X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:26:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm17-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.91.212] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5054719 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 16:14:52 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.91.212; envelope-from=wfhannahan@yahoo.com Received: from [98.139.91.62] by nm17.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Jul 2011 20:14:19 -0000 Received: from [98.139.91.4] by tm2.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Jul 2011 20:14:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1004.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Jul 2011 20:14:18 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 967587.28668.bm@omp1004.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 20519 invoked by uid 60001); 17 Jul 2011 20:14:18 -0000 DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YAf3wX1lXaBUIF1SGFJhCrPXOEuAdplxzz8Jbe4EIhUgcUS2cQ75c6dgnrMFA1C4xhduCuSsZSQJ5MapMBRl3DH95WhrdMxh0KJt84UxwaCcpCZotB0mzLubWyqUjQPl3Lx2xljdxuwUBC+9uPxr+sjPJlsh7aAEKH1RPU3or1E=; X-YMail-OSG: 7q1qJggVM1k1.HivTzU84BsYSDc7.M2zg.R7N54epvxNw9W A80kwHzk1a4mKLB2oIMItQZF6eQYkq14SdZFXcxNuYNixR6tph3uCTy3t3p9 kkT9ahog6rFGDXUAiGHKCxYYs7_0gGSQwAS8WdR_b6HQQr36OHFNL7fpX1uL BA5OdKm58ka4Dttelzn8PRTKSM4pU0ZqF2stOQGjkRXSbJsxF5UjQ.vt3QJD ugRh7M1BuB3sL7EC34HFe77_24vneJpAysye77YwO_tVTyTWbuyyohG0ocO8 m5fSKHhLkMoNgRV9RpuRtO13xt4RoVuUpn7j9Tbffc_q6IxbL05KZuR.6miZ nH6062FqMHBNcEw2B8pDv59.6ossuGFbRkwNgvIVI6Dprm9Xo3adQdSMIcFs p1kBJkc3yFfXltgKfqJQO5T0HwBWNoyP1KrnNQrm78iTY0xC0dA9_paDNKHf 5QpjkdqiCkj2aNP34OfTYJiPmIrtZl49DvpzvZhp9pv_.tNWN2K_a5.I4PvL eP2UOgStkwviCUH53cmOpQE3vapNz Received: from [174.29.188.154] by web33903.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:14:18 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/14.0.3 YahooMailWebService/0.8.112.310352 X-Original-Message-ID: <1310933658.16055.YahooMailClassic@web33903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Original-Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 13:14:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Bill Hannahan Subject: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1939210770-1310933658=:16055" --0-1939210770-1310933658=:16055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Free? It costs the taxpayers about $25 bucks every time you key the mike. Regards, Bill Hannahan =20 wfhannahan@yahoo.com --- On Sun, 7/17/11, N66mg@aol.com wrote: From: N66mg@aol.com Subject: [LML] Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 8:11 AM =0A=0A =0A=0AIt's hard to believe that =0Amost pilots don't use it at all, = flight following...I can't figure that one =0Aout...It's free and keeps you= up to date and watches out for you...In southern =0ACalifornia it would be= nuts not to use it with all the traffic here=0AMichael=0An66mg=0An7sz 94%= =0A=C2=A0=0A=0AIn a message dated 7/14/2011 9:47:39 P.M. Pacific Daylight T= ime, =0Abbradburry@bellsouth.net writes:=0ARon, That gives an interesting picture, but you should =0A remember that you mu= st either file IFR or request flight following to show =0A up on flight aware= .=C2=A0 I don=E2=80=99t think many experimental pilots do =0A that.=C2=A0 I would pr= obably estimate that at any given time that 90%+ of =0A the experimental planes aloft will= not show up. Bill =0A B -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List =0A [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of= Ron Laughlin Sent: Thursday, =0A July 14, 2011 4:51 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: =0A Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours Hmmm, You might want to check =0A FlightAware's website from time to time and see how many experimentals are =0A in the system at any given time. I find only 2 Glassairs and one Lancair at =0A the moment. There are a bunch of certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHawks, =0A etc.). Ron On =0A Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel =0A wr= ote: > Interesting observation, but not adjusted for age. =0A Experimentals are > generally newer than production A/C, and those =0A thousands of hours represent > how many last year???? It's possible =0A for both observations to be tru= e. > > Ted Noel > =0A N540TF > > On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM, rwolf99@aol.com =0A wrote: > > Randy writes: > > <> =0A certifieds...>> > > I don't see how that could be.=C2=A0 One =0A year at Oshkosh there was a= special > display area for homebuilts with =0A over 1000 hours.=C2=A0 There were j= ust a > handful.=C2=A0 Bill =0A Hannahan's Lancair was one of them.=C2=A0=C2=A0O= n the other side =0A of the > runway were thousands of spam-cans, all certified.=C2=A0 =0A I'll bet th= at none had > less than 1000 hours, and most had more than =0A 2000 hours. > > Further, every experimental for sale in =0A Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com see= ms to > have between 100 and maybe 500 =0A hours.=C2=A0 Virtually all spam cans = have > thousands. > > =0A As to the real question -- do homebuilt owners fly their airplanes = =0A more > hours per year=C2=A0than spam can owners -- I have no =0A idea. > > - Rob Wolf > > p.s.=C2=A0 I do not use the =0A term "spam can" as pejorative.=C2=A0 I u= sed to own one and > had a =0A lot of fun with it. > > > =0A ________________________________ > > No virus found in this =0A message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1390 / =0A Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date: 07/14= /11 -- For archives =0A and unsub =0A http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml= /List.html -- For =0A archives and unsub =0A http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml= /List.html --0-1939210770-1310933658=:16055 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Free? It costs the taxpayers about $25 bucks = every time you key the mike.

Regards,
Bill Hannahan=


--- On Sun, 7/17/= 11, N66mg@aol.com <N66mg@aol.com> wrote:

From: N66mg@aol.com <N66mg@aol.com>
Subject: [LML] = Re: Certified vs Experimental Flight Hours
To: lml@lancaironline.net
= Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 8:11 AM

=0A=0A= =0A=0A
It's hard to believe that =0Amost pilots don't use it at all, flight fol= lowing...I can't figure that one =0Aout...It's free and keeps you up to dat= e and watches out for you...In southern =0ACalifornia it would be nuts not = to use it with all the traffic here
=0A
Michael
=0A
n66mg
=0An7sz 94%<= /div>=0A
 
=0A
=0A
In a message dated 7/14/2011 9:47:= 39 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, =0Abbradburry@bellsouth.net writes:
=0A=
Ron,

That gives an interesting picture,= but you should =0A remember that you must
either file IFR or request f= light following to show =0A up on flight aware.  I
don=E2=80=99t t= hink many experimental pilots do =0A that.  I would probably estimate=
that at any given time that 90%+ of =0A the experimental planes aloft = will not
show up.


Bill =0A B


-----Original Messag= e-----
From: Lancair Mailing List =0A [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On= Behalf Of Ron
Laughlin
Sent: Thursday, =0A July 14, 2011 4:51 PMTo: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: =0A Certified vs Experime= ntal Flight Hours

Hmmm, You might want to check =0A FlightAware's w= ebsite from time to time
and see how many experimentals are =0A in the = system at any given time. I
find only 2 Glassairs and one Lancair at =0A= the moment. There are a bunch
of certifieds (62 Cirrus's and 51 SkyHaw= ks, =0A etc.).

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



On =0A Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Ted Noel <= tednoel@cfl.rr.com> =0A wrote:
> Interesting observation, but not= adjusted for age. =0A Experimentals are
> generally newer than prod= uction A/C, and those =0A thousands of hours
represent
> how many= last year???? It's possible =0A for both observations to be true.
>=
> Ted Noel
> =0A N540TF
>
> On 7/13/2011 8:19 AM,= rwolf99@aol.com =0A wrote:
>
> Randy writes:
>
> = <> =0A certifieds...>>
>
> I don't see how that= could be.  One =0A year at Oshkosh there was a special
> displ= ay area for homebuilts with =0A over 1000 hours.  There were just a> handful.  Bill =0A Hannahan's Lancair was one of them. &n= bsp;On the other side =0A of
the
> runway were thousands of spam-= cans, all certified.  =0A I'll bet that none had
> less than 10= 00 hours, and most had more than =0A 2000 hours.
>
> Further, = every experimental for sale in =0A Trade-a-Plane or ASO.com seems to
&g= t; have between 100 and maybe 500 =0A hours.  Virtually all spam cans= have
> thousands.
>
> =0A As to the real question -- do= homebuilt owners fly their airplanes =0A more
> hours per year = ;than spam can owners -- I have no =0A idea.
>
> - Rob Wolf>
> p.s.  I do not use the =0A term "spam can" as pejorativ= e.  I used to own one
and
> had a =0A lot of fun with it.>
>
> =0A ________________________________
>
>= No virus found in this =0A message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<= br>> Version: 10.0.1390 / =0A Virus Database: 1516/3764 - Release Date:= 07/14/11

--
For archives =0A and unsub =0A http://mail.lancair= online.net:81/lists/lml/List.html


--
For =0A archives and un= sub =0A http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html
--0-1939210770-1310933658=:16055--