Wet/Dry Rates

[Theotokos]

Doug, I was not sure if this belonged here or in the FBO section, so sorry if I make you move it.

Anyway, I have been looking into a cheaper FBO for my other ratings. My current FBO charges 70.00 for the C152 while the other charges 56.00. However, the latter is dry and that is where my problem lies.

From what I understand wet means the fuel is included and you get paid back for any extra fuel--or at least a majority I believe. Not sure on that.

Dry means you pay for fuel and rental. Now firstly, does this mean I rent it full, like a rental car but have to refuel it if needed out of my own pocket, without being paid back? Or might I even have to fill it up before a flight, if it does not have enough fuel?

Secondly, say I do a few legs for an XC. Each burns up 2 hours of fuel. The C152 holds a bit more than 3 hours, so if I fly for 6 hours, I would have to fill it during the XC. Would I be paying the rental rate and the fuel without any compensation then? That would get quite expensive if I understand this right. Am I understanding this right?

Now, I have been talking to someone about splitting for time building with a wet rate in their area at the same price. In that case, this would not apply but for future reference, please explain. Thank you.

Of course, when I do the multi, the senaca at the dry FBO is MUCH cheper, under 200 dollars, while at the wet over 200

[OldTownPilot]

'dry' is like a rental car, you get it with a full tank, and return it full while paying the fuel bill.

[Theotokos]

So dry is the worse of the two? Any pros to dry vs wet? I thought I saw someone supporting dry when I was searching for information on this, but found such illogical.

[Doug Taylor]

Doesn't make that big of a difference I don't think unless you REALLY like shopping around for cheap gas on field.

[Theotokos]

So in other words dry and wet equal out to about the same in the long run, even if the rental rate for the dry is cheaper? You are not looking at paying more in general for the dry nor less with the dry?

[averyrm]

Figure out how much it burns per hour, multiply that by the cost of fuel, then add that to the rental price - there you go instant "wet" rate.

Some places reemburse totally for off-site fuel expenses, some only reemburse for a set ammount, this being of course when you're on the wet rate.

At the FBO I worked at, the dry rate would save you some money if you were going on an XC and leaned the aircraft properly. For local area stuff, you'd end up paying more.

[kellwolf]

It normally works out to about the same. If you get fuel somewhere else with a plane on a "wet" rate, you'll more than likely be reimbursed at the amount the FBO pays for fuel, which is almost always gonna be less than you paid for it unless you do some serious shopping. Depending on where you go for fuel, you might wind up paying more for the dry rate. That was the case in ORL with one of the flying clubs for a while. The FBO charged so much for fuel, it was about the same (or cheaper some days) to go across the field and fly at the other place on the "wet" rate.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by averyrm

Figure out how much it burns per hour, multiply that by the cost of fuel, then add that to the rental price - there you go instant "wet" rate.

That's pretty much it.

In theory, wet and dry =should= come up to the same number, but they may not. As a dry renter, you are directly subject to fuel price changes; FBOs adjust in a couple of ways, including fuel surcharges.

The FBO's wet rate is probably some combination of an assumed fuel usage, tempered by experience. Rental pilots are notorious for not treating airplanes well and many pilots don't lean properly. The FBO doesn't want to lose money, so it will probably round up - if you lean properly (aggressively?), you are paying for those who don't with a wet rate and would get the benefit of a dry rate.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Rental pilots are notorious for not treating airplanes well and many pilots don't lean properly.

That's "rental power" baby !

I have a friend that has a twin. What he did, since he was time building, was pull the power waaaaaaaay back and cruise fairly slowly. He got the thing to burn around 10-12 gallons/hr total (beech travelair). Of course, he was only going 110 knots, but max endurance is what was needed at that point . He calculated total cost per hour (back a few years ago) was around $50-$55/hr.

I'm not sure what the 'average' consumption of a 152 is, but if you pull the power back to cruise at like 70 knots I'd bet you would save a little on gas. But it probably isn't worth the headache, IMO. Not in a 152.

In a twin? Yes.

[Doug Taylor]

$55/hr for fuel, or $55/hr with fuel + overhead?

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

$55/hr for fuel, or $55/hr with fuel + overhead?

I'm not really sure what was included in it. He was buying fuel for around $1.00-$1.25/gal (self serve at a small airport in FL) so that didnt' account for the full cost (more like <1/2). He had the airplane on a tie down outside too (again at a small uncontrolled airport) so that was like $75/month or something. He also put around 300 hours on it in the span of a few months, so he flew the crap out of it.

[mhcasey]

Originally Posted by Theotokos

Anyway, I have been looking into a cheaper FBO for my other ratings. My current FBO charges 70.00 for the C152 while the other charges 56.00. However, the latter is dry and that is where my problem lies.

Of course, when I do the multi, the senaca at the dry FBO is MUCH cheper, under 200 dollars, while at the wet over 200

Cruising around in Texas where it's really freaking hot, I've been leaning out the 152 and trying to get it cruising at 5,500-6,500ft and have been burning about 5-5.5g/hr at 22-2300rpm. Not sure what gas prices are where you are, but 5 X 4 = 20 bucks an hour for fuel. Realistically, you'll probably get more like 5.5g/hr and gas may be higher than 4 bucks. I think you're better off paying for the wet rate.

The dry Seneca is MUCH cheaper because Senecas burn a lot more fuel than a 152.

[meyers9163]

I'd have to agree with above. I average 5.5g/h as well in the C-152. Then you throw on there 4 bucks a gallon (roughly) for 100LL and you are talking 20+ for fuel alone an hour. Again I just would think it's not worth the hassel and go for the C-152wet!

[Texasspilot]

pull that 152 back to about 1900 RPM and fly all day on about 3GPH....speed isn't what your after here.


Though at 16 bucks more an hour youre prolly getting a better deal renting wet.

[Doug Taylor]

Yup, you ARE building flight time, right?

[SpiraMirabilis]

2300 rpm on a 152 during cruise?! Why? Its not like a 152 is going to go fast anyway. When I flew 150s I'd climb high (of course it takes forever and by 'high' i mean relatively speaking) and then put the power at maybe 1000rpm or 1100rpm just enough to keep the alternator going and go best speed to keep altitude, you could go quite a ways before you had to add more power. ;P

[frog_flyer]

Get up in that 6000 MSL jetstream and you can get across the atlantic



BUT, when I rent wet, that throttle stays pretty far in the whole trip. Gotta get my $$$$ worth! zing!

[tonyw]

We get reimbursed for fuel in my flying club so it doesn't really affect my costs no matter how much fuel I burn.

However, because it's a club, and because the more fuel I burn the higher the hourly rate has to get in order to cover those fuel costs, I do my best to save the club money. I lean on the ground -- okay, it's a low power so I'm not burning much but I also keep from fouling the plugs and wasting gas burning that off. I also lean aggressively at altitude. And I buy gas where it's cheaper when I can.

I just don't like burning more gas than I have to.