X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5052847 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:53:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=VTAILJEFF@aol.com Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p6FEqo6v028450 for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:52:50 -0400 Received: from VTAILJEFF@aol.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.1218.26a4f7d (43956) for ; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-md02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-md02.mx.aol.com [64.12.143.155]) by cia-dd01.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD015-d4314e205435175; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:52:45 -0400 Received: from webmail-m061 (webmail-m061.sim.aol.com [64.12.158.161]) by smtprly-md02.mx.aol.com (v129.10) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMD028-d4314e205435175; Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:52:37 -0400 References: X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:52:37 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 75.49.239.245 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: vtailjeff@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CE1115F8B005AC_1B8C_862FE_webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 33953-STANDARD Received: from 75.49.239.245 by webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com (64.12.158.161) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:52:36 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE1115F8ADA44B-1B8C-3CDE4@webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: VTAILJEFF@aol.com ----------MB_8CE1115F8B005AC_1B8C_862FE_webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" they only track IFR traffic..... -----Original Message----- From: Ron Laughlin To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Thu, Jul 14, 2011 3:51 pm Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours Hmmm, You might want to check FlightAware's website from time to time nd see how many experimentals are in the system at any given time. I ind only 2 Glassairs and one Lancair at the moment. There are a bunch f certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHawks, etc.). Ron On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel wrote: Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age. Experimentals are generally newer than production A/C, and those thousands of hours represe= nt 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 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 ha= d 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 -- or archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html ----------MB_8CE1115F8B005AC_1B8C_862FE_webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" they only track IFR traffi= c.....
=




-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Laughlin <ronlaughlin@gmail.com>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Thu, Jul 14, 2011 3:51 pm
Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours

Hmm=
m, 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 rep=
resent
> 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 experimen=
tals 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 ju=
st 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 tha=
t 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 seem=
s 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 mo=
re
> 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 us=
ed 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/L=
ist.html
----------MB_8CE1115F8B005AC_1B8C_862FE_webmail-m061.sysops.aol.com--