Inexpensive flying

skier

skier

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
968
Location
CT
Display Name
Display name:
Skier
One of the difficult things about flying is that it tends to be a relatively expensive hobby. Would you be and/or do you think there would be interest in a low cost flying club based around something like a MiniMax, Fisher FPXXX, Flybaby, etc. Many planes like this can be purchased for <$10,000 in good shape (there isn't a resale market for single seaters).

In my mind the ideal situation would be a group of 10 people to buy into the club for $1,000/person.

Assume $5000 engine replacement/overhaul at 1000 hours ($5/hr for the engine)
Fuel burn 3 gal/hr (mogas = $9max)
Assume annual of $1000 ($100/person)
Hangar rental for our little wooden airplane ($600/month = $60/person/month)
Add in an extra $6/hr for reserve when something unexpected happens.

This could result in flying being available for
@20 hrs/year --> $70/hr ($61 yearly cost)
@50 hrs/year --> $40/hr ($2000 yearly cost)

+insurance costs. I'm not sure what these are on single seaters.

No you couldn't take a passenger with you, but for just getting up in the air for a sunset flight after work, it could be a great solution. Heck, even if you already have another plane, the cost is so low it may be worth joining to have something small and fun to fly.

It could also be a great way to build time if you need it for some reason.

Would anyone in central Connecticut be interested in such an arrangement?
 
It may be for some, but I wouldn’t be interested in a club that offers those choices of aircraft.
 
Inexpensive flying...

63167-600x450-BasicPaperAirplane.jpg
 
im out.

10 people in a partnership sounds like no fun.
 
It really depends on what the partners want to do and their job situation. If it just get in the air and bore some holes for an hour or so, then a cheap go nowhere plane would work fine, and the number of partners could be in the six to eight range.

Some partners work and prefer to fly on the weekends, some are retired and give way to the weekend flyers, some are dawn patrol types, while others are nighthawks who are just finishing breakfast as the dawn patrol flyers are putting the plane away.
 
It wouldn't appeal to me. I belong to a club with a fixed early cost of $720 which includes 12 hrs of a C152. That's not a lot more than your scenario and I have access to C152, C172's & C182's...
 
10 people is a lot, and finding 10 people that want to fly a plane like that may be hard. I had a Team Airbike for awhile and loved it, but it was only fun for local flying.

When I was a kid, my Uncle was in a club with a 172 and it had 10 people. It was available most of the time when we wanted it. You'll find a lot of people in most clubs don't fly. They had a nice option in the club. If you wanted to sell your share, you had to introduce the club to the person you wanted to sell to. If the club didn't like that person, they had the option to not let them join. They then had a certain amount of time to buy your share, I think it was 3 months. The club went from 10 to 8 to 4 over the years, which worked out well for everyone.
 
You can do a lot better than $600 for a hangar... $250 for a T-hangar at SNC though none are available, $200 for a shared hangar, $130 for the open hangars. A better arrangement might be 5 people at a higher buy-in. Insurance might be problematic. Hangars at 42B are more available but more expensive.

A group of us were looking into forming a club at SNC around a Champ, leasing it from the owner who doesn't fly any more. It looked good, then the owner disappeared. Yes, with a couple of years until my plane is flying again I might be interested.

There's a Minimax at SNC that might be available. Hasn't flown in years and needs some work, but basically sound. And I know my FP404 is on the market again, but it's not suitable for big guys. But those are somewhat delicate planes, a more solid plane (like a Flybaby) might make more sense for a club.
 
If it’s an aircraft you like and it’s that cheap, but it yourself, throw money away on hangar, insurance, fuel, and maintenance, then sell it for the same price. Cheap, no? Don’t think of a fully depreciated plane as money thrown away...it’s just dollar conversion that you can convert back.
 
Hang gliding and paragliding are inexpensive flying. You can get rated and buy all new equipment for less than it would cost to get your private ticket. Plus, it's really fun.
 
tinerj said:
It really depends on what the partners want to do and their job situation. If it just get in the air and bore some holes for an hour or so, then a cheap go nowhere plane would work fine, and the number of partners could be in the six to eight range.

Some partners work and prefer to fly on the weekends, some are retired and give way to the weekend flyers, some are dawn patrol types, while others are nighthawks who are just finishing breakfast as the dawn patrol flyers are putting the plane away.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was thinking of. By being geared to that kind of flying, I don't think you'd run into many issues with availability. People would most likely be flying 15 minutes to an hour. Not taking much longer flights that would reduce availability significantly.

Dana said:
You can do a lot better than $600 for a hangar... $250 for a T-hangar at SNC though none are available, $200 for a shared hangar, $130 for the open hangars. A better arrangement might be 5 people at a higher buy-in. Insurance might be problematic. Hangars at 42B are more available but more expensive.

A group of us were looking into forming a club at SNC around a Champ, leasing it from the owner who doesn't fly any more. It looked good, then the owner disappeared. Yes, with a couple of years until my plane is flying again I might be interested.

There's a Minimax at SNC that might be available. Hasn't flown in years and needs some work, but basically sound. And I know my FP404 is on the market again, but it's not suitable for big guys. But those are somewhat delicate planes, a more solid plane (like a Flybaby) might make more sense for a club.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize the hangar prices at SNC were that low. It's much cheaper there than the other airports in the area that I've called. AT $130 or $200, I could probably convinced of a lot fewer people.

A Champ is bigger than I was thinking. But the FP404 and Minimax would both interest me. Actually, the FP404 would be really cool. If you would be interested in something like this, PM me know and maybe we could talk sometime. It sounds like you might know a couple other people that would be interested as well.
 
Last edited:
I think most people interested in that sort of flying would just buy or build an ultralight and be done with it. If you just want to get away from your spouse / S.O. / job / etc. and bore holes in the sky without a passenger, why bother with all the ******** that comes with owning, operating, registering, insuring, maintaining, and inspecting a certificated aircraft?

I'm not sure about the legalities of fractional ownership of ultralights. I do know that such arrangements are rumored to exist. I also know that they're rumored to be quite informal, with no legal standing at all, and not talked about very much. It's also been rumored that ultralight enthusiasts as a group are not especially concerned about things like bureaucracy or paperwork, which is rumored to be one of the main reasons why they fly ultralights -- especially since SP made it possible for anyone who's not too blind or senile to find their way to the DMV every few years to fly LSA.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I think most people interested in that sort of flying would just buy or build an ultralight and be done with it. If you just want to get away from your spouse / S.O. / job / etc. and bore holes in the sky without a passenger, why bother with all the ******** that comes with owning, operating, registering, insuring, maintaining, and inspecting a certificated aircraft?

I'm not sure about the legalities of fractional ownership of ultralights. I do know that such arrangements are rumored to exist. I also know that they're rumored to be quite informal, with no legal standing at all, and not talked about very much. It's also been rumored that ultralight enthusiasts as a group are not especially concerned about things like bureaucracy or paperwork, which is rumored to be one of the main reasons why they fly ultralights -- especially since SP made it possible for anyone who's not too blind or senile to find their way to the DMV every few years to fly LSA.

Rich
Click to expand...

There shouldn't any legal issues with shared ownership of an ultralight. As far as the FAA is concerned, they're not aircraft and the FAA has no interest as long as you stay out of controlled airspace.
 
FormerHangie said:
There shouldn't any legal issues with shared ownership of an ultralight. As far as the FAA is concerned, they're not aircraft and the FAA has no interest as long as you stay out of controlled airspace.
Click to expand...

I was referring more to liability and the like. FAA's policy toward Part 103 enthusiasts and "vehicles" is basically to stay as far away as possible, a sentiment which is shared by the enthusiasts. It takes a pretty egregious violation to attract FAA's attention.

Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top