X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 10:11:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5053908 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:30:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.146; envelope-from=N66mg@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.200]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p6GITtS7002049 for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:29:55 -0400 Received: from core-dqe002a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqe002.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.162.69]) by mtaomg-db02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 1B1F2E00008A for ; Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:29:55 -0400 (EDT) From: N66mg@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <60156.6f525d50.3b5332a2@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 14:29:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_60156.6f525d50.3b5332a2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.6 sub 5004 X-AOL-IP: 68.225.243.134 X-Originating-IP: [68.225.243.134] x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:406979712:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d33c84e21d8a350a1 --part1_60156.6f525d50.3b5332a2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en It's hard to believe that most pilots don't use it at all, flight=20 following...I can't figure that one out...It's free and keeps you up to da= te and=20 watches out for you...In southern California it would be nuts not to use i= t=20 with all the traffic here Michael n66mg n7sz 94% =20 =20 In a message dated 7/14/2011 9:47:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, =20 bbradburry@bellsouth.net writes: 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=E2=80=99t think many experimental pilots do that. I would probably es= timate 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.). 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 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: > > <> 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 o= f the > runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified. I'll bet that none= =20 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 t= o > 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 =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html -- For archives and unsub =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html --part1_60156.6f525d50.3b5332a2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
It's hard to bel= ieve that=20 most pilots don't use it at all, flight following...I can't figure that one= =20 out...It's free and keeps you up to date and watches out for you...In south= ern=20 California it would be nuts not to use it with all the traffic here<= /DIV>
Michael
n66mg
n7sz 94%<= /DIV>
 
In a message dated 7/14/2011 9:47:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=20 bbradburry@bellsouth.net writes:
= Ron,

That gives an interesting picture, but you shoul= d=20 remember that you must
either file IFR or request flight following to = show=20 up on flight aware.  I
don=E2=80=99t think many experimental pilo= ts do=20 that.  I would probably estimate
that at any given time that 90%+= of=20 the experimental planes aloft will not
show up.


Bill=20 B


-----Original Message-----
From: Lancair Mailing List=20 [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ron
Laughlin
Sent: Thur= sday,=20 July 14, 2011 4:51 PM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re:= =20 Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours

Hmmm, You might want to che= ck=20 FlightAware's website from time to time
and see how many experimentals= are=20 in the system at any given time. I
find only 2 Glassairs and one Lanca= ir at=20 the moment. There are a bunch
of certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHaw= ks,=20 etc.).

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

Ro= n



On=20 Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel <tednoel@cfl.rr.com>=20 wrote:
> Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age.=20 Experimentals are
> generally newer than production A/C, and those= =20 thousands of hours
represent
> how many last year???? It's possi= ble=20 for both observations to be true.
>
> Ted Noel
>=20 N540TF
>
> On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf99@aol.com=20 wrote:
>
> Randy writes:
>
> <>=20 certifieds...>>
>
> I don't see how that could be. = ; One=20 year at Oshkosh there was a special
> display area for homebuilts w= ith=20 over 1000 hours.  There were just a
> handful.  Bill=20 Hannahan's Lancair was one of them.  On the other side=20 of
the
> runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified. = ;=20 I'll bet that none had
> less than 1000 hours, and most had more th= an=20 2000 hours.
>
> Further, every experimental for sale in=20 Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com seems to
> have between 100 and maybe 500= =20 hours.  Virtually all spam cans have
> thousands.
>
&= gt;=20 As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes=20 more
> hours per year than spam can owners -- I have no=20 idea.
>
> - Rob Wolf
>
> p.s.  I do not use = the=20 term "spam can" as pejorative.  I used to own one
and
> had= a=20 lot of fun with it.
>
>
>=20 ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this= =20 message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 = /=20 Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date: 07/14/11

--
For archi= ves=20 and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


--
For= =20 archives and unsub=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--part1_60156.6f525d50.3b5332a2_boundary--