Most Flying Hours for a Sport Pilot

[newamiga]

Ok this is a curiosity question I have after talking to a few Private Pilots over this weekend. I have about 325 hours and hold only a Sport Pilot certificate. I am curious of those who only hold SP and are not PP or other flying as a SP, how many hours do you have? The assertion from several friends was that maybe SP cert holders don't fly as much as PP holders do. I think 325 hours in about 3 years is quite a few hours flying for fun. I am hoping the weather holds and I will be doing about another 35-40 hours going from Colorado Springs to Northampton MA and then down from there to Sebring FL and back to CO here in a couple weeks.

Carl

[Jim Stewart]

I think anyone that can get in 50-100 hours a year is doing good. I tend to average 70 hours a year. I have a pp certificate, but most of my flying is without a 3rd class medical under sport pilot rules.

[MovingOn]

Never mind...

[3Dreaming]

I don't know why Sport Pilots would fly less than Private Pilots, on average. Once you own the airplane, LSA is less expensive per hour and takes longer to get wherever you're going, and is at least as much fun.

I don't know about the "takes longer" thought. My CT is faster than the Warrior that I have owned for years, and can fly longer legs making a short work of a long trip.

[drseti]

Carl, I'm glad to hear you're flying so many hours. This is a good thing!

I've long maintained that the sweet spot for economical aircraft ownership is around 100 hours a year. Less than that, and it's generally cheaper to rent. More than that, and you're leaving some money in the bank. But there are other advantages to ownership -- availability, familiarity, equipped as you like, and complete control over maintenance come to mind. Plus, one can't put a price on pride of ownership. So, even at less than 100 hours a year, it sometimes makes good sense to buy your own plane.

Or, am I just rationalizing?

[Merlinspop]

Carl, I'm glad to hear you're flying so many hours. This is a good thing!

I've long maintained that the sweet spot for economical aircraft ownership is around 100 hours a year. Less than that, and it's generally cheaper to rent. More than that, and you're leaving some money in the bank. But there are other advantages to ownership -- availability, familiarity, equipped as you like, and complete control over maintenance come to mind. Plus, one can't put a price on pride of ownership. So, even at less than 100 hours a year, it sometimes makes good sense to buy your own plane.

This is where I got into the argument with F3 a while back over his inclusion of "opportunity cost." If you put no value to the bolded line above, any opportunity cost will skew that break even point away from purchase, possibly so far that it may never make sense to own.

Or, am I just rationalizing?

And what's wrong with that?

[MovingOn]

Never mind...

[roger lee]

Most SP pilots that I get in my shop are right at a 100 a year. Some a tad less and quite few few more. That said Arizona has a lot of good flying days.

[Merlinspop]

But that doesn't mean you should ignore opportunity cost. It is a real cost whether you want to recognize it or ignore it. All of the non-financial advantages still apply. You should not ignore either.

Agreed. In the end, you have to answer the question, "is it worth it to me?" knowing that you have a very subjective element mixed in with the quantifiable numbers. Airplane ownership makes little sense for most people, if one looks only at the numbers. On the other hand, this is probably a big reason there are so many unused airplanes rotting away in hangars and tie-down spots across America.

[MovingOn]

Never mind...

[drseti]

FWIW, I just ran my annual spreadsheet of actual operating costs. Year to date, my true out-of-pocket (including TBO reserve) comes to $125.99/hour. This is subject to minor modification in the unlikely event that we get any more flyable days this year.

However, my plane rents for $120/hour wet. That means, I'm losing $5.99 per flight hour. Of course, this year flying hours were lower than expected. Last year, the plane flew 90 more hours, bringing actual costs down to $115.02/hour. So, it's priced right around where it needs to be for break-even.

Your costs for a personal aircraft will be less at equivalent hours. The major cost driver for me is commercial insurance.

[newamiga]

I think the point that the folks I was talking to were trying to bring out was that PP fly more than SP in general since the perception is that the SP guys are just staying in the pattern and not actually going places. At least my experience says this isn't all true. We take a couple to a few LSA's with SP PIC's up to OSH every year. That is about a 15 hour round trip from the Colorado Springs, Denver area. I know plenty of PP ticket holders who don't ever fly to Oshkosh, nor anywhere more than an hour or two from the pattern. There is nothing wrong with either of these things of course. I just think it is an interesting take that folks seem to think that SP == Recreational certificate in terms of the perceived likelihood that the pilot would go far from home.

My curiosity is more about how many hours do pure SP cert holders actually have. I figure the certificate has been around long enough that if they are doing 100 per year they should be approaching 1000 hours?

Paul, it is interesting to see the actual operating costs. I know a friend who leases his plane back at a local school varies month to month on breaking even or being into it for a little bit. I think net he probably ends up even or close. I guess as an owner who doesn't leaseback it makes you wonder when the larger bills come in if it is worth it to own. Then I go out and just jump in the plane and fly on no notice, or say to my wife, let's fly down to Albuquerque for a concert for the weekend on short notice and realize it is worth it.

Carl

[MovingOn]

Never mind...

[drseti]

I know a friend who leases his plane back at a local school varies month to month on breaking even or being into it for a little bit.

In terms of pure cash flow, leaseback is seldom any better than a break-even proposition. There is one circumstance, however, in which it makes good financial sense. If one has high taxable income, the depreciation from a leaseback can often throw one into a lower tax bracket, sheltering other income from taxation. (Unless you happen to be in a high tax bracket, however, don't expect to make significant money on a leaseback.)

[rgstubbsjr]

I've only been back into flying for 2 years, but I'm averaging 107 hrs a year. And that's here in the nasty Northeast..