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-5052346@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <aircraftproject@airpierre.com>
Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.17] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0)
  with ESMTP id 5052046 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:16:25 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.17; envelope-from=aircraftproject@airpierre.com
Received: from omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43])
	by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
	id 7xEu1h0020vyq2s5AxFstB; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:15:52 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.107] ([208.101.211.39])
	by omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
	id 7xFh1h00R0rZMZ43RxFkT1; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:15:50 +0000
X-Original-Message-ID: <4E1F5C7A.9030702@airpierre.com>
X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:15:38 -0700
From: Pierre <AircraftProject@airpierre.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
References: <list-5052017@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5052017@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In addition to the number of aircraft  produced affecting those numbers, 
don't forget that you have to be on an IFR flight plan or have radar 
following to show up on tracking sites. Are experimentals less likely to 
participate? I don't know.

My biggest gripe about the statistics is when they use seat-miles as a 
measurement.  I don't like hours either.  I would love to see accident 
rates per cycle - one takeoff and one landing.

-pierre
hunting for the right legacy

On 07/14/2011 01:51 PM, Ron Laughlin wrote:
> 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.  One year at Oshkosh there was a special
>> display area for homebuilts with over 1000 hours.  There were just a
>> handful.  Bill Hannahan's Lancair was one of them.  On the other side of the
>> runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified.  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.  Virtually all spam cans have
>> thousands.
>>
>> As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes more
>> hours per year than spam can owners -- I have no idea.
>>
>> - Rob Wolf
>>
>> p.s.  I do not use the term "spam can" as pejorative.  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