Rent vs Buy: the missing metric?

You are going to sink more money than you can justify into flying one way or another.
Would be cool to have something to show for it.

"This is my plane" Even if I'm alone, I walk out to the hangar and say that.
 
This pretty much sums it up nicely. The renters won't take care of an airplane and the owners are putting in as little as possible, it's like renting a car.
In a club, we're all owners.
I still feel like these are my planes.
But the best part is, when I one of the planes needs a new engine, I can share the cost with 50 of my best friends :)
In that way, these planes are probably maintained better than if I owned by myself.
Every little squawk gets addressed right away because we're budgeting for it, and we all feel that sense of ownership.
 
Owning in a club or partnership is probably the best

^This

I'm surprised there are not more partnerships/co-ownerships. I'm in my second partnership, looking at setting up another (for a different model). The first had 4 partners at the beginning and 3 at the end. Schedule conflicts were extremely rare. We had 2 or maybe 3 where two people wanted to go on a trip at the same time in 4 1/2 years. I'm 1 1/2 years into the current partnership with 3 partners and again schedule conflicts are all but non-existent.

One can cut their capital and fixed costs significantly with co-ownership, or get far more plane than they could alone. Plus you reduce your financial risks, by splitting the costs; for when the engine decides to die/need a rebuild, or other costly repairs.
 
^This

I'm surprised there are not more partnerships/co-ownerships. I'm in my second partnership, looking at setting up another (for a different model). The first had 4 partners at the beginning and 3 at the end. Schedule conflicts were extremely rare. We had 2 or maybe 3 where two people wanted to go on a trip at the same time in 4 1/2 years. I'm 1 1/2 years into the current partnership with 3 partners and again schedule conflicts are all but non-existent.

One can cut their capital and fixed costs significantly with co-ownership, or get far more plane than they could alone. Plus you reduce your financial risks, by splitting the costs; for when the engine decides to die/need a rebuild, or other costly repairs.

I have discussed partnerships with a few others.
Here is why I think you see less of them than the economics would suggest.
Pride of ownership.

As for a second reason, I think partnerships are harder to sell. It is a smaller market. As a result you pay less to get in, but you will get less out (maybe a lot less).
Last reason I I have heard I think is mostly BS. If you have other sudden changes in finances and you own the plane, you just park it. If you are in a partnership, you are stuck continuing to help fund others.

Tim
 
For many of us it's own or don't fly... even though renting would be cheaper, it's easy to talk yourself out of spending the money this week for an hour or two rental. The problem is you talk yourself out of it again next week, and next month, which can stretch into years. But when you own the plane you're just buying gas at the time you decide to fly, which is only part of the total cost of flying, whether ownership or rental. It doesn't seem that expensive right then, so you go ahead and fly. Sure you get the hangar bill once a month, and whatever maintenance becomes necessary, but unlike deciding not to rent this week you can't decide to just not pay the hangar rent this month. Wow, I just justified airplane ownership for poor people.

It should be noted that experimentals can drastically shift the break even point, as maintenance costs can be much lower, particularly if you are willing and able to do the work yourself.

Of course, nobody rents the kinds of planes I like to fly, anyway.

Here's another missing metric: What percent of pilots that only rent give up flying within a couple of years? I'm guessing it's pretty high. If you're going to be flying on a regular basis, you're going to need to find some sort of ownership option, whether it be as a club member, a partner, or as an outright owner.
 
Many, many years ago I worked as a charter pilot, demo pilot, and CFI for Beechcraft East TEB. They sold both new and used aircraft. The general consensus among the salesmen there and at several other dealerships was fly 150 hrs. a year or less - rent...150 or more - own. Most of the planes based there were flown probably on average 100 hrs a year. Some never flew - others flew nearly every day. The ones that were flown regularly were in better condition and better maintained than the ones that weren't. They were also on Pt. 135 leasebacks. They were never rental aircraft. Always owner or professionally flown. \After the FBO closed down, I did contract flying for a ~half dozen owners. Between them I flew their planes on average 225-250 hrs. each over the next 1½-2 years. If you are gonna fly the heck out of the plane buy. Otherwise rent.

Noah W
 
Here is why I think you see less of them than the economics would suggest.

Pride of ownership.

Pride of ownership, knowing it will be exactly as I left it, I don't play well with others, there's a high chance they days the partners want to take it(holidays, etc) will be the days I want to take it, the number of people with similar needs to me in my area is very small(solo-1 pax, fast-ish).
 
The only thing more absurd is the pilot obsession of calculating ownership cost on a per hour basis. Ask someone with a 30ft center console what his boat costs per pound of fish or an RV on a 'per night' basis.

This is exactly right. I own a boat. I don't rent a boat because if I did I would never get to use a boat since I wouldn't want to pay by the day, plus fuel. Sure, it would be cheaper to rent a boat, but who wants to do that! Since I own a boat, I use it more than I would otherwise and the hours of fun and memories is worth a heck of a lot more than what I have spent. Plus, like some of you have said, if you have the money to do it, then why not. You can't take it with you.
 
Depends on your situation. Our flight school closed and the "new" one is small. There are no clubs here. If you are happy in the pattern and willing to fly Saturday only (as they aren't open on Sunday), renting will work out well.
 
That is exactly right, it all depends on what your long term Goals are. If you only want to fly under 10 hours a month the cost doesn't justify buying, like previously mentioned. If you only fly an hour or two per month. Having a plane sit will cost you MORE money in the long run then if you rented. Most rented airplanes get flown regularly. How much time you want to invest in flying will determine if you should buy or rent.
 
I'm entering the hot debate of rent vs buy with what seems to me an overlooked factor in every thing I've read: If you rent you're giving money away. If you own you have an asset to sell.

You're still giving a lot of money away when you own.

Let's say you can rent a 172 for your private and instrument for $125/hr, an Arrow for $150/hr, and an instructor for $50/hr. Let's say you use the 172 for 240 hours and the Arrow for 10, and the instructor for 80 (30 private, 40 instrument, 10 commercial). You're looking at a total bill of $35,500 to get your hours and ratings.

Now, let's look at ownership. You still need the $4,000 for the instructor. You buy a 172N for $40K, fly it for 240 hours. It'll depreciate in value by about $20/hr just for the engine and airframe time, so let's say you can sell it for $35K. I'm going to suggest you still rent the Arrow, it isn't worth buying a plane with all the associated one-time costs for 10 hours.

Now, let's look at the additional costs. I'll use what they are in my area. Your results will vary.

One time: ($13K)
* Pre-buy inspection, escrow, title search, etc $1,500
* Sales Tax $2,200
* Depreciation $5,000
* CFI is still gonna cost $4,000 if you're lucky, many FBOs charge more for CFIs when not instructing in their planes.
* Arrow rental still $1500
* Registration fee(s) $250

Annually: ($3K/$2.5K)
* Annual Inspection $1500
* Insurance $1500 first year, $1000 thereafter

Monthly: ($3K/yr)
* Hangar rent $250/mo

Hourly: ($90)
* Gas $40/hr
* Maintenance $50/hr

So, if you actually keep the thing for 5 years and 250 hours, you will have spent around $68,000 instead of that $35,500 you spent renting.

If you're a little more motivated and can do all your hours and ratings in one year, it'll still cost $41,500 instead of $35,500.

Also, this is essentially the best-case scenario. What if you buy the airplane with a mid-time engine, and then the engine throws a rod? Now you're on the hook for a $22,000 overhaul plus around $6,000 for removal and reinstallation. You'll get about $11,000 back in added value when you sell the plane (assuming you bought it priced accordingly with a mid-time engine) but that's another $17,000 down the tubes. Did you happen to have $28,000 lying around?

Now, if you're still going to do this, here's how to maximize your chances of not losing money:

1) Pay cash for the plane, and have enough left over to pay for that $28K overhaul should it happen. That won't save you anything over what I've outlined above, but it will mean you don't have any added interest expense, you just have the lost opportunity cost.
2) Fly at least once a week, or more often. That will help keep your maintenance costs from getting any higher. Again, my numbers above assume this.
3) Do as much of your own wrenching as you can: Find an A&P mechanic that will let you do the work yourself and sign it off. You could potentially save up to half of the maintenance costs this way.
4) Since you're just building time, make sure that you find the cheapest gas in your area, and make that a frequent stop.
5) Find a partner. This is a great way to cut your fixed costs in half.
6) Find a flying buddy to split the hourly costs with - Best scenario here is for this to be your partner as well so you can swap back and forth and split safety pilot time.

It's hard to financially justify owning an airplane, ever. The justification comes from being able to go on short notice, to have it available all the time, to fly a nicer airplane than you'd be able to rent, or even just pride of ownership. I can make individual trips look good on paper when I do a business trip, but that doesn't really include any of the expense of owning the thing in the first place.

So, do what you want to do - Just don't expect it to save you money.
 
I have discussed partnerships with a few others.
Here is why I think you see less of them than the economics would suggest.
Pride of ownership.

As for a second reason, I think partnerships are harder to sell. It is a smaller market. As a result you pay less to get in, but you will get less out (maybe a lot less).
Last reason I I have heard I think is mostly BS. If you have other sudden changes in finances and you own the plane, you just park it. If you are in a partnership, you are stuck continuing to help fund others.

Tim

Yeah, I agree, that's BS. A good line to tell yourself to "justify" single ownership; which one really only needs desire and dollars (i.e. if you want and can afford it, buy it). :D If you park it, it's still sucking up dollars. Could be hangar or tie-down fees. Then there is insurance and annuals. Sure, if you know you can't fly it for a while you could move to tie-down, drop insurance down to minimums and not do an annual until you can afford it again. If it's that bad selling might be a better option.

I have a friend who owns his plane solo and doesn't want a partner. One of his reasons is so he can fly whenever he wants without asking anyone else. Oddly, I fly significantly more than he does. More often and far more hours each year. It's his money, so I have no issues with him spending as he likes. I just find that part of his reasoning funny.

In more rural areas the number of partnership opportunities drops. Fortunately the hangar/tie-down costs are lower too, as is fuel in many cases.

Pride or:

Mine Seagulls.jpg

I can tell you we've taken far better care of a plane even in a non-equity partnership than rentals. We treated it like our own, even though we didn't own any part of it. That plane was always clean and ready to go for the next flight. Windshield was cleaned, leading edge wiped clean, interior cleaned up and tanks fueled-up. In the winter we plugged in the heater and put a sleeping bag (blanket) over the cowl. It was well treated.
 
Thanks everybody for the candid replies. I had to see for myself so I built a spreadsheet. What I learned is any way you slice it you're losing money (as everyone has suggested). The question for myself is what will lose the least and be most satisfying. Ownership is it for me! Firstly because of costs and secondly I want control over maintenance.

Here's my spreadsheet, feel free to tear apart my assumptions (like you need an invite haha). Or you can view and comment on my google spreadsheet directly.

LVk-YiFTqBry9rLMT9sUGpK7n_ZxwCJjFCQPz1CYPNI
 
The problem with you're spreadsheet is you didn't calculate the engine strike you'll have on hour 74. That's going to require a complete engine inspection and possible rebuild.
 
As a further complication, it is not impossible to buy a plane, fly it for years and sell it for more than you paid for it.

I got lucky on a 1976 Tiger, bought in 1992 for $32k and sold in 2003 for $64k. To be fair, I had sunk about $20k into the panel, but still came out pretty well, even accounting for inflation.

With the price of a new Sky Arrow doubling over the last 10 years (from $75.5k to about $150k), I might be able to sell it now for about what I paid for it. Or not. But again, not accounting for the effects of inflation over the last 10 years.

I guess my point is that any allowance for depreciation is a wild guess at best.
 
I don't see the point of trying to introduce "pride of ownership" and such arguments in a thread about metrics. Those things already exist and are great drivers for ownership. I argued against ownership in this thread and I'm a proud owner! The ownership side of the house does not need anybody advocating for it. It advocates for itself effectively with the soft benefits it provides. Peace of mind. Pride. Ego. Hobby. Exclusivity. Lots of stuff. Not a one of us is debating that.

We already tend toward owning. It's the rent side that needs a push to ensure we stay rational.
 
Hey LifeAsBen,

I really like your spreadsheet. You are wise to pick a smaller slower plane. Having only 4 cylinders and much lower fuel burn really helps. I am training in our 182P and an hour is an hour is an hour in the logbook but its at 12gph for me vs 8gph in a Skyhawk or even less in the 152.

I think you missed a couple simple things regarding ownership. Let's say you find that $25,000 C152. I would budget a 1 time extra cost of perhaps $2500 for the first annual....perhaps even a bit more as first annuals can be a surprise.

Next for that price it probably won't be ADS-B out compliant and depending on all this training you would need it if looking out 3yrs or more. So factor in another $4K minimum charge (1 time only) for that one. I think there will be cheaper alternatives but best to error on the high side.

And although I am familiar with a 0-470 overhaul cost, I have a hunch the final overhaul cost you have listed would be closer to $20K.

So I am thinking you are maybe about 12,500 short on your "own it" costs.
 
Here's my spreadsheet, feel free to tear apart my assumptions (like you need an invite haha).

Just a couple of thoughts...

1) Looks like you're based or intend to be based in KJWN. As a Class C airspace you're going to need ADSB-Out of some form. Most aircraft on the market don't have and ADSB-Out xpndr so you're going to need to spend some $ on some solution. Hope for the best but plan for the worst, at least another $2K there.

2) If you're going to keep it on a tiedown are you going to invest in any covers?

3) Are you SURE you want a C150? It's not really practical for cross country trips and/or taking people for rides. I think you'll find you will get bored pretty quickly just boring holes in the sky in a C150...
 
Oh yeah, to be safe you might also want to run your numbers with 100LL instead and figure $4.50/gallon. If the plane you find does not have the STC, or you get sick of hauling small gas cans since there's no mogas at the airport, or whatever reason I think I would error towards the side of 100LL in your pricing. So that is another $2K/year for 5 years.

I'm not trying to kill your "own it" numbers but we have a mogas STC for our 182P. I saw what it did to the bladders and it turns out to be a pain in the rear to transport that much gas so we've just budgeted for 100LL for now. I'm still looking into a small trailer with like a 70gal tank...but I don't want to trash the bladders and that gas really stinks in the cockpit after awhile.
 
My formula could be greatly helped if someone gifted me their old 152....Anyone? Bueller?

Haha. But seriously anyone in Nashville area looking for a partner? Or just want someone to fly your plane?
 
Trying to make sense of it is crazy as its all money you could spend someplace else. But if you love flying and you can afford to own...that feeling of opening up the hangar and its your plane is awesome......until the annual or a funny sound or new leak or a funny stain. But even then, you're addicted and will do anything to get your fix.

I believe the best is to find a single partner that has similar interests, is responsible and careful and you get along well. Not easy but they are out there. Another option is to advertise at the airports that you are willing to fly planes for people with no medical. My wife's friend did that all last winter in darn nice Skyhawk and I think she just paid fuel costs plus a bit more.
 
I don't see the point of trying to introduce "pride of ownership" and such arguments in a thread about metrics.

This entire thread is full on speculative nonsensical calculations and premises. Everyone is just pulling numbers out of the air. Going into my 4th year owning this 172 I can tell you there's no way to predict cost of ownership much less break it down into an hourly figure.
 
Everyone else has pretty much covered most of the numbers points, so I won't try to reiterate all of that. Just a couple of semi-random observations...

If the only thing you're interested in is the bottom-line dollars at the end of the year, then yes, renting is almost certainly cheaper than owning unless you fly *a lot*. But really, who is ever only interested in that to the exclusion of all else?

I've usually heard around 100 hours/year as the break point; someone earlier said 150, which might be closer, but in any case 100/year is basically going out every single weekend for 2 hours, all year. Most people don't fly that much if you have a non-flying day job.

I took my wife up to WY to see the eclipse last month. Our plan was to leave Sunday, but looking at the weather Sunday was starting to look ugly, so we just went a day early. Renting, that could have been impossible, which would have meant no trip.

What's your mission, and can you reliably rent to match it? I bought a PA28-235 because I need to be able to go to high density altitude fields, and I need >900lb useful load. Renting a 172 isn't going to do it.

And finally, when I go to my hanger and start getting ready to go out, everything is exactly where I left it. And I can leave my stuff in the plane. And I know that no yahoo went and put jet-A in it after their last flight or something.
 
This entire thread is full on speculative nonsensical calculations and premises. Everyone is just pulling numbers out of the air. Going into my 4th year owning this 172 I can tell you there's no way to predict cost of ownership much less break it down into an hourly figure.

That's frankly ridiculous.

"The past is prologue."

Showing actual numbers is hardly "just pulling numbers out of the air". It informs the discussion, and is highly relevant.
 
That's frankly ridiculous.

"The past is prologue."

Showing actual numbers is hardly "just pulling numbers out of the air". It informs the discussion, and is highly relevant.

One poster made mention of an actual hourly rate on his plane. The rest are just spit balled figures being thrown around. You can do all the hourly calculations and metrics you want once you've incurred costs and flown your time (actual data) but trying to get it down to the dollar on a forecasted data is impossible. Case in point looking at my MX Ledger for 2015 I spent $8,232.85 on MX items, 2016 I spent $6,221.23.... you know what I can't predict? What I'll spent in 2017..

The only benefit really to this conversation is to inform the OP of costs he might not have thought of in making his decision. My point is he needs to be aware there are going to be some outlier costs associated with owning an airplane that aren't predictable... as pointed out by someone else that's a risk you don't inherit with renting.
 
The OP's assumptions aren't that far off. If you buy a trainer type, you generally don't have a ton of hours from zero to PPL. Get it with low hours, and you end up selling with low hours. So look at values now and see what the difference in cost is between a 300 hour and a 450 hour TSOH Cessna 150. Not going to be much. You start bringing risk in with longer time horizons. The whole market could go up or it could go down.

As for renting being throwing money away, think of the rental as a payment for opportunity cost. Someone has cash tied up in an airplane and you have to pay for that. From a pure economics view, you are paying some implicit return that could be made by that particular owner on that money if it was not tied up in an airplane. That return is different for different people. If you buy a plane, you have the same equation to work out.
 
The only thing more absurd is the pilot obsession of calculating ownership cost on a per hour basis. Ask someone with a 30ft center console what his boat costs per pound of fish or an RV on a 'per night' basis.
5 or so years ago I did the math (and weighed the meat) to justify buying a plane instead of keeping the boat. Just on dock fees, mx, gas, etc. our partnership boat cost me $46/lb of crappie filets. :eek2:
 
Every plane I've owned I sold for as much or more than I paid for it. But they were all 25-45 years old when I bought them.
 
As mentioned, my in-ground pool is almost the same way.
Liner ever 10 years, chemicals are dependent upon weather, water rates change, etc.
I can get an estimate or average of what I should spend per month based on past history.
Then based on how many times I swim it costs me X amount.
This year, so far...almost exactly $100 per swim.
When the kids were all living here, it was much more cost effective to own the pool. Now, it's much more cost effective, less hassle, and more fun(ish) to head to a water park.
Or just go rent a plane for about that amount and fly over the river.

Anyone want to trade a plane for a pool?
I'll come get the plane if you come get the pool.
 
Thanks everybody for the candid replies. I had to see for myself so I built a spreadsheet. What I learned is any way you slice it you're losing money (as everyone has suggested). The question for myself is what will lose the least and be most satisfying. Ownership is it for me! Firstly because of costs and secondly I want control over maintenance.

Here's my spreadsheet, feel free to tear apart my assumptions (like you need an invite haha). Or you can view and comment on my google spreadsheet directly.

LVk-YiFTqBry9rLMT9sUGpK7n_ZxwCJjFCQPz1CYPNI
A couple questions:
1. Are you renting a C152 for $139/hr? If so, that's really expensive. If not, it's not really apples-to-apples.
2. Are you paying cash for your C152? If not, you should probably include the monthly loan payment as well.

At 150 hours/yr, I have no doubt it'd be better to own, but not by as big a margin as you show.
 
I flew my 150 for a few hundred hours in 6 months. All in, including FBO fees and everything, it cost me $54/hr.
 
A couple questions:
1. Are you renting a C152 for $139/hr? If so, that's really expensive. If not, it's not really apples-to-apples.
2. Are you paying cash for your C152? If not, you should probably include the monthly loan payment as well.

At 150 hours/yr, I have no doubt it'd be better to own, but not by as big a margin as you show.

$139 for a C172

Yes, would pay cash; loan interest would make this scenario really bad.
 
When I rent, I average about 40-70 hrs a year in a putt-putt, with one big splurge for some dual aerobatic instruction or bush flying in Alaska every couple of years. I'm anticipating flying 100-200 hrs a year in my own little aerobatic tail dragger, then selling it for about what I paid for it in 2 to 3 years when I finish building my RV. --- It'll still be more (in total than what I would have spent renting the 40 - 60 hrs/year. Especially if the engine craps out prematurely, or I suffer a case of stupid. But no where near as expensive per flight hour.

***I get to go pick it up next week. I'm pretty damned excited about it! ***
 
Last edited:
Thanks everybody for the candid replies. I had to see for myself so I built a spreadsheet. What I learned is any way you slice it you're losing money (as everyone has suggested). The question for myself is what will lose the least and be most satisfying. Ownership is it for me! Firstly because of costs and secondly I want control over maintenance.

Here's my spreadsheet, feel free to tear apart my assumptions (like you need an invite haha). Or you can view and comment on my google spreadsheet directly.

LVk-YiFTqBry9rLMT9sUGpK7n_ZxwCJjFCQPz1CYPNI

Add to your r numbers a transponder and altimeter inspection every 24 months. Since you want to do Instrument training in this airplane, add some money for vac pump and instrument repairs.

Since you are tieing the plane down, add $ money for the paint and interior that that is going to have accelerated depreciation.
 
In a club, we're all owners.
I still feel like these are my planes.
But the best part is, when I one of the planes needs a new engine, I can share the cost with 50 of my best friends :)
In that way, these planes are probably maintained better than if I owned by myself.
Every little squawk gets addressed right away because we're budgeting for it, and we all feel that sense of ownership.


I get the owner thing. But someone gears-up the club plane. Sure you get it fixed, but look what you have. You don't gear up as you follow GUMPS every landing.

I also disagree every little squawk gets fixed. This varies with clubs. Your club maybe, but not all. I flew in a club plane in AZ couple years ago and someone mentioned oil was low on a prior flight but someone flew anyway. Oil added after the flight so it now shows full. Ugh.

Partner or two is best option as you have someone to split costs with and you own. Much more control.

Ultimately up to you. Don't like your decision you can easily change it.
 
As a further complication, it is not impossible to buy a plane, fly it for years and sell it for more than you paid for it.

I got lucky on a 1976 Tiger, bought in 1992 for $32k and sold in 2003 for $64k. To be fair, I had sunk about $20k into the panel, but still came out pretty well, even accounting for inflation.

That was during the great anomaly in the used aircraft market. The supply of new aircraft was severely constrained between 1986 and 2000. Unless we see another crisis of that nature, I dont expect to ever see a runup on prices like that again.

I guess my point is that any allowance for depreciation is a wild guess at best.

For a common aircraft and a <5yr timeframe you can make a pretty decent guess. There is always a chance of political interference (e.g. a luxury tax on used aircraft under the Warren/Harris administration) that could change the price picture, but that applies to anything else we own like real estate or pensions.
 
During research this morning I stumbled on fly8ma.com's YouTube video outlining projected costs for owning a 150. He excellently outlines costs in a spreadsheet:

.

The best part is he then compares it to real data from a year of flying.

For anyone else looking at ownership this video is excellent!
 
Back
Top