$30,000 plane....

[Everskyward]

Nope. I never figure that in, because I don't take a loan out on the plane.

I guess that's one way to look at it, but even if you don't have any debt service that's still money you could have used for something else. You could say the airplane cost $30,000 (or whatever) the first hour and $110/month in subsequent hours.

 

[EdFred]

I guess that's one way to look at it, but even if you don't have any debt service that's still money you could have used for something else. You could say the airplane cost $30,000 (or whatever) the first hour and $110/month in subsequent hours.

Or if you take a loan out, 110 on top of the loan. I consider the purchase an opportunity cost. Plus if I had the money anywhere else since the Dow hit 14,000 I'd have been better off buying the plane.

 

[EdFred]

Tom,

How are those Long EZs on grass and <3000' strips?

 

[Everskyward]

Plus if I had the money anywhere else since the Dow hit 14,000 I'd have been better off buying the plane.

Haha, you know I had that thought too...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Or if you take a loan out, 110 on top of the loan. I consider the purchase an opportunity cost. Plus if I had the money anywhere else since the Dow hit 14,000 I'd have been better off buying the plane.

In hindsight, Ed, you look like an investment genius! Especially as it relates to airplanes. You sold the 180 when things were good, and I bet the Comanche didn't cost you much more (if any) now that things are in the tank. Nice work!

 

[Tom-D]

Tom,

How are those Long EZs on grass and <3000' strips?

AS long as it is smooth,, they come across the fence at 90MPH

 

[EdFred]

In hindsight, Ed, you look like an investment genius! Especially as it relates to airplanes. You sold the 180 when things were good, and I bet the Comanche didn't cost you much more (if any) now that things are in the tank. Nice work!

I got the Comanche for almost 9k less than I sold the Cherokee for.

 

[EdFred]

AS long as it is smooth,, they come across the fence at 90MPH

Ive seen a couple around, know they are pretty fast for the power, just never talked to anyone about runway distances.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I got the Comanche for almost 9k less than I sold the Cherokee for.

Wow... Nice!

 

[Tom-D]

Here ya go Nick, feel like fooling with some paper work to get it imported.

D4BK FASCINATION • $35,000 • AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE SALE • Year: 2001 Aircraft Total Time: 450 Engine Time: 200 Hangared: Oshawa, Ontario, Canada All composite low wing retractable gear, in flight adjustable Rospeller trx-65 CRUISE 170MPH. Hangared in a heated environment. Rotax 912s Avionics: KLX-135A GPS/COM, KT76A TRANSPONDER, auto pilot coupled to nav, all basic instruments and engine instruments, PS Engineering intercom, Aeroflash nav/strobe, ACK-450, BRS. Inspected 2005, Not used since 2006. Engine, BRS, Landing gear and propeller need inspection and effort to bring to spec. Original Price $140,000 discounted for as is condition. • Contact Gregory G. Szabo, Owner - located Pickering, ON Canada • Telephone: 647 274-4212 . 905-839-8795 • Fax: 905-839-8789 • Posted May 20, 2009

 

[docmirror]

Too bad no 6 cyl. I'd be all over this clean AZ plane in a second. In fact, I may buy it anyway. Roomy, fast/economical, Good looking, well supported. Oh well, I guess I'll go get it.

http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1155345

Sigh, here's some four pots for you.

http://www.controller.com/listings/detail.aspx?OHID=1119049

http://www.myplane.com/ad/2317

 

[Bob Noel]

> but even if you don't have any debt service that's still money you
> could have used for something else.

(at the risk of a thread hijack). This line of reasoning baffles me. Talking about lost opportunity wrt the money tied up in an airplane seems silly. Money is useless unless you spend it on something.

Besides, what better use for the money than buying an airplane?

 

[dogman]

1957 CESSNA 172, 180hp, TT-5067, 512-SMOH, 512 since new fixed pitch prop, NDH, oil filter conversion, Brackett air filter, strobes, hangared, good paint and logs, no corrosion, fresh annual 1/09. $31,000/obo. WY/toll free (877) 377-3965; (307) 877-3965.

Nick This is the same year and set-up(except I have CS prop) as my 172. GREAT Short Take Off and Landing performance.Great rough field performer It has same Weight to Horse Power ratio as early C-180, 2200lb gross. 900lb Use full. Speed 123kts 10.5gph 110kts 8gph You will carry anything you can put in it. I am 6'7" 285lbs My wife is not petite. My friends are real sized men. A true go any where aircraft cheap. Great engine, Service ceiling 18k. Cheap Mx.

Buy it learn to fly it and No One will Match your Short field T.Offs or landings at Gastons. Unless it is some skinny Pilot in your 172.

Any way if I did not have the one I have now I would take a look at this one.

 

[Everskyward]

(at the risk of a thread hijack). This line of reasoning baffles me. Talking about lost opportunity wrt the money tied up in an airplane seems silly. Money is useless unless you spend it on something.

Opportunity cost is a real concept but whether or not you want to make it a consideration in your own personal finances is up to you.

Besides, what better use for the money than buying an airplane?

That's also a highly individual decision. It's only money but it depends on what an airplane is worth to YOU.

 

[Anthony]

Opportunity cost is a real concept but whether or not you want to make it a consideration in your own personal finances is up to you.

That's also a highly individual decision. It's only money but it depends on what an airplane is worth to YOU.

I tell my clients with their potentially surplus real estate assets that "If you don't sell it, you bought it". Meaning that the dollars invested in that property even if not financed are costing them money to carry and maintain. Opportunity cost is real, but you're right its a personal decision whether or not you want to consider it in a purchase decision or aircraft ownership cost analysis. I included it. The equity I have in my plane if invested elsewhere would generate a return. Well it would in the old days anyway. It still generates a return in smiles, but you can't spend smiles.

 

[Bob Noel]

Consider the opportunity cost on $30,000. Ok, I don't spend it on an airplane and instead I invest it. Eventually the miracle occurs and I double it to $60,000 in constant dollars. Now can I spend the $30,000 on an airplane or will people invoke opportunity cost yet again?

 

[gismo]

Opportunity cost is a real concept but whether or not you want to make it a consideration in your own personal finances is up to you.

Opportunity cost is definitely a real concept, but in many cases the "real" cost is near zero. For some it's zero because they'd just spend the money on something else with no potential for payback. For others (especially in today's economic conditions) their perception is that any investment is too risky to consider.

That's also a highly individual decision. It's only money but it depends on what an airplane is worth to YOU.

Verrry true.

 

[gismo]

2200lb gross. 900lb Use full. Speed 123kts... You will carry anything you can put in it.

I don't like it when pilots make that claim, because it's a fairly dangerous thought. It is definitely possible to overload (or worse yet load out of the CG range) virtually any certified aircraft ever built. And while a 900 lb useful load seems like a lot for a 172, with full fuel (40 gallons?) you've probably got something like a 650 lb payload and with you and 3 FAA standard 170 pounders you'd be at least one hundred pounds over gross with nothing in the way of baggage.

 

[Everskyward]

Opportunity cost is definitely a real concept, but in many cases the "real" cost is near zero. For some it's zero because they'd just spend the money on something else with no potential for payback.

Opportunity cost does not need to be a return on investment. For example, if you buy a $30,000 airplane it now means that you don't have the opportunity to spend that money on $30,000 worth of improvements to your house or $30,000 in college expenses etc.

 

[gismo]

Opportunity cost does not need to be a return on investment. For example, if you buy a $30,000 airplane it now means that you don't have the opportunity to spend that money on $30,000 worth of improvements to your house or $30,000 in college expenses etc.

I guess I don't see how that could be a "cost" if you don't do it (education might be an exception but only because it has a potential ROI). Sounds more like prioritization to me. No matter what you spend your money on, there will always be some alternatives you chose to do without, even not spending the money at all will "cost" you what you could have spent it on. In my world, "opportunity cost" has always been tied to some potential gain that will be unrealized due to the missed "opportunity".

 

[Everskyward]

In my world, "opportunity cost" has always been tied to some potential gain that will be unrealized due to the missed "opportunity".

There is a broader definition of opportunity cost, though.

When economists refer to the “opportunity cost” of a resource, they mean the value of the next-highest-valued alternative use of that resource. If, for example, you spend time and money going to a movie, you cannot spend that time at home reading a book, and you cannot spend the money on something else. If your next-best alternative to seeing the movie is reading the book, then the opportunity cost of seeing the movie is the money spent plus the pleasure you forgo by not reading the book.

Most people don't think about it in these terms, however. When I think about spending money for something, or not, the only thing that matters is if it's worth it to me.

 

[dogman]

I don't like it when pilots make that claim, because it's a fairly dangerous thought. It is definitely possible to overload (or worse yet load out of the CG range) virtually any certified aircraft ever built. And while a 900 lb useful load seems like a lot for a 172, with full fuel (40 gallons?) you've probably got something like a 650 lb payload and with you and 3 FAA standard 170 pounders you'd be at least one hundred pounds over gross with nothing in the way of baggage.

"Anything you can get in it" meaning LEGALLY

I do not over load my 172 but you can sure go full gross and have plenty of short field take off performance. So many 4 place airplanes are completely unsafe full gross and high DA.

What kills me are the 4000lb Gross 1300lb usefull 700lbs of fuel and 500lb payload aircraft.

 

[gismo]

If, for example, you spend time and money going to a movie, you cannot spend that time at home reading a book, and you cannot spend the money on something else. If your next-best alternative to seeing the movie is reading the book, then the opportunity cost of seeing the movie is the money spent plus the pleasure you forgo by not reading the book.

I'm still not getting it. The example above just points out that when you spend money on something that requires your time as well, you have used up a portion of two resources (money and time). The fact that whenever you "spend" a limited resource you have less of that resource for other "opportunities" to spend the same resource seems so self evident that it shouldn't need further explanation. E.G. I have 30 gallons of fuel onboard. If I consume 10 of those gallons deviating around a storm, that's 10 gallons I cannot use to deviate around the next storm.

Most people don't think about it in these terms, however. When I think about spending money for something, or not, the only thing that matters is if it's worth it to me.

Ditto. But I often contemplate what the total cost to own and operate anything of significance.

 

[Everskyward]

The fact that whenever you "spend" a limited resource you have less of that resource for other "opportunities" to spend the same resource seems so self evident that it shouldn't need further explanation.

That's true but I guess economists need definitions for everything.

I think where this comes into play in this discussion is that you sometimes hear people say, for example, that they can operate their airplane for $100/hour vs renting the same one for $120/hr. However, they don't count the $50,000 it cost to buy it in the first place. Then there are other people who look really hard at the purchase price but forget that there are going to be a lot of expenses involved to keep an airplane and operate it.

I think the cost of ownership involves fixed costs (insurance and hangar), the costs of operation (fuel, oil and periodic maintenance), and also the cost of acquisition.

I also think there are plenty of good reasons why people want to own their own airplanes. It's just that it's interesting hearing people try to justify it economically. Why not just say you own an airplane because you want one?

 

[Bob Noel]

I own an airplane because I want one.

 

[SCCutler]

If I tried to justify flying financially, I'd have to shoot myself- applies to renting or owning. I like having a plane ready when I am, maintained as I'd prefer, and treated in a way with which I am well-familiar. That has value, hasn't it?

 

[Tom-D]

If I tried to justify flying financially, I'd have to shoot myself- applies to renting or owning. I like having a plane ready when I am, maintained as I'd prefer, and treated in a way with which I am well-familiar. That has value, hasn't it?

Many people find value in many different ways.

What's a warm and fuzzy feeling worth?

 

[etsisk]

Many people find value in many different ways.

What's a warm and fuzzy feeling worth?

Henning probably paid upwards of 500 bucks, the last time, I expect...

 

[Tom-D]

Henning probably paid upwards of 500 bucks, the last time, I expect...

No,,,,,,, at that cost he probably made it himself.

 

[EdFred]

I don't think the warm and fuzzy in Henning's case was an airplane.

 

[etsisk]

What's a warm and fuzzy feeling worth?

Henning probably paid upwards of 500 bucks, the last time, I expect...

No,,,,,,, at that cost he probably made it himself.

ah, Tom, I don't think we're talking about the same thing!

 

[Tom-D]

ah, Tom, I don't think we're talking about the same thing!

Yes we are .

 

[Ted]

Deals are out there. I bought my Aztec for less than Ed paid for his Comanche (which was less than he sold his Cherokee for). Furthermore, my Aztec is a known plane and (in its first 60-70 hours of use under my ownership) has done pretty well by me, especially when you figure it's a 40 year old plane. Seek and ye shall find.

Andrew is correct that the purchase price is just the entry fee. It's the post-purchase costs that can be killer, and you have to be prepared for that. Even though I spent less on my Aztec than Ed did on his Comanche, by the time he and I have flown our planes the same number of hours I'm sure I'll be well past him in total money spent. The Cherokee is very nice in this regard since there are fewer expensive things to break on it, but I also have a friend who's got $100,000 into their Cherokee after 4 years. A lot of that was by choice, but a new engine and very expensive first annual add up pretty quickly.

Nick, I see no reason why you can't do this. Doubly so if your girlfriend is serious and actually will be your partner in this, that deal worked out well for another friend of mine, but is, of course, highly dependent on a number of other factors. I do think that a Cherokee 160 or 180 is your best bet, with the 180 being the best choice. If nothing else, they're proven aircraft that I'd expect you'd have fewer issues with servicing, and they have decent interior room.

 

[Anthony]

If I tried to justify flying financially, I'd have to shoot myself- applies to renting or owning. I like having a plane ready when I am, maintained as I'd prefer, and treated in a way with which I am well-familiar. That has value, hasn't it?

Yep. It can save your life.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I own an airplane because I want one.

Exactly.

 

[flyersfan31]

I own an airplane because I want one.

Me too. You think I can justify buying a new Matrix with an economic argument?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Deals are out there. I bought my Aztec for less than Ed paid for his Comanche (which was less than he sold his Cherokee for). Furthermore, my Aztec is a known plane and (in its first 60-70 hours of use under my ownership) has done pretty well by me, especially when you figure it's a 40 year old plane. Seek and ye shall find.

Andrew is correct that the purchase price is just the entry fee. It's the post-purchase costs that can be killer, and you have to be prepared for that. Even though I spent less on my Aztec than Ed did on his Comanche, by the time he and I have flown our planes the same number of hours I'm sure I'll be well past him in total money spent.

Yes. Soon, the purchase price of an Aztec will depend not only on airframe hours and engine hours, but on the number of hours of fuel in the tanks!

Heck, it's probably cheaper to buy an Aztec than it is to put your first year's worth of fuel in it, if you fly like Ted and I do!

 

[Ted]

Yes. Soon, the purchase price of an Aztec will depend not only on airframe hours and engine hours, but on the number of hours of fuel in the tanks!

Heck, it's probably cheaper to buy an Aztec than it is to put your first year's worth of fuel in it, if you fly like Ted and I do!

Well, I'd need to fly it about 400-500 hours in a year to spend as much on fuel as I spent on the purchase price... but I would've been happier with receiving it with full tanks at purchase rather than 100 gallons low.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, I'd need to fly it about 400-500 hours in a year to spend as much on fuel as I spent on the purchase price... but I would've been happier with receiving it with full tanks at purchase rather than 100 gallons low.

And how many hours did you fly in the last year? You're gonna be pretty close!

 

[Ted]

And how many hours did you fly in the last year? You're gonna be pretty close!

Egh, only about 250 in the past year.