the '5 hours/make & model' requirement was going to eventually choke off the license.
Jack, if I understand this correctly, he is alluding to a requirement by some aircraft owners that, if you want to rent their aircraft, you must have five hours in type. I think it's important to note that this is not an FAA requirement, or even necessarily an industry-wide practice. Sure, individual aircraft owners (and their insurance carriers) can set whatever rules they want (just as Hertz can decide whether or not to rent you a car). But, I think your friend is confusing the issue here.

When LSA were first introduced, there was a complicated matrix of flight characteristics defining "sets" or aircraft (mine belonged to Set AP-5), and the FAA had some sort of a requirement of five hours in an aircraft in a given set, in order to fly other aircraft in that same set. CFIs were required to have five hours in a specific make and model, before being allowed to instruct in that make and model . Both of these requirements went away about two years ago, when the FAA updated the LSA/SP rules -- now, everything in the FARs is based upon category and class.

Later, Avemco (probably followed by other insurance providers) instituted their own 5 hour rule. It applies to aircraft owners. They said that, in order for them to insure you in your own LSA, you need to have 5 hours in the specific make and model. This is no different from what they require of owners of non-LSAs (when I bought my Beechcraft back in 1980, I was required to get ten hours of dual, in make and model, before I could be insured to fly it solo).

My flight school's "5 hour rule" is a little different. It applies to those with no logged LSA experience. It says I have to give you five hours of dual (transition training) before I'll rent you my plane. Although there is no specific "make and model" requirement, if you're going to do that five hours with me, it's going to have to be in one specific make and model -- the one I own and rent! (If you come to me with five or more hours in another LSA -- say, a Flight Design CT -- I'll still want to give you a checkout before renting you my SportStar, but it will probably require only one short flight, and some reading of the AOI on your part -- not five hours of dual).

Although not mandated by FARs, a formal transition requirement just makes sense. If you're a Bonanza or a Centurion pilot, and Private pilot or above, you're ASEL-licensed, and can legally hop into my SportStar and fly it. But does this make you safe? No matter how many thousands of hours you may have, if you go from the heavy iron directly into an LSA, you're going to break it, and maybe hurt yourself or others.

And, BTW, "category and class" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everybody. Many's the Bonanza driver who says "I'm licensed for Airplane, Single Engine Land, and I have plenty of hours. Your SportStar is ASEL; I should be able to fly it."

Not so. The category and clase for my plane are Light Sport, Airplane. ASEL hours don't cut it.

I've heard some argue that, just as Hertz requires only that you have a valid drivers license (and a major credit card) to rent their cars, anyone with a valid pilot's license should be able to rent any airplane he or she wishes. It's an interesting argument. Of course, if Hertz owned only one car, and an accident in it would put them out of business (the situation faced by many small FBOs), they might want to give their renters five hours of dual as well!
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
User avatar
designrs
Posts: 1689
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:57 pm

Post by designrs »

Re: Jack (above)

LSA is a separate "animal" within GA that requires dedication and specialization to that specific LSA category. I've seen flight schools park a LSA on the ramp with no LSA specific training or maintance program, then sell the plane because of lack of demand. On the other hand I've seen dedicated LSA flight schools with dedicated Rotax maintance and their planes are flying every day, all day, weather permitting. Key words are DEDICATED LSA PROGRAM. It doesn't matter is they have 1 LSA plane or 5 LSA planes, same dedication required.

Someone did the math... a $140k LSA needs to fly about 20 to 25 hours a month to just break even and pay for itself.

Renting LSA's out without at least 5 hour transition training will kill a lot of the LSA business (in more ways than one).
ibgarrett
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:53 pm
Location: Westminster, CO

Post by ibgarrett »

Just to clarify on the hangar costs. My 1/4 share of the partnership in the plane is $82.50 for hangar and GPS costs. I think the GPS cost is around $10.50 or so per month - leaving $70 for my 1/4 share of the hangar. That works out to $280 for the partnership - and there are four LSA planes in the hangar.

Yes - it is a tight fit. The three other planes are trainers and are always in and out, so ours is unfortunately always tucked in the back - which makes it a major PITA when all you're looking to do is go out for a quick flight.

So this is not a $100 hangar by any stretch of the imagination. :) There are pluses and minuses to every deal. The plus for me is the inexpensive hangar rates. The minus is the plane is buried in the back.

Brian
Brian Garrett
[email protected]
User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by zaitcev »

I'm definitely looking for a tiedown.

I toyed with an idea of a folding airplane, but it's not working out, even when manufacturer supports the mode, like in case of Aerotrek.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7234
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Post by drseti »

zaitcev wrote:I'm definitely looking for a tiedown.
Pete, I believe outside tiedowns are false economy. What you save in hangar rent you'll more than make up in wear and tear, and additional maintenance costs. If you can possibly afford a hangar (even a shared one), you should spring for it. A high-wing and a low-wing LSA can sometimes get away with sharing a standard t-hangar.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

Paul, thanks for the history and the comments. In your remarks, you've pointed out there are several different sources - potentially - for a '5 hour check-out' of some kind and that such a 'rule' isn't FAA mandated. However, I think you are also affirming the reality that some (many? most?) SP renters will face a fresh instructional cost - and perhaps a significant one - each time they switch FBO's and therefore LSA models. I think we agree this cost will vary depending on what the insurance company stipulates, what the owner/operator 'policy' might be, the owner/operator's own personal view of how one LSA model (which he owns) compares to the LSA model(s) the renter has flown, and so forth. Given all that, I'd say your comments do support the view that there is some negative impact here, even if it isn't the absolute one the guy I quoted was mentioning.

It sure is an interesting contrast with the Part 23 world where training in a 172 or PA28, once a license is awarded, gives the renter a much broader range of rental options with probably fewer instructional obligations.

Pete, I can appreciate your preference for a tie-down and - while I agree with Paul's comment about loss of value and wear & tear - I'm not sure I'd give you the same advice he did. Instead, here are two first-hand data points I can offer that - for me - illustrate the choice you are facing. We bought a 1975 AA-5 in 1990 at which time we paid $3K for a well-done Imron paint job. (Boy, were THOSE the good ol' days!) We left aviation in 2000, at which point the partnership that now owned the plane was able to put it in a hangar. I still fly this a/c occasionally and I think it's fair to say, if I restrict my comments solely to its cosmetic appearance, it looks the same today that it did in 2000 when it got its own hangar. There isn't any part of the a/c that now looks 'nice' or 'above average'. The paint's shot, the vinyl (or whatever they are) interior panels are very tired, the paint job I did on the panel now needs to be redone, and the upholstery is terribly faded (we always used a canopy cover...but that only shields so much U/V). The plane's been properly maintained and is just as safe to fly (e.g. no worrisome corrosion issues because we sprayed it every few years) but selling it would be difficult and not bring a competitive price in any market, I'm afraid. Against all of this, 10 years of hangar rent was saved during our 10 years of ownership: let's estimate $24,000 (avg. month's rental difference, tie-down to hangar, of $200). That's pretty close to today's cost for a quality (wings, stabs, wheel pants removed) paint job. One could say it was a 'cost' wash and so all the other benefits of having a hangar would have been 'free'. Or one could say, as I can, that I saved some of that $24,000 because I didn't have to pay it and sold the plane without painting it.

Here's the contrasting data point: the AA-5B we just bought was painted with some two-part paint in 1996, about 15+ years ago. It was always hangared. Today it has all the paint chips and a bit of inevitable hangar rash that come with normal use, but without exception it's appearance is praised by everyone who's come to see the new family member. Some think it was just painted. The upholstery is even older but also appears almost new, and the general interior appearance is quite nice. I didn't pay any less for this 1979 a/c because it needed cosmetic help, so in that sense the previous owners did ultimately benefit financially by hangaring it. By how much is hard to say...but after our last experience, we knew we'd rather own a plane that continues to look fresh and is pleasing to look at rather than slowly watch it lose value in exchange for a lower monthly cost. Still, it wasn't an easy decision and was more about personal preference and the luxury of working on an a/c in a protected environment than it was a bottom line 'cost' decision.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
User avatar
zaitcev
Posts: 634
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:38 pm
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Post by zaitcev »

Thanks for the comment, Jack, but I'm looking at a beater that costs $24k all together. It's ridiculous to pay $325/mo to shield a $15k 150. I don't care about the looks of the interior all that much. Now the thermal cycles that cause condensation and the impossibility to hook up engine dryer and heater are issues that push me towards a hangar. BTW, in NM you can sometimes find an "open hangar" or a sun shade with an electrical outlet (closest to me is the Mid-Valley E98).
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Post by Jack Tyler »

Ah, that does make a difference. A $15K beater is different from a more expensive capital good.

I was thinking about this thread this afternoon. I was clean/waxing the underside of my a/c and doing a bit of cockpit tweaking. Meanwhile, a humid gusty wind was blowing hard as a front approached, and showers were threatened after a morning rain. No way I would be doing any of that if I didn't have a hangar. I'm not sure if that argues in favor of a hangar or not (!) but there you go...

Jack
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Post Reply