So I want to buy a 182.

TUCRACEMAN

TUCRACEMAN

Well-Known Member
Just wondering what to expect.

B of A? How much down? Taxes? Depreciation?

I would like to start a LLC. and have the aircraft managed by a local flight school for training and rentals.

Has anyone done this?

~D
 
TUCRACEMAN said:
Just wondering what to expect.
Click to expand...

Expect to lose money. A typical leaseback arrangement with an FBO has you covering the fixed costs (insurance is the biggest, then the cost of the plane). They will pay you for the hours if flies.

A 182 isn't a trainer, it won't fly very much. It is a good tax writeoff if you buy a new one and take the depreciation. The cash flow from renting it is unlikely to ever cover your costs though.
 
Well, with the amount of package hauling, rentals (Only 182 in 100 miles to rent), photo flights, and ariel surveying we seem to find that 30 hrs/Month will cover the fuel/tie-down/insurance/what else am I missing....We think it will get a lot of use (much more than 30 hrs/mo.....so that brings me to the financing part. How long? At what rate would a 182 depreciate?
~D
 
drunkenbeagle said:
A 182 isn't a trainer, it won't fly very much. It is a good tax writeoff if you buy a new one and take the depreciation. The cash flow from renting it is unlikely to ever cover your costs though.
Click to expand...

Yup, agree totally. The 182 at the local FBO is much, much easier to schedule than the 9 172's, and 150/152 combo. The only real reason to rent it is to get the high performance endorsement, or if you want to take 4 people on a cross country. I sat down and did the math one day the cost per nautical mile, when renting wet at this FBO, actually favor the 182. The only way you can make a 182 work on a rental line is if you've got a big market. Have to have lots of pilots to be able to convince a few to fly the more expensive plane.
 
You can form an LLC for the company, and depreciate the aircraft (7 years is typical). You can then write off the costs for fuel, insurance, maintenance, hangar, etc. and other associated costs. I would imagine that a typical FBO lease, with a 182 as the asset, will lose money. If you're doing the accounting properly, you should be placing an estimated amount of revenue from each hour toward engine and prop reserve, and to cover other known future expenses.

As to loans, my loan is 15 years at 7.25%, secured in late 2007, so I'm not sure what you can secure today. B of A seems to be the most aggressive.
 
A friend of mine just about a Cessna 140 to use as a leaseback thinking it would be a good financial investment. Poor sap.
 
As an FYI the 182 at a school I used to work at also rarely flew. The school was out of Teterboro and was the closest place to rent aircraft from Manhattan - needless to say we had a pretty good lock on the market.


  • The only time the 182 flew on photo flights was when the 172's weren't available. Out of a few dozen photo flights I did only one was in the 182, and I think we ended up doing 6 locations.
  • The only time the 182 flew from folks renting it was when actors would rent it to impress their significant others. Even the wall street folks and doctors wouldn't rent the 182.
  • It was also on the 135 certificate and it never once flew as far as I knew.

The owner ended up pulling it because the only thing it was doing was CFI checkouts to give checkouts although I did do a BFR in it once because the 172's weren't available.
 
There used to be a 182 in ROC which I used to rent. I practically owned that airplane, as I could schedule it whenever and for however long I wanted since it flew that irregularly.
 
TUCRACEMAN said:
Hmmmm. A loan that big is going to kill me. I should have become a lawyer.
~D
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong, the G1000 182 I fly is awesome - flight director, the altitude bug couples to to the garmin autopilot (unlike most G1000 172s)

It has problems though. It is so big and heavy that useful load is about the same as a 172P with a 180HP engine. For twice the price.

Your insurance company is probably not going to let you do any instruction in it. So you are basically looking at renting it to PPL's with over 300 hours. That audience can probably afford to buy their own plane anyway, and chances are they would get a more practical Mooney/Saratoga/Malibu/etc.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Don't get me wrong, the G1000 182 I fly is awesome - flight director, the altitude bug couples to to the garmin autopilot (unlike most G1000 172s)

It has problems though. It is so big and heavy that useful load is about the same as a 172P with a 180HP engine. For twice the price.

Your insurance company is probably not going to let you do any instruction in it. So you are basically looking at renting it to PPL's with over 300 hours. That audience can probably afford to buy their own plane anyway, and chances are they would get a more practical Mooney/Saratoga/Malibu/etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the GFC700 is an awesome autopilot, much better than the KAP140. But comparing a new 172S to a 182T, I've had the following experience. I can't get me and 2 guys, plus full fuel in a 172. I can fill the tanks (all 92 gallons) and stuff 3 guys in, no problem. Might have to fly for 45 minutes to get under the landing weight, but its no biggie. Leave the fuel to the bottom tab, and you could easily stuff 4 big guys into the thing.

300 hour seems really steep for renting a 182. I'd say 100-150, with like 10 hours in type is something that would work decently for both the insurance company and for a renter. I know where I get in the 182, the only thing they cared about was 1)Pilot Certificate and 2)High Performance endorsement. After that, it was a 1 hour checkout, and your good to go.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I can't get me and 2 guys, plus full fuel in a 172. I can fill the tanks (all 92 gallons) and stuff 3 guys in, no problem. Might have to fly for 45 minutes to get under the landing weight, but its no biggie. Leave the fuel to the bottom tab, and you could easily stuff 4 big guys into the thing.
Click to expand...

The 172S is almost overweight with 2 people, let alone three. Cessna figured out that it is better to market them as trainers, where there will only ever be 2 people in them. The older 172's are more practical for actually going anywhere (and cheaper).

The 182T I usually fly has about an 1150lb useful load, the 172P has a 1040lb useful load. Considering the weight of the extra gas in the 182, it is hard to pick a winner there. Going 30kts faster is great, but you need to have time to get up to 8,000ft or so to see that.

KSCessnaDriver said:
300 hour seems really steep for renting a 182. I'd say 100-150, with like 10 hours in type is something that would work decently for both the insurance company and for a renter. I know where I get in the 182, the only thing they cared about was 1)Pilot Certificate and 2)High Performance endorsement. After that, it was a 1 hour checkout, and your good to go.
Click to expand...

Just saying most renters of a new 182 are probably going to have at least that much time. At 100 hours, I wouldn't have felt comfortable flying one, they fly like a truck compared to a 172.

I'm sure 100 hours and 10 in type can be enough, I just don't think there are that many 100 hour pilots looking to fly a 182. If they are of the time-building sort, from 100 to 250 hours they are probably looking for the cheapest deal going. If not, they probably bought a plane by that point.

There is a reason you don't see too many 182s at FBOs.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I'm sure 100 hours and 10 in type can be enough, I just don't think there are that many 100 hour pilots looking to fly a 182. If they are of the time-building sort, from 100 to 250 hours they are probably looking for the cheapest deal going. If not, they probably bought a plane by that point.

There is a reason you don't see too many 182s at FBOs.
Click to expand...

Very true. I think they only reason an FBO can justify it is if they want to do high performance endorsements, and they are basically the only game in town to do so. Unless the airplane is a leaseback, then I've seen some crazy airplanes in those deals
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Unless the airplane is a leaseback, then I've seen some crazy airplanes in those deals
Click to expand...

That's the reason I think all of them are there :) I doubt any flight school owner would consider it a good investment (unless it was his personal plane for the most part).

A complex HP makes more sense for the flight schools. If the 182s were RG, there would probably be a bigger market (those Arrows are starting to show their age...) The FAA dropping complex time for the C-ASEL may make that moot though.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
That's the reason I think all of them are there :) I doubt any flight school owner would consider it a good investment (unless it was his personal plane for the most part).

A complex HP makes more sense for the flight schools. If the 182s were RG, there would probably be a bigger market (those Arrows are starting to show their age...) The FAA dropping complex time for the C-ASEL may make that moot though.
Click to expand...

Well then, the most bang for the buck must go to something along the lines of a Grumman Widegon. Heck, you could get your complex, tailwheel, and high performance endorsements, as well as the multi-land/sea ratings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top