X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:47:20 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-5052338@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
Received: from fmailhost05.isp.att.net ([207.115.11.55] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0)
  with ESMTP id 5052233 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:04:27 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.11.55; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net
Received: from desktop (adsl-98-85-108-10.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.108.10])
          by isp.att.net (frfwmhc05) with SMTP
          id <20110715010353H05001ovcfe>; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:03:53 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [98.85.108.10]
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" <lml@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-5052017@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5052017@logan.com>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:03:56 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID: <6EB5D2ADDB394681A8D21DC01BC387EB@Desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AcxCZ8KN61lsTDCfR1+akO9vgEQGdwAIsWkA
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049

Ron,

That gives an interesting picture, but you should remember that you must
either file IFR or request flight following to show up on flight aware.  =
I
don=92t think many experimental pilots do that.  I would probably =
estimate
that at any given time that 90%+ of the experimental planes aloft will =
not
show up.


Bill B


-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of =
Ron
Laughlin
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:51 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours

Hmmm, You might want to check FlightAware's website from time to time
and see how many experimentals are in the system at any given time. I
find only 2 Glassairs and one Lancair at the moment. There are a bunch
of certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHawks, etc.).

<http://flightaware.com/live/aircrafttype/>

Ron



On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age. Experimentals are
> generally newer than production A/C, and those thousands of hours
represent
> how many last year???? It's possible for both observations to be true.
>
> Ted Noel
> N540TF
>
> On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf99@aol.com wrote:
>
> Randy writes:
>
> <<I believe there are more flight hours per plane for experimentals =
that
> certifieds...>>
>
> I don't see how that could be.=A0 One year at Oshkosh there was a =
special
> display area for homebuilts with over 1000 hours.=A0 There were just a
> handful.=A0 Bill Hannahan's Lancair was one of them.=A0=A0On the other =
side of
the
> runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified.=A0 I'll bet that =
none had
> less than 1000 hours, and most had more than 2000 hours.
>
> Further, every experimental for sale in Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com seems =
to
> have between 100 and maybe 500 hours.=A0 Virtually all spam cans have
> thousands.
>
> As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes =
more
> hours per year=A0than spam can owners -- I have no idea.
>
> - Rob Wolf
>
> p.s.=A0 I do not use the term "spam can" as pejorative.=A0 I used to =
own one
and
> had a lot of fun with it.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date: =
07/14/11

--
For archives and unsub =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html