Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #59017
From: Chris Zavatson <chris_zavatson@yahoo.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 00:47:20 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
-heard from an insurance rep that 90 hours/yr is average 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: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours

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


Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster