Hey all, I know this topic has been covered in multiple degrees in this forum....but here is my question.... I really want to get into aircraft ownership but I have my much of my resources currently tied up in other things. Is a person better off going alone and getting a decent starter plane that may not necessarily ideal for my mission (C-140, Taylorcraft, etc) or rolling the dice on a partnership (possibly three ways) on a more fitting airplane for my goals (C-180, etc)? I'm really not interested in amassing debt in my endeavour. Here is my mission (albeit, not overly specific): I'm a flat lander, density altitude is not a real big factor. Mostly local flights alone and occasionally with the wife and 2 young kids. Floats would be nice as we have a cottage 60nm away (120 mile drive). As experience and confidence grows, so would the utilization. I would honestly be satisfied with anything to get me in the air sooner than later, and I know trading up is always an option. I realize, to involve the family much would lean me to a partnership. A partnership should, theoretically, level the financial playing field as far as fixed costs go. I'm ready to hear what you all have to say!

Get a Pacer or Tri-Pacer or a '66-'67 Mooney.

I've been in one partnership and it was the best. It was me and four doctors who hardly ever flew. They just paid the bills. Great. But the chance of finding something like that again are nil to none to zero. You know? There is something very special about ownership but budget about twice what you thought you needed for hourly and upkeep then forget about it and enjoy. We have a tendency to over analyze the costs involved. There is one fellow on this list that bought himself a nice C205 because he has a large family and his first annual cost him $350. That's exactly what the annual cost on my Luscombe 8C. I know another fellow who put $90K into his C180 over the last couple of years and he couldn't be happier. His wife maybe not so much but that's not important right now. My sons never gave a rat's about flying but my wife loves it. A two seater is a fine start. We had another fellow on here with maybe the finest Rans S-7 out there who sold it and joined a large club with lots of airplanes. Like an RV something and a Stearman and other transport types. He's happy. There's no magic here. Get an airplane and go flying.

EB

avgas wrote:Hey all, I know this topic has been covered in multiple degrees in this forum....but here is my question.... I really want to get into aircraft ownership but I have my much of my resources currently tied up in other things.

[...]

Floats would be nice as we have a cottage 60nm away (120 mile drive).

Those statements don't go together. The insurance on floats is pretty brutal.

Otherwise, I *love* being a sole owner. There are definitely some people I would do a partnership with, but all of them are active flyers like me, so there would be conflicts (for starters, I'm not sure they would be happy about me taking the plane to mexico for months at a time, but that's a pretty abnormal use case).

It sounds absurd to say, given how blessed we are to get to fly *at all*, but I'd be pretty happy to own my primary plane outright and partner on a Pitts or something that people aren't going to want to take on cross countries.

No easy answer to this one.

First, your mission requirements are all over the place. A Cessna 140 or a seaplane (presumably an amphib?) ??

Second, the success or failure of partnerships is totally depenant upon the nature of the partners. Get involved with good partners and with strict operating procedures, a partnership can be great. Get hooked up with dipshits or partners who don't pull their own load or violate all the covenants, and it's a nightmare.

Best of all is getting into a partnership where you're the only one who flies, but the others pay their share of bills.

MTV

Those statements don't go together. The insurance on floats is pretty brutal.

Sure, the insurance is going to be substantially more on floats. But lets say $1500 per year for a $30,000 aircraft on wheels or $5,000 per year (divided by three partners) for a float plane, wouldn't be a whole lot of cost difference in theory......no?

First, your mission requirements are all over the place. A Cessna 140 or a seaplane (presumably an amphib?) ??

That's more or less the intent of this post. I'm OK with modifying my mission. My utilization will be very very dependent on the route I choose. Its really six of one or half a dozen of the other.

I was planning to go it alone until an acquaintance suggested a potential partnership. Its really got me thinking about the possibility of expanding the horizons (so-to-speak).

Emory Bored wrote:Get a Pacer or Tri-Pacer or a '66-'67 Mooney.

I'd second this, especially if you will hangar it. There are lots of PA-20s and PA-22s available and they are a bargain for their capability. For a wife and two small kids they are a great fit. I was in a similar boat and almost bought in to a partnership but changed my mind and bought a PA22 and love it. It's not a super cub or a 180 but it flies through the same air and is pretty reasonable to care for and feed. As the kids get bigger down the road I will probably want something bigger but in the meantime it fits the bill.

just buy a mall

(there now that's out of of the way)

I am X-Navy so I have a tendency to be a bit nautical at times, but I know for a fact the only ships that dont float are partner-SHIPS

I can only speak for myself but I would downgrade and go solo!

The insurance on floats is pretty brutal.

When you get some floatplane hours logged (100+) the insurance on straight floats for a cheap airplane (50K or below) isn't unreasonable at all.
Insurance for amphib floats will always be considerably higher than straight floats, since the wheels down with a water landing is an all-to-common (and catastrophic) error.....

lc

It has been said that a partnership is like a marriage without the sex....

Littlecub wrote:

The insurance on floats is pretty brutal.

When you get some floatplane hours logged (100+) the insurance on straight floats for a cheap airplane (50K or below) isn't unreasonable at all.
Insurance for amphib floats will always be considerably higher than straight floats, since the wheels down with a water landing is an all-to-common (and catastrophic) error.....

lc

It has been said that a partnership is like a marriage without the sex....

UHHH Sometimes at the end of it you do get screwed!! Yep kinda like a marriage??
It's all in the prenup agreement!!

I've been in a partnership where we had 3 different airplanes over a period of some 5 years, and I've been sole owner of my current airplane for 9 1/2 years. Guaranteed, I'm a lot happier with my sole ownership.

My partnership started out with 3 partners, me, a doc, and a university professor, back in the mid-70s. We had similar flight experience except I was also a CFI, and we got along pretty well. Our agreement was that business flights took precedence; otherwise, if any of us wanted to take the airplane for more than a flit around the area, we had to give the others 2 weeks notice. We charged ourselves hourly based on projected maintenance and operational costs, each being separately responsible for any non-insured damages. The first airplane was a very nice low hour Skylane.

The professor sold his share after a couple years to another professor, and all remained well. Then when that professor decided to sell, the doc and I bought his share, so there were just the 2 of us. Things got a little tighter, but still manageable financially.

Things still went well, until the doc got the "need for speed". I could afford half the Skylane, but nothing more, but he suggested that we change the percentages so that I owned 1/6 and he owned 5/6, and we traded for a brand new TR182, pretty close to the first one Cessna built. Predictably, he became somewhat possessive, and he would get irked whenever I wanted to take the airplane even for a weekend. And he expected me to maintain the airplane, which meant I spent a lot of time flying it to Casper and back for warranty maintenance, because as delivered it was a piece of junk--whoever bought it after we traded it off got a good airplane, though, because all of the avionics and half of everything else had been replaced.

We traded the TR182 off on a T210 after a couple of years, and again the percentages were changed, now to 1/12 and 11/12, and it became hideous. Hourly costs were more than 4 times what the Skylane had been, which took a lot of the fun out of flying. Now he wanted a month's notice when I took the airplane for more than a weekend, and things came to a head when I gave him some 6 weeks notice, took the airplane for a week, picked up a rock during a run-up and nicked the prop, and when I got back, I got reamed--and he insisted that I pay to file the prop, whereas in the past, the airplane's account had paid for anything of that nature. When I reminded him of the flatted tires on both the Skylane and RG he had caused trying to make shorter roll-outs, the 2 months down time when he left the Skylane at a ranch strip and a herd of cows used it as a rubbing post, etc., he blew up--and I said, "fine, we're done--you can have my share, just get me off the loan". Somehow we remained cordial, but our close friendship became no more than an acquaintanceship.

For the next 25 years or so, I rented. Admittedly, my flying suffered, and there were times when I flew very little--the worst was going from biennial to biennial without any flights in between.

Then 9 1/2 years ago, I inherited more than enough to buy my airplane, a 63 P172D with a Lycoming conversion, outright, so I have no loan payments. It's not very fast and it won't haul a huge load, but it's mine. Soon after I brought it home, the engine threw a rod, and while it was down for the replacement engine, I had it updated with modern electrics and other things--and that began the series of changes and mods I've had done to it ever since, things which make it mine. Of course, that also makes it one of the most expensive older Skyhawks out there, but it's truly my airplane. I don't have to justify to anyone other than my wallet at the time if I want to do something. It's well-equipped, fun to fly, and it's mine. Oh, did I mention? It's mine.

The only downside, obviously, is that the bills are mine, too.

So if I had to make the decision for you, I'd say, get your own. Get what you can afford, even if it doesn't fit every mission you might have--but you can always rent for those occasional 4-up missions, and meanwhile, you'll be flying.

Cary

I know of a nice 140 for sale for 13K. Rent when you want to take a bunch of people. A strait tail 182 is cheaper than 1/3 of a 180 on floats.

Tim

There are thousands of aircraft partnerships that run smoothly and you'll never here from those members on internet forums. The lousy ones are lighting up the keyboards each night.

Find some decent people with similar goals as your own and go buy and fly-

way I see it

What he said (Sixtwoleemer). Don't be afraid to have the group sit around and look at everybody's credit report. Most disputes are about money. "I'm a little short this month, can you guys carry me for a month or so?"

EB

I've been building an airplane fund for the last 8 months. We've had some unexpected things come up, but in the next 1.5 years should be able to pay cash for the plane I have my sights on. Be diligent and patient and you can own something outright. If you take a loan payment out of the equation, a bigger plane becomes a lot more affordable!

As I have mention before, it is works best to have an odd number in a partnership.
I can live with being out voted by two partners or more, but it gets real old in a 2 person partnership when the dominant partner/personality has all the answers every time and won't budge one iota...... ever!
There was a honeymoon for a while...... but some of you know how that is.

Another lesson learned that didn't come easy,
lc