thinking maybe 2/3 other ppl to help keep the cost down. thought's & experiences...

I was in 3 different partnerships before I bought the Maule by myself. All were good experiences even though the aircraft were very different. One was a Grumman AA5A Traveler, one was a Pitts S2A, and the last was for a 182 with the Texas Skyways O550 under the cowl. The one thing they all had in common were really good bylaws and clear definitions of what each pilot could expect. The worse thing that can happen is to form a partnership where each partner has different expectations for how the plane will be used and what their rights and responsibilities are. Get that clearly established in the beginning and the rest should be clear sailing.

Flyhound wrote:I was in 3 different partnerships before I bought the Maule by myself. All were good experiences even though the aircraft were very different. One was a Grumman AA5A Traveler, one was a Pitts S2A, and the last was for a 182 with the Texas Skyways O550 under the cowl. The one thing they all had in common were really good bylaws and clear definitions of what each pilot could expect. The worse thing that can happen is to form a partnership where each partner has different expectations for how the plane will be used and what their rights and responsibilities are. Get that clearly established in the beginning and the rest should be clear sailing.

i was thinking that those involved would have to have the same purpose

If you keep your preliminary discussions general in nature, it is surprisingly easy to find big difference in practice, even with people you think you know. I've found it extremely helpful to have all of the scheduling, aircraft use and maintenance, and financial management processes spelled out in writing in advance.

I own my plane with a friend, and I couldn't be happier with it. We were friends before hand, and he was also the one that got me into flying in his old Cherokee so we didn't have to talk about what our missions would be etc. It was and is awesome for me being a first time owner, it's made everything a breeze. It's just so cost effective as well, splitting hanger rental and such. I fly it more so I usually just let him use it when ever he wants and it works out just fine. And since I do more off airport stuff I bought the new tires my self. I don't think I'd feel comfortable doing it with a stranger, since I could see that potentially being a disaster, but if you know the person then you'll have a much better idea of what to expect. Doing it with two or more people, I could see there being a lot of scheduling conflicts depending on how much and when you plan to fly. If its your first time buying, ya might as well try it out, and if you decide you wanna own something yourself, sell your share or buy them out. Either way you go, good luck with your mission to get something to fly, it sure as hell beats renting if you wanna fly more than 10 hours a year!

chosstronaut, it would beat the hell over not flying for me. sent you a PM

As long as it's an equal partnership with the same expectations, it works. When that changes, even if you have it all in writing, things can go downhill. The partnership I was in, starting in the 70s, began with 3 in a low-hour 70 Skylane. We did pretty well, even when one of the partners sold his share and eventually two of us bought out that 3rd share.

But then my pard wanted something faster, so against my better judgment, we bought one of the very first TR182s off the line. Since I couldn't afford half, he offered that it be 1/6-5/6 ownership. That sounds good, but you can see the writing on the wall--he began calling the shots. Then a couple years later he wanted to trade for a new T210, and this time he offered that it be 1/12-11/12. That lasted only a very few months, before it broke down completely. There are some details going into that that aren't necessary to discuss here, but it boiled down to being mostly his airplane, with his decisions governing how I used it--and frankly I didn't need and couldn't effectively use a high speed 6 passenger airplane which wasn't any fun to fly.

So my advice: make sure you keep it equal, that all partners can afford their shares equally, that you all fly similarly with similar qualifications--and get everything in writing. If you use a partnership template (such as AOPA has), don't mimic it slavishly--make sure it is adjusted to fit your situation, and then (and I think this is very important) take it to a knowledgeable lawyer who understands aviation matters to tweak it into final form!

Cary

Cary wrote:As long as it's an equal partnership with the same expectations, it works. When that changes, even if you have it all in writing, things can go downhill. The partnership I was in, starting in the 70s, began with 3 in a low-hour 70 Skylane. We did pretty well, even when one of the partners sold his share and eventually two of us bought out that 3rd share.

But then my pard wanted something faster, so against my better judgment, we bought one of the very first TR182s off the line. Since I couldn't afford half, he offered that it be 1/6-5/6 ownership. That sounds good, but you can see the writing on the wall--he began calling the shots. Then a couple years later he wanted to trade for a new T210, and this time he offered that it be 1/12-11/12. That lasted only a very few months, before it broke down completely. There are some details going into that that aren't necessary to discuss here, but it boiled down to being mostly his airplane, with his decisions governing how I used it--and frankly I didn't need and couldn't effectively use a high speed 6 passenger airplane which wasn't any fun to fly.

So my advice: make sure you keep it equal, that all partners can afford their shares equally, that you all fly similarly with similar qualifications--and get everything in writing. If you use a partnership template (such as AOPA has), don't mimic it slavishly--make sure it is adjusted to fit your situation, and then (and I think this is very important) take it to a knowledgeable lawyer who understands aviation matters to tweak it into final form!

Cary

Cary, if it got in to numbers that aren't the same as the number ppl in the partnership, it would no longer a partnership.

thanks,

i'v been thinking that 2 others would be the most i'd consider.

I've been in partnerships with four planes, a Super Viking, C-182, Maule, and now the C-180. All have been good but the Maule with 1 partner and the C-180 with 2 partners has been great. As has been written you need to know the partners well and have everything written up so the expectations are equal. Very few planes fly as much as they should and even when there were 6 partners in one plane I still flew it the most and almost complete access to the plane whenever I wanted. We've used the AOPA guidelines and tweaked and twisted it to meet our needs and formed a LLC for the 180. LLC's complicate just a bit the registration process with the FAA but it's doable. Just more paperwork to submit as they want the LLC paperwork too. The best time for the partnership is when major expense issues come up as it is so much easier to divide by three then get hit with that full bill yourself. Sometimes it's easier to say yes to an upgrade when dividing by two or three as well. Another benefit is that usually each partner has some aspect of the plane they are interested in. One person likes engine stuff, another likes avionics and engine monitors, another is into books, researc and details and one one doesn't know the other does. Bad experiences seem to come with lack of prior planning and vetting of the partners. With good planning and research partners can be a very good thing. I wouldn't be flying the quality of plane I am without partners.

ExperimentalAviator wrote:

Cary wrote:As long as it's an equal partnership with the same expectations, it works. When that changes, even if you have it all in writing, things can go downhill. The partnership I was in, starting in the 70s, began with 3 in a low-hour 70 Skylane. We did pretty well, even when one of the partners sold his share and eventually two of us bought out that 3rd share.

But then my pard wanted something faster, so against my better judgment, we bought one of the very first TR182s off the line. Since I couldn't afford half, he offered that it be 1/6-5/6 ownership. That sounds good, but you can see the writing on the wall--he began calling the shots. Then a couple years later he wanted to trade for a new T210, and this time he offered that it be 1/12-11/12. That lasted only a very few months, before it broke down completely. There are some details going into that that aren't necessary to discuss here, but it boiled down to being mostly his airplane, with his decisions governing how I used it--and frankly I didn't need and couldn't effectively use a high speed 6 passenger airplane which wasn't any fun to fly.

So my advice: make sure you keep it equal, that all partners can afford their shares equally, that you all fly similarly with similar qualifications--and get everything in writing. If you use a partnership template (such as AOPA has), don't mimic it slavishly--make sure it is adjusted to fit your situation, and then (and I think this is very important) take it to a knowledgeable lawyer who understands aviation matters to tweak it into final form!

Cary

Cary, if it got in to numbers that aren't the same as the number ppl in the partnership, it would no longer a partnership.

thanks,

Not true. From a legal standpoint, any partnership can be unequal. All it takes is a statement in the partnership agreement describing the percentage or fractional ownership, and if it's a modification to an existing agreement, then an amendment to the agreement properly executed by all of the partners. From a wisdom standpoint in an airplane ownership partnership, however, my limited experience is that it ought to be avoided.

Any time one partner (or one member of an LLC or one shareholder of a corporation) holds the deciding authority in an airplane ownership arrangement, the potential of misuse of that power is too great, I think--basic human nature. I've counseled quite a number of pilots who were wanting to enter into some multiple-owner relationship to keep the decision-making authority equal, and to make major decisions unanimously.

Cary

Cary wrote:

ExperimentalAviator wrote:

Cary wrote:As long as it's an equal partnership with the same expectations, it works. When that changes, even if you have it all in writing, things can go downhill. The partnership I was in, starting in the 70s, began with 3 in a low-hour 70 Skylane. We did pretty well, even when one of the partners sold his share and eventually two of us bought out that 3rd share.

But then my pard wanted something faster, so against my better judgment, we bought one of the very first TR182s off the line. Since I couldn't afford half, he offered that it be 1/6-5/6 ownership. That sounds good, but you can see the writing on the wall--he began calling the shots. Then a couple years later he wanted to trade for a new T210, and this time he offered that it be 1/12-11/12. That lasted only a very few months, before it broke down completely. There are some details going into that that aren't necessary to discuss here, but it boiled down to being mostly his airplane, with his decisions governing how I used it--and frankly I didn't need and couldn't effectively use a high speed 6 passenger airplane which wasn't any fun to fly.

So my advice: make sure you keep it equal, that all partners can afford their shares equally, that you all fly similarly with similar qualifications--and get everything in writing. If you use a partnership template (such as AOPA has), don't mimic it slavishly--make sure it is adjusted to fit your situation, and then (and I think this is very important) take it to a knowledgeable lawyer who understands aviation matters to tweak it into final form!

Cary

Cary, if it got in to numbers that aren't the same as the number ppl in the partnership, it would no longer a partnership.

thanks,

Not true. From a legal standpoint, any partnership can be unequal. All it takes is a statement in the partnership agreement describing the percentage or fractional ownership, and if it's a modification to an existing agreement, then an amendment to the agreement properly executed by all of the partners. From a wisdom standpoint in an airplane ownership partnership, however, my limited experience is that it ought to be avoided.

Any time one partner (or one member of an LLC or one shareholder of a corporation) holds the deciding authority in an airplane ownership arrangement, the potential of misuse of that power is too great, I think--basic human nature. I've counseled quite a number of pilots who were wanting to enter into some multiple-owner relationship to keep the decision-making authority equal, and to make major decisions unanimously.

Cary

i'm thinking of a equal partnership, everyone to have same equal power over the plane.