Rental 310 Pricing

[n12365]

I need some help figuring out a fair dry rental price for a 1968 Cessna 310P with VFR avionics. The owner flies it about 30 hours a year and would like the plane to fly more. I recently got my commercial AMEL rating and would like to build up some multi time. The owner isn’t trying to make any money on the deal, but wants to make sure he is covering his costs. In addition to the 310, I am also looking at a rental Grumman GA-7, Piper Seminole, or Piper Twin Comanche, all of which rent for $240/hr wet. Any experienced 310 owners out there that can help us figure out a fair dry rental price?

 

[Rob Schaffer]

Ted,.. calling Ted....

 

[tonycondon]

2-3x the fuel cost should be a pretty close ballpark

 

[Henning]

I need some help figuring out a fair dry rental price for a 1968 Cessna 310P with VFR avionics. The owner flies it about 30 hours a year and would like the plane to fly more. I recently got my commercial AMEL rating and would like to build up some multi time. The owner isn’t trying to make any money on the deal, but wants to make sure he is covering his costs. In addition to the 310, I am also looking at a rental Grumman GA-7, Piper Seminole, or Piper Twin Comanche, all of which rent for $240/hr wet. Any experienced 310 owners out there that can help us figure out a fair dry rental price?

Figure if you're building time, you can fly the plane at 21gph, that's what I do, 21 gph LOP gets me 165 TAS down low and 180+TAS between 8500 & 10,500. Engine setback is $16hr/side or $32hr total take it to $43 hr when you include props. Depending on hull value & your time and qualification you get into insurance costs. This can be from $1100 to $9000. So if we're talking getting it to 100hrs a year then that's between $11hr and $90hr, we'll go middle of the road $45hr. Don't know what his storage costs are, but lets call them $1500 a year or $15hr. Annuals $2500 + $5000 unscheduled maint for another $75hr. Depreciation, $1hr and cost of money (sounds like a $35,000 airplane) at a conservative 4% is $14hr so total $15hr there. Set back for paint and interior, another $7hr.

So, that's right around $200hr dry rate.

Then there's another $85hr on fuel if you buy cheap fuel ($4gal) and fly conservatively (21gph). If you buy $5gal gas and fly with no regard for fuel consumption you can use 35gph or $175 hr on fuel. So figure you'll be in that range somewhere.

 

[Ted]

The 310N Colemill (IO-520-Es instead of IO-470-VOs) that I operate we plan for about $300-330/hr wet actual cost, including engine reserves. Of course, it also has a nice avionics panel, de-ice, 3-bladed props, etc. That seems to be in-line with the rental costs from places trying to make money but have base 310s.

For a base 310 with VFR only avionics, 2-bladed props, 470s, and no de-ice, I'd figure that $250-270 wet would be the actual cost to the owner. For a dry rate, subtract about $100-120/hr worth of fuel, depending on how you run it and how much your fuel costs. The way I run the 310 I get 175 KTAS @ 25 gph combined for the trip, but you can get it as low as 20 gph if you go up higher.

310s are great airplanes. I've put close to 200 hours on the one I fly and have loved every minute of it. Where are you located?

 

[Ted]

Figure if you're building time, you can fly the plane at 21gph, that's what I do, 21 gph LOP gets me 165 TAS down low and 180+TAS between 8500 & 10,500.

I'll buy the 165 KTAS at 21 GPH LOP. I won't buy the 180+ KTAS at 21 gph LOP at 8500-10,500. That's not what I've found it will do.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Then there's another $85hr on fuel if you buy cheap fuel ($4gal) and fly conservatively (21gph). If you buy $5gal gas and fly with no regard for fuel consumption you can use 35gph or $175 hr on fuel.

Will we ever see $4 a gallon again?

It's 5.50 in San Diego these days. Finding an airport in SoCal with 4.99 gas is considered cheap fuel.

 

[gismo]

I need some help figuring out a fair dry rental price for a 1968 Cessna 310P with VFR avionics. The owner flies it about 30 hours a year and would like the plane to fly more. I recently got my commercial AMEL rating and would like to build up some multi time. The owner isn’t trying to make any money on the deal, but wants to make sure he is covering his costs. In addition to the 310, I am also looking at a rental Grumman GA-7, Piper Seminole, or Piper Twin Comanche, all of which rent for $240/hr wet. Any experienced 310 owners out there that can help us figure out a fair dry rental price?

As is so often the case, the answer is "it depends". If the owner just want's to end up where he would be financially whether you fly or not, all that needs to be accounted for beyond fuel is his hourly operating cost with no contribution from you for the fixed stuff like hangar rent, insurance (you'd still need to cover any increase in premium due to your usage), debt maintenance, database updates, and annual inspection (minus repairs). You should include things like engine and prop overhaul reserves, accessory maintenance reserves, tires and brakes, oil changes (maybe you could contribute the labor for that), and something for unscheduled maintenance.

On a NA 310 I'd suggest something like $35-40 for engine/props, $5 for accessories (add $2 if it has boots), $5 for tires/brakes, $10 for oil changes, and another $20 for unscheduled maint. for a total hourly dry rate of $75-80. Maybe another $20-25/hr thrown on top of that for general wear and tear TTAF depreciation etc. would be good bringing the rate to a nice even $100/hr.

But if the owner wants to actually save some bucks by having you share in the fixed costs it will be difficult to come up with a meaningful hourly number since that would greatly depend on the number of hours per year and the total of those fixed costs (which vary considerably).

BTW, personally I think that basing such a number on the cost of fuel used is way overrated. For one thing when fuel prices jump 25% because of unrest in the middle east, that shouldn't really have any effect on the rest of the operating costs. Second, right now you can pay anywhere from $3.80 to almost $7.00 for a gallon of gas and I can't see how you'd even pick a fuel price to multiply by some factor. If you used your actual fuel receipts the owner would suffer if you were good at finding cheap gas and would see a windfall if you paid through the nose for fuel. Finally, for a wet rate, a change in fuel price doesn't create anywhere near as big an error in the total cost since fuel is such a big part of that but to come up with a dry rate the errors are a much greater percentage of the non-fuel cost.

Bottom line is that when fuel prices are stable and relatively consistent there is a fairly strong correlation between fuel cost and operating cost, especially if you include the fuel in the total rather than paying for it separately, but if any of that's not the case (e.g. wide fuel price range and/or computing a dry rate), that relationship contains too much error to be practical.

 

[Henning]

I'll buy the 165 KTAS at 21 GPH LOP. I won't buy the 180+ KTAS at 21 gph LOP at 8500-10,500. That's not what I've found it will do.

Remember you're a few hundred pounds heavier than me and have the wrong tanks on the wing....

 

[n12365]

310s are great airplanes. I've put close to 200 hours on the one I fly and have loved every minute of it. Where are you located?

I live in Charlottesville, VA and my 172 is hangared at KCHO. The 310 is located at KLKU.

 

[rpadula]

Remember you're a few hundred pounds heavier than me and have the wrong tanks on the wing.... View attachment 22017

View attachment 22018

Showoff!

 

[denverpilot]

Bottom line is that when fuel prices are stable and relatively consistent there is a fairly strong correlation between fuel cost and operating cost...

Uhh... "fairly strong correlation" is apparently the new term for a linear algebraic equation?

You don't happen to work for Government or a Marketing department, do you?

Gas goes up, operating costs go up.

The SLOPE of the line is affected by fixed costs vs. flying costs, but there's no curve...

Unless you're getting a fuel discount for bulk above a certain price, and that's not a curve, it's a hockey stick...

 

[Ted]

Remember you're a few hundred pounds heavier than me and have the wrong tanks on the wing....

Those pictures don't prove what you're saying at all. You managed to get 180 KTAS in level flight (that's easy), but the second picture doesn't tell me how much flow you're getting. 21 gph LOP at 180 KTAS? I'm not buying it, and that doesn't jive with what any other 310 pilot I've talked to has said they get.

I can burn 20 gph LOP combined in the 310 I fly, that will get me 168 KTAS @ 13,000 ft. I've found the difference between being low on fuel with just me and heavy with a plane full of dogs and full fuel is pretty negligible in airspeed, no more than 5 kts.

Granted, the one I fly has 520s and not 470s, but the primary difference there is I take off and climb better.

 

[Henning]

Those pictures don't prove what you're saying at all. You managed to get 180 KTAS in level flight (that's easy), but the second picture doesn't tell me how much flow you're getting. 21 gph LOP at 180 KTAS? I'm not buying it, and that doesn't jive with what any other 310 pilot I've talked to has said they get.

I can burn 20 gph LOP combined in the 310 I fly, that will get me 168 KTAS @ 13,000 ft. I've found the difference between being low on fuel with just me and heavy with a plane full of dogs and full fuel is pretty negligible in airspeed, no more than 5 kts.

Granted, the one I fly has 520s and not 470s, but the primary difference there is I take off and climb better.

Don't know what to tell you except that you are flying a heavier draggier plane (the cantilever tanks are draggier than the tuna tanks)...

In the second picture of the JPI 760 it's reading 10.6 gph, due to its construction unfortunately you can't read the whole screen in a daylight speed photo. So I guess you're right, it took 21.2 gph to do 180TAS

BTW, at 13,000 I'd be going slower TAS as well. Above 11,000 my performance starts deteriorating.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Will we ever see $4 a gallon again?

It's 5.50 in San Diego these days. Finding an airport in SoCal with 4.99 gas is considered cheap fuel.

Plenty of places, especially in TX and OK, fuel well under $4. 3F3 in Mansfield, LA is listed at $3.39 on AirNav, guaranteed price.

Will you ever see $4 a gallon in California again? Hell no, it's California.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Remember you're a few hundred pounds heavier than me and have the wrong tanks on the wing.... View attachment 22017

View attachment 22018

I see in your picture that the right engine is showing 10.6 gph, but I also note that it's showing a significantly lower fuel pressure than the other engine, which leads me to believe that your total fuel burn is probably greater than 21.2 gph... Right? (I also see that the RPM's are right on and the MP's are within 1/2", so maybe your fuel pressure sensor is off on one engine?)

 

[Henning]

I see in your picture that the right engine is showing 10.6 gph, but I also note that it's showing a significantly lower fuel pressure than the other engine, which leads me to believe that your total fuel burn is probably greater than 21.2 gph... Right? (I also see that the RPM's are right on and the MP's are within 1/2", so maybe your fuel pressure sensor is off on one engine?)

It's the factory fuel pressure instrument that needs to be sent off. Both engines had been set to an external guage and that's what the result was. It also explained why after the guys at DVT set the fuels (using the panel instrument) during the annual it came out all f-d up and ran like crap. I set the mixtures using the fuel flows on the new JPI 760 and they were matched at 10.6

 

[Ted]

The factory gauge on the 310 (like on most twins) doesn't have a fuel flow sensor. It's actually a pressure gauge that takes the pressure off of the fuel distributor (or whatever the appropriate Continental term is - they work the same for both Lycoming and Continental) and then reads that pressure in gallons per hour.

This means that they inherently have some errors. Namely if the nozzles are clogged, you'll read significantly higher fuel flow than what you actually have. In my Aztec, the gauge was blamed when it was really the nozzles. Cleaned them in Hoppes #9 gun cleaning solvent (per the appropriate Lycoming Service Instruction) and they're good as new... and the gauge miraculously works great now.

 

[Henning]

The factory gauge on the 310 (like on most twins) doesn't have a fuel flow sensor. It's actually a pressure gauge that takes the pressure off of the fuel distributor (or whatever the appropriate Continental term is - they work the same for both Lycoming and Continental) and then reads that pressure in gallons per hour.

This means that they inherently have some errors. Namely if the nozzles are clogged, you'll read significantly higher fuel flow than what you actually have. In my Aztec, the gauge was blamed when it was really the nozzles. Cleaned them in Hoppes #9 gun cleaning solvent (per the appropriate Lycoming Service Instruction) and they're good as new... and the gauge miraculously works great now.

Cleaned all 12 nozzles in Reno and set the pressures to a calibrated gauge. Only thing left is the instrument.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Mansfield, LA is listed at $3.39 on AirNav, guaranteed price.

The freakin' 87 octane for my car costs more than that here in San Diego (3.80 this week!)

 

[Henning]

iGismo:
Thanks for your erudite analysis; I appreciate the discussion that there may be inter-correlation among variables, and I'm sure one could endeavor to apply a gigantic multiple regression model to enough data for each aircraft type to arrive at the best predictor variables. As you said, :It depends." In the case under discussion, it seems that the 310 owner wants to remain the 310 owner, thus many of the fixed costs will remain his whether he rents it or not. The renter should be offering at least enough to cover direct operating costs plus some goodwill amount to recognize the owner's fixed costs. I mentioned previously that this prospective renter is helping the owner keep his aircraft from the "hangar queen" roll, and that confers value to Mr.- 310 owner.

But, so what? The original line of questioning was to arrive at an arm's-length reental price, absent the profit included in FBO rentals (nothing wrong with that). While fuel is the largest direct operating expense, it is probably the most volatile cost, also. It seems, though, that other costs are positively correlated with fuel prices. While several hourly numbers (both wet and dry) have been offered in this forum, the missing voice is that of Mr.- 310 owner. Given the scarcity of rental twins, the prospect of having exclusive use of a privately-owned 310 would seem quite valuable, and I would get negotiations started to secure that stewardship of the airplane.

Though probably much more expensive, an alternative could be a dry lease of the airplane.

The big variable in fixed cost is of insurance. If you have a higher time (1000+PIC) with 250+ ME and 50 310, then you have a renter who will qualify on a low cost (<$2k on $40khull) policy. Once those numbers come down though, even a little, the insurance costs go up quickly heading to over $9k on a $40k hull coverage policy. Insurance companies are reluctant to put low time pilots in 310s for some reason.

This info comes from the last couple of months of insurance shopping for a 310 to be able to rent it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The freakin' 87 octane for my car costs more than that here in San Diego (3.80 this week!)

Yup. But you're in California, so your gas is sun-kissed and has a deficit to make up.

Yet another reason why I'll probably never live there - It is just too damn expensive.

 

[n12365]

The big variable in fixed cost is of insurance. If you have a higher time (1000+PIC) with 250+ ME and 50 310, then you have a renter who will qualify on a low cost (<$2k on $40khull) policy. Once those numbers come down though, even a little, the insurance costs go up quickly heading to over $9k on a $40k hull coverage policy. Insurance companies are reluctant to put low time pilots in 310s for some reason.

This info comes from the last couple of months of insurance shopping for a 310 to be able to rent it.

I think the insurance is going to be the sticking point. I have 450 total, 45 complex, 10 ME, and 0 in a 310. My commercial instructor, who has 7,000 total and 800 in a 310, has volunteered to ride in the right seat with me until I meet the insurance requirements, but that was assuming I would need 25 hours in the 310. The owner is talking to the insurance company, but if it results in a $9k premium increase, this isn't going to work.

 

[Trapper John]

Bob, is that a Queen Air in your avatar pic?

 

[Ted]

Non-owner policies I've been told are pretty much impossible to get for twins.

The rental arrangements I've been in, I've been a named insured on the policy. In the Mooney, I paid a percentage of the insurance. On my Aztec, the one other person I let fly it is a named insured, and we have a deal worked out that allows him to fly it quite reasonably.

 

[Trapper John]

Hey, Bill:

It sure is. An Excalibur conversion at that (io-720s to replace the igso-540s, NB the smaller nacelles). A piston-driven KingAir 90, in a way. Somehow, it seems more civilized and practical than a Beech 18, but it retains that greasy piston quality that's irresistable. Love at first sight when I saw it at the Hinsdale (IL) airport about 1970.

Fly safely,

Bob

Very cool! I haven't seen a Queen Air in person for a long time. There was a Twin Bo at my former home drome - the 3-across seating and how tall it sat on its gear was very impressive.

 

[ajstoner21]

Non-owner policies I've been told are pretty much impossible to get for twins.

The rental arrangements I've been in, I've been a named insured on the policy. In the Mooney, I paid a percentage of the insurance. On my Aztec, the one other person I let fly it is a named insured, and we have a deal worked out that allows him to fly it quite reasonably.

Never tried to actually buy it, but I've been told Avemco will insure Multi-Engine. They list ME rates on their site.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In the rental situations I've been involved with, and even with club airplanes, I carried a "smooth million" non-owned policy from Avemco (now AIG, I think).

Nope, Avemco is still Avemco. They're still pricey, but they're still worth it IMHO. And, they still have non-owned insurance available, even for multi-engine aircraft.

 

[Henning]

All true, my friend. But, if I was fortunate enough to be in a conversation about this sort of stewardship with someone else's (incredible!) airplane, don't you think it would be appropriate to have a non-owned policy of your own to protect yourself and the owner? In the rental situations I've been involved with, and even with club airplanes, I carried a "smooth million" non-owned policy from Avemco (now AIG, I think). Insuranc companies are pretty strict, as you indicated, but I found the non-owned policy very flexible and affordable. I don't have any recent information about it's availability, but I'd guess AOPA could help.

Fly safe, Bob

Yeah, I was looking at that method, and there are two issues involved, first off, getting the non owned policy for you, and in order for it to cover as primary for me, I have to be bare of insurance. It's really a mess.... I was trying to figure out a way to do it, be able to rent to lower time pilots, and the number that kept showing up was it was going to be at least $9000 and a commercial policy. If I do that, I might as well get a 135 certificate and I'm not in a position to make that viable, maybe later. Now doing 5 NAMED pilots is pretty easy, and you can get exceptions to the pilot warranties by having them do the assigned dual with an accepted CFIME (typically they want 250-500hrs 310 time to approve the instructor.).

 

[Henning]

Nope, Avemco is still Avemco. They're still pricey, but they're still worth it IMHO. And, they still have non-owned insurance available, even for multi-engine aircraft.

Yeah, looks like $1600 all in, so that adds $16hr if you're going to build 100hrs. What are the pilot requirements though?

 

[Henning]

Cheesehead:

Thank you. Those were the specifics I couldn't find. $1600? What's the downside, iH? You've got the front door, man. Put the deal together and fly the **** out of that old bird -- you'll learn so much, and doubtlessly you'll have the time of your life. Get with someone eho knows 310s well for your checkout and ongoing flying; they have some maintenance items (particularly landing gear) that you want to stay on top of.

IMHO, don't look a gift horse in the mouth,

Bob

I don't see a problem with it, actually it was my suggestion to the insurance people, I even spoke with the underwriters directly at AOPA "Summit" at LGB. From my understanding there is only ONE underwriter in the US underwriting all the Non Owner Policies. They kept saying that they wouldn't be willing to write NOPs on the 310 without the same kind of pilot warranties that would qualify them for reasonable cost standard coverage. I never had someone actually try to buy a NOP for it, so I can only go by what the brokers, agents and underwriters are telling me.

From the renters perspective, you need to pony up the dollars for the policy before you start flying.

 

[wabower]

The military guys say that no plan of battle survives the first encounter with the enemy. Good luck!

The 310N Colemill (IO-520-Es instead of IO-470-VOs) that I operate we plan for about $300-330/hr wet actual cost, including engine reserves. Of course, it also has a nice avionics panel, de-ice, 3-bladed props, etc. That seems to be in-line with the rental costs from places trying to make money but have base 310s.

 

[Ted]

Never tried to actually buy it, but I've been told Avemco will insure Multi-Engine. They list ME rates on their site.

There's a difference between a renter policy and an owner (or otherwise named insured) policy. When I was looking at potentially having others fly my Aztec, the conclusion I ended up coming to was that anyone who was going to fly it needed to be named insured on the policy.

The military guys say that no plan of battle survives the first encounter with the enemy. Good luck!

So far, it's been doing alright. But then again, I see looming big expenses in my future in the form of a flight director/HSI and two overhauled IO-520-Es.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the renter must be a "named pilot" or else he has exposure to liability arising from the operation of the aircraft. The non-ownwer policy is a good way for the renter to protect themselves, and it would cover any hull damage. But should the liability in an accident exceed the non-owned coverage, they'll join the owner in the action. Absent an endorsement for the renter, that's not a good place to be.

Being a "Named Pilot" on the owner's policy does NOT mean the renter is covered - It means that the owner is specifically covered when the renter is flying.

Ideally, the renter will be "Named Insured" and thus both of them will be covered.

 

[wabower]

To avoid confusion I think most companies and insurance people use "additional insured" to describe this coverage.

Being a "Named Pilot" on the owner's policy does NOT mean the renter is covered - It means that the owner is specifically covered when the renter is flying.

Ideally, the renter will be "Named Insured" and thus both of them will be covered.

 

[Henning]

Those pictures don't prove what you're saying at all. You managed to get 180 KTAS in level flight (that's easy), but the second picture doesn't tell me how much flow you're getting. 21 gph LOP at 180 KTAS? I'm not buying it, and that doesn't jive with what any other 310 pilot I've talked to has said they get.

I can burn 20 gph LOP combined in the 310 I fly, that will get me 168 KTAS @ 13,000 ft. I've found the difference between being low on fuel with just me and heavy with a plane full of dogs and full fuel is pretty negligible in airspeed, no more than 5 kts.

Granted, the one I fly has 520s and not 470s, but the primary difference there is I take off and climb better.

You know, I've been thinking about this and I was at my plane yesterday and it hit me... I still have the factory Nacelles with the over wing accelerator or what ever they call it. I always heard that you lose a few knots when you do the conversion, never had seen the results on the same plane, before/after though to say for sure.

 

[Ted]

You know, I've been thinking about this and I was at my plane yesterday and it hit me... I still have the factory Nacelles with the over wing accelerator or what ever they call it. I always heard that you lose a few knots when you do the conversion, never had seen the results on the same plane, before/after though to say for sure.

Not sure what you're talking about, nor am I sure what the Colemill conversion does for the engine nacelles (Executive 600 - IO-520-Es). I thought they pretty much stayed the same.

I can cruise at 190 KTAS in the 5-8k MSL range if I want, but to do so will involve burning a bunch more fuel or roasting the cylinders. The 175 KTAS is the economy cruise, and since we're comparing economy to economy, I think that'd be the differentiating fact.

 

[Henning]

Not sure what you're talking about, nor am I sure what the Colemill conversion does for the engine nacelles (Executive 600 - IO-520-Es). I thought they pretty much stayed the same.

I can cruise at 190 KTAS in the 5-8k MSL range if I want, but to do so will involve burning a bunch more fuel or roasting the cylinders. The 175 KTAS is the economy cruise, and since we're comparing economy to economy, I think that'd be the differentiating fact.

This is what I'm talking about, I forget what it was they called it, some performance related word.... I don't know what else I can say, the pictures were real and taken at the same time...

 

[Ted]

Oh, you're talking about the over-wing exhaust.

Yeah, the one I fly has the under-wing exhaust with the augmenters. It's not a conversion, it came that way factory. I have no idea what that's supposed to do to speed. I could see it having a bit more drag, but not a ton.

 

[Henning]

Oh, you're talking about the over-wing exhaust.

Yeah, the one I fly has the under-wing exhaust with the augmenters. It's not a conversion, it came that way factory. I have no idea what that's supposed to do to speed. I could see it having a bit more drag, but not a ton.

Yeah, the factory changed the design I think in the next moddel or two. after the D, and a lot of people who had the over wing augmentors have changed to underwing to try to solve corrosion issues (IME it really only relocated them...), that's what I meant by conversion, the earlier planes.

I think between the augmentors and the Tuna tanks lies 5 knots.