Dan wrote:
I had the smaller/cheapest ride of them all at a recent EuroGA fly-in, but I’m sooo privileged, and totally uplifted as is
All the best for the future.
I also choked when I read this ^^
A DA40 is the cheapest aircraft at a EuroGA fly-in ? They seem to go for 200-400k€, when you can get a decent TB10 or PA28 for ~80k.
I was initially very fond of the idea of a DA40 (especially variable costs), but as always the cost of entry is really high and buys a lot of fuel on a cheaper aircraft. Or speed (if I’m not mistaken even 4-cylinders retracts like 177 RG / Arrow for ~150k€ can do 150+kt at reasonable fuel burn, without adding too much on insurance / maintenance).
But I’m keeping the overall idea that going with a nimbler steed without the hassles of sharing is a better idea.
I’m in a small non-equity group to get the ac utilisation up – and have been incredibly fortunate to have 3 years of hassle free flying. The owner is brilliant and prioritises safety and maintenance over money, and upgrading the panel as they go. All good things come to and end though, and when it does, I’ll struggle to go into an equity group tbh.
Peter wrote:
The problem, however, is that in nearly all GA scenarios it is a real hassle to have to fill up before a flight.
This depends on the arrangements at your home base and isn’t necessarily the case. I agree that when you need to refuel away from base it’s always best to do it immediately on landing rather than just before you leave.
At White Waltham where our TB10 is based, fuelling before you fly is never a problem. You start up, taxi to the pumps and fill up. It’s an extra 10 minutes at most and, unless it’s a very short flight and / or I deem the fuel already onboard sufficient, part of the routine.
I think Dan’s RV6 was, by a long way, the cheapest plane at the EuroGA fly in. Also no doubt the most fun to fly (though I note an RV8 was present also, so maybe an exception there). I suppose it’s not what you’ve got, it’s how you use it :)
As for the OP’s problem, what he said seems to corroborate with what I read about the accident at the time. The report can be easily found though I don’t want to “dox” the OP so I shouldn’t post it myself.
Anyway, I am always a little suspicious when someone quickly falls out with multiple different people. But it does sound like the syndicate is a shitshow, this can easily happen with anything whereby an individual (who usually has no experience in management/running things/being a boss) gets into a position of power. This is rife in club environments too. If someone can pretend to run the show and feel important without accountability it won’t end well.
Deanland where I am based has a fuel syndicate with a UL91 bowser so I can fill up with absolutely zero hassle when I like. No need to fill up on arrival. A big bonus of flying from an uncontrolled airfield with self serve fuel.
I think Dan’s RV6 was, by a long way, the cheapest plane at the EuroGA fly in. Also no doubt the most fun to fly
And probably one of best performing, especially if 2000 fpm climb rate means anything to you, or doing aerobatics along the way while touring. I find it vaguely amusing that Dan is so modest about his plane. I think nobody in their right mind would prefer to fly a smaller Mooney or whatever with the same engine, unless hemmed in by European border crossing regulations. In fact one might argue the best use for the Mooney would be supplying the engine for an RV.
A DA40 is meanwhile a kind of low wing Skyhawk, although one that’s pretty good at carrying a load given its low power. In exchange it flies like a sailplane, meaning not the most enjoyable thing to fly although not awful. Its just a light duty utility plane that can carry four if needed but with performance in no way comparable to an RV.
maxbc wrote:
But I’m keeping the overall idea that going with a nimbler steed without the hassles of sharing is a better idea.
Good plan.
Guys, I’d like to thank ya all… but this thread ain’t about my steed, nor me. And I sure hate that blushing in public 
Now going back to the thread, it looks like @Parthumax had (and probably still suffers from…) a pretty bad experience.
I too was scalded by my only group sharing experience.
What can, or could prevent something like this happening?
Ok, I’ll start with another story… many moons ago there was a 12th share being offered on a C-177 on my field. The key decision maker was taking part in their twice a year meeting. This finalized my decision of not joining that group. So, meeting all group members first seems to be a sine qua non condition, or is it not?
I am sure a recipe has been posted in one or more of the various “syndicate” threads, but yes that would be #1. You should also do some sort of a prebuy on the plane, even though you may be paying only 10k and not 100k.
I’ve had requests to not run threads telling about problems with syndicates but soon enough the person concerned is getting out of his current syndicate at mach 1 
Some work, but clearly the majority work less than well, or even not at all. I found this when I was looking 2000-2001. After all, syndicates reflect human nature, rather well illustrated here and with a few GA-specific factors like
Point 2 means that the working syndicates tend to be either very small ones and with wealthy members, or large ones where no bill really worries anybody.
Dan wrote:
So, meeting all group members first seems to be a sine qua non condition, or is it not?
It’s rather mind boggling to me that people would buy a share in an airplane if they don’t know the other people in the group, or at least have some knowledge of the others, and the group itself. IMO that is the main problem the OP had. Unknowingly heading straight into a rather “odd” working group. We would call such people “blue eyed” as in “blond and blue eyed” NO offense at all (to anyone ), but it’s the only way to look at this, because people are people, and when money and ownership comes into play, this will easily create severe “friction” when those involved are not at least 90% aligned.
The problem is usually a group can start out 99% aligned, then as time goes by, this can, and will, change according to the life situation to each one. There is only one way to fix this, and that is by law, regulations, agreements and some group structure with meetings. Somewhat similar to a small business where people own shares. People are still people of course, but some common rules and goals will get you a long way.
In Norway (and I guess elsewhere) there are laws about this (but I only know the laws in Norway). The moment someone owns something together, the law turns into effect. It’s purely about the ownership rights, not about the “use right” (which is something different altogether, but very often tied to ownership of course). I’m not going into the details, but one principle is that everyone has a right and a duty to keep the property maintained and in order. That “Tom” who would not tell others about snags, would in fact be illegal in Norway. At least it would be very illegal for him to try to prevent one owner from telling the others about the snag (at least by action). This is a breach of their ownership rights. Unless that “Tom” was the actual registered owner of the aircraft, which it very well could be (but a truly stupid arrangement in that case, for the others).
ATM I’m in two groups. In one we are only two. In the other we are 10-ish. The one with only two, we keep it dead simple. But since the aircraft must be registered, insured and so on, it has to be registered to someone, or something. There is no way to do that without registering a co-ownership, which is only a statement that we own 50% each in this particular property. Otherwise it would have to be registered to one of us, which would make the legal aspects rather unresolved and difficult.
For the other we have elected a board. By law, when so is done, there has to exist written statutes. In those statutes we have included usage rights and all that stuff. However, this does not change the basic ownership rights. That co-ownership is run (by law) democratically (within the basic ownership rights).
The next thing would be a club. That’s a very different thing legally, but probably the best way to organize things if most people only are interested in flying the aircraft every now and then without getting involved in ownership. Many people have their own aircraft that are also used by clubs.
There’s no bullet proof arrangement, but there are things that can be done up front so that things are legally tidy. This is a must when/if change of interests occur. The OP did almost everything wrong IMO also. Not to dismiss that crazy “Tom” character, and the others, but that should be sorted out up front. How was that group organized? Who was the rightful owner of the aircraft and so on?
For many light aircraft, the cost of civil law enforcement makes the law irrelevant, due to their value.
