X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm11.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([98.139.52.208] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5052041 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:18:26 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.52.208; envelope-from=chris_zavatson@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.52.197] by nm11.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2011 21:17:52 -0000 Received: from [98.139.52.186] by tm10.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2011 21:17:51 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1069.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 14 Jul 2011 21:17:51 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 917594.62396.bm@omp1069.mail.ac4.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 65086 invoked by uid 60001); 14 Jul 2011 21:17:51 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JM0NQ/rAbtrMvo7MTL2JBoC9Q7kOh9EUs9/sliU7PLGDuEGCUyxoFfPOzDAAentM6vj071nAyfaHIz3hi/bg8cner9VmoV0Zqw/CvlhlpPwemyiN5nM1w7f/GE0YUUm//pzt4RveeWT1DhOFL5+L7BVuCjrC5AEerh+Ub+oeclg=; X-YMail-OSG: uuciyEcVM1noyiRNfHgZJUbebHXiDWNB466HgiL71zdtl31 ObSC5GGH_ZfoKI0KAuaezFK.THAD8GDYj6x4.PSQHU2ITDB.BYvvoakUco9f Rr2GxuQY67_C7NMjAnlPQga6bdasCmVjXZTD2JytjdAzvCXRvD7RIiU8_Uwz RVhYAJXmRhrBG0HdYSqFG0JGrESboCCs0I6UbD.zFzrnSIGSv8nZppbLb5Au utXfFiMbHmLMBxwtv8izEst6ofOEV1zGHCCSuqi3XyH3gmQlYquwpd.CpxXZ tyqoUMFbYN1wb7tfygR4POjLPK.1x2xuzzQ.WXp6ss17qzHD1r28u46_RFvC MGo2US7MKWyVJZzbV6yOxW3v2folWRJB.8VVjK1jDytKsiMEVgxDU0QNrr7l I.t4y7K39MMMFEZNbfwMeR26NWOBOV9yqleZPfdy.uKmj2.45oQtdBtbvl8I pJuIenqWErzeWXW8XB1p92Ns8sYzJKNE- Received: from [12.130.164.194] by web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:17:51 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.307740 References: X-Original-Message-ID: <1310678271.39849.YahooMailNeo@web36908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:17:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Zavatson Reply-To: Chris Zavatson Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-461738474-1310678271=:39849" --0-461738474-1310678271=:39849 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -heard from an insurance rep that 90 hours/yr is average for GA.=0AChris=0A= =0A=0AFrom: Ted Noel =0ATo: lml@lancaironline.net=0ASen= t: Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:30 PM=0ASubject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Exper= imental Flight Hours=0A=0A=0AInteresting observation, but not adjusted for = age. Experimentals are generally newer than production A/C, and those thous= ands of hours represent how many last year???? It's possible for both obser= vations to be true.=0A=0ATed Noel=0AN540TF=0A=0AOn 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf= 99@aol.com wrote: =0ARandy writes:=0A>=0A><>=0A>=0A>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 we= re thousands of spam-cans, all certified.=A0 I'll bet that none had less th= an 1000 hours, and most had more than 2000 hours.=0A>=0A>Further, every exp= erimental for sale in Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com seems to have between 100 an= d maybe 500 hours.=A0 Virtually all spam cans have thousands.=0A>=0A>As to = the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes more hours per= year=A0than spam can owners -- I have no idea.=0A>=0A>- Rob Wolf=0A>=0A>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.=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>No virus found in this message= .=0A>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com=0A>Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1= 516/3764 - Release Date: 07/14/11 --0-461738474-1310678271=:39849 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-heard from an insurance rep that 90 hours/yr is a= verage for GA.
Chris

From: Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 12:30 PM=
Subject: [LML] Re: Cert= ified vs Experimental Flight Hours

Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age. E= xperimentals are generally newer than production A/C, and those thousands o= f hours represent how many last year???? It's possible for both observation= s to be true.

Ted Noel
N540TF

On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf99@ao= l.com wrote:=20
Randy writes:
 
<<I believe there are more flight hours per plane for experiment= als that certifieds...>>
 
I don't see how that could be.  One year at Oshkosh there was a s= pecial display area for homebuilts with over 1000 hours.  There were j= ust a handful.  Bill Hannahan's Lancair was one of them.  On= the other side of the runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified.&n= bsp; I'll bet that none had less than 1000 hours, and most had more than 20= 00 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 hav= e thousands.
 
As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes mor= e 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 use= d to own one and had a lot of fun with it.


No virus found in this messag= e.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/376= 4 - Release Date: 07/14/11


--0-461738474-1310678271=:39849--