New C T182T NAV III - Leaseback to a 135 operator?

21Foxtrot

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Posts
29
Total Time
N/A
Hello -

Out of curiosity, I have been crunching numbers on a new Cessna Turbo 182 NAV III. I've seen a number of financing scenarios on this plane with 10% down, interest only for 20yrs. In addition, Cessna will pay $4K towards training.

I'd like to know if there's any way to lease this back to a small 135 operator. Is there even a niche for such a small a/c or is this too tiny to make any money for a charter operator? Ideally, I'd like to use this a/c for training and personal flying while subsidizing the costs through a 135 leaseback. Given the cost of flying old (junky?) 172s, the hourly operating cost on an owner operated 182 really don't seem too bad.

Thoughts?

(Sorry if this is a silly question... I'm a relative newbie.)

Thank you in advance.
 

Gutenberg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Posts
160
Total Time
6500
It can be done. Find an operator that has some clients already. Maybe get a weekly frieght gig. It will have to fly a lot to break even, and the plane will get beat up if you use it a lot- naturally. With the dual alternators you can get a single engine IFR authorization. We have 2 cirrus aircraft on our 135 ticket (they never fly). The problem arises in icing, you will need a backup so as not to piss off your clients when you cant go and their cargo sits there.

The upside- it is cheaper than a twin and if you're located in the right spot, you can get that freight business.

You can also lease it back to a club and let others use it for trips/training. 182's are popular trip planes and sell themselves.
 

T-REX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Posts
402
Total Time
.
Have to disagree, somewhat :) There just isn't enough small 135 business out there to make purchasing a $300K+ 182 profitable. The depreciation is gonna kill you too, the 1998 C182s are selling for less than $200K now.

If you are using this aircraft for training and require an aircraft with more speed than a 172. Stop by a flight school and see what their needs are for complex aircraft. Mooneys, Arrows, 172RGs can be had for a fraction of the price and offer comparable performance.

You probably wont have any trouble finding 135 ops or flt. schools willing to take a leaseback but remember its free money for them!

Gotta admit they look pretty cool though..Best of luck.
 

21Foxtrot

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Posts
29
Total Time
N/A
Thanks for the info...

I would really prefer not to lease back to freight or an FBO/club as the use (abuse) will be pretty bad. I was thinking a 135 operator could use it for local (150 nm) trips, sight seeing, arial photography etc.

The depreciation is good point though - that would probably kill any savings on the front end.

I also came across the following deal with Van Bortel Aircraft Co.
They will buy back a new a/c for up to 100hrs flown on it. They will pay the full purchase price, less $100/hr flown. 100hrs isn't much, but could it be worth it for training purposes? Also factor in that $4K Cessna training check.

http://www.vanbortel.com/2005%20Cessna/8318a%20skylane.jpg
http://www.vanbortel.com

Any info on this Co.?

In the end, it may well be too expensive and will make more sense to just rent a 70's vintage 172 (what I've been flying thus far).

A Mooney, 172/82RG, Cirrus etc would all be VERY nice to have (and more money), but are too advanced for me at this time. I've heard about primary training being conducted on a/c like this, but don't feel that's the safest route for someone first going for their PPL. (K.I.S.S., ya know!) Or am I wrong on this one?

Would like to hear from more of you out there...

THANKS!
 

KeroseneSnorter

Robust Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
1,530
Total Time
Miller
Single piston engine passenger part 135 will be next to impossible to break even, let alone make any money.

Generally speaking, part 135 IFR passenger service is not allowed, there are cases in which you can be granted authority, but even so, many many companies will not put their people on single engine turbine equipment much less piston.

Been a while since I was in the 135 arena on piston planes so I would have to review the current regs, but at least a few years back for IFR 135 in a passenger op you had to have autopilot for single pilot ops, and Radar....of which I have never seen on a 182. It can be done, but your plane would be under so many restrictions that unless you live in AZ or NM or some other non IFR weather arid state it would be next to impossible to make money.

Lease back to a flying club is probably your best bet, or lease to a flight school, but the flight school for obvious reasons is hard on an aiorplane.
 

Cpt Splash

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Posts
134
Total Time
lots
There is a 135 operator out of ISP that operates a 210 and 206 on a single pilot IFR certificate called Air Hamptons. They used to run 2 182s but the 210 and 206 were more popular. Somehow, they made it work. I know you don't need radar for that, but you do need an autopilot and a back up alternator system. They used air driven generators that would pop down from the wing. The website is www.naac.com. PM me for more info.
 

T-REX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Posts
402
Total Time
.
Just get a IFR C150 with the Mogas STC. Find a mechanic that wants to learn to fly (there's alot of them out there) and make a deal with him that he can fly for half the insurance plus cost of fuel. That should only cost you about $25-30 hr. DOC plus $150/mo in financing.
Snap some pictures of your neighbors houses this fall and write off your flying as a business expense.
Hire a instructor from somewhere besides a flight school, there's alot of hungry freight dogs and regional pilots out there. Rent a complex/twin for the advanced ratings.
Spend the leftover $280K on real estate and beer.
 

21Foxtrot

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Posts
29
Total Time
N/A
Hey T-REX -

Thanks for the suggestion....
Yeah, seems the most economical route. Would prefer something a bit bigger than a 150 though, maybe look into your scenario with an older 172. I'm in the CA Bay Area, so a 182 would be nice for flights up to Tahoe.... or for that matter, any where up and over the Sierras. A 172 would do it too, but I like the extra margin w/ a 182.

Agreed though, there are plenty investments out there with better ROI!
Real Estate & Beer... mmmmm Both are nice and frothy.
 

HMR

I Live by the River.
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Posts
1,048
Total Time
100+
21Foxtrot said:
I'm in the CA Bay Area, so a 182 would be nice for flights up to Tahoe.... or for that matter, any where up and over the Sierras. A 172 would do it too, but I like the extra margin w/ a 182.
"Extra margin"?:confused:

"Anywhere up and over the Sierras"?:eek::eek:

Flying a 182 around the Sierras on a calm, clear morning is amazing. Just stay over the highways in case you lose an engine.

Trying to run PT135 in a 182 up to Tahoe ain't gonna happen. If the winds get above 25kts, you're pax will be barfing all over your shiny plane. Also, I would never take a 182 into a cloud up there.

I used to fly 210's and 182's from SoCal to Reno, Minden, Truckee, Bishop, Mammoth, etc. I still have the twitch to prove it.

Save your money and rent the cheapest 152 or 172 you can find. It doesn't matter what you fly for your PPL.

Good luck!!!
 

21Foxtrot

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Posts
29
Total Time
N/A
Sorry, I should clarify.

By margin, I simply meant the Turbo 182 can go higher in making that kind of a trip. True enough, should still stay close to roads, civilization etc. "Anywhere up and over the Sierras" ...just in terms of altitude, not in making a crossing anywhere over the mtns.

Regardless, the whole reference to Tahoe was for my own flying... not necessarily thinking a 135 operator would sell seats for a flight like that in such a small plane.

The real question in starting the thread was to see if there was any way to leaseback an a/c like a new T182 to a small 135 operator in an effort subsidize my training & personal flying (not to make money). The regular FBO 172s are fine, but as prices continue to rise, I was intersted in checking out what alternatives might be available... if any.

Still seems like T-REX's idea would be the best route to pursue.
 

T-REX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Posts
402
Total Time
.
Have fun and shop smart, remember there's always a lot more planes for sale than people shopping for them. The only thing else I can add is to do an owner-assisted annual. I learned so much about my old plane after taking it apart, sanding off corrosion, inspecting,.,.,.,., and putting it back together. Even with it only being a Cessna knowing your airplane beyond the cockpit and oil dipstick is a great experience. HAVE FUN and fly safe!
 

CapnVegetto

The Prince of all Saiyans
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Posts
1,981
Total Time
4500
Nobody will ever be able to convince me to spend $300K for a fixed gear single engine airplane. Hell, you can buy a REALLY NICE older Baron for that much. You can buy TWO decent older senecas. You can buy about 5 REALLY NICE Piper Arrows for that much. All will be just as good an airplane, if not better.

As far as 135, there's just not much demand out there for single engine. I've never seen one, to be honest with you, although my experience is limited. If you want to lease it back to a flight school, that is your best bet. But hell, I'd consider an older plane. $300K is insane when you can d-mn near buy an older Kingair for that much.
 

T-REX

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Posts
402
Total Time
.
300K yea get an MU2!! A few single engine 135s down in Texas Bonanzas/Cherokee 6/C210s i think..but i guarantee their whole fleet didnt cost 300K. Wasnt there a courier company in the LA Basin (Long Beach Air Charter???) that used to use Archers or Cherokees?
 

21Foxtrot

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2002
Posts
29
Total Time
N/A
yes, $300K is A LOT. Remeber though, thats not the the full out of pocket expense - figure 10% down. Still, doesn't sound like it comes close to subsidizing my training/personal flying. The reason for a new 182 was that I figured it would be more appealing to a 135 client than a beat up 20yr old plane.

The reality is that the $30K (not to mention maintenance, insurance etc.) would be FAR better spent on training at the local FBO... unless I found a sweet 70s vintage 172 :)

Thanks again for the responses.
 
Top