Every time one of these turbine vs. piston threads gets kicked off, or revisited like this one, I do another cost evaluation of what it would cost "me". I did "another one" with the new activity from this thread.

My evaluation is of an older King Air because that's what I would want. Without doubt, some MU-2 owners hereon, will counter that the MU-2 is cheaper to own. I'm not debating that, don't care. If I were to do it, I would choose the B or C model 90.

The long and short of it is that the 90 KA would cost me twice, maybe more, than the Aerostar in operating/maintenance cost.

That would violate my Number One rule of aircraft ownership: Never own an airplane whose cost would be even noticeable to your financial expenditures.

With the Cub, 180, and a King Air, my finances would not allow my aviation expenditures to go "unnoticed".

But, it is fun to dream, isn't it?

John Grady

JG,

Considering you use the A* for about 12 trips a year (stated previously), why not consider a partnership?

You could then do something crazy like jump into the KA90 like you planned, or a TBM or Phenom 100...

With such infrequent trips, I would hazard that you could partner with a company flight department looking to lower costs with a buy out clause predefined so your kids do not have estate issues. The company manages the plane, and could effectively be based within 30 minutes flight time and the numbers will work better.

Tim

Tim,

My aversion to a partnership in anything/anytime/anywhere is akin to a phobia of sleeping with a live rattlesnake in my bed. I would quit flying first.

I bought and outfitted a nice Beech Musketeer once so I could give the boys their IFR instruction in a simple airplane. I let a friend talk me into letting him buy in so he would have a backup to his Seneca. After two months, I paid him a profit to get him out. Somehow, we remained friends: I think.

You may understand, as you do know be "some", that I am a little weird, a condition to which I freely and openly admit. It appears that this will never change.

John Grady

I think I might partner on a taildragger ONLY if the monetary amount was negligible for both of us....Other than that I totally agree with JGG on partnership.

I also dream slightly of a King Air....but,

AEROSTAR IS JUST SO DANG GUUD

...for 2 or 3 or maybe 4 people,

Brad, JG,

Personally, I would rather an Aerostar versus a partnership on a KA. So I perfectly understand, I just do not have the burning desire to look at turbines. Which JG and many others have expressed....

Tim

Burning desire versus the cold, wet, smothering effect of reality: I can't afford it.

John Grady

Burning desire versus the cold, wet, smothering effect of reality: I can't afford it.

John Grady

I think for a personal aircraft that is reasonable. The math changes if you can use your airplane as a tool in your business.

Glenn

I think for a personal aircraft that is reasonable.

Not many. And I know when I had the Cirrus and the Aerostar there was no way I met the guideline. Depending on lifestyle, where you are in your life (carrier, family...) the right percentage could be all over the place.

I personally think net worth is a very poor metric to use; income is much better. And again, where you are in life will play a major role in what is acceptable. Airplanes consume cash, you need to be able to comfortably afford the cash expenditure; which can be a purchase/upgrade loan, maintenance....

Tim

I think for a personal aircraft that is reasonable. The math changes if you can use your airplane as a tool in your business.

Glenn

Rick, if the value of each airplane doesn't exceed 5% of your net worth then math says you have at least 20 airplanes.

Therefore... you're good!

Q.E.D.

Funny that someone should bring up a % of net worth as a financial benchmark of aircraft ownership. I had once thought about it in those terms. Again, my standard is that the ownership does not produce a cash flow that I even notice.

However, my thoughts along these lines were that the old standby of home mortgage/insurance/taxes outlays not being more than 30% of one's gross income gives something of a benchmark for other purchases. And turning that to an aircraft purchase/ownership cost, I think the 5% rule is a pretty good standard.

My boys and I were attending Sun & Fun many years ago when they were about 9 and 11 years of age. Referring to some airplane, I don't remember which, one asked me if I could afford it. My answer was "I can buy it but I can't afford it."

That's hitting a lot of us "turbine dreamers" right in the joy-joys.

John Grady

The other thing to focus on is trying to afford it "emotionally."

Understandable why people with personal use aircraft have it on the company books for (monkey) business.

For example having a small jet, will I have to pay 600 a night just to park it on a ramp somewhere. On top of landing fees, and other handling fees and fuel price not reflecting getting hosed on other line items. The pocket book can take it, but it would be too upsetting for me.

I think the reality is, deservedly or not, the specter/perception/reality of high FBO fees have changed purchase decisions and timelines.

The other thing to focus on is trying to afford it "emotionally."

Understandable why people with personal use aircraft have it on the company books for (monkey) business.

For example having a small jet, will I have to pay 600 a night just to park it on a ramp somewhere. On top of landing fees, and other handling fees and fuel price not reflecting getting hosed on other line items. The pocket book can take it, but it would be too upsetting for me.

I think the reality is, deservedly or not, the specter/perception/reality of high FBO fees have changed purchase decisions and timelines.