FS 1/4 Share '79 Piper Dakota - ATL area

ChemGuy

ChemGuy

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
1,266
Location
Dowagiac, MI
Display Name
Display name:
ChemGuy
I have decided to sell my share in our Piper Dakota. I want to do some different flying (tail wheel, acro, MEL, etc) and am not using this plane enough to justify ownership.

It is hangared at KRYY - McCollum Field an the NW side of Atlanta.

Specs:
N808MW TT ~2144 hrs
Engine TT ~2144 hrs
Since Bottom End OH ~1179hrs
Since Top End IRAN ~1047 hrs
Since Prop OH ~1216 hrs
Useful Load - 1209 lbs

Avionics: Garmin 430W, KX 170 w/GS (navcom2), Altimatic III AP (Heading Bug, VOR/ILS), Garmin 340 audio panel with external inputs, Garmin 330 Transponder, EI UBG 16 engine analyzer with CHT/EGT & fuel flow, Digital clock, Standby Elec vacuum pump.

IFR Certified and capable.
Original Paint and Int.
Annual completed 10/15

Monthly Dues - $360 (covers - hangar, insurance, flat rate annual and Loan payment) Plane is financed with ~$75K note. ~12 years left on note.
Hourly rate - $30/tach hour Dry. Burns ~12-13gph at 65%

Each partner has every 4th week, from Wednesday til Tuesday. The plane is also freely available if no one else is using it. The other partners are very good about swapping weeks, days etc. Its tracked on a google calendar.

Plane is in a GA LLC. LLC bank account has about $16,000 for engine OH. Additional assessments for repairs, upgrades, annual etc are minimal. As an example, last annual was about $430 per partner to fix a few squawks.
Contact Dan at d2racing at yahoo dot com or Cell 770 five68 908zero
Asking $4500 OBO



2wd0r42.jpg


w5smr.jpg



r6xu88.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm digging the hangar as much as the aircraft.
 
I was more about the available space and the offices. Something I wish my flying club had for planning, offering an ATD level sim, or just hanging out in the airplane cave.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I was more about the available space and the offices. Something I wish my flying club had for planning, offering an ATD level sim, or just hanging out in the airplane cave.
Click to expand...

Unless the partnership also owns the CJ to the right (in which case, TAKE MY MONEY!!!), I'm guessing its a community hangar. Buying a piece of the plane may or may not give access to all the shown hangar space.

Sweet ride, still.
 
Its us and the Citation in the FBO hangar. We had a T Hangar but it would get too much water in it when it rained. So we got moved into this hangar. The ramp guys pull us in and out, which is nice. We do have a couple of cabinets on the side for oil, cleaning supplies, extra headsets, etc.

That's what ~$6/gallon 100LL and $450+/month for hangar space buys....
 
For this Dakota or any aircraft in general?
 
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I could see myself doing something like this if it were local.
 
AggieMike88 said:
For this Dakota or any aircraft in general?
Click to expand...

Some partnerships can be good. I have had a few partnerships but we handled everything the easy way. I think it is strange to pay monthly fee's, put money in the bank for overhaul and all the other crazy stuff. The partnerships I have done were with only one partner. We bought the plane cash and whoever wants to fly it flies it. Whenever any maintenance is due we just split it right down the middle. Pretty simple. We had a engine take a crap. We overhauled it and split the bill. I do not understand starting a partnership and putting extra money in a pot each month for overhaul and maintenance. Just deal with that when the time comes. So what happens when you trash a engine after 2 months of ownership and there is not enough money in the pot to overhaul it???? Kinda useless doing it. Just put your own gas in and go... Why pay a hourly fee? Each time you are done flying top the plane off with fuel so it is ready for the next person. How much simplier can that get? Insurance and hangar split down the middle.
I have a partner on my 172 now. My partner has flown the plane 4 times in 4 years. He pays half of anything we do to the plane. He does not complain that I fly it more.... That is the only way I would do a partnership. 50/50
 
evapilotaz said:
I have no idea if the partnership is a good deal or not.
Click to expand...

Typically, especially for a new, inexperienced, owner, a good partnership is the best way to have a plane understanding that value is according to usage vs local rental. Unless you are going to get significant usage, any ownership model is not a good deal. If you are going to fly 10+ hours a month, a parnership like this is a great deal. As to the $4500 buy in, exactly how 'great of a deal' it is depends on the equity in the plane, however getting into a nice 180hp PA-28 is going to be hard to do for less capital outlay.

The partner group sounds pretty copacetic, but you need to find out how you fit into that as well. I like the weekly rotation of who gets priority access.
 
pigpenracing said:
Some partnerships can be good. I have had a few partnerships but we handled everything the easy way. I think it is strange to pay monthly fee's, put money in the bank for overhaul and all the other crazy stuff. The partnerships I have done were with only one partner. We bought the plane cash and whoever wants to fly it flies it. Whenever any maintenance is due we just split it right down the middle. Pretty simple. We had a engine take a crap. We overhauled it and split the bill. I do not understand starting a partnership and putting extra money in a pot each month for overhaul and maintenance. Just deal with that when the time comes. So what happens when you trash a engine after 2 months of ownership and there is not enough money in the pot to overhaul it???? Kinda useless doing it. Just put your own gas in and go... Why pay a hourly fee? Each time you are done flying top the plane off with fuel so it is ready for the next person. How much simplier can that get? Insurance and hangar split down the middle.
I have a partner on my 172 now. My partner has flown the plane 4 times in 4 years. He pays half of anything we do to the plane. He does not complain that I fly it more.... That is the only way I would do a partnership. 50/50
Click to expand...

In a sense I agree, and when I had a partnership with one partner, we did it that way. But with multiple partners, there is every chance that when the engine throws a rod and you need the partnership to come up with $40k, one of the partners isn't going to have (or want to pony up) the cash to deal with the issue. Putting money in the bank mitigates, but doesn't eliminate, this problem.
 
I think we need to move the discussion of partnerships in general away from this specific thread. While interesting and useful, I think we are taking away from ChemGuy's primary item of selling his partnership share. And we might be trodding on the RoC.
 
I think this looks like a great deal! If this were at KLZU or KPDK and I didn't already have a share of a Cherokee, I'd jump on it. GLWS!
 
kyleb said:
In a sense I agree, and when I had a partnership with one partner, we did it that way. But with multiple partners, there is every chance that when the engine throws a rod and you need the partnership to come up with $40k, one of the partners isn't going to have (or want to pony up) the cash to deal with the issue. Putting money in the bank mitigates, but doesn't eliminate, this problem.
Click to expand...

this. even in things such as our HOA, there is always one or two guys you have to chase down to get money.
 
Thanks for the comments guys. Mike I don't mind a discussion on the merits of partnerships in general, as I think they are great way to lower the cost of GA for all of us.
ettsn - thanks and please let anyone you know who might be interested to give me a call.

As to the value - I think its a good way to have use of a very nice aircraft. In the last couple years there have only been a handful of times I would have liked to use the plane and it wasn't available due to usage by another partner. From my limited experience its way more available than most specific rental planes.
 
AggieMike88 said:
I think we need to move the discussion of partnerships in general away from this specific thread. While interesting and useful, I think we are taking away from ChemGuy's primary item of selling his partnership share. And we might be trodding on the RoC.
Click to expand...

True, but here the discussion isn't really negatively impacting the sale because the terms of the partnership aren't being specifically discussed in direct value, just the general sense of how things work. Personally I don't see any specific things in the terms that are off putting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top