Posted: 10/19/2025 9:58:26 PM EDT
|
Long story short, I was talking to a buddy of mine about looking at all of the fixed and variable costs of ownership when he brought up getting into a partnership. I know a lot of people do it, but it never crossed my mind. Turns out he knew the guy that put a plane up for sale, who didn’t really want to sell it, and was actually more open to the idea of selling shares of the plane. I’ll bite, it seems like a pretty cost-saving measure at the expense of total convenience, but realistically how much am I going to be able to fly annually? And as long as it’s relatively available, and can take it on multi day trips now and then, it would fit my wants and desires. Anyhow, any glaring drawbacks? The per share cost seems reasonable, and it sounds like the plan is to pay an hourly rate into a maintenance fund. |
|
Your questions are answered by the partnership agreement. Availability for long trips means scheduling the airplane so that everyone in the group knows that it will be gone. Failing to check the schedule was the main problem in one partnership, and it got to the point that I called the airplane back from one flight and stopped another flight when I had the airplane scheduled several days ahead of the date and time I intended to leave. Another issue to make clear is fueling the airplane after a flight unless an issue arises. Use a stick so that no one has any doubt about the amount of fuel to be left. It's important to partner with someone that you'll get along with on every topic, and someone with similar notions about equipment. I passed on a partnership in a Pietenpol biplane because I couldn't keep up with airline pilots that started planning to add ridiculous equipment the night we were to write checks. You'll probably want to establish a bank account and a per flight hour charge to fund engine work. I passed on another airplane club that included an attorney at start up. The bylaws were about 20 pages long when I dropped out of the project, that was ridiculous and included terms that attempted to classify partners according to their dedication or participation or esteem or something. |
Keep your powder dry, and watch your back trail.
I'm watching my back trail.
I'm watching my back trail.
|
Prior to buying my own, and solely owned, aircraft, I gave serious thought to both partnership and club type organizations. I rejected a club approach wholesale. From a partner perspective there was nobody I would touch with the proverbial ten foot pole. Later there was one person I would consider, but I was already financially comfortable with sole ownership, so bringing on a partner was unnecessary. Many of the issues AeroE mentions are easily managed by having well thought out and thorough contractual agreements. There are many excellent resources available to potential partners or clubs from the usual suspects, such as AOPA, EAA, and a variety of aviation-related legal firms. That's the easy part. Perhaps the most important part of this is that, in the event of a mishap, the partner or member flying is financially responsible for making the other partners or members whole, i.e. they are responsible for the insurance deductible and any other non-covered costs. The harder part is the proper vetting and selection of partners or members. First and foremost there needs to be financial background and credit check. If the worst happens they need to have the financial means to satisfy the inevitable lawsuit that is brought against them by the partnership or the club. This is just plain business sense and the final, but also first, step in risk management. Don't skip on vetting by a local school, either, minimum training and experience requirements, or any other factors you feel are important. The hardest part of all is relative to partnerships specifically, and that is managing what happens when you, or another partner, want to sell their share. Such an event is inevitable. People lose interest, lose financial means, lose medicals, or, unfortunately, pass away. If you have the financial means to buy someone else out and are just using the partnership to save money in the present, then this might not be a big deal. Or, for a small partnership, say two or three people, perhaps it might be enough to make the contract state that, after right of first refusal by the others, if there was no unanimously acceptable path forward, the partnership would sell the aircraft and dissolve. But this can become quite a contentious situation for larger partnerships. IMHO, a small partnership of two or three, with the right contracts and the right vetting, is very possible at low risk. However, there must be patience. Do not rush to form one, or join one, because you are in a hurry. Another option is, if you have an aircraft that is popular for training, to lease the aircraft to a local school. If you are willing to accept a bit of wear and tear, and some restrictions on availability, you can put a big dent in your cost of ownership to go along with the occasional dent in the sheet metal  Again, a proper set of contractual paperwork, and good vetting of the school in question, is required. I did this for the first five years of ownership until I had the loan paid off. It was quite a bit of extra work for me, and the exterior finish of the aircraft did suffer a bit, but financially it worked out well in my case.
|
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
|
I was involved in 2 partnerships. 1 was fantastic and the only reason we dissolved it was my partner was moving to KCMO to be near his grandkids. The other was a total shitshow. The other 2 guys in the deal turned out to be shady as hell and I bailed as soon as I could. In both cases, I had good partnership agreements drawn up by an attorney and it was the only thing that saved my bacon in the second case. I was able to get out of that partnership with a very minimal loss. EVERYTHING in a partnership has to be spelled out. Things such as when the plane is fueled after a flight (1 of mine stated at tabs minimum after flights, the other was 'dry'); who is responsible for damages (should be individual pilot if a movement is involved, otherwise the partnership in equal shares); insurance coverages; reserve funds and amounts and how they're maintained (escrow fund minimum in the partnership name); scheduling; unscheduled maintenance sharing; scheduled maintenance sharing and what types notwithstanding annuals and other FAR-required maintenance; where is the maintenance done and by whom (this is where I found the second partnership to be shady); minimum pilot requirements (mostly an insurance thing); whether training can be done in the plane (other than partners); whether others can fly the plane as PIC (except in emergencies); and whether soft fields can be used (again, outside emergencies). |
<placeholder for something good in the future></placeholder>
|
Thanks for all of the wise words, guys. I took the plane up yesterday with the owner, and we discussed some other things. The owner is very adamant about finding people that fit, I brought up a couple of the points mentioned by y'all, and y’all brought up some points that I need to add to the discussion. We went back over pricing and expectations, and I think we’re at a good starting point. I’m excited about the prospect as I can get into an airplane that’s in excellent shape, is economical, and would be way more available than what I’ve done in the past (renting from the flight school I got my PPL with) so I can build time, which is generally the whole point, and it can give me a better feel if buying an aircraft on my own down the road is actually something I want to commit to financially. As for fueling, the plane will stay at the air park with no fuel point, so it’d be a real dick move to not return it fueled up 
|
|
Cool plane. Especially if the avionics are newish. 4 or 5 partners? More partners = more drama. Obviously it's nice that a share is less money, and that also makes it easier for others to absorb a departing partner without having to bring in another. But, still, more drama... |
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
|
I know he needs 4 or 5 to make it financially feasible, but I'd be concerned with scheduling. A friend at the airport ran into that problem. He could never get the times he wanted because their scheduling plan was terrible. If you can work out the scheduling, that would be a big plus. Check AOPA, they have a lot of info on partnerships, and might even have some tips on scheduling for more 2 or 3 people. |
|
Originally Posted By FB41: 114 or 115? I've flown both and the 115 is a great flying bird (and the 114 ain't no slouch). It’s a 112, so it’s no speed demon, but a 130-140 knot cruise ain’t bad. Useful load isn’t awesome at 900lbs, but I can only see myself and one other person on any longer trips, and I don’t know if I could fly for 6 hours straight Originally Posted By aa777888-2: Cool plane. Especially if the avionics are newish. 4 or 5 partners? More partners = more drama. Obviously it's nice that a share is less money, and that also makes it easier for others to absorb a departing partner without having to bring in another. But, still, more drama... It has a nice garmin setup. If I end up not being able to fly as much as I want, then I can always sell my share out, which is the nice thing. I won’t be out that much. Even still, it’s preferable to flying clapped out 172s for $480/3hr minimum that I have to schedule weeks out in advance. Plus, I can use this to finish out my instrument ticket, it’ll get me my complex, and it’s very comfortable for my 6’3” ass. Originally Posted By jmt1991: I know he needs 4 or 5 to make it financially feasible, but I'd be concerned with scheduling. A friend at the airport ran into that problem. He could never get the times he wanted because their scheduling plan was terrible. If you can work out the scheduling, that would be a big plus. Check AOPA, they have a lot of info on partnerships, and might even have some tips on scheduling for more 2 or 3 people. Same as above. It’s definitely a concern, but I can always sell out in a year if I can’t fly because it’s always gone. Unfortunately, it’s the territory with fractional ownership, but as long as I can get it for a few two- or three-day trips a year, I’ll be happy. |
|
The good news is that there are many, excellent, online aircraft scheduling systems that are available for use, including phone app's and all that sort of thing. That tends to help a lot. That and the phone numbers of other partners In the pre-internet days, I used to have to drive out to the airport and physically access a hardcopy schedule book to check availability and reserve the aircraft. What a pain that was! I suppose the higher end partnerships and clubs might have had a secretary you could call
|
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
| If you can find good partners they are the best way to own an airplane. It doesn't sit and you have another set of eyes on the airplane. We tend to fix everything the right away as well. I have had issues with a selfish young time builder who treated it like a rental at first but is now decent dude. Do not let anyone you wouldn't let fly your kids/family into the airplane partnership. |
|
Originally Posted By stillerfan: If you can find good partners they are the best way to own an airplane. It doesn't sit and you have another set of eyes on the airplane. We tend to fix everything the right away as well. I have had issues with a selfish young time builder who treated it like a rental at first but is now decent dude. Do not let anyone you wouldn't let fly your kids/family into the airplane partnership. Well said, and put the airplane into a LLC. The LLC allows you to bring partners into and out of it much easier, limits financial liability for everyone, and also saves you potential sales/use taxes every time it memberships change. |
Dave Funk
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
Past President and now a Board of Directors member Iowa Firearms Coalition.
|
Already ahead of you guys, we’ve got an LLC waiting to go through all the legalese and is waiting to be formed. Just an update, my buddy and I have moved away from the Commander and the 4- or 5-way partnership and are now looking to form our own on a Comanche 250, going to look and test fly one this week. He’s got some time in them and we’re both excited about the prospect of it. I’ll still need to get my complex and HP endorsements, but hopefully it’s not too hard after 800+ hours in an H64
|
|
Originally Posted By billytehbob: Already ahead of you guys, we’ve got an LLC waiting to go through all the legalese and is waiting to be formed. Just an update, my buddy and I have moved away from the Commander and the 4- or 5-way partnership and are now looking to form our own on a Comanche 250, going to look and test fly one this week. He’s got some time in them and we’re both excited about the prospect of it. I’ll still need to get my complex and HP endorsements, but hopefully it’s not too hard after 800+ hours in an H64 You can knock out those endorsements in a day but proficiency takes time. Comanche is a great airplane. They do require more maintenance than your average single-engine Piper. Definitely do a pre-buy and then turn it into an annual especially if the annual was in the Spring/Summer months. On these old airplanes it's worth the investment and no one wants an annual due in June and get stuck missing out on the summer due to parts availability. |
|
Originally Posted By stillerfan: You can knock out those endorsements in a day but proficiency takes time. Comanche is a great airplane. They do require more maintenance than your average single-engine Piper. Definitely do a pre-buy and then turn it into an annual especially if the annual was in the Spring/Summer months. On these old airplanes it's worth the investment and no one wants an annual due in June and get stuck missing out on the summer due to parts availability. Originally Posted By stillerfan: Originally Posted By billytehbob: Already ahead of you guys, we’ve got an LLC waiting to go through all the legalese and is waiting to be formed. Just an update, my buddy and I have moved away from the Commander and the 4- or 5-way partnership and are now looking to form our own on a Comanche 250, going to look and test fly one this week. He’s got some time in them and we’re both excited about the prospect of it. I’ll still need to get my complex and HP endorsements, but hopefully it’s not too hard after 800+ hours in an H64 You can knock out those endorsements in a day but proficiency takes time. Comanche is a great airplane. They do require more maintenance than your average single-engine Piper. Definitely do a pre-buy and then turn it into an annual especially if the annual was in the Spring/Summer months. On these old airplanes it's worth the investment and no one wants an annual due in June and get stuck missing out on the summer due to parts availability. @billytehbob You woulda had to get those endorsements for the Commander as well, so that's moot. The PA24-250 is a Pocket Rocket. Nice planes but like has been said, do a THOROUGH pre-but because there are some gotchas with the series- the landing gear in particular. International Comanche Society and Comanche Buyers Guide are 2 good resources for potential owners. ETA- have the pre-buy done by someone who is A: NOT the regular A&P on the bird and B: INITIMATELY familiar with PA24's. |
<placeholder for something good in the future></placeholder>
|
Just the complex for the 112, it has an IO-360 putting out 200 HP. Regardless of what plane we end up with, I wanted both endorsements anyhow. My buddy knows a great A&P that is very familiar with Comanches, but we haven’t discussed who is doing the prebuy. Rest assured, it will have a prebuy done. The biggest thing seems to be the landing gear AD, which was completed very recently, so we still have a few years if we end up with this specific Comanche. The tail bushing AD has been eliminated with the Aussie Horn. |
|
I didn’t realize this would turn into a 5-month endeavor, but here we are. Figured I’d give an update. We managed to pick up a 1965 S35 Bonanza. Pros include it’s in excellent condition, it has an IO-550TN, tip tanks, and some decent avionics. The only downsides is that one of the ruddervators needs replacing this year, but we were able to negotiate for the seller to “pay” for a new set, so we’ll just be on the hook for paint and install, and thankfully there’s new make ruddervators now. We’ll be picking it up in a few days, so all I have is the ad photo. We’re also getting some ground and flight instruction from some bonanza-focused CFIIs, so that’ll be a huge assist with initial confidence. I’m very unfamiliar with turbonormalizing, but it seems like an awesome feature. Supposedly sea level MP all the way up to 20k, which will be nice when I take it out west. Attached File I mentioned to my buddy, kind of joking (but also not), why not our last plane first if we can swing it, and I think he ran with it after we flew the Commander down to Florida after Christmas and saw that thing struggle a bit on a take off roll with 3 pax and full fuel 
|
|
Originally Posted By billytehbob: I didn’t realize this would turn into a 5-month endeavor, but here we are. Figured I’d give an update. We managed to pick up a 1965 S35 Bonanza. Pros include it’s in excellent condition, it has an IO-550TN, tip tanks, and some decent avionics. The only downsides is that one of the ruddervators needs replacing this year, but we were able to negotiate for the seller to “pay” for a new set, so we’ll just be on the hook for paint and install, and thankfully there’s new make ruddervators now. We’ll be picking it up in a few days, so all I have is the ad photo. We’re also getting some ground and flight instruction from some bonanza-focused CFIIs, so that’ll be a huge assist with initial confidence. I’m very unfamiliar with turbonormalizing, but it seems like an awesome feature. Supposedly sea level MP all the way up to 20k, which will be nice when I take it out west. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/293861/IMG_2365_jpeg-3714188.JPG I mentioned to my buddy, kind of joking (but also not), why not our last plane first if we can swing it, and I think he ran with it after we flew the Commander down to Florida after Christmas and saw that thing struggle a bit on a take off roll with 3 pax and full fuel Out west ya say. Well if ya happen to end up in western CO. You definitely should let me fly your airplane. I’m actually kinda half assed shopping for a plane right now myself. We shall see. Cool plane BTW. |
|
Bonanza's are nice rides, but you gotta watch the CG- it moves a bit with fuel burn in some models. I used to fly a '61 V-tail quite a bit and it liked to wag it's tail like a happy Labrador if you didn't keep a foot on the right rudder pedal. Are the ruddervators magnesium? |
<placeholder for something good in the future></placeholder>
|
Originally Posted By billytehbob: Yessir, as will the replacement(s) be. I just read about some composite/carbon fiber ones in the works, but I don’t think we’ll be concerned with having either/or, just what we can get. @billytehbob Rumor has it an STC is available to skin them in aluminum to get away from the dissimilar metals corrosion- and the fire hazard associated with magnesium. Check with the American Bonanza Society; see what they can offer. By the way, ABS is a GREAT resource for all things Bonanza. I used them to help find a CFI that had significant V-tail time do do a comprehensive check-out in the one I was flying. |
<placeholder for something good in the future></placeholder>
| There are yaw damper systems available for the v-tail which your rear seat passengers will appreciate greatly. Congrats on a good looking plane, there is a 60+ y/o on at my airport that has less than 2000 hour on it with a brand new white interior, glass cockpit, and a new windows......it is absolutely gorgeous. |
|
My dad bought a 1/4 into a 150 later in life. All in all it went smother than I thought but they had their hang-ups. One hang-up was that they got free tie-down at an airport hanger but they had to let the owner perform all the maintenance. My dad was a good mechanic and knew how to read technical manuals so when the guy cut corners on work my dad knew it. One issue came up when my dad flew over to have lunch with me one day that turned into break down. There was an issue where I believe the mechanic was missing one of the duel springs on a valve but reassembled the engine anyway. That led to the engine not wanting to restart when he came to visit. Probably attributed to a power loss on take-off one day too when my dad had to run in it off the end of the runway one day. So this caused some strife when the repair bills came in and my dad said free tie down isn't worth shotty work. In the end his health was deteriorating and he decided to sell. One member bought everyone out because they all decided to get out and the buyer figured it would be easier to sell as a sole owner. |
|
Originally Posted By FB41: @billytehbob Rumor has it an STC is available to skin them in aluminum to get away from the dissimilar metals corrosion- and the fire hazard associated with magnesium. Check with the American Bonanza Society; see what they can offer. By the way, ABS is a GREAT resource for all things Bonanza. I used them to help find a CFI that had significant V-tail time do do a comprehensive check-out in the one I was flying. Originally Posted By FB41: Originally Posted By billytehbob: Yessir, as will the replacement(s) be. I just read about some composite/carbon fiber ones in the works, but I don’t think we’ll be concerned with having either/or, just what we can get. @billytehbob Rumor has it an STC is available to skin them in aluminum to get away from the dissimilar metals corrosion- and the fire hazard associated with magnesium. Check with the American Bonanza Society; see what they can offer. By the way, ABS is a GREAT resource for all things Bonanza. I used them to help find a CFI that had significant V-tail time do do a comprehensive check-out in the one I was flying. The fire hazard of the magnesium alloys used for airplane skins is over hyped. The alloys range from difficult to impossible to ignite. WE43 alloy is used for seat frames in commercial airplanes. Galvanic corrosion is an unfortunate fact. |
Keep your powder dry, and watch your back trail.
|
This airplane was feature in Flying magazine back in December. https://www.flyingmag.com/this-1965-beechcraft-s35-bonanza-is-a-turbo-normalized-aircraftforsale-top-pick/ |
"Cogito, ergo armatum sum."
|
Originally Posted By billytehbob: I’m very unfamiliar with turbonormalizing, but it seems like an awesome feature. Something you may want to take a look at is the STC instructions for continued airworthiness. You may be limited to certain companies for parts, components/engine overhaul and possibly even installations. Even though it's a Continental IO-550 it kinda isn't anymore. |