Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? [Archive]

Highflyer

March 10th 08, 03:53 AM

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 9, 3:36 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
> landing......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>
> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
> megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>

Do I want a home that close to a GA Landing Strip? DAMN Right I Do!
I would take one in a heartbeat and love it.

> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>
> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
> --

Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.

> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

There are airparks and airparks. Some have adequate width runways and
taxiways. I have also landed at some that made me feel like I was attacking
Darth Vader with an X-wing. I landed at one where I had about twenty feet
clearance for my wingtips while descending into the canyon made by
encroaching hangars and homes! I was NOT comfortable. I came there from
another airpark with a 22 foot wide runway, where I felt perfectly
comfortable, even in a brisk crosswind because they kept the homes and
hangars well back from the runway.

Highflyer

[email protected]

March 10th 08, 03:55 AM

On Mar 9, 3:36*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
> landing......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>
> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
> megabuck homes in my neck of the woods

Hell yah.

But I'd prefer one just for me and my friends out back of a house in
the country.

[email protected]

March 10th 08, 03:57 AM

On Mar 9, 1:36 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

>
> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?

Try Twin Oaks airport near San Antonio.
http://www.fboweb.com/fb40/airport/T94.html

It's not unsafe if you are careful.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 10th 08, 04:05 AM

In article
>,
BobR > wrote:

> On Mar 9, 3:36*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> > This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
> > landing......
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
> >
> > Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
> > megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
> >
>
> Do I want a home that close to a GA Landing Strip? DAMN Right I Do!
> I would take one in a heartbeat and love it.

I DO live on a residential airpark (We have about 600 planes) and it is
GREAT! The most noise comes from the yard maintenance people.

Today we had our annual Wings and Wheels event, with many formation
flybys, including 2 P-51 Mustangs, 3 SX-300s and many others.

See:
eaa288.org
http://www.sprucecreekowners.com/
http://www.scpoa.com/
http://fly-in.com/

It is the largest (and, IMHO the best) residential airpark in the world.
We also have more based aircraft than any other airport in Florida.

I moved here 9 years ago and am having a BLAST!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 10th 08, 05:26 AM

wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:36 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>
>>Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>
>
>
> Try Twin Oaks airport near San Antonio.
> http://www.fboweb.com/fb40/airport/T94.html
>
> It's not unsafe if you are careful.

I hear there are still plenty of lots for sale at Zuehl too.

[email protected]

March 10th 08, 05:31 AM

On Mar 9, 2:36*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
> landing......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>
> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
> megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>
> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz* Use satellite mode
>
> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
critters, etc.......

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH

Don Lewis

March 10th 08, 06:05 AM

Hey guy, where are you living now???

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 1:36 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Try Twin Oaks airport near San Antonio.
>> http://www.fboweb.com/fb40/airport/T94.html
>>
>> It's not unsafe if you are careful.
>
>
> I hear there are still plenty of lots for sale at Zuehl too.
>

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 10th 08, 06:56 AM

Don Lewis wrote:
> Hey guy, where are you living now???
>
>

Dallas for the last couple of years.

WJRFlyBoy

March 10th 08, 11:56 PM

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:35:47 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
>> landing......
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>
> It was just a landing. I saw nothing remarkable beyond a bit of float and
> perhaps a tiny bit long.
>>

I missed making my point. It was the nearness of the houses (aircraft
irregardless). Sorry.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 10th 08, 11:58 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

> Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
> with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
> missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.

What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
could find you in someone's living room.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 10th 08, 11:59 PM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:53:37 -0500, Highflyer wrote:

> There are airparks and airparks. Some have adequate width runways and
> taxiways. I have also landed at some that made me feel like I was attacking
> Darth Vader with an X-wing. I landed at one where I had about twenty feet
> clearance for my wingtips while descending into the canyon made by
> encroaching hangars and homes! I was NOT comfortable. I came there from
> another airpark with a 22 foot wide runway, where I felt perfectly
> comfortable, even in a brisk crosswind because they kept the homes and
> hangars well back from the runway.
>
> Highflyer

This is my point, not picking particular, well, I guess I am, on the
Captiva folks but this looks awful slim widthwise.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 12:03 AM

On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:05:59 -0500, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> I DO live on a residential airpark (We have about 600 planes) and it is
> GREAT! The most noise comes from the yard maintenance people.
>
> Today we had our annual Wings and Wheels event, with many formation
> flybys, including 2 P-51 Mustangs, 3 SX-300s and many others.
>
> See:
> eaa288.org
> http://www.sprucecreekowners.com/
> http://www.scpoa.com/
> http://fly-in.com/

Very nice, this is a different airpark animal. Homes aren't sitting on the
runway, nice tarmac, what's with the lake on approach?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 12:05 AM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
> strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
> them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
> critters, etc.......
>
> Ben
> www.haaspowerair.com
> N801BH

It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
neighbor's kids.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 12:06 AM

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> Try Twin Oaks airport near San Antonio.
> http://www.fboweb.com/fb40/airport/T94.html
>
> It's not unsafe if you are careful.

That's what they told Aryton Senna. :(
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 12:33 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>> Try Twin Oaks airport near San Antonio.
>> http://www.fboweb.com/fb40/airport/T94.html
>>
>> It's not unsafe if you are careful.
>
> That's what they told Aryton Senna. :(

I think Ayrton Senna knew the score.

Bertie

Vaughn Simon

March 11th 08, 01:25 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:35:47 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
> I missed making my point. It was the nearness of the houses (aircraft
> irregardless). Sorry.

On a regular basis, I have cars zipping by not two carlengths from my
bedroom, some of them faster than a landing Aircoupe. Not only that, I live at
the dangerous end of a "T" intersection. If one car ran that stop sign...

Anyhow, been 20 years now in this same house and no trouble.

Vaughn

Morgans[_2_]

March 11th 08, 01:36 AM

"Vaughn Simon" <> wrote

> Not only that, I live at the dangerous end of a "T" intersection. If one
> car ran that stop sign...
>
> Anyhow, been 20 years now in this same house and no trouble.

Year 21 may be the year your luck runs out.

I knew a guy that lived at the end of a sharp 90 degree turn, and someone
fell asleep at the wheel, and the car ended up parked in his bedroom,
pushing the bed up against the wall, with the ceiling collapsed on top of
him. It took a long time to get him out, but all he ended up with was some
scrapes and bruises. He was lucky that he had a sturdy bed, with a tall
headboard. That fact held up part of the ceiling, and kept from crushing
his head and chest.

You might want to consider getting the authorities to put up a guardrail, or
a very large stone to protect the house. Food for thought?
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

March 11th 08, 01:55 AM

On Mar 10, 6:05*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
> > strips out here in the west. *You would have a heart attack at most of
> > them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
> > critters, etc.......
>
> > Ben
> >www.haaspowerair.com
> > N801BH
>
> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
> neighbor's kids.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
Around ??????????

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

March 11th 08, 02:02 AM

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:35:47 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>
>> I missed making my point. It was the nearness of the houses (aircraft
>> irregardless). Sorry.
>
> On a regular basis, I have cars zipping by not two carlengths from my
> bedroom, some of them faster than a landing Aircoupe. Not only that, I
> live at the dangerous end of a "T" intersection. If one car ran that stop
> sign...
>
> Anyhow, been 20 years now in this same house and no trouble.
>
>

I used to live near the end of Greenfield Rd. at 14 Mile Rd. in Birmingham
MI. In the Google maps "street view":

<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=greenfield+rd.+and+14+mile+rd.+Birmingham+MI&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.875284,80.332031&ie=UTF8&ll=42.535437,-83.204527&spn=0.007004,0.02665&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.53192,-83.20441&cbp=1,0,,0,5>you can see the BIG rock that the guy who lived across from the end ofGreenfield set in his front yard after the _second_ time that a car ended upin his bedroom...I'd rather live next to a runway myself...--GeoffThe Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Comremove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mailWhen immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Morgans[_2_]

March 11th 08, 02:20 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>> Try Twin Oaks airport near San Antonio.
>> http://www.fboweb.com/fb40/airport/T94.html
>>
>> It's not unsafe if you are careful.
>
> That's what they told Aryton Senna. :(

I can't help feel that you are totally paranoid of flying, and do not have
a good grip of the risks and risk management of flying.

From what I have read, you are not yet a pilot, but have it in your head
that you are going to be one, and have figured out the route you are going
to take to get there.

I don't think you have enough knowledge to accurately understand what
constitutes undue risk, or what is a reasonable risk, or even how to
approach learning about flying, and how to get into it. Yet you pronounce
some things, such as this airport as overly risky to live in, or to fly
into.

It appears as though the hangars and houses are close to, or over 150 feet
from the edge of the runway, but you feel they are too close.

There are many, many airports that have structures or natural obstacles much
closer than this one. Yet, airplanes land and takeoff from these places for
many years with no incidents. Occasionally there are problems, but that is
why you buy insurance. You might even have to decide to give the airplane
to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident happens
to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses don't grow on
trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.

I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within two
miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.

Are the houses in the airpark in an overly risky location? No, I don't
think so. Are they at a higher risk? Probably, but most would say they are
at a reasonable risk level.

Flying will put you at a higher risk than many other activities in your
life. The rewards outweigh the risks, to the people that stay in it. You
can choose to live your life safe and boring, or live your life rich and
full of reward, and not be afraid of the somewhat higher risks. I know what
I choose, as do most of the flying folks in this group.

Try to keep a more open mind. Try to not come across as knowing everything
on the subjects being discussed, and learn from the knowledgeable people
here. You will need to learn which posters to ignore, of course, too, but I
think you know that.

Just try not to jump to conclusions quite so quickly. I think you will get
more, and better responses, and that you will learn more, too.
--
Jim in NC

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 11th 08, 03:09 AM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:05:59 -0500, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > I DO live on a residential airpark (We have about 600 planes) and it is
> > GREAT! The most noise comes from the yard maintenance people.
> >
> > Today we had our annual Wings and Wheels event, with many formation
> > flybys, including 2 P-51 Mustangs, 3 SX-300s and many others.
> >
> > See:
> > eaa288.org
> > http://www.sprucecreekowners.com/
> > http://www.scpoa.com/
> > http://fly-in.com/
>
> Very nice, this is a different airpark animal. Homes aren't sitting on the
> runway, nice tarmac, what's with the lake on approach?

THe lake is part of the stormwater management system and is also a water
hazard along the golf course. We have around 3000 people living at
Spruce Creek; homes are 1/3 taxiway access, 1/3 golf, 1/3 nature
preserve. Most taxiways are for airplanes only -- only 2 are combined
taxiway/street use. We have our own water/sewer system, so there are no
well/septic tank issues to deal with.

Runway is 4800x150, paved, lighted, with GPS approach.

EAA 288 mets here, in one of the guys' hangar -- we regularly get 75-100
attendees. We ahve something more than 30 RV's of various flavors
(mostly RV-8s) on the field.

When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
live:

1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
loaf of bread or a can of paint.

2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
start campaigning against the airpark.

3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.

4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.

5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
mind).

6. Those with poor approaches.

7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).

8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
bit far away.)

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 11th 08, 03:36 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:05:59 -0500, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>>I DO live on a residential airpark (We have about 600 planes) and it is
>>GREAT! The most noise comes from the yard maintenance people.
>>
>>Today we had our annual Wings and Wheels event, with many formation
>>flybys, including 2 P-51 Mustangs, 3 SX-300s and many others.
>>
>>See:
>>eaa288.org
>>http://www.sprucecreekowners.com/
>>http://www.scpoa.com/
>>http://fly-in.com/
>
>
> Very nice, this is a different airpark animal. Homes aren't sitting on the
> runway, nice tarmac, what's with the lake on approach?

On the road, cars come at you at 100 mph - with the intent of
missing by 2 or 3 feet.

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 05:17 AM

Any incidents?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:05:59 -0500, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> I DO live on a residential airpark (We have about 600 planes) and it is
>>> GREAT! The most noise comes from the yard maintenance people.
>>>
>>> Today we had our annual Wings and Wheels event, with many formation
>>> flybys, including 2 P-51 Mustangs, 3 SX-300s and many others.
>>>
>>> See:
>>> eaa288.org
>>> http://www.sprucecreekowners.com/
>>> http://www.scpoa.com/
>>> http://fly-in.com/
>>
>> Very nice, this is a different airpark animal. Homes aren't sitting on the
>> runway, nice tarmac, what's with the lake on approach?
>
> THe lake is part of the stormwater management system and is also a water
> hazard along the golf course. We have around 3000 people living at
> Spruce Creek; homes are 1/3 taxiway access, 1/3 golf, 1/3 nature
> preserve. Most taxiways are for airplanes only -- only 2 are combined
> taxiway/street use. We have our own water/sewer system, so there are no
> well/septic tank issues to deal with.
>
> Runway is 4800x150, paved, lighted, with GPS approach.
>
> EAA 288 mets here, in one of the guys' hangar -- we regularly get 75-100
> attendees. We ahve something more than 30 RV's of various flavors
> (mostly RV-8s) on the field.
>
> When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
> on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
> live:
>
> 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
> loaf of bread or a can of paint.
>
> 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
> start campaigning against the airpark.
>
> 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
>
> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>
> 5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
> mind).
>
> 6. Those with poor approaches.
>
> 7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
>
> 8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
> bit far away.)

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 05:26 AM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:20:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> There are many, many airports that have structures or natural obstacles much
> closer than this one. Yet, airplanes land and takeoff from these places for
> many years with no incidents. Occasionally there are problems, but that is
> why you buy insurance.

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?

> You might even have to decide to give the airplane
> to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident happens
> to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses don't grow on
> trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.
>
> I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within two
> miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.

Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.

> Are the houses in the airpark in an overly risky location? No, I don't
> think so. Are they at a higher risk? Probably, but most would say they are
> at a reasonable risk level.

So what you are telling me is that it is a reasonable risk to live next to
a landing strip/field in relation for what convenience?

> Flying will put you at a higher risk than many other activities in your
> life. The rewards outweigh the risks, to the people that stay in it. You
> can choose to live your life safe and boring, or live your life rich and
> full of reward, and not be afraid of the somewhat higher risks. I know what
> I choose, as do most of the flying folks in this group.

If you believe that life is rewarding based upon the level of risk you
take, I feel very sorry for you.

This comes from a risk taker of the penultimate degree.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 05:27 AM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:55:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Mar 10, 6:05*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>> If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
>>> strips out here in the west. *You would have a heart attack at most of
>>> them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
>>> critters, etc.......
>>
>>> Ben
>>>www.haaspowerair.com
>>> N801BH
>>
>> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
>> neighbor's kids.
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
> Around ??????????

Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 11th 08, 05:42 AM

If you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on a
fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn, you must
mount a machine and become acquainted with its tricks by actual trial.

— Wilbur Wright, from an address to the Western Society of Engineers in
Chicago, 18 September 1901.

In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are
usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.

— Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900.

I learned that danger is relative, and the inexperience can be a
magnifying glass.

— Charles A. Lindbergh

Or? Is it this one that grabs you?

Beware, dear son of my heart, lest in thy new-found power thou seekest
even the gates of Olympus . . . . These wings may bring thy freedom but
may also come thy death.

— Daedalus to Icarus, after teaching his son to use his new wings of wax
and feathers.

WJRFlyBoy

March 11th 08, 06:28 AM

lol

Back to the Subject:

Re: Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:42:43 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

> If you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on a
> fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn, you must
> mount a machine and become acquainted with its tricks by actual trial.
>
> ¡X Wilbur Wright, from an address to the Western Society of Engineers in
> Chicago, 18 September 1901.
>
> In flying I have learned that carelessness and overconfidence are
> usually far more dangerous than deliberately accepted risks.
>
> ¡X Wilbur Wright in a letter to his father, September 1900.
>
> I learned that danger is relative, and the inexperience can be a
> magnifying glass.
>
> ¡X Charles A. Lindbergh
>
> Or? Is it this one that grabs you?
>
> Beware, dear son of my heart, lest in thy new-found power thou seekest
> even the gates of Olympus . . . . These wings may bring thy freedom but
> may also come thy death.
>
> ¡X Daedalus to Icarus, after teaching his son to use his new wings of wax
> and feathers.

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Neil Gould

March 11th 08, 11:09 AM

Recently, WJRFlyBoy > posted:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:20:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
>> There are many, many airports that have structures or natural
>> obstacles much closer than this one. Yet, airplanes land and
>> takeoff from these places for many years with no incidents.
>> Occasionally there are problems, but that is why you buy insurance.
>
> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?
>
>> You might even have to decide to give the airplane
>> to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
>> happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses
>> don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.
>>
>> I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
>> two miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.
>
> Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.
>
(rest snipped for brevity)

Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.

A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.

Be patient, listen, and learn!

Best,

Neil

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 11th 08, 01:36 PM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> Any incidents?

Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
the pooch."

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

news.chi.sbcglobal.net

March 11th 08, 01:50 PM

Logic would dictate that pilots who live right next to their airplanes
probably fly more than those who have to drive an hour or so to an airport.

And I would think that those who fly more are probably more proficient that
their less-fortunate brothers/sisters.

Which would make me think that living in an air park would probably be
somewhat safer than living next to a typical GA airport...

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> Any incidents?
>
> Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
> have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
> the pooch."
>
> --
> Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

RST Engineering

March 11th 08, 03:36 PM

When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.

Jim

>>: When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 03:43 PM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in news:13td9o855hqofd5
@news.supernews.com:

>
>
> When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws.

Bwawhahwhahwha!

Bertie

Blueskies

March 11th 08, 10:07 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
> "Blueskies" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional
>>> wind landing......
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>>
>>> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I
>>> see megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>>
>>> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>>>
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>>> --
>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>
>>
>> Cake with a 'coupe. Faster than any other equal powered production
>> plane...
>
>
> No, it wasn't. not by a long shot.
>
> Luscombe, Rearwin, T cart. All faster on the same horsepower.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949-ercoupe-415-g.html)
Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/1946-luscombe-8a.html)
Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Sportster.htm)
Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Speedster.htm)
Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)

That was fun. T cart is T-craft?

Blueskies

March 11th 08, 10:11 PM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message ...
> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
> landing......
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>
> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
> megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>
> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>
> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?

Home sweet home: http://www.airnav.com/airport/4N0

Blueskies

March 11th 08, 10:14 PM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> BobR > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 9, 3:36 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> > This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
>> > landing......
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>> >
>> > Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
>> > megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>> >
>>
>> Do I want a home that close to a GA Landing Strip? DAMN Right I Do!
>> I would take one in a heartbeat and love it.
>
> I DO live on a residential airpark (We have about 600 planes) and it is
> GREAT! The most noise comes from the yard maintenance people.
>
> Today we had our annual Wings and Wheels event, with many formation
> flybys, including 2 P-51 Mustangs, 3 SX-300s and many others.
>
> See:
> eaa288.org
> http://www.sprucecreekowners.com/
> http://www.scpoa.com/
> http://fly-in.com/
>
> It is the largest (and, IMHO the best) residential airpark in the world.
> We also have more based aircraft than any other airport in Florida.
>
> I moved here 9 years ago and am having a BLAST!
>
> --
> Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.
>

Nice!!!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 11th 08, 10:32 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in
et:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional
>>>> wind landing......
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>>>
>>>> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet
>>>> I see megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>>>
>>>> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>>>>
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>>>> --
>>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>>
>>>
>>> Cake with a 'coupe. Faster than any other equal powered production
>>> plane...
>>
>>
>> No, it wasn't. not by a long shot.
>>
>> Luscombe, Rearwin, T cart. All faster on the same horsepower.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949-e
> rcoupe-415-g.html) Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/1946-
> luscombe-8a.html) Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Sp
> ortster.htm) Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Sp
> eedster.htm) Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>
> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?

I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I did talk
to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first production airplane at
one time. I think it might still be for sale, but the price is big and it
needs complete restoration. It's Cirrus powered one. Th eMenasco powered
airplane cruised at 140 plus IIRC.

Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in particular.
All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe will cruise
an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The T-cart will do 95mph
with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a T-cart) The Sporster came with a
large variety of HPs depending and even the 60 HP one wil cruise at over 90
on a good day. a 90 HP Sporster is a fine airplane, BTW.
BTW, the luscombe still holds the closed course record for a production
airplane in it's class 69 years after it set the record. 129 mph, IIRC.
That was an A-65 posered one BTW.

Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it will lift
three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six hours endurance and
cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over 100 with an A-65 and get out
of a 600 foot long strip with two guys on board.
The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't the best at anything.

Bertie

Blueskies

March 12th 08, 12:57 AM

"Bill Watson" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
> > Home sweet home: http://www.airnav.com/airport/4N0
>>
> Very Sweet! Here's my little piece of heaven:
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/8nc8
>
> Living with it changes everything. Wish we had an approach but RDU
> serves nicely when needed. A private fuel farm, 3.5 acres to romp on
> and few restrictions is nice. The Maule makes any operation very
> comfortable. Building an RV10 in the backyar hangar, double sweet.
>
> Nigh time tailwheeling on grass after a weekend at the beach, priceless.
>
> Got to get back to building...

Yes, working on a BD-4 in my 'barn'...

;-)

Blueskies

March 12th 08, 12:58 AM

> wrote in message ...
On Mar 10, 6:05 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
> > strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
> > them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
> > critters, etc.......
>
> > Ben
> >www.haaspowerair.com
> > N801BH
>
> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
> neighbor's kids.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
Around ??????????

I think I figured it out the other day. The trick to flying is controlling how quickly you stop....

Blueskies

March 12th 08, 01:36 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>
>> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949-ercoupe-415-g.html)
>> Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/1946-luscombe-8a.html)
>> Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Sportster.htm)
>> Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Speedster.htm)
>> Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>>
>> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>
>
> I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I did talk
> to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first production airplane at
> one time. I think it might still be for sale, but the price is big and it
> needs complete restoration. It's Cirrus powered one. Th eMenasco powered
> airplane cruised at 140 plus IIRC.
>
> Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in particular.
> All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
> The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe will cruise
> an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The T-cart will do 95mph
> with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a T-cart) The Sporster came with a
> large variety of HPs depending and even the 60 HP one wil cruise at over 90
> on a good day. a 90 HP Sporster is a fine airplane, BTW.
> BTW, the luscombe still holds the closed course record for a production
> airplane in it's class 69 years after it set the record. 129 mph, IIRC.
> That was an A-65 posered one BTW.
>
> Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it will lift
> three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six hours endurance and
> cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over 100 with an A-65 and get out
> of a 600 foot long strip with two guys on board.
> The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't the best at anything.
>
>
> Bertie

We've got an old guy (as if I'm not) here who has 3 1/2 coupes, and he does like them. I was quoting him on the
performance numbers, so I can't say from personal experience. He also has a twister (raced it at Cleveland and Reno!) in
his hanger alongside the meyers 200. He likes flying circles around the cessners tho'...

So many airplanes, so little time...what is a T-cart? Your numbers seem to match up on that line...

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 12th 08, 03:10 AM

"Blueskies" > wrote in
. net:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
>>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949
>>> -ercoupe-415-g.html) Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
>>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/194
>>> 6-luscombe-8a.html) Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20
>>> Sportster.htm) Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20
>>> Speedster.htm) Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>>>
>>> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>>
>>
>> I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I did
>> talk to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first production
>> airplane at one time. I think it might still be for sale, but the
>> price is big and it needs complete restoration. It's Cirrus powered
>> one. Th eMenasco powered airplane cruised at 140 plus IIRC.
>>
>> Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in
>> particular. All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
>> The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe will
>> cruise an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The T-cart will
>> do 95mph with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a T-cart) The Sporster
>> came with a large variety of HPs depending and even the 60 HP one wil
>> cruise at over 90 on a good day. a 90 HP Sporster is a fine airplane,
>> BTW. BTW, the luscombe still holds the closed course record for a
>> production airplane in it's class 69 years after it set the record.
>> 129 mph, IIRC. That was an A-65 posered one BTW.
>>
>> Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it will
>> lift three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six hours
>> endurance and cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over 100 with
>> an A-65 and get out of a 600 foot long strip with two guys on board.
>> The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't the best at anything.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> We've got an old guy (as if I'm not) here who has 3 1/2 coupes, and he
> does like them. I was quoting him on the performance numbers, so I
> can't say from personal experience. He also has a twister (raced it at
> Cleveland and Reno!) in his hanger alongside the meyers 200. He likes
> flying circles around the cessners tho'...
>
> So many airplanes, so little time...what is a T-cart? Your numbers
> seem to match up on that line...
>

Oh sorry, nickname for a Taylorcraft. Mine was a BF 65 but had a
continental in it. Lovely little airplane. It's just been restored by the
present owner and is still flying at the age of 69.

I have factory figures for the airplane ( Original press publications from
the thirties for each)
Ercoupe 415-C A-65 powered:
cruise @ 80% 95, initial ROC 600fpm stall 37
And the postwar airplane with the 85
cruise @75% 100 mph stall 48 (?!!) initial ROC 750 FPM.

I have no idea why the stal speed jumped so much, bu tI suspect they didn't
correct indicated on the earlier airplane. 48 sounds high for a wing
loading that low as well, but such were the vagaries of published figures.
Good thing they're more honest these days, eh? ;)

The 415-E with the C-85 and an uppped gross weight they say will do 110 at
80%, which is definitely not true of any I know of, but it's climb has gone
down to 550 FPM. Mostly due to the increased gross of 1400 over the earlier
machine's gross of 1180. Electrics and all that..
I forgot about the Culver Cadet, of course, which is published at 120
cruise with an A-75. AFAIK, this was an honest figure for the airplane, but
I've never flown one. And the figures for the aforementioned Bellanca
Junior with just about any of the available 90 horse engines was from 120
to 126 mph. An that was a three seater.
Most of the 90 horse monocoupes would have eaten it for breakfast as well.

Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made in the
fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history as the
first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a famous pic of
that flight with the airplane taking off at an absolutely insane angle of
climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.

Bertie

>
>

Peter Dohm

March 12th 08, 03:59 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Blueskies" > wrote in
> . net:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
>>>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949
>>>> -ercoupe-415-g.html) Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
>>>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/194
>>>> 6-luscombe-8a.html) Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
>>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20
>>>> Sportster.htm) Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
>>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20
>>>> Speedster.htm) Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
>>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>>>>
>>>> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I did
>>> talk to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first production
>>> airplane at one time. I think it might still be for sale, but the
>>> price is big and it needs complete restoration. It's Cirrus powered
>>> one. Th eMenasco powered airplane cruised at 140 plus IIRC.
>>>
>>> Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in
>>> particular. All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
>>> The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe will
>>> cruise an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The T-cart will
>>> do 95mph with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a T-cart) The Sporster
>>> came with a large variety of HPs depending and even the 60 HP one wil
>>> cruise at over 90 on a good day. a 90 HP Sporster is a fine airplane,
>>> BTW. BTW, the luscombe still holds the closed course record for a
>>> production airplane in it's class 69 years after it set the record.
>>> 129 mph, IIRC. That was an A-65 posered one BTW.
>>>
>>> Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it will
>>> lift three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six hours
>>> endurance and cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over 100 with
>>> an A-65 and get out of a 600 foot long strip with two guys on board.
>>> The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't the best at anything.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> We've got an old guy (as if I'm not) here who has 3 1/2 coupes, and he
>> does like them. I was quoting him on the performance numbers, so I
>> can't say from personal experience. He also has a twister (raced it at
>> Cleveland and Reno!) in his hanger alongside the meyers 200. He likes
>> flying circles around the cessners tho'...
>>
>> So many airplanes, so little time...what is a T-cart? Your numbers
>> seem to match up on that line...
>>
>
> Oh sorry, nickname for a Taylorcraft. Mine was a BF 65 but had a
> continental in it. Lovely little airplane. It's just been restored by the
> present owner and is still flying at the age of 69.
>
> I have factory figures for the airplane ( Original press publications from
> the thirties for each)
> Ercoupe 415-C A-65 powered:
> cruise @ 80% 95, initial ROC 600fpm stall 37
> And the postwar airplane with the 85
> cruise @75% 100 mph stall 48 (?!!) initial ROC 750 FPM.
>
> I have no idea why the stal speed jumped so much, bu tI suspect they
> didn't
> correct indicated on the earlier airplane. 48 sounds high for a wing
> loading that low as well, but such were the vagaries of published figures.
> Good thing they're more honest these days, eh? ;)
>
>
> The 415-E with the C-85 and an uppped gross weight they say will do 110 at
> 80%, which is definitely not true of any I know of, but it's climb has
> gone
> down to 550 FPM. Mostly due to the increased gross of 1400 over the
> earlier
> machine's gross of 1180. Electrics and all that..
> I forgot about the Culver Cadet, of course, which is published at 120
> cruise with an A-75. AFAIK, this was an honest figure for the airplane,
> but
> I've never flown one. And the figures for the aforementioned Bellanca
> Junior with just about any of the available 90 horse engines was from 120
> to 126 mph. An that was a three seater.
> Most of the 90 horse monocoupes would have eaten it for breakfast as well.
>
> Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made in the
> fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history as the
> first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a famous pic of
> that flight with the airplane taking off at an absolutely insane angle of
> climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.
>
>
> Bertie
>
I ran into that while looikng for info on the undercarriage, here's one of
the links:
http://www.geocities.com/~planes/cfacts/jato.htm

Peter

RST Engineering

March 12th 08, 06:09 AM

Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT go
down to see what you have to say?

Jim

[email protected]

March 12th 08, 09:16 AM

On Mar 11, 9:59*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in .com...
>
>
>
> > "Blueskies" > wrote in
> . net:
>
> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
> >>>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949
> >>>> -ercoupe-415-g.html) Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
> >>>> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/194
> >>>> 6-luscombe-8a.html) Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
> >>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20
> >>>> Sportster.htm) Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
> >>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20
> >>>> Speedster.htm) Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
> >>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>
> >>>> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>
> >>> I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I did
> >>> talk to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first production
> >>> airplane at one time. I think it might still be for sale, but the
> >>> price is big and it needs complete restoration. It's Cirrus powered
> >>> one. Th eMenasco powered airplane cruised at 140 plus IIRC.
>
> >>> Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in
> >>> particular. All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
> >>> The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe will
> >>> cruise an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The T-cart will
> >>> do 95mph with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a T-cart) The Sporster
> >>> came with a large variety of HPs depending and even the 60 HP one wil
> >>> cruise at over 90 on a good day. a 90 HP Sporster is a fine airplane,
> >>> BTW. BTW, the luscombe still holds the closed course record for a
> >>> production airplane in it's class 69 years after it set the record.
> >>> 129 mph, IIRC. That was an A-65 posered one BTW.
>
> >>> Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it will
> >>> lift three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six hours
> >>> endurance and cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over 100 with
> >>> an A-65 and get out of a 600 foot long strip with two guys on board.
> >>> The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't the best at anything.
>
> >>> Bertie
>
> >> We've got an old guy (as if I'm not) here who has 3 1/2 coupes, and he
> >> does like them. I was quoting him on the performance numbers, so I
> >> can't say from personal experience. He also has a twister (raced it at
> >> Cleveland and Reno!) in his hanger alongside the meyers 200. He likes
> >> flying circles around the cessners tho'...
>
> >> So many airplanes, so little time...what is a T-cart? Your numbers
> >> seem to match up on that line...
>
> > Oh sorry, nickname for a Taylorcraft. Mine was a BF 65 but had a
> > continental in it. Lovely little airplane. It's just been restored by the
> > present owner and is still flying at the age of 69.
>
> > I have factory figures for the airplane ( Original press publications from
> > the thirties for each)
> > Ercoupe 415-C A-65 powered:
> > cruise @ 80% 95, initial ROC 600fpm stall 37
> > And the postwar airplane with the 85
> > cruise @75% 100 mph stall 48 (?!!) initial ROC 750 FPM.
>
> > I have no idea why the stal speed jumped so much, bu tI suspect they
> > didn't
> > correct indicated on the earlier airplane. 48 sounds high for a wing
> > loading that low as well, but such were the vagaries of published figures.
> > Good thing they're more honest these days, eh? *;)
>
> > The 415-E with the C-85 and an uppped gross weight they say will do 110 at
> > 80%, which is definitely not true of any I know of, but it's climb has
> > gone
> > down to 550 FPM. Mostly due to the increased gross of 1400 over the
> > earlier
> > machine's gross of 1180. Electrics and all that..
> > I forgot about the Culver Cadet, of course, which is published at 120
> > cruise with an A-75. AFAIK, this was an honest figure for the airplane,
> > but
> > I've never flown one. And the figures for the aforementioned Bellanca
> > Junior with just about any of the available 90 horse engines was from 120
> > to 126 mph. An that was a three seater.
> > Most of the 90 horse monocoupes would have eaten it for breakfast as well.
>
> > Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made in the
> > fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history as the
> > first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a famous pic of
> > that flight with the airplane taking off at an absolutely insane angle of
> > climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.
>
> > Bertie
>
> I ran into that while looikng for info on the undercarriage, here's one of
> the links:http://www.geocities.com/~planes/cfacts/jato.htm
>
> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That angle of climb doesn't look insane to me. hell, my Zenith 801
looks like that on an off day...There must be another pic showing it
performing at alot higher climb angle.

Jay Maynard

March 12th 08, 11:02 AM

On 2008-03-12, RST Engineering > wrote:
> Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT go
> down to see what you have to say?

Amen. If all I see on the first page is quoted text, I just hit N.

(No, the answer is not top-posting, either; that's just as evil.)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 12th 08, 11:37 AM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>>
>> Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made in
>> the fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history
>> as the first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a
>> famous pic of that flight with the airplane taking off at an
>> absolutely insane angle of climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> I ran into that while looikng for info on the undercarriage, here's
> one of the links:
> http://www.geocities.com/~planes/cfacts/jato.htm

Pretty cool accessory, eh? I flew a twin beech that had them as an
emergency engine failure provision, but we didn't use them. It upped the
max take off weight. They'd be a hoot on a light single like an Ercouple
though!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 12th 08, 11:38 AM

"RST Engineering" > wrote in news:13tessrl82qp6b4
@news.supernews.com:

> Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT
go
> down to see what you have to say?
>

nope, that's completely beyond me.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 12th 08, 11:40 AM

" > wrote in
:

> On Mar 11, 9:59*pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in
>> messagenews:fr7hil$ah5$1@blackhe
> licopter.databasix.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> . net:
>>
>> >> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>>> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
>> >>>>
(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/
>> >>>> 1949
>
>> >>>> -ercoupe-415-g.html) Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
>> >>>>
(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe
>> >>>> /194
>
>> >>>> 6-luscombe-8a.html) Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103
>> >>>> mph
>> >>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%
20performance/rearwin/Rearwi
>> >>>> n%20
>
>> >>>> Sportster.htm) Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
>> >>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%
20performance/rearwin/Rearwi
>> >>>> n%20
>
>> >>>> Speedster.htm) Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
>> >>>> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%
20performance/Taylorcraft.ht
>> >>>> m)
>>
>> >>>> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>>
>> >>> I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I
>> >>> did talk to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first
>> >>> production airplane at one time. I think it might still be for
>> >>> sale, but the price is big and it needs complete restoration.
>> >>> It's Cirrus powered one. Th eMenasco powered airplane cruised at
>> >>> 140 plus IIRC.
>>
>> >>> Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in
>> >>> particular. All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
>> >>> The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe
>> >>> will cruise an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The
>> >>> T-cart will do 95mph with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a
>> >>> T-cart) The Sporster came with a large variety of HPs depending
>> >>> and even the 60 HP one wil cruise at over 90 on a good day. a 90
>> >>> HP Sporster is a fine airplane, BTW. BTW, the luscombe still
>> >>> holds the closed course record for a production airplane in it's
>> >>> class 69 years after it set the record. 129 mph, IIRC. That was
>> >>> an A-65 posered one BTW.
>>
>> >>> Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it
>> >>> will lift three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six
>> >>> hours endurance and cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over
>> >>> 100 with an A-65 and get out of a 600 foot long strip with two
>> >>> guys on board. The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't
>> >>> the best at anything.
>>
>> >>> Bertie
>>
>> >> We've got an old guy (as if I'm not) here who has 3 1/2 coupes,
>> >> and he does like them. I was quoting him on the performance
>> >> numbers, so I can't say from personal experience. He also has a
>> >> twister (raced it at Cleveland and Reno!) in his hanger alongside
>> >> the meyers 200. He likes flying circles around the cessners
>> >> tho'...
>>
>> >> So many airplanes, so little time...what is a T-cart? Your numbers
>> >> seem to match up on that line...
>>
>> > Oh sorry, nickname for a Taylorcraft. Mine was a BF 65 but had a
>> > continental in it. Lovely little airplane. It's just been restored
>> > by th
> e
>> > present owner and is still flying at the age of 69.
>>
>> > I have factory figures for the airplane ( Original press
>> > publications fr
> om
>> > the thirties for each)
>> > Ercoupe 415-C A-65 powered:
>> > cruise @ 80% 95, initial ROC 600fpm stall 37
>> > And the postwar airplane with the 85
>> > cruise @75% 100 mph stall 48 (?!!) initial ROC 750 FPM.
>>
>> > I have no idea why the stal speed jumped so much, bu tI suspect
>> > they didn't
>> > correct indicated on the earlier airplane. 48 sounds high for a
>> > wing loading that low as well, but such were the vagaries of
>> > published figure
> s.
>> > Good thing they're more honest these days, eh? *;)
>>
>> > The 415-E with the C-85 and an uppped gross weight they say will do
>> > 110
> at
>> > 80%, which is definitely not true of any I know of, but it's climb
>> > has gone
>> > down to 550 FPM. Mostly due to the increased gross of 1400 over the
>> > earlier
>> > machine's gross of 1180. Electrics and all that..
>> > I forgot about the Culver Cadet, of course, which is published at
>> > 120 cruise with an A-75. AFAIK, this was an honest figure for the
>> > airplane, but
>> > I've never flown one. And the figures for the aforementioned
>> > Bellanca Junior with just about any of the available 90 horse
>> > engines was from 12
> 0
>> > to 126 mph. An that was a three seater.
>> > Most of the 90 horse monocoupes would have eaten it for breakfast
>> > as wel
> l.
>>
>> > Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made
>> > in the
>
>> > fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history as
>> > the first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a
>> > famous pic of that flight with the airplane taking off at an
>> > absolutely insane angle o
> f
>> > climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> I ran into that while looikng for info on the undercarriage, here's
>> one of
>
>> the links:http://www.geocities.com/~planes/cfacts/jato.htm
>>
>> Peter- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That angle of climb doesn't look insane to me. hell, my Zenith 801
> looks like that on an off day...There must be another pic showing it
> performing at alot higher climb angle.
>
That's not the pic I was thinking of, but it's about the same angle
IIRC. That's very steep for an Ercoupe. that's probably a 65 horse one
as well.

Bertie

cavedweller

March 12th 08, 01:43 PM

On Mar 12, 1:09 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT go
> down to see what you have to say?
>
> Jim

I'm looking for the example that you didn't include....that's super
snipping.

WJRFlyBoy

March 12th 08, 09:42 PM

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:25:34 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:35:47 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>
>> I missed making my point. It was the nearness of the houses (aircraft
>> irregardless). Sorry.
>
> On a regular basis, I have cars zipping by not two carlengths from my
> bedroom, some of them faster than a landing Aircoupe. Not only that, I live at
> the dangerous end of a "T" intersection. If one car ran that stop sign...
>
> Anyhow, been 20 years now in this same house and no trouble.
>
> Vaughn

I don't know what to say, Vaughn except Best Of Luck :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 12th 08, 09:43 PM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:02:33 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> I used to live near the end of Greenfield Rd. at 14 Mile Rd. in Birmingham
> MI. In the Google maps "street view":
>
> <http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=greenfield+rd.+and+14+mile+rd.+Birmingham+MI&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.875284,80.332031&ie=UTF8&ll=42.535437,-83.204527&spn=0.007004,0.02665&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.53192,-83.20441&cbp=1,0,,0,5>you can see the BIG rock that the guy who lived across from the end ofGreenfield set in his front yard after the _second_ time that a car ended upin his bedroom...I'd rather live next to a runway myself...-

I have seen that visiting up there many times. lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 12th 08, 09:45 PM

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:50:19 GMT, news.chi.sbcglobal.net wrote:

> Logic would dictate that pilots who live right next to their airplanes
> probably fly more than those who have to drive an hour or so to an airport.
>
> And I would think that those who fly more are probably more proficient that
> their less-fortunate brothers/sisters.
>
> Which would make me think that living in an air park would probably be
> somewhat safer than living next to a typical GA airport...

I can buy into that somewhat.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 12th 08, 09:47 PM

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
> on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
> live:
>
> 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
> loaf of bread or a can of paint.
>
> 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
> start campaigning against the airpark.
> 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.

Reasoning here?

> 5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
> mind).
> 6. Those with poor approaches.
> 7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
> 8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
> bit far away.)

What do you think about Captiva?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 12th 08, 09:49 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:58:19 GMT, Blueskies wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> On Mar 10, 6:05 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>> If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
>>> strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
>>> them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
>>> critters, etc.......
>>
>>> Ben
>>>www.haaspowerair.com
>>> N801BH
>>
>> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
>> neighbor's kids.
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
> Around ??????????

No offense but this is like arguing with a 16 yo (not you personally) "Dad,
there is a stop sign, people STOP."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 12th 08, 09:51 PM

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:36:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> Any incidents?
>
> Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
> have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
> the pooch."

Let's start this over re: Captiva.

Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent death.

Yes?

Make sense?

????
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 12th 08, 09:53 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>
> Reasoning here?
>

I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from under
you and you end up with a house with a big garage.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 12th 08, 09:56 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:58:19 GMT, Blueskies wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message ...
>> On Mar 10, 6:05 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>> If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
>>>> strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
>>>> them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
>>>> critters, etc.......
>>>> Ben
>>>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>>> N801BH
>>> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
>>> neighbor's kids.
>>> --
>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>> The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
>> Around ??????????
>
> No offense but this is like arguing with a 16 yo (not you personally) "Dad,
> there is a stop sign, people STOP."

Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
there in the case of an accident.

BobR

March 12th 08, 10:30 PM

On Mar 12, 4:51*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:36:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> >> Any incidents?
>
> > Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
> > have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
> > the pooch."
>
> Let's start this over re: Captiva.
>
> Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent death.
>
> Yes?
>
> Make sense?
>
> ????
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

About as much sense as

Soap....Water....Tub....Shower....People....immine nt death.

Stop taking showers and bathing YES?

The odds are greater that you will be killed in the tub or shower!

[email protected]

March 12th 08, 11:20 PM

On Mar 12, 3:47*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
> > on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
> > live:
>
> > 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
> > loaf of bread or a can of paint.
>
> > 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
> > start campaigning against the airpark.
> > 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
> > 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>
> Reasoning here?
>
> > 5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
> > mind).
> > 6. Those with poor approaches.
> > 7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
> > 8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
> > bit far away.)
>
> What do you think about Captiva?
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

If you are talking about Upper Captiva then I can give a first hand
report. Years ago I landed my Warrior there on a few occasions. It is
a demanding runway but nothing real dangerous. Ya land short ,you
sheer off the gear on the sea wall, if you run long on the takeoff
roll you get wet. Any competent pilot should be able to keep it
between the houses with ease and get it stopped in time. The thing
that will kill ya is eating too much "death by chocolate" at the
little eatin place there. God that was good eatin, !!!!!!!!! And of
course any place that travel is restriced to golf carts only can't be
too bad.... I am betting the last few hurricanes ruined alot of the
rustic settings it used to have.

Ben.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 13th 08, 02:27 AM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
> > on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
> > live:
> >
> > 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
> > loaf of bread or a can of paint.
> >
> > 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
> > start campaigning against the airpark.
> > 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
> > 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>
> Reasoning here?

The reason is that if the residents don't OWN the runway, they are
potentially at the maercy of the landowners. Even though the residents
may have contractually permanent access, they may have legal hassles if
the landowners attempt to renege on their contracts.

I knew people in CA who had this problem at Sierra Skypark. They
eventually prevailed, but it cost them a lot of hassle and legal fees
when the owner of the runway attempted to close it for development.

> > 5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
> > mind).
> > 6. Those with poor approaches.
> > 7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
> > 8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
> > bit far away.)
>
> What do you think about Captiva?

I really have not investigated it, but it does not appear to be a place
where I would wish to live.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Morgans[_2_]

March 13th 08, 02:42 AM

"BobR" > wrote

> About as much sense as

> Soap....Water....Tub....Shower....People....immine nt death.

> Stop taking showers and bathing YES?

> The odds are greater that you will be killed in the tub or shower!

***********************************************

Yep.

I'm beginning to think this guy or gal your post is replying to is:

A) Way too closed minded to belive what people here repeatedly tell him

B) Way too paranoid about airplanes to ever want to actually be in one

C) Has some medically classifiable psychosis

D) An internet kook, along the lines of MX or Ken (or is actually one of
them)

E) Another of a recurring line of trolls that seems to be parading through
the Rec.Aviation groups

F) Some combination of the choices above

Whatever the answer is, I'm done with future conversations with him. Time
will tell which of the above choices are correct, and I don't think it will
take much longer for others to get as tired of him as I have.
--
Jim in NC

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 13th 08, 03:36 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote
>
>
>>About as much sense as
>
>
>>Soap....Water....Tub....Shower....People....immine nt death.
>
>
>>Stop taking showers and bathing YES?
>
>
>>The odds are greater that you will be killed in the tub or shower!
>
>
> ***********************************************
>
> Yep.
>
> I'm beginning to think this guy or gal your post is replying to is:
>
> A) Way too closed minded to belive what people here repeatedly tell him
>
> B) Way too paranoid about airplanes to ever want to actually be in one
>
> C) Has some medically classifiable psychosis
>
> D) An internet kook, along the lines of MX or Ken (or is actually one of
> them)
>
> E) Another of a recurring line of trolls that seems to be parading through
> the Rec.Aviation groups
>
> F) Some combination of the choices above
>
> Whatever the answer is, I'm done with future conversations with him. Time
> will tell which of the above choices are correct, and I don't think it will
> take much longer for others to get as tired of him as I have.

Or 14 years old?

Morgans[_2_]

March 13th 08, 05:49 AM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote

> Or 14 years old?

Yep, that should have been a choice, too. Then, add one or more of the
other choices, too.
--
Jim in NC

BobR

March 13th 08, 02:22 PM

On Mar 12, 9:42*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "BobR" > wrote
>
> > About as much sense as
> > Soap....Water....Tub....Shower....People....immine nt death.
> > Stop taking showers and bathing YES?
> > The odds are greater that you will be killed in the tub or shower!
>
> ***********************************************
>
> Yep.
>
> I'm beginning to think this guy or gal your post is replying to is:
>
> A) Way too closed minded to belive what people here repeatedly tell him
>
> B) Way too paranoid about airplanes to ever want to actually be in one
>
> C) Has some medically classifiable psychosis
>
> D) An internet kook, along the lines of MX or Ken (or is actually one of
> them)
>
> E) Another of a recurring line of trolls that seems to be parading through
> the Rec.Aviation groups
>
> F) Some combination of the choices above
>
> Whatever the answer is, I'm done with future conversations with him. *Time
> will tell which of the above choices are correct, and I don't think it will
> take much longer for others to get as tired of him as I have.
> --
> Jim in NC

The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out
there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly
because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall
out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who
will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well
being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they
are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on
everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-
preserved body,
But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting

"....Holy ****....What a RIDE!"

WJRFlyBoy

March 13th 08, 08:24 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:20:52 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>>> When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
>>> on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
>>> live:
>>
>>> 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
>>> loaf of bread or a can of paint.
>>
>>> 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
>>> start campaigning against the airpark.
>>> 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
>>> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>
>> Reasoning here?
>>
>>> 5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
>>> mind).
>>> 6. Those with poor approaches.
>>> 7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
>>> 8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
>>> bit far away.)
>>
>> What do you think about Captiva?
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> If you are talking about Upper Captiva...

Right.

> then I can give a first hand
> report. Years ago I landed my Warrior there on a few occasions. It is
> a demanding runway but nothing real dangerous. Ya land short ,you
> sheer off the gear on the sea wall, if you run long on the takeoff
> roll you get wet. Any competent pilot should be able to keep it
> between the houses with ease and get it stopped in time. The thing
> that will kill ya is eating too much "death by chocolate" at the
> little eatin place there. God that was good eatin, !!!!!!!!! And of
> course any place that travel is restriced to golf carts only can't be
> too bad.... I am betting the last few hurricanes ruined alot of the
> rustic settings it used to have.
>
> Ben.

Hit n miss as all hurricanes are but they survived OK considering.

Thx for the review. I am picking on Up Captiva because I am familiar with
it, point of reference not a point of particular contention.

Btw, the bigger problem is the unbelievably bas red algae that's clogging
up the passes and filling the beaches. Stench beyond description.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 13th 08, 08:25 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:27:31 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>>> When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
>>> on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
>>> live:
>>>
>>> 1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
>>> loaf of bread or a can of paint.
>>>
>>> 2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
>>> start campaigning against the airpark.
>>> 3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
>>> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>
>> Reasoning here?
>
> The reason is that if the residents don't OWN the runway, they are
> potentially at the maercy of the landowners. Even though the residents
> may have contractually permanent access, they may have legal hassles if
> the landowners attempt to renege on their contracts.
>
> I knew people in CA who had this problem at Sierra Skypark. They
> eventually prevailed, but it cost them a lot of hassle and legal fees
> when the owner of the runway attempted to close it for development.

That's what I thought. "A ROW is a good as your ability to defend it." ~
attorney 2007
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 13th 08, 08:28 PM

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
>> landing......
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>
>> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
>> megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> And this video is remarkable because...?

Not the video, it reminded me of this question/thread I wanted to initiate.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Peter Dohm

March 13th 08, 08:29 PM

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out
there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly
because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall
out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who
will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well
being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they
are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on
everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own.

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-
preserved body,
But rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting

"....Holy ****....What a RIDE!"

Regrettably, that sums it up! :-(

Peter

Highflyer

March 13th 08, 08:39 PM

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Blueskies" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional
>>>> wind landing......
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>>>
>>>> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I
>>>> see megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>>>
>>>> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>>>>
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>>>> --
>>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>>
>>>
>>> Cake with a 'coupe. Faster than any other equal powered production
>>> plane...
>>
>>
>> No, it wasn't. not by a long shot.
>>
>> Luscombe, Rearwin, T cart. All faster on the same horsepower.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949-ercoupe-415-g.html)
> Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
> (http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/1946-luscombe-8a.html)
> Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Sportster.htm)
> Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Speedster.htm)
> Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
> (http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>
> That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>
>

The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.

I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level flight on any
of them!

Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJY

Highflyer

March 13th 08, 08:50 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>>> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>
>> Reasoning here?
>>
>
> I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
> owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from under you
> and you end up with a house with a big garage.

There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer bought
one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then got the runway
shutdown because of noise!

It takes all kinds. Some of them are lawyers.

Highflyer

Highflyer

March 13th 08, 08:57 PM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...

> Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
> --

Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
level of irreality.

By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
children playing on the interstates in the big cities.

Highflyer

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 13th 08, 09:39 PM

Highflyer wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>> Reasoning here?
>>>
>> I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
>> owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from under you
>> and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>
> There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer bought
> one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then got the runway
> shutdown because of noise!
>
> It takes all kinds. Some of them are lawyers.
>
> Highflyer
>
>

Somebody needed better lawyers or better shotguns.

Peter Dohm

March 13th 08, 09:47 PM

"Highflyer" > wrote in message
...
>
---------------snipped----------
>
> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.
>
> I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level flight on
> any of them!
>
> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>
>
At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older designs must
have been--and then I learned that some of those old factory specs were just
as imaginative as some of the earliest kits.

It was nearly as dissappointing as being a Democrat--or a Republican. :-(

Peter

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 13th 08, 10:43 PM

Highflyer wrote:

> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> et...
>
>>"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Blueskies" > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional
>>>>>wind landing......
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I
>>>>>see megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>>>>>
>>>>>http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>>>>>
>>>>>Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>>>>>--
>>>>>Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cake with a 'coupe. Faster than any other equal powered production
>>>>plane...
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it wasn't. not by a long shot.
>>>
>>>Luscombe, Rearwin, T cart. All faster on the same horsepower.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>>
>>
>>Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph
>>(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/ercoupe/1949-ercoupe-415-g.html)
>>Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph
>>(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/aircraft/specifications/luscombe/1946-luscombe-8a.html)
>>Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103 mph
>>(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Sportster.htm)
>>Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
>>(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/rearwin/Rearwin%20Speedster.htm)
>>Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
>>(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%20performance/Taylorcraft.htm)
>>
>>That was fun. T cart is T-craft?
>>
>>
>
>
> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.
>
> I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level flight on any
> of them!
>
> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't! :-)
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>
>

All it takes is a little collar on the pitot tube (and a bit of tweaking
the position) :)

Margy Natalie

March 14th 08, 01:22 AM

Dan wrote:
> And this video is remarkable because...?
>

It is a really pretty Ercoupe! I think living that close to a GA
landing strip is the way to go (we break ground this week!!)
www.longislandairpark.com Phase II lot 12.

Margy

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>>This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
>>landing......
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>
>>Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
>>megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>

Margy Natalie

March 14th 08, 01:29 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>
>
>>Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
>>with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
>>missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.
>
>
> What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
> could find you in someone's living room.

I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse
idea. If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my
house 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large
aircraft on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.

Margy

Margy Natalie

March 14th 08, 01:39 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:20:58 -0400, Morgans wrote:
>
>
>>There are many, many airports that have structures or natural obstacles much
>>closer than this one. Yet, airplanes land and takeoff from these places for
>>many years with no incidents. Occasionally there are problems, but that is
>>why you buy insurance.
>
>
> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?
>
>
>> You might even have to decide to give the airplane
>>to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident happens
>>to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses don't grow on
>>trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.
>>
>>I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within two
>>miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.
>
>
> Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.
>
>
>>Are the houses in the airpark in an overly risky location? No, I don't
>>think so. Are they at a higher risk? Probably, but most would say they are
>>at a reasonable risk level.
>
>
> So what you are telling me is that it is a reasonable risk to live next to
> a landing strip/field in relation for what convenience?

I can leave the office, drive 1 hour to my plane and fly 1.5 hours to
our property, on the lake, in NC. True, the house isn't built yet, but
we have a truck in the neighbor's hangar, so it's 2.5 hours from work to
heaven! If we have to drive it's almost 7 hours. AND all of the folks
in the neighborhood are airplane people.

I don't believe it's that much higher risk than living on downwind for
1/19 R&L base for 30 at Dulles (which is where we live).

Margy
>
>
>>Flying will put you at a higher risk than many other activities in your
>>life. The rewards outweigh the risks, to the people that stay in it. You
>>can choose to live your life safe and boring, or live your life rich and
>>full of reward, and not be afraid of the somewhat higher risks. I know what
>>I choose, as do most of the flying folks in this group.
>
>
> If you believe that life is rewarding based upon the level of risk you
> take, I feel very sorry for you.
>
> This comes from a risk taker of the penultimate degree.

Margy Natalie

March 14th 08, 01:43 AM

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> This got me thinking, a rudderless Ercoupe in a multi-directional wind
>> landing......
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2NJFrvYls
>>
>> Do you (I) really want a home that close to a GA landing strip? Yet I see
>> megabuck homes in my neck of the woods
>>
>> http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861
>>
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode
>>
>> Am I missing something? Isn't this a bit off the safety charts?
>
>
>
> Home sweet home: http://www.airnav.com/airport/4N0
>
>
Looks nice, but too far north for me :-)

Margy

Peter Dohm

March 14th 08, 02:19 AM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
>>>with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
>>>missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.
>>
>>
>> What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>> could find you in someone's living room.
>
> I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse idea.
> If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my house
> 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large aircraft
> on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>
> Margy

I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH, all
that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for. :-)

Peter

Stella Starr

March 14th 08, 04:45 AM

Or worse yet, we'll only read the top-posters' comments.
Nyaa-nyaaaahhh!

RST Engineering wrote:
> Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT go
> down to see what you have to say?
>
> Jim
>

PS: I second what he said.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 08:39 AM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

> The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out
> there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly
> because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall
> out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of morons who
> will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well
> being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn except they
> are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on
> everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own.

lol Starting with the Subject Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
extrapolation".

Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
(Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
houses, people, etc).

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Marty Shapiro

March 14th 08, 09:59 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>
>> The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out
>> there who are of the same mindset. We shouldn't be allowed to fly
>> because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly
>> fall out of the sky on top of them. They are the same group of
>> morons who will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to
>> their well being without a second thought. I wouldn't give a damn
>> except they are the same ones who are constantly trying to force
>> limits on everyones freedom to live because they have no life of
>> their own.
>
> lol Starting with the Subject Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
> (note was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in
> three sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
> extrapolation".
>
> Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to
> answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data
> on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off
> runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc).
>

Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents
available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the
appropriate search query.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

BobR

March 14th 08, 02:19 PM

On Mar 14, 3:39*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:22:21 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> > The sad part of it is that there are a lot of "educated" adults out
> > there who are of the same mindset. *We shouldn't be allowed to fly
> > because we might fly over their house, car, or space and suddenly fall
> > out of the sky on top of them. *They are the same group of morons who
> > will totally disregard a thousand other greater risks to their well
> > being without a second thought. *I wouldn't give a damn except they
> > are the same ones who are constantly trying to force limits on
> > everyones freedom to live because they have no life of their own.
>
> lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
> was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
> sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
> extrapolation".
>

First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic
problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding
of aviation and the risk factors involved. You initial post
demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced
that perception.

> Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
> anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
> (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
> houses, people, etc).
>

Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 03:38 PM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:22:33 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

> It is a really pretty Ercoupe! I think living that close to a GA
> landing strip is the way to go (we break ground this week!!)
> www.longislandairpark.com Phase II lot 12.
>
> Margy

Looks like you are at the corner of everything. Congrats!

I did find this after looking at your site. The link was helpful.

shrunklink.com/ampm
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 03:47 PM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:29:02 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

>> What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>> could find you in someone's living room.
>
> I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse
> idea. If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my
> house 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large
> aircraft on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>
> Margy

www.TinyURL.com/39avgz

The above was the e.g., note that many homes are 60' OCl

Great way to get Gulf view in a home that is several hundred feet off the
beach though.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 03:49 PM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
>> --
>
> Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
> level of irreality.

There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
debate.

> By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
> runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
> children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
>
> Highflyer

I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 14th 08, 04:41 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

> "Highflyer" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
> ---------------snipped----------
>>
>> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.
>>
>> I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level flight
>> on any of them!
>>
>> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't! :-)
>>
>> Highflyer
>> Highflight Aviation Services
>> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>>
>>
> At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older
> designs must have been--and then I learned that some of those old
> factory specs were just as imaginative as some of the earliest kits.

Actually, many of them were quite accurate. HF is right, the T-cart would
do close on 100 with an A-65 and so would a Luscombe. The Monocoupe 90 was
very quick and the 30s Cessnas delivered as advertised as well.
The aoirplanes that could be classified as "pilots" airplanes tended to do
waht they said in advertising because if they didn;'t they would be found
out pretty quickly. The airplanes that were pitched more at newcomers
probably suffered more from exageration.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 14th 08, 04:43 PM

"Highflyer" > wrote in :

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>>> 4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>>
>>> Reasoning here?
>>>
>>
>> I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
>> owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from
>> under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>
> There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
> bought one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then
> got the runway shutdown because of noise!

Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide.

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 14th 08, 06:02 PM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:
>
> > "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
> >> --
> >
> > Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
> > level of irreality.
>
> There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
> debate.
>
> > By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
> > runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
> > children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
> >
> > Highflyer
>
> I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
> kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
> strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.

At Spruce Creek, we take such behavior VERY seriously! NOBODY but
aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles are allowed on the runway.
Anybody else is subject to fines and banishment from the property.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 06:40 PM

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 06:45 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

>>
>> lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
>> was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
>> sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
>> extrapolation".
>>
>
> First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic
> problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding
> of aviation and the risk factors involved. You initial post
> demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced
> that perception.

I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance
going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP
do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses.

>> Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
>> anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
>> (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
>> houses, people, etc).
>>
>
> Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you.

Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert?

Then, of course, we have this issue.

FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off
and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons,
vehicles, or structures."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 06:55 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:59:34 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:

>> Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to
>> answer. Has anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data
>> on these types (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off
>> runway incidents (w/ houses, people, etc).
>>
>
> Try NTSB.GOV. They have 140,000 or so aircraft incidents & accidents
> available online going back to 1962. You'll have to structure the
> appropriate search query.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.

What I got was a very clean record, all in all, there have been deaths, a
few children....of reported actions and I'm doing a bit of guessing. What
is hard to believe not in ASRS either (voluntary so sampling is
speculative) is that there are /not/ any reporting functions for airparks.

If they are clean of record, then you would think the insurance guys would
have a reporting system or demand one. Maybe they do, I can't find it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 06:58 PM

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:19:08 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

>>> What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>>> could find you in someone's living room.
>>
>> I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse idea.
>> If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my house
>> 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large aircraft
>> on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>>
>> Margy
>
> I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
> compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH, all
> that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for. :-)
>
> Peter

Which makes people crowd their homes to the strip. That I can understand
when first and second tier homes have obstructed views in most (near) beach
residential developments. Not so "on the strip".
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

BobR

March 14th 08, 07:52 PM

On Mar 14, 1:45*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:19:33 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>
> >> lol Starting with the Subject *Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? (note
> >> was and is a question), ending with raping freedom-mongers - in three
> >> sentences - I would say you took liberties with the term "gross
> >> extrapolation".
>
> > First, I wasn't replying or talking with you but discussing the basic
> > problem which you clearly display, a total lack of any understanding
> > of aviation and the risk factors involved. *You initial post
> > demonstrated that ignorance and you continuation has only reinforced
> > that perception.
>
> I wasn't replying directly to you either, Mr. Sensitive. The only ignorance
> going on in this thread is the constant state of denial that accidents GASP
> do happen with airplanes and GASP can happen on airstrips next to houses.
>

Apparently, you can't even keep up with who you are replying to.
Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
what?

> >> Back to the Subject and the discussion, since no one has yet to answer. Has
> >> anyone a place I can go that would specifically have data on these types
> >> (Upper Captiva) of airstrips and the incidence of off runway incidents (w/
> >> houses, people, etc).
>
> > Don't expect us to do your dirty work for you.
>
> Dirty work? Something your hiding, Robert?
>

Not hiding anything but I might ask the same of you, just what is your
problem?

> Then, of course, we have this issue.
>
> FAR 91.119, which states something like "Except for purposes of take off
> and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons,
> vehicles, or structures."

DUH! Guess what, "Except for purposes of take off and landing" which
is the expressed purpose of a landing strip, just what are you fishing
for?

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 08:36 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

> Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
> perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
> risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
> what?

Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots.
Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
merely witty banter?

Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.

Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not
****ing Santa Claus.

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 14th 08, 08:37 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>>> Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
>>> level of irreality.
>>
>> There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
>> debate.
>>
>>> By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
>>> runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
>>> children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
>>>
>>> Highflyer
>>
>> I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
>> kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
>> strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
>
> At Spruce Creek, we take such behavior VERY seriously! NOBODY but
> aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles are allowed on the runway.
> Anybody else is subject to fines and banishment from the property.

A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and liens) and
good planning, yep you are in good shape.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 14th 08, 08:55 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>>>>Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
>>>>level of irreality.
>>>
>>>There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
>>>debate.
>>>
>>>
>>>>By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
>>>>runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
>>>>children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
>>>>
>>>>Highflyer
>>>
>>>I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
>>>kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
>>>strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
>>
>>At Spruce Creek, we take such behavior VERY seriously! NOBODY but
>>aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles are allowed on the runway.
>>Anybody else is subject to fines and banishment from the property.
>
>
> A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and liens) and
> good planning, yep you are in good shape.

Ok, I get it.

In real life you are a lawyer, right?

Benjamin Dover

March 14th 08, 09:51 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>
>> Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
>> perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
>> risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
>> what?
>
> Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots.
> Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
> merely witty banter?
>
> Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?
>
> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
>
> You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
> bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
> you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
> I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
> defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.
>
> Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
> some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.
>
> Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not
> ****ing Santa Claus.
>

That's right, your not Santa Claus, you're a ****ing asshole!

who cares?

March 14th 08, 11:52 PM

In article >, wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>
>> Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
>> perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
>> risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
>> what?
>
>Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots.
>Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
>merely witty banter?
>
>Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?
>
>Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
>
>You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
>bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
>you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
>I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
>defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.
>
>Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
>some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.
>
>Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not
>****ing Santa Claus.
>

I have been reading this group for ten years.

I am always pleased to see another post by BobR.
I consider his comments to be intelligent and well written.

In your case: ** plonk **

Margy Natalie

March 15th 08, 12:05 AM

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
>>>>with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
>>>>missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>>>could find you in someone's living room.
>>
>>I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse idea.
>>If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my house
>>110' off the center line either you are planting a really large aircraft
>>on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>>
>>Margy
>
>
> I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
> compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH, all
> that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for. :-)
>
> Peter
>
>
>
On second thought it's closer to 85' from the centerline. The runway is
100' wide and the minimum setback is 35'. Just about everyone else
puts their hangar up on the runway and sets the house back, but we are a
corner lot so we can taxi down the taxiway and put the hangar down there
and put the house up on the runway. Actually our hangar is attached to
the house. It's going to be great when it's finished (repeat often).

Margy

Margy Natalie

March 15th 08, 12:08 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:29:02 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>
>>>What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>>>could find you in someone's living room.
>>
>>I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse
>>idea. If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my
>>house 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large
>>aircraft on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>>
>>Margy
>
>
> www.TinyURL.com/39avgz
>
> The above was the e.g., note that many homes are 60' OCl
>
> Great way to get Gulf view in a home that is several hundred feet off the
> beach though.
I saw that, it just made me jealous (until I thought about hurricane
season).

Margy Natalie

March 15th 08, 12:10 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:
>
>
>>"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
>>>--
>>
>>Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
>>level of irreality.
>
>
> There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
> debate.
>
>
>>By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
>>runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
>>children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
>>
>>Highflyer
>
>
> I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
> kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
> strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.

All of the kids at our airpark (even the little ones) have GREAT respect
for the runway. All of the pilots also know that if any houses are
under construction (almost always) the runway becomes a soccer field
from noon to 1. The players are also very good about keeping away of
planes in the pattern I'm told.

A low pass will clear deer and soccer players.

Margy

Margy Natalie

March 15th 08, 12:12 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Highflyer" > wrote in :
>
>
>>"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>>>4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>>>
>>>>Reasoning here?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
>>>owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from
>>>under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>>
>>There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
>>bought one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then
>>got the runway shutdown because of noise!
>
>
>
> Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide.
>
>
>
> Bertie
They should have written their HOA materials better. We had to sign
something at closing that stated we knew we were in and aviation
community, there were landing aircraft and we couldn't do anything about
it (not quite the wording, but the jist is the same).

Margy

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 15th 08, 12:38 AM

Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>
> On second thought it's closer to 85' from the centerline. The runway is
> 100' wide and the minimum setback is 35'. Just about everyone else
> puts their hangar up on the runway and sets the house back, but we are a
> corner lot so we can taxi down the taxiway and put the hangar down there
> and put the house up on the runway. Actually our hangar is attached to
> the house. It's going to be great when it's finished (repeat often).
>
> Margy

It will be great when it's finished.

Peter Dohm

March 15th 08, 03:07 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Highflyer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>> ---------------snipped----------
>>>
>>> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.
>>>
>>> I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level flight
>>> on any of them!
>>>
>>> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't! :-)
>>>
>>> Highflyer
>>> Highflight Aviation Services
>>> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>>>
>>>
>> At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older
>> designs must have been--and then I learned that some of those old
>> factory specs were just as imaginative as some of the earliest kits.
>
> Actually, many of them were quite accurate. HF is right, the T-cart would
> do close on 100 with an A-65 and so would a Luscombe. The Monocoupe 90 was
> very quick and the 30s Cessnas delivered as advertised as well.
> The aoirplanes that could be classified as "pilots" airplanes tended to do
> waht they said in advertising because if they didn;'t they would be found
> out pretty quickly. The airplanes that were pitched more at newcomers
> probably suffered more from exageration.
>
>
> Bertie

Thanks for that. Some of those old Cessna numbers really looked a little
too good--so I am expecially glad they were true.

I had previously confirmed that the T-carts were impressive performers, but
have never known anything about the Monocoupes.

Peter

Peter Dohm

March 15th 08, 03:16 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:19:08 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>>>> What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>>>> could find you in someone's living room.
>>>
>>> I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse
>>> idea.
>>> If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my house
>>> 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large aircraft
>>> on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>>>
>>> Margy
>>
>> I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
>> compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH,
>> all
>> that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for.
>> :-)
>>
>> Peter
>
> Which makes people crowd their homes to the strip. That I can understand
> when first and second tier homes have obstructed views in most (near)
> beach
> residential developments. Not so "on the strip".
> --
Pfftfffttttt

Peter
(Yes, that's my final answer.)

Peter Dohm

March 15th 08, 03:17 AM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>>WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 15:47:22 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why do you feel it is off the safety charts? I don't see any issue
>>>>>with safety beyond any neighborhood anywhere else. You are not
>>>>>missing anything but may be immagining thing that don't exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>>>>could find you in someone's living room.
>>>
>>>I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse idea.
>>>If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my house
>>>110' off the center line either you are planting a really large aircraft
>>>on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>>>
>>>Margy
>>
>>
>> I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
>> compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH,
>> all that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for.
>> :-)
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
> On second thought it's closer to 85' from the centerline. The runway is
> 100' wide and the minimum setback is 35'. Just about everyone else puts
> their hangar up on the runway and sets the house back, but we are a corner
> lot so we can taxi down the taxiway and put the hangar down there and put
> the house up on the runway. Actually our hangar is attached to the house.
> It's going to be great when it's finished (repeat often).
>
> Margy

It'll be great when it's fininshed.

Peter
(Actually, mine'll be pretty good when it's even started.)

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 15th 08, 03:45 AM

BobR wrote:

>
> Until the last two years I lived about 5 miles from DWH airport and
> flew out of the same airstrip. A nice, private airport that is large
> enough to have a federal control tower. It was built well out from
> the city of Tomball and far from any developments. It also had a
> sizable number of hangar homes on the field with more being built all
> the time. The airstrip had been there at least 40 years that I know
> of and believe it was longer but not sure. I know I live out there
> for 30 years and it had been there for some time prior to that.
>
> About four years ago, a developer bought several hundred acres of the
> area west and south of the airport. Just south of the airport was
> ploted to become another major toll road loop around Houston. The
> builder built streets and started building homes, many of which were
> directly under the flight path for the airport, and a substantial
> number that directly backed up to the runway, including one end.
> These weren't track homes but large estate sized homes.
>
> Within a couple of years, it began. The BITCHING, whining, and
> threats of lawsuits by the homeowners. The story is always the same,
> "we knew the airport was there....but didn't think is was being
> used!". The excuses were pathetic but as the number of people
> continue to increase, the pressure to close the airport or place
> severe restrictions on it are growing. The family that owns the
> airport is trying to sell it to the local community before the
> lawsuits can drive him out of business.
>
> If we fail to respond to these threats, we will end up without any GA
> airports to use without having to drive 50 miles to get to the
> planes. For Gawds sake, if you don't want to live near an airport,
> don't buy a home near one. And Please, don't give us the excuse that
> the home was cheaper and that is why you bought it. Maybe that is why
> it was cheaper and you should learn to live with it.
>
>
>
>

When the developers tried that stunt at the north end of the runway
at Zuehl, we met with him and asked him if he would be careful to leave
a clear center strip - in case somebody lost an engine on takeoff
or landed short. That way we wouldn't land in somebody's living room.

He never did start building there...

BobR

March 15th 08, 03:46 AM

On Mar 14, 7:12*pm, Margy Natalie > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > "Highflyer" > wrote :
>
> >>"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>>WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> >>>>>4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>
> >>>>Reasoning here?
>
> >>>I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
> >>>owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from
> >>>under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>
> >>There can still be problems. *We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
> >>bought one of the lots. *Built a nice house without a hangar. *Then
> >>got the runway shutdown because of noise!
>
> > Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide.
>
> > Bertie
>
> They should have written their HOA materials better. *We had to sign
> something at closing that stated we knew we were in and aviation
> community, there were landing aircraft and we couldn't do anything about
> it (not quite the wording, but the jist is the same).
>
> Margy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Until the last two years I lived about 5 miles from DWH airport and
flew out of the same airstrip. A nice, private airport that is large
enough to have a federal control tower. It was built well out from
the city of Tomball and far from any developments. It also had a
sizable number of hangar homes on the field with more being built all
the time. The airstrip had been there at least 40 years that I know
of and believe it was longer but not sure. I know I live out there
for 30 years and it had been there for some time prior to that.

About four years ago, a developer bought several hundred acres of the
area west and south of the airport. Just south of the airport was
ploted to become another major toll road loop around Houston. The
builder built streets and started building homes, many of which were
directly under the flight path for the airport, and a substantial
number that directly backed up to the runway, including one end.
These weren't track homes but large estate sized homes.

Within a couple of years, it began. The BITCHING, whining, and
threats of lawsuits by the homeowners. The story is always the same,
"we knew the airport was there....but didn't think is was being
used!". The excuses were pathetic but as the number of people
continue to increase, the pressure to close the airport or place
severe restrictions on it are growing. The family that owns the
airport is trying to sell it to the local community before the
lawsuits can drive him out of business.

If we fail to respond to these threats, we will end up without any GA
airports to use without having to drive 50 miles to get to the
planes. For Gawds sake, if you don't want to live near an airport,
don't buy a home near one. And Please, don't give us the excuse that
the home was cheaper and that is why you bought it. Maybe that is why
it was cheaper and you should learn to live with it.

Rich S.[_1_]

March 15th 08, 03:55 AM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...

> On second thought it's closer to 85' from the centerline. The runway is
> 100' wide and the minimum setback is 35'.

A hundred feet wide. Wow. Though there's no houses nearby ( no sewers and
the land won't perk) our runway is all of 25' wide. My gear is 8' center to
center, so that leaves me 8' on each side for errors. Plenty of room there,
even though it's one of those old-fashioned designs with the third wheel in
the back, y'know. The few tricycler's don't even need that much. There's a
good eight inch drop off the edges of the new blacktop, so if you go off the
edge, you'll probably turn over or at least ruin a set of wheel pants.

Been flying there ten years now and never had a problem, even in crosswinds.
Haven't heard of anyone else going askew, either. I guess maybe if some rank
beginner was to come in there (you know, someone with less than the seven
hours I had before I soloed in a Cessna 120) he might run a bit wide of
centerline. I guess that's why it's a privately owned strip and marked "R"
on the sectional - just to relieve the owner of a bit of liability.

We have the occasional jogger, bicyclist, or horseback rider going up and
down the runway, but the pilots around here actually put the microphone down
and look out the window once in a while.

I would love to live on an airpark with a nice wide runway, especially if
it's rolled turf. So much safer and easier on the equipment. I envy you,
Margy. If I was 20 or 30 years younger, I'd jump at the opportunity.

Fly safe and tailwinds,
Rich S.

To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo - in
New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites)

Blueskies

March 15th 08, 12:37 PM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message m...
> Dan wrote:
>> And this video is remarkable because...?
>>
>
> It is a really pretty Ercoupe! I think living that close to a GA landing strip is the way to go (we break ground this
> week!!) www.longislandairpark.com Phase II lot 12.
>
> Margy
>
>

Looks like fun! and the prices look fair also. How big is your hangar going to be? I didn't see anything about hangars
in the covenants...

Blueskies

March 15th 08, 12:42 PM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message m...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Highflyer" > wrote in :
>>
>>
>>>"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Reasoning here?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the owners don't own the runway who ever does could
>>>>sell it out from
>>>>under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>>>
>>>There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
>>>bought one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then
>>>got the runway shutdown because of noise!
>>
>>
>>
>> Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide. Bertie
> They should have written their HOA materials better. We had to sign something at closing that stated we knew we were
> in and aviation community, there were landing aircraft and we couldn't do anything about it (not quite the wording,
> but the jist is the same).
>
> Margy

Because we are a privately owned public use airport, we pay no property taxes on the common areas. That tends to be a
good incentive to keep the runway open, at least for us ;-)

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 15th 08, 01:44 PM

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Highflyer" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>> ---------------snipped----------
>>>>
>>>> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.
>>>>
>>>> I have flown several Coupes. Have yet to see 110 mph in level
>>>> flight on any of them!
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't!
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Highflyer
>>>> Highflight Aviation Services
>>>> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>>>>
>>>>
>>> At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older
>>> designs must have been--and then I learned that some of those old
>>> factory specs were just as imaginative as some of the earliest kits.
>>
>> Actually, many of them were quite accurate. HF is right, the T-cart
>> would do close on 100 with an A-65 and so would a Luscombe. The
>> Monocoupe 90 was very quick and the 30s Cessnas delivered as
>> advertised as well. The aoirplanes that could be classified as
>> "pilots" airplanes tended to do waht they said in advertising because
>> if they didn;'t they would be found out pretty quickly. The airplanes
>> that were pitched more at newcomers probably suffered more from
>> exageration.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Thanks for that. Some of those old Cessna numbers really looked a
> little too good--so I am expecially glad they were true.
>
> I had previously confirmed that the T-carts were impressive
> performers, but have never known anything about the Monocoupes.
>

Well, they won races time after time in the thirties. Nothing could
touch them. Johnny Livingston even flew one race inverted to spice
things up.With bigger engines and clipped wings they went even faster.
We're talking RV performance in the early thirties with similar
horsepower and farily hairy chested handling.. Since Don Luscombe was
one of the designers you can see how the Luscombes were race-bred.

Bertie

William Hung[_2_]

March 15th 08, 07:59 PM

On Mar 15, 9:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> "Highflyer" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> ---------------snipped----------
>
> >>>> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental A-65.
>
> >>>> I have flown several Coupes. *Have yet to see 110 mph in level
> >>>> flight on any of them!
>
> >>>> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they aren't!
> >>>> :-)
>
> >>>> Highflyer
> >>>> Highflight Aviation Services
> >>>> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>
> >>> At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older
> >>> designs must have been--and then I learned that some of those old
> >>> factory specs were just as imaginative as some of the earliest kits.
>
> >> Actually, many of them were quite accurate. HF is right, the T-cart
> >> would do close on 100 with an A-65 and so would a Luscombe. The
> >> Monocoupe 90 was very quick and the 30s Cessnas delivered as
> >> advertised as well. The aoirplanes that could be classified as
> >> "pilots" airplanes tended to do waht they said in advertising because
> >> if they didn;'t they would be found out pretty quickly. The airplanes
> >> that were pitched more at newcomers probably suffered more from
> >> exageration.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Thanks for that. *Some of those old Cessna numbers really looked a
> > little too good--so I am expecially glad they were true.
>
> > I had previously confirmed that the T-carts were impressive
> > performers, but have never known anything about the Monocoupes.
>
> Well, they won races time after time in the thirties. Nothing could
> touch them. Johnny Livingston even flew one race inverted to spice
> things up.With bigger engines and clipped wings they went even faster.
> We're talking RV performance in the early thirties with similar
> horsepower and farily hairy chested handling.. Since Don *Luscombe was
> one of the designers you can see how the Luscombes were race-bred.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Kitfox reminds me of the Coupe.

http://www.pnwaero.com/images/Kitfox1.jpg Fox

http://www.airventuremuseum.org/images/collection/aircraft/Monocoupe%20110%20Clipwing%20Special-1.jpg
Coupe

Wil

William Hung[_2_]

March 15th 08, 08:03 PM

On Mar 14, 4:36*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> > Nobody is denying that accidents happen. *We just put them into
> > perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
> > risks as part of that decision. *Too hard for you to understand or
> > what?
>
> Excellent counterpoint, *you really hit all the high spots.
> Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
> merely witty banter?
>
> Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?
>
> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
>
> You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
> bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
> you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
> I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
> defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.
>
> Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
> some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.
>
> Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not
> ****ing Santa Claus.
>
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.

You have attacked the Caveman and now BobR? These two have been good
contributors to these RA groups for years ever since I was just a
lurker. You on the other hand having contributed much. Writers and
readers here can tell who's who.

Wil

Margy Natalie

March 15th 08, 08:04 PM

Rich S. wrote:
>
>
> I would love to live on an airpark with a nice wide runway, especially if
> it's rolled turf. So much safer and easier on the equipment. I envy you,
> Margy. If I was 20 or 30 years younger, I'd jump at the opportunity.
>
> Fly safe and tailwinds,
> Rich S.
>
The pre-drought turf was great, now it's a bit lumpy, but I'm sure a few
good months of rain and some overseeding will put it right.

Margy

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 15th 08, 08:10 PM

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Mar 15, 9:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>> innews:F3HCj.19478$r76.5354@bi
> gnews8.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> "Highflyer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>> ---------------snipped----------
>>
>> >>>> The Tcart used to cruise at 100 in real life on a Continental
>> >>>> A-65.
>>
>> >>>> I have flown several Coupes. *Have yet to see 110 mph in level
>> >>>> flight on any of them!
>>
>> >>>> Sometimes specifications are accurate, and sometimes they
>> >>>> aren't!
>> >>>> :-)
>>
>> >>>> Highflyer
>> >>>> Highflight Aviation Services
>> >>>> Pinckneyville Airport, PJY
>>
>> >>> At one time, I marvelled at how much more capable so many older
>> >>> designs must have been--and then I learned that some of those old
>> >>> factory specs were just as imaginative as some of the earliest
>> >>> kits.
>>
>> >> Actually, many of them were quite accurate. HF is right, the
>> >> T-cart would do close on 100 with an A-65 and so would a Luscombe.
>> >> The Monocoupe 90 was very quick and the 30s Cessnas delivered as
>> >> advertised as well. The aoirplanes that could be classified as
>> >> "pilots" airplanes tended to do waht they said in advertising
>> >> because if they didn;'t they would be found out pretty quickly.
>> >> The airplanes that were pitched more at newcomers probably
>> >> suffered more from exageration.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Thanks for that. *Some of those old Cessna numbers really looked a
>> > little too good--so I am expecially glad they were true.
>>
>> > I had previously confirmed that the T-carts were impressive
>> > performers, but have never known anything about the Monocoupes.
>>
>> Well, they won races time after time in the thirties. Nothing could
>> touch them. Johnny Livingston even flew one race inverted to spice
>> things up.With bigger engines and clipped wings they went even
>> faster. We're talking RV performance in the early thirties with
>> similar horsepower and farily hairy chested handling.. Since Don
>> *Luscombe was one of the designers you can see how the Luscombes were
>> race-bred.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The Kitfox reminds me of the Coupe.

It's supposed to, the bump cowl and such. But it's nothing like it,
really. For one thing, the 'coupe wasn't built like lawn furniture.. And
a 'coupe with a two stroke? Shudder!

Bertie

Margy Natalie

March 15th 08, 08:12 PM

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>> Dan wrote:
>>
>>> And this video is remarkable because...?
>>>
>>
>> It is a really pretty Ercoupe! I think living that close to a GA
>> landing strip is the way to go (we break ground this week!!)
>> www.longislandairpark.com Phase II lot 12.
>>
>> Margy
>>
>>
>
> Looks like fun! and the prices look fair also. How big is your hangar
> going to be? I didn't see anything about hangars in the covenants...
>
>
According to NC building code a residential hangar is under 2,000', ours
is 1,995 or something. Of course the original larger design had
workspace IN the hangar which is now walled off, etc. So what was a
3,000' square hangar is now a 1,995' T hangar with workshop, mechanical
room, etc. walled off with fire rated sheet rock. If we went larger
than 2,000 we would have had to build it as a commercial hangar using
commercial standards. A number of the hangars in the community are much
larger and built to the commercial standards. Our covenants are much
more reasonable (IMHO) than most airparks. We can build the hangar with
apartment first and build the house later (which is what we are doing).
And the architectural review is don't build anything stupid (no
domes).It's a nice neighborhood.

MARGY

Margy

Rich S.[_1_]

March 15th 08, 10:36 PM

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...

> The pre-drought turf was great, now it's a bit lumpy, but I'm sure a few
> good months of rain and some overseeding will put it right.

The owners of Wax Orchards airport (WA69) used to be proud to say their
runway was the smoothest turf strip anywhere. I see their description at
Airnav http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA69 says "Surface: turf, in fair
condition". They used to roll it until it felt like a billiard table. Wish
my lawn was in half that shape.

Rich S.

WJRFlyBoy

March 15th 08, 10:52 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:12:28 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

>>>>I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
>>>>owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from
>>>>under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>>>
>>>There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
>>>bought one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then
>>>got the runway shutdown because of noise!
>>
>> Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide.
>>
>> Bertie
> They should have written their HOA materials better. We had to sign
> something at closing that stated we knew we were in and aviation
> community, there were landing aircraft and we couldn't do anything about
> it (not quite the wording, but the jist is the same).
>
> Margy

You can and should write strong language into the HOA, covenants and
restrictions, attaching them to the deed in perpetuity. Still, someone
can always dump a lawsuit on the Owners wherein, hopefully, you can be
(self) insured as to the cost of the litigation and the potential loss
in litigation.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 15th 08, 10:56 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:08:07 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:29:02 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:
>>
>>>>What percentage of landings happen off the airstrip? That % of landings
>>>>could find you in someone's living room.
>>>
>>>I think houses off the approach and departure ends are a much worse
>>>idea. If you have such a bad wind/landing that you are going to hit my
>>>house 110' off the center line either you are planting a really large
>>>aircraft on 3,000' of grass or you need some serious recurrent training.
>>>
>>>Margy
>>
>> www.TinyURL.com/39avgz
>>
>> The above was the e.g., note that many homes are 60' OCl
>>
>> Great way to get Gulf view in a home that is several hundred feet off the
>> beach though.
> I saw that, it just made me jealous (until I thought about hurricane
> season).

lol But you have the advantage of flying out to wherever. I-X5 gets
backed up, you wouldn't believe the evacuation mess from S. FL.

http://tinyurl.com/yv2zbg
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 15th 08, 10:57 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:55:04 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>>>>Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
>>>>>level of irreality.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
>>>>debate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
>>>>>runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
>>>>>children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
>>>>>
>>>>>Highflyer
>>>>
>>>>I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
>>>>kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
>>>>strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
>>>
>>>At Spruce Creek, we take such behavior VERY seriously! NOBODY but
>>>aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles are allowed on the runway.
>>>Anybody else is subject to fines and banishment from the property.
>>
>> A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and liens) and
>> good planning, yep you are in good shape.
>
> Ok, I get it.
>
> In real life you are a lawyer, right?

Yes and No.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 15th 08, 10:58 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:10:26 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:
>>
>>>"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Or you could say "I never miss a landing" or any other level of irreality.
>>>>--
>>>
>>>Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or any other
>>>level of irreality.
>>
>> There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open for
>> debate.
>>
>>>By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing alongside the
>>>runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is about as realistic as the
>>>children playing on the interstates in the big cities.
>>>
>>>Highflyer
>>
>> I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
>> kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
>> strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
>
> All of the kids at our airpark (even the little ones) have GREAT respect
> for the runway. All of the pilots also know that if any houses are
> under construction (almost always) the runway becomes a soccer field
> from noon to 1. The players are also very good about keeping away of
> planes in the pattern I'm told.
>
> A low pass will clear deer and soccer players.
>
> Margy

lol I bet it will

Ex-soccer coach here.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 15th 08, 11:04 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:51:39 GMT, Benjamin Dover wrote:

> That's right, your not Santa Claus, you're a ****ing asshole!

D00d, go see Bob for some Stress Debriefing. Develop a partnership with
Bob before an incident occurs. Prevention and planning are key
components for a sanity resumption plan. lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 15th 08, 11:06 PM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:52:42 GMT, who cares? wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody is denying that accidents happen. We just put them into
>>> perspective and if we decide to live on an airport, consider those
>>> risks as part of that decision. Too hard for you to understand or
>>> what?
>>
>>Excellent counterpoint, you really hit all the high spots.
>>Is this sort of dialogue considered incisive debate in your circles or
>>merely witty banter?
>>
>>Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?
>>
>>Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?
>>
>>You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
>>bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
>>you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
>>I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
>>defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.
>>
>>Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
>>some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty.
>>
>>Feel free to have the last word on me and expect no more gifts, I'm not
>>****ing Santa Claus.
>>
>
> I have been reading this group for ten years.

This guarantees that you are fourteen.

> I am always pleased to see another post by BobR.
> I consider his comments to be intelligent and well written.

So do I, add belligerent and mono-focused and we are right on

> In your case: ** plonk **

Did you fall into a lake?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 15th 08, 11:24 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>
>>In your case: ** plonk **
>
>
> Did you fall into a lake?

Ah, not, that was you...

His way of saying not to waste his time.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 15th 08, 11:30 PM

William Hung wrote:
> You have attacked the Caveman and now BobR? These two have been good
> contributors to these RA groups for years ever since I was just a
> lurker. You on the other hand having contributed much. Writers and
> readers here can tell who's who.
>
> Wil

Aw, thanks, Wil.
That was kind.

But let's not cross species, huh?
The FULL name is Saber Tooth Cave Lamb

You can visualize that!
Cute Furry playful gentle young creature - with fangs?

;)

Richard

RST Engineering

March 15th 08, 11:42 PM

Sir, I like you. You have some good stuff to say. However, either top post
or learn to goddamn SNIP.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:12:28 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>>>>I won't speak for Orval but I wouldn't buy such a lot because if the
>>>>>owners don't own the runway who ever does could sell it out from
>>>>>under you and you end up with a house with a big garage.
>>>>
>>>>There can still be problems. We had one in Wisconsin where a lawyer
>>>>bought one of the lots. Built a nice house without a hangar. Then
>>>>got the runway shutdown because of noise!
>>>
>>> Holy crap! if there were ever a case for justifiable homicide.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> They should have written their HOA materials better. We had to sign
>> something at closing that stated we knew we were in and aviation
>> community, there were landing aircraft and we couldn't do anything about
>> it (not quite the wording, but the jist is the same).
>>
>> Margy
>
> You can and should write strong language into the HOA, covenants and
> restrictions, attaching them to the deed in perpetuity. Still, someone
> can always dump a lawsuit on the Owners wherein, hopefully, you can be
> (self) insured as to the cost of the litigation and the potential loss
> in litigation.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Margy Natalie

March 16th 08, 12:04 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>>>Great way to get Gulf view in a home that is several hundred feet off the
>>>beach though.
>>
>>I saw that, it just made me jealous (until I thought about hurricane
>>season).
>
>
> lol But you have the advantage of flying out to wherever. I-X5 gets
> backed up, you wouldn't believe the evacuation mess from S. FL.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yv2zbg

But you still have to clean up the mess afterwards. Charlotte has seen
a hurricane, once, so I think having the lake down the runway and the
living room facing the runway is just fine. If I need beach I can fly
to the outerbanks. :-)

Margy

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 16th 08, 12:13 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:55:04 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:02:32 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Or you could say "miss a landing and kill the neighbor's kids" or
>>>>>>any other level of irreality.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing unreal about my statement. Improbable, that's open
>>>>>for debate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>By the way, I have not seen large numbers of children playing
>>>>>>alongside the runway at ANY airpark I have flown into. That is
>>>>>>about as realistic as the children playing on the interstates in
>>>>>>the big cities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Highflyer
>>>>>
>>>>>I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the
>>>>>fact that kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip
>>>>>but across the strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
>>>>
>>>>At Spruce Creek, we take such behavior VERY seriously! NOBODY but
>>>>aircraft and airport maintenance vehicles are allowed on the runway.
>>>>Anybody else is subject to fines and banishment from the property.
>>>
>>> A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and
>>> liens) and good planning, yep you are in good shape.
>>
>> Ok, I get it.
>>
>> In real life you are a lawyer, right?
>
> Yes and No.

Armed robber?

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 16th 08, 03:29 AM

In article >,
"Rich S." > wrote:

> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > The pre-drought turf was great, now it's a bit lumpy, but I'm sure a few
> > good months of rain and some overseeding will put it right.
>
> The owners of Wax Orchards airport (WA69) used to be proud to say their
> runway was the smoothest turf strip anywhere. I see their description at
> Airnav http://www.airnav.com/airport/WA69 says "Surface: turf, in fair
> condition". They used to roll it until it felt like a billiard table. Wish
> my lawn was in half that shape.
>
> Rich S.

Leeward Air Ranch has some pretty smooth turf. I landed there once and
the only indication I got that we touched down was the drag on the
landing gear.

The place is nice, but too far out in the boondocks, is on wells and
septic systems and has auto traffic on the main taxiway.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 11:20 AM

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

>> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?
>>
>>> You might even have to decide to give the airplane
>>> to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
>>> happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. Planes and houses
>>> don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.
>>>
>>> I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
>>> two miles of any airport. Is it a reasonable risk? I think so.
>>
>> Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.
>>
> (rest snipped for brevity)
>
> Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
> that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
> you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
> unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
> and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
> help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
> authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.
>
> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
> meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
> that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
> chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.
>
> Be patient, listen, and learn!
>
> Best,
>
> Neil

I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.

First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem
with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted
to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property
damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an
airpark and you have major, potential carnage.

Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and
conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone
had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and
why, they would have gotten the straight answer.

I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
(beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.

Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air
safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates
where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those
discussions. This thread is a very good example.

One of the powers of being labeled as a under-educated, Mr, KnowItAll is
that people get all hot and bothered for no good reason /but/ they spill
their guts and let the verbiage fly. I take copious notes as my Daddy
said, "You can learn from anyone something, shake the tree to make the
hornets fly if you have too :)

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 11:23 AM

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:13:02 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>>> A solid set of covenants backed with enforceability (fines and
>>>> liens) and good planning, yep you are in good shape.
>>>
>>> Ok, I get it.
>>>
>>> In real life you are a lawyer, right?
>>
>> Yes and No.
>
> Armed robber?
>
> Bertie

Yes and no :)

Degreed, don't practice. As a real estate developer, the laws governing
these kinds of developments are peculiar, unique and lurking to take
your money if you don't fully understand them.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 11:31 AM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>>> If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
>>>>> strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
>>>>> them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
>>>>> critters, etc.......
>>>>> Ben
>>>>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>>>> N801BH
>>>> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
>>>> neighbor's kids.
>>>> --
>>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>> The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
>>> Around ??????????
>>
>> No offense but this is like arguing with a 16 yo (not you personally) "Dad,
>> there is a stop sign, people STOP."
>
> Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
> those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
> lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
> there in the case of an accident.

I can't argue that you are wrong but, in real terms, this is much too
simple of a comparison.

Look at it this way. You have several hundred 1,000s of $$$ to mortgage
or invest in a home. If that home gets struck by a car, eh, people will
forget in a few months, a year or so. If you live on an airstrip and a
plane rolls into you, that is going to stick in the public's mind for a
long, long time.

The risk of either happening is low, the results if it does happen can
be astronomically different financially.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 11:34 AM

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:16:09 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

>>> I agree, and might add that 110' from the centerline is pretty generous
>>> compared to some of the residential airparks that I have visited. OTOH,
>>> all
>>> that open space does give you that panoramic view you bought it for.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> Which makes people crowd their homes to the strip. That I can understand
>> when first and second tier homes have obstructed views in most (near)
>> beach
>> residential developments. Not so "on the strip".
>> --
> Pfftfffttttt
>
> Peter
> (Yes, that's my final answer.)

I don't know what that means but the facts are that beachfront property
and oceanview property can be as much as 2-5x different in price.
Typically, ocean view is never much more than the first or second tier
of houses facing the beach on the waterside of the road.

You get further away, either you are across the road (traffic) or you
can't see the ocean. On an airstrip, you can be 100 meters or so and see
it just fine.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 11:35 AM

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:24:07 -0600, cavelamb himself wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>>>In your case: ** plonk **
>>
>> Did you fall into a lake?
>
> Ah, not, that was you...
>
> His way of saying not to waste his time.

lol Been on Usenet for over a decade.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Dan[_10_]

March 17th 08, 11:53 AM

On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "Rich S." >
wrote:

> To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo - in
> New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites)

Everybody hates New Jersey, but somebody has to live there.

Dan Mc

BobR

March 17th 08, 02:11 PM

On Mar 17, 6:20*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
> >> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?
>
> >>> *You might even have to decide to give the airplane
> >>> to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
> >>> happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. *Planes and houses
> >>> don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.
>
> >>> I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
> >>> two miles of any airport. *Is it a reasonable risk? *I think so.
>
> >> Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.
>
> > (rest snipped for brevity)
>
> > Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
> > that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
> > you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
> > unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
> > and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
> > help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
> > authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.
>
> > A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
> > meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
> > that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
> > chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.
>
> > Be patient, listen, and learn!
>
> > Best,
>
> > Neil
>
> I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>
> First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem
> with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted
> to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property
> damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an
> airpark and you have major, potential carnage.
>
> Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and
> conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone
> had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and
> why, they would have gotten the straight answer.
>
> I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
> (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
> only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.
>
> Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air
> safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates
> where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those
> discussions. This thread is a very good example.
>
> One of the powers of being labeled as a under-educated, Mr, KnowItAll is
> that people get all hot and bothered for no good reason /but/ they spill
> their guts and let the verbiage fly. I take copious notes as my Daddy
> said, "You can learn from anyone something, shake the tree to make the
> hornets fly if you have too :)
>
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So according to you, everybody over reacted to your oh so simple
request for information. I would contend that you in fact brought it
on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally
got me involved was totally off the charts.

.> Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going
to
.> have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house
"screwing
.> the pooch."

YOUR RESPONSE BELOW:

.Let's start this over re: Captiva.
.
.Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent
death.
.
.Yes?
.
.Make sense?
.????

In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by
stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the
issues. You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew
would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about
it.

cavedweller

March 17th 08, 03:09 PM

On Mar 17, 11:19 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, WJRFlyBoy > posted:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>
> >> Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans'
> >> suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your
> >> flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in
> >> areas such as this are unwarranted. [...]
>
> > I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
> > hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>
> I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
> hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.

Hmmmm. Perhaps the reason for your confusion is:

"WJRFlyBoy
View profile
More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
From: WJRFlyBoy >
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500
Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm
Subject: Advice Requested
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
advice
on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other
suggestions.

No advice too basic, trust me :) Including what I should have included
in
this post or requested in the first place

TIA

Location: SW Florida/Bonita Springs
Objective: Flight for business (SE USA), travel between two homes
(Caribbean) and simple pleasure
My Age: mid 50s

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! "

Neil Gould

March 17th 08, 04:19 PM

Recently, WJRFlyBoy > posted:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans'
>> suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your
>> flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in
>> areas such as this are unwarranted. [...]
>
> I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>
I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread. In that
amount of time, it would seem to me that you would have flown into
airports with far less tolerance than 60' off centerline. To me, 60' is as
good as a mile, since the wingspans of the planes I fly are far less than
that and many runways have trees and other obstructions closer than those
houses.

> First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational
> problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or
> two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person
> and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put
> that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage.
>
From my perspective, and those of several others, the issues are risk
management and judgement rather than some inherently difficult
circumstance of the layout you described. As another person pointed out
during this discussion, those living in an airpark would get a lot of
practice flying into and out of that strip, which further reduces the
risks.

Best,

Neil

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 17th 08, 05:00 PM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational problem
> with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or two, wanted
> to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person and property
> damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put that in an
> airpark and you have major, potential carnage.
>
> Everyone, almost, assumed that I was looking to find serious and
> conclusive faults to the airpark lifestyle. Here's a heads up. If anyone
> had simply asked, instead of assuming, what my interest level is, and
> why, they would have gotten the straight answer.
>
> I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
> (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
> only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.

The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest
in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new
(expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close?

In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place
to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." Is
"WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines?

North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there. The
residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
somebody mounted a strong movement against them. The Chicken Littles
would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.

> Pilots complain about the public's misconceptions about airparks and air
> safety. Chicken and egg, I have sat in way too many pilot-public debates
> where both sides are at odds and are carrying attitudes to those
> discussions. This thread is a very good example.
>

So have I, when the players behind the scene are developers.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Steve Hix

March 17th 08, 05:00 PM

In article
>,
Dan > wrote:

> On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "Rich S." >
> wrote:
>
> > To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo - in
> > New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites)
>
> Everybody hates New Jersey, but somebody has to live there.

Why?

Are they being punished?

gatt[_2_]

March 17th 08, 05:20 PM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

> So have I, when the players behind the scene are developers.

Buncha developers getting their asses handed to them in Oregon. They came
out, developed everything--still are--as fast as possible pretty much ruined
the landscape. From the tree nursery I grew up on up on the hill east of
Troutdale, you can see the development spreading across the landscape like
mold on cheese. The first wave is bulldozers and homes most Oregonians
can't afford. The second wave involves gang grafitti, increased vandalism
and armed robbery, rising crime statistics, falling property values and huge
new homes all around our farm built by the people who "develop" Portland.

But, hey, I have an 1951 800-square-foot home appraised at $160,000 and gang
activity a mile or so down the road, so, we're genuinely Californicated and
ought to be thankful for their plundering of the community. Property
values are staying up out here but they'll fall because none of the locals
can afford to live here anymore and people from out of state can't sell
their land and move here cheaply.

They shut down NWPilot's historical old grass strip airport for development.
Last time I drove by, it's closed, but the field itself is still
undeveloped. 'Course with the huge condos all around so close to the
airport that they required red lights on the roof, it's no surprise that
complaints against the airport exploded and the outside developers were able
to make a case to shut it down.

-c

Matt W. Barrow

March 17th 08, 06:53 PM

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Dan > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 14, 11:55 pm, "Rich S." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > To those who are frightened of such a risk, please find a nice condo -
>> > in
>> > New Jersey (no offence to the Jerseyites)
>>
>> Everybody hates New Jersey, but somebody has to live there.
>
> Why?
>
> Are they being punished?

Yes! It's a modern day Australia.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 08:58 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:19:45 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

>>> Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans'
>>> suggestion that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your
>>> flight training you will find that many of your current concerns in
>>> areas such as this are unwarranted. [...]
>>
>> I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>>
> I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
> hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.

No apologies necessary.

> In that
> amount of time, it would seem to me that you would have flown into
> airports with far less tolerance than 60' off centerline. To me, 60' is as
> good as a mile, since the wingspans of the planes I fly are far less than
> that and many runways have trees and other obstructions closer than those
> houses.

A few, not many even though 1/2 the T/Os and lands were in very small
eown USA.

>> First, most everyone assumed that I have some kind of irrational
>> problem with airparks. The irrationality I find is that few, one or
>> two, wanted to discuss the very real possibilities of serious person
>> and property damage. Let's take the recent Velocity-RV incident, put
>> that in an airpark and you have major, potential carnage.
>>
> From my perspective, and those of several others, the issues are risk
> management and judgement rather than some inherently difficult
> circumstance of the layout you described. As another person pointed out
> during this discussion, those living in an airpark would get a lot of
> practice flying into and out of that strip, which further reduces the
> risks.
>
> Best,

Overall, I believe that you are correct, surely that would be the ase if
your own house was on the strip. lol

Btw, the layout is interesting part of the airpark development. There
may be a higher justification for concern if planes have to use the
developments' road system, instead of a segregated access for planes
only.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 09:03 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:00:14 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
>> (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
>> only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.
>
> The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest
> in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new
> (expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close?

None would be my answer. The last thing I would want is to

1) have my named attached to a closing then
2) Have my name attached to a new development.
3) Raise public (incorrect) perceptions to the safety issues
4) Have my name attached to a new development.

> In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place
> to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." Is
> "WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines?

lol

> North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there.

Many more than that.

> The
> residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
> somebody mounted a strong movement against them.

They got it, I doubt there are any homes under $1M

> The Chicken Littles
> would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
> Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
> get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.

So much for the above, Orval.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 09:03 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT), cavedweller wrote:

>> I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
>> hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.
>
> Hmmmm. Perhaps the reason for your confusion is:
>
> "WJRFlyBoy
> View profile
> More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
> From: WJRFlyBoy >
> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500
> Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm
> Subject: Advice Requested
> Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
>| Report this message | Find messages by this author
> It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
> advice
> on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other
> suggestions.

See signature below.

"I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone."

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 09:08 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:20:12 -0700, gatt wrote:

> Buncha developers getting their asses handed to them in Oregon. They came
> out, developed everything--still are--as fast as possible pretty much ruined
> the landscape. From the tree nursery I grew up on up on the hill east of
> Troutdale, you can see the development spreading across the landscape like
> mold on cheese. The first wave is bulldozers and homes most Oregonians
> can't afford. The second wave involves gang grafitti, increased vandalism
> and armed robbery, rising crime statistics, falling property values and huge
> new homes all around our farm built by the people who "develop" Portland.

Not so much the case in FL but I have seen the same kind of disdain for
the environment and it is a f***ing shame.

> They shut down NWPilot's historical old grass strip airport for development.
> Last time I drove by, it's closed, but the field itself is still
> undeveloped. 'Course with the huge condos all around so close to the
> airport that they required red lights on the roof, it's no surprise that
> complaints against the airport exploded and the outside developers were able
> to make a case to shut it down.
>
> -c

The airport/airpark business is a tough development mark to hit. It is
highly specialized, noise, post 9/11 fears, drug trafficking, high
liabilities, difficult financing, the list is long.

On the flip side, there are a lot of airports For Sale.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 17th 08, 09:18 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

>> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
>> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
>> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So according to you, everybody

I didn't say everybody. You and I have this issue every time we post.
You go off half-cocked, posting a bunch of self-determining hooey as
fact.

> over reacted to your oh so simple
> request for information.

Simple? I don;t see anything simple about this thread. Or the airpark
business. Or determined the truth in the statistics of which, have you
done your homework on that? I have and posted the same. More Bob Hooey.

> I would contend that you in fact brought it
> on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally
> got me involved was totally off the charts.
>
> .> Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going
> to
> .> have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house
> "screwing
> .> the pooch."
>
> YOUR RESPONSE BELOW:
>
> .Let's start this over re: Captiva.
> .
> .Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent
> death.
> .
> .Yes?

See the question mark? <=See, there it is again, another question mark.
Wanna see another? <=There it is. Learning anything? <=There's another
one.

Question marks are not for statement, they are, for, er, lemme see.
Questions.

Let me repeat my previous answer to you in this thread, this time take
notes.

Ready? <=There's another one.

"Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?

Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? <= <=

"You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.

Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty."

> .
> .Make sense?
> .????
>
> In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by
> stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the
> issues. You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew
> would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about
> it.

Only whining I hear is yours.

Rinse, dry, repeat the above.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Dan[_10_]

March 17th 08, 10:16 PM

On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy [endless]
> blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah

Dude... you should spend less time typing, and more time flying.

Or reading about flying.

Or watching airplanes.

Dan Mc

cavedweller

March 17th 08, 10:17 PM

On Mar 17, 5:03*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT), cavedweller wrote:
> >> I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
> >> hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.
>
> > Hmmmm. *Perhaps the reason for your confusion is:
>
> > "WJRFlyBoy
> > View profile
> > * * More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm
> > Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
> > From: WJRFlyBoy >
> > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500
> > Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm
> > Subject: Advice Requested
> > Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
> >| Report this message | Find messages by this author
> > It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
> > advice
> > on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other
> > suggestions.
>
> See signature below.
>
> "I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
I confuse easily, you see..... :)

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 17th 08, 10:22 PM

cavedweller wrote:
> On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT), cavedweller wrote:
>>
>>>>I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
>>>>hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.
>>
>>>Hmmmm. Perhaps the reason for your confusion is:
>>
>>>"WJRFlyBoy
>>>View profile
>>> More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm
>>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
>>>From: WJRFlyBoy >
>>>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500
>>>Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm
>>>Subject: Advice Requested
>>>Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
>>>| Report this message | Find messages by this author
>>>It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
>>>advice
>>>on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other
>>>suggestions.
>>
>>See signature below.
>>
>>"I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
>>just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
>>might kill someone."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>
>

MS Flight Sim

cavedweller

March 17th 08, 10:38 PM

On Mar 17, 6:22*pm, cavelamb himself > wrote:
> cavedweller wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT), cavedweller wrote:
>
> >>>>I apologize for thinking you were pre-flight student, but your few hundred
> >>>>hours of flying doesn't show in your concerns in this thread.
>
> >>>Hmmmm. *Perhaps the reason for your confusion is:
>
> >>>"WJRFlyBoy
> >>>View profile
> >>> * *More options Nov 22 2007, 3:16 pm
> >>>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
> >>>From: WJRFlyBoy >
> >>>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:16:22 -0500
> >>>Local: Thurs, Nov 22 2007 3:16 pm
> >>>Subject: Advice Requested
> >>>Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
> >>>| Report this message | Find messages by this author
> >>>It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
> >>>advice
> >>>on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any other
> >>>suggestions.
>
> >>See signature below.
>
> >>"I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> >>just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> >>might kill someone."- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>- Show quoted text -
>
> > But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> > hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." * Sorry to quibble but
> > I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>
> MS Flight Sim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm still struggling with the double negative in the quote above. No
matter.
I should clip, too.....next time maybe.

BobR

March 17th 08, 10:50 PM

On Mar 17, 4:18*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:11:42 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> >> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> >> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> >> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > So according to you, everybody
>
> I didn't say everybody. You and I have this issue every time we post.
> You go off half-cocked, posting a bunch of self-determining hooey as
> fact.
>
> > over reacted to your oh so simple
> > request for information.
>
> Simple? I don;t see anything simple about this thread. Or the airpark
> business. Or determined the truth in the statistics of which, have you
> done your homework on that? I have and posted the same. More Bob Hooey.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would contend that you in fact brought it
> > on yourself from the very first post forward and the one that finally
> > got me involved was totally off the charts.
>
> > .> Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going
> > to
> > .> have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house
> > "screwing
> > .> the pooch."
>
> > YOUR RESPONSE BELOW:
>
> > .Let's start this over re: Captiva.
> > .
> > .Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent
> > death.
> > .
> > .Yes?
>
> See the question mark? <=See, there it is again, *another question mark.
> Wanna see another? <=There it is. Learning anything? <=There's another
> one.
>
> Question marks are not for statement, they are, for, er, lemme see.
> Questions.
>
> Let me repeat my previous answer *to you in this thread, this time take
> notes.
>
> Ready? <=There's another one.
>
> "Is the Subject Of This Thread too hard for you?
>
> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? <= <=
>
> "You attack like a rabid Muppet on crack. It's clear as a
> bright summer day why you get the treatment you get almost every time
> you post. You foist the most ludicrous, self contradictory arguments
> I've ever seen anyone even attempt in my entire life, then try and
> defend them. You're absolutely insane. Obsessed.
>
> Feel free to stay in character and scream about what a "troll" I am
> some more for pointing out your glaringly obvious dishonesty."
>
> > .
> > .Make sense?
> > .????
>
> > In the future, you might get a much more acceptable response by
> > stating you purpose and engaging in a reasoned discussion of the
> > issues. *You instead decided on an approach that you fully well knew
> > would result in exactly the response you got and then whine about
> > it.
>
> Only whining I hear is yours.
>
> Rinse, dry, repeat the above.
> --
> - Show quoted text -

Overall, you have gotten the responses you asked for and deserved. If
you had wanted to discuss airparks, airpark living, or even the
liability issues of airparks, you went about it in a very strange and
confrontational manner from the outset.

So bitch on, you clearly have nothing to add so PLOINK!

BobR

March 17th 08, 11:32 PM

On Mar 17, 6:20*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
> >> Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path? is the Subject, note the ?
>
> >>> *You might even have to decide to give the airplane
> >>> to the insurance company someday, if a particularly crappy incident
> >>> happens to you - if you take up being a pilot. *Planes and houses
> >>> don't grow on trees, but they are much easier to replace than people.
>
> >>> I suppose you could say you are at a higher risk if you live within
> >>> two miles of any airport. *Is it a reasonable risk? *I think so.
>
> >> Two miles and 20 meters is entirely 2 different discussions.
>
> > (rest snipped for brevity)
>
> > Having read many of your posts, I have to agree with Morgans' suggestion
> > that you argue less and listen more. Once you start your flight training
> > you will find that many of your current concerns in areas such as this are
> > unwarranted. In the meantime, your arguments with those who actually fly
> > and understand the relevant issues neither serve your ultimate goal nor
> > help those who, like you, participate in this group to learn because
> > authoritatively stated misinformation is counterproductive.
>
> > A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
> > meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
> > that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
> > chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.
>
> > Be patient, listen, and learn!
>
> > Best,
>
> > Neil
>
> I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>

WOW! WJRFlyBoy has a "few hundred hours in single/twin in the left
seat."!

That seems rather strange from someone who only four months ago was
stating that it was time to stop talking and start doin
something....about taking flight training. You must have spent every
waking hour since then doing nothing but flying.

In case you need a small reminder here is you post from a thread you
started on Nov.22, 2007 titled Advice Requested:
================================================== ==

1. WJRFlyBoy

It's time to stop talking and start doing so I would appreciate any
advice on how to assess a flight school, instructor, pricing and any
other suggestions. No advice too basic, trust me :) Including what I
should have included in this post or requested in the first place TIA
Location: SW Florida/Bonita Springs Objective: Flight for business (SE
USA), travel between two homes (Caribbean) and simple pleasure My Age:
mid 50s -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee"
either!

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting

================================================== ========

So who was lying....the FlyBoy in November or the FlyBoy in March?
Let me guess, maybe the one who posted the following on Feb.28?

================================================== =========

1. WJRFlyBoy View profile
More options Feb 28, 4:11 am

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
From: WJRFlyBoy >
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:11:04 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 4:11 am
Subject: The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings,
etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by
FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside
of
the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of
instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the
FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would
require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings
included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in
flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
More...enough for now.

TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I
would
be so focused and confident without your past, present and future
work
here.
--
================================================== ======

Hell, I don't think you have even started flight training yet and you
want to call yourself...FlyBOY. Time for you to go back to flying
model planes.

Peter Dohm

March 17th 08, 11:56 PM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
> cavedweller wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 5:03 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
---------some snipping---------
>>>
>>>"I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
>>>just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
>>>might kill someone."- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>>- Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
>> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>>
>>
>
>
> MS Flight Sim

I was thinking "shades of JFK Jr" but you are more likely right.

gatt[_2_]

March 18th 08, 12:19 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:20:12 -0700, gatt wrote:
>
>> Buncha developers getting their asses handed to them in Oregon.

> Not so much the case in FL but I have seen the same kind of disdain for
> the environment and it is a f***ing shame.

Yeah. I didn't mean this to be an attack on developers as a whole, but,
there are some real predatorial land-raper dirtbags out here that came up
with a bunch of money and screwed a whole lot of people out of their own,
leaving the local economy and culture to deal with the debris. In our
neighborhood they got bought up a bunch of land, got approval to subdivide
lots, built and sold giant snouthouses and now the neighborhood is twice as
crowded, property values are dropping and these guys have long ago sold out,
collected their cash and moved on to plunder somebody else's community.

> The airport/airpark business is a tough development mark to hit. It is
> highly specialized, noise, post 9/11 fears, drug trafficking, high
> liabilities, difficult financing, the list is long.

Fascinating that "post 9/11 fears" and drug trafficking are concerns. The
latter could be said for low-rent housing, condos, college apartments, etc,
but the 9/11 thing is weird. I'm positive there's more methamphetamine and
marijuana trafficing in the hundreds or thousands lower-middle-class
apartments that have popped up around Evergreen than there was coming
through the airstrip itself.

-c

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 18th 08, 12:32 AM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:00:14 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
> >> (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
> >> only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.
> >
> > The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest
> > in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new
> > (expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close?
>
> None would be my answer. The last thing I would want is to
>
> 1) have my named attached to a closing then
> 2) Have my name attached to a new development.
> 3) Raise public (incorrect) perceptions to the safety issues
> 4) Have my name attached to a new development.
>
> > In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place
> > to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." Is
> > "WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines?
>
> lol
>
> > North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there.
>
> Many more than that.
>
> > The
> > residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
> > somebody mounted a strong movement against them.
>
> They got it, I doubt there are any homes under $1M
>
> > The Chicken Littles
> > would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
> > Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
> > get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.
>
> So much for the above, Orval.

If you are telling the truth, please accept my apologies.

I have seen too many airport battles where developers have stirred
things up withthe "natives" in order to destroy airports in the name of
"safety."

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 18th 08, 12:33 AM

gatt wrote:
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>So have I, when the players behind the scene are developers.
>
>
> Buncha developers getting their asses handed to them in Oregon. They came
> out, developed everything--still are--as fast as possible pretty much ruined
> the landscape. From the tree nursery I grew up on up on the hill east of
> Troutdale, you can see the development spreading across the landscape like
> mold on cheese. The first wave is bulldozers and homes most Oregonians
> can't afford. The second wave involves gang grafitti, increased vandalism
> and armed robbery, rising crime statistics, falling property values and huge
> new homes all around our farm built by the people who "develop" Portland.
>
> But, hey, I have an 1951 800-square-foot home appraised at $160,000 and gang
> activity a mile or so down the road, so, we're genuinely Californicated and
> ought to be thankful for their plundering of the community. Property
> values are staying up out here but they'll fall because none of the locals
> can afford to live here anymore and people from out of state can't sell
> their land and move here cheaply.
>
> They shut down NWPilot's historical old grass strip airport for development.
> Last time I drove by, it's closed, but the field itself is still
> undeveloped. 'Course with the huge condos all around so close to the
> airport that they required red lights on the roof, it's no surprise that
> complaints against the airport exploded and the outside developers were able
> to make a case to shut it down.
>
> -c
>
>

Where abouts are you located, gatt?

We are looking at a possible move up to the Portland area this summer.

Richard

Bob Noel

March 18th 08, 01:46 AM

In article >,
cavedweller > wrote:

> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
> I confuse easily, you see..... :)

I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Highflyer

March 18th 08, 02:31 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> William Hung > wrote in
> :
>
>> The Kitfox reminds me of the Coupe.
>
Bunyip:

> It's supposed to, the bump cowl and such. But it's nothing like it,
> really. For one thing, the 'coupe wasn't built like lawn furniture.. And
> a 'coupe with a two stroke? Shudder!
>
>
> Bertie

If you want to see a "modern" homebuilt version of the Monocoupe take a look
at the "Mullicoupe" that were designed by Jim Younkin. It looks like a
"standoff" scale model of the clipwing Monocoupe with the Warner radial
engine. Actually it is somewhat larger, being basically a two place
version of Ike Howard's "Mr. Mulligan" racer, which later became the Howard
series of airplanes. Jim built a Mr. Mulligan replica which goes like
blazes. Bud Dake had a lovely Warner Monocoupe and wanted something a bit
bigger. Jim told me he used a lot of Howard in the Mullicoupe. Bud told me
that the pilot visibility in the Mullicoupe was a lot better than in the
Monocoupe. The Mullicoupe was powered by a 450 HP R-985 Pratt and Whitney
so it had the power to get up an go. It would cruise at well over 200 mph.
I never got to fly it before Bud was killed in an unfortunate crash with his
Monocoupe at St. Louis a few years ago.

Highflyer

Highflyer

March 18th 08, 02:33 AM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...
>
> All it takes is a little collar on the pitot tube (and a bit of tweaking
> the position) :)

That is how we calibrate the airspeed indicator to get it reading with
reasonable accuracy. Old CG himself taught me that one. :-)

Of course, nowadays, you have to tweak the GPS also!

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport, PJ Y

BobR

March 18th 08, 03:25 AM

On Mar 17, 8:46*pm, Bob Noel >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *cavedweller > wrote:
> > But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> > hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." * Sorry to quibble but
> > I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>
> I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
> So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
> seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)

AND NEITHER HAS FLYBOY

See Below:

================================================== =========

1. WJRFlyBoy View profile
More options Feb 28, 4:11 am

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
From: WJRFlyBoy >
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:11:04 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 4:11 am
Subject: The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings,
etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by
FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.
Outside
of
the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of
instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the
FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would
require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings
included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in
flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
More...enough for now.

TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I
would
be so focused and confident without your past, present and future
work
here.
--
================================================== ======

BobR

March 18th 08, 03:30 AM

On Mar 17, 7:32*pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:00:14 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> > > *I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
> > >> (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
> > >> only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.
>
> > > The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest
> > > in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new
> > > (expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close?
>
> > None would be my answer. The last thing I would want is to
>
> > 1) have my named attached to a closing then
> > 2) Have my name attached to a new development.
> > 3) Raise public (incorrect) perceptions to the safety issues
> > 4) Have my name attached to a new development.
>
> > > In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place
> > > to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." *Is
> > > "WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines?
>
> > lol
>
> > > North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there.
>
> > Many more than that.
>
> > > The
> > > residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
> > > somebody mounted a strong movement against them.
>
> > They got it, I doubt there are any homes under $1M
>
> > > The Chicken Littles
> > > would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
> > > Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
> > > get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.
>
> > So much for the above, Orval.
>
> If you are telling the truth, please accept my apologies.
>
> I have seen too many airport battles where developers have stirred
> things up withthe "natives" in order to destroy airports in the name of
> "safety."
>
> --
> Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Telling the truth....don't think he has a clue about what the truth
is. Showed up on the student pilot group back in November wanting
information of taking lessons. Then he claims several hundred hours
in the "left" seat. Turns out that he still hasn't started taking
lessons much less having time as PIC in any seat. See one of his
posts from Feb 28 below.

================================================== =========

1. WJRFlyBoy View profile
More options Feb 28, 4:11 am

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student, rec.aviation.piloting
From: WJRFlyBoy >
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:11:04 -0500
Local: Thurs, Feb 28 2008 4:11 am
Subject: The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings,
etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by
FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.
Outside
of
the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of
instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the
FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would
require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings
included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in
flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
More...enough for now.

TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I
would
be so focused and confident without your past, present and future
work
here.
--
================================================== ======

Steve Hix

March 18th 08, 05:31 AM

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:00:14 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> >
> > > I develop real estate with a slant to the niche, luxury market place
> > >> (beach, bay, waterfront at the present.) In my area of SW FL, there is
> > >> only one airpark and, imo, it's not up to what folks want.
> > >
> > > The picture that I am getting is that "WJRFlyBoy" has a vested interest
> > > in shutting down the airpark at North Captiva. Just how many new
> > > (expe$sive) home$ can he build there if he can force the place to close?
> >
> > None would be my answer. The last thing I would want is to
> >
> > 1) have my named attached to a closing then
> > 2) Have my name attached to a new development.
> > 3) Raise public (incorrect) perceptions to the safety issues
> > 4) Have my name attached to a new development.
> >
> > > In a previous posting I recited one of my criteria for an airpark place
> > > to live: "Big enough to defend itself when the Philistines attack." Is
> > > "WJRFlyBoy" one of those Philistines?
> >
> > lol
> >
> > > North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there.
> >
> > Many more than that.
> >
> > > The
> > > residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
> > > somebody mounted a strong movement against them.
> >
> > They got it, I doubt there are any homes under $1M
> >
> > > The Chicken Littles
> > > would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
> > > Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
> > > get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.
> >
> > So much for the above, Orval.
>
> If you are telling the truth, please accept my apologies.
>
> I have seen too many airport battles where developers have stirred
> things up withthe "natives" in order to destroy airports in the name of
> "safety."

In this county, we've one airport closed down (and is now a shopping
center that's doing barely OK), restricted operations at another, and
we're watching the county supervisors trying yet again to shut down the
largest GA airport that takes some of the pressure off the bigger nearby
international airport.

The same county supervisors who OK'd development adjacent to the GA
field, and are now using that development (large shopping mall) as a
reason that the airport is too dangerous to keep in operation.

It's a revenue enhancement issue at bottom.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 18th 08, 01:46 PM

Highflyer wrote:
> "cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
> ...
>> All it takes is a little collar on the pitot tube (and a bit of tweaking
>> the position) :)
>
> That is how we calibrate the airspeed indicator to get it reading with
> reasonable accuracy. Old CG himself taught me that one. :-)
>
> Of course, nowadays, you have to tweak the GPS also!

Anybody have photos of such a collar? Or able to give a good description?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 18th 08, 03:55 PM

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Highflyer wrote:
>> "cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> All it takes is a little collar on the pitot tube (and a bit of
>>> tweaking
>>> the position) :)
>>
>> That is how we calibrate the airspeed indicator to get it reading
>> with reasonable accuracy. Old CG himself taught me that one. :-)
>>
>> Of course, nowadays, you have to tweak the GPS also!
>
>
> Anybody have photos of such a collar? Or able to give a good
> description?
>

Pretty sure there's one in Tony Bengelis' books. But you just take a
collet and slide it over the tube and then experiment by moving it back
and forth until your ASI is doing what you think is right.

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 18th 08, 04:43 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > Anybody have photos of such a collar? Or able to give a good
> > description?
> >
>
> Pretty sure there's one in Tony Bengelis' books. But you just take a
> collet and slide it over the tube and then experiment by moving it back
> and forth until your ASI is doing what you think is right.
>
> Bertie

I tried that on my Johnson Rocket and got it to indicate 200 MPH in
level flight! Of course, it stalled at 100 instead of 60. ;>)

All it is is an O-ring or something similar placed ahead of the static
pickup in the pitot/static system. This works only on planes that have a
combined pitot/static head, not on those that have the flush-mounted
static port on the side f the fuselage.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

gatt[_2_]

March 18th 08, 04:43 PM

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
...

>> They shut down NWPilot's historical old grass strip airport for
>> development. Last time I drove by, it's closed, but the field itself is
>> still undeveloped. 'Course with the huge condos all around so close to
>> the airport that they required red lights on the roof, it's no surprise
>> that complaints against the airport exploded and the outside developers
>> were able to make a case to shut it down.

>
> Where abouts are you located, gatt?
>
> We are looking at a possible move up to the Portland area this summer.

East of Portland, a few miles from Troutdale Aiport at the mouth of the
Columbia Gorge. Excellent airport. Portland's expensive right now but
the housing market is flattening. email me at gatt at juggerbot dot com
if you have any questions about moving.

-chris

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 18th 08, 05:08 PM

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>> > Anybody have photos of such a collar? Or able to give a good
>> > description?
>> >
>>
>> Pretty sure there's one in Tony Bengelis' books. But you just take a
>> collet and slide it over the tube and then experiment by moving it
back
>> and forth until your ASI is doing what you think is right.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I tried that on my Johnson Rocket and got it to indicate 200 MPH in
> level flight! Of course, it stalled at 100 instead of 60. ;>)
>
> All it is is an O-ring or something similar placed ahead of the static
> pickup in the pitot/static system. This works only on planes that have
a
> combined pitot/static head, not on those that have the flush-mounted
> static port on the side f the fuselage.
>

Ah, OK, you mean the ones with two tubes, right?

Bertie

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 18th 08, 05:30 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> >> Bertie
> >
> > I tried that on my Johnson Rocket and got it to indicate 200 MPH in
> > level flight! Of course, it stalled at 100 instead of 60. ;>)
> >
> > All it is is an O-ring or something similar placed ahead of the static
> > pickup in the pitot/static system. This works only on planes that have
> a
> > combined pitot/static head, not on those that have the flush-mounted
> > static port on the side f the fuselage.
> >
>
>
> Ah, OK, you mean the ones with two tubes, right?

It doesn't matter -- all you have to do is be able to erect an airflow
fence ahead of the static pickup. This is one of the oldest tricks in
aviation -- dating back to at least the Thirties. It enabled salesmen to
sell a lot of "fast" airplanes!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 05:48 PM

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:03:18 -0700 (PDT), William Hung wrote:

> You have attacked the Caveman and now BobR? These two have been good
> contributors to these RA groups for years ever since I was just a
> lurker. You on the other hand having contributed much. Writers and
> readers here can tell who's who.
>
> Wil

Here's something you can read and it's not from me.

http://fmi.typepad.com/lwyp/2008/03/survey-results.html
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 05:51 PM

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by 20
> meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will also learn
> that there will be times when you will be unable to take off or land at a
> chosen airport, and how to judge those times reasonably well.

Here's an article extolling a few of the problems of airparks. Note the
one re: extraneous activities on the runways.

http://fmi.typepad.com/lwyp/2008/03/survey-results.html
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 05:52 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>>> North Captiva is small, apparently with only 20-30 homes there.
>>
>> Many more than that.
>>
>>> The
>>> residents would have to shell out a lot of money in lawyers' fees if
>>> somebody mounted a strong movement against them.
>>
>> They got it, I doubt there are any homes under $1M
>>
>>> The Chicken Littles
>>> would pour out of the woodwork, crying "The sky is FALLING!" In steps
>>> Mr. Foxy Loxy, promising to develop houses on the site, if only they can
>>> get rid of those pesky, dangerous airplanes.
>>
>> So much for the above, Orval.
>
> If you are telling the truth, please accept my apologies.
>
> I have seen too many airport battles where developers have stirred
> things up withthe "natives" in order to destroy airports in the name of
> "safety."

Here's an article that you can take back to your own airpark. FYI.

http://fmi.typepad.com/lwyp/2008/03/survey-results.html
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 05:53 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of
> instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the
> FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would
> require? I
> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

Note sig below.

I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 05:59 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 22:31:45 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:

> In this county, we've one airport closed down (and is now a shopping
> center that's doing barely OK), restricted operations at another, and
> we're watching the county supervisors trying yet again to shut down the
> largest GA airport that takes some of the pressure off the bigger nearby
> international airport.
>
> The same county supervisors who OK'd development adjacent to the GA
> field, and are now using that development (large shopping mall) as a
> reason that the airport is too dangerous to keep in operation.
>
> It's a revenue enhancement issue at bottom.

Combined with growing public anti-sentiment toward private airparks
in/around existing or upcoming residential neighborhoods. They have the
budget deficit numbers to solve and the phone calls from the citizenry
to resolve.

Here you have neither.

http://www.visualtour.com/shownp.asp?prt=85&t=1217861

http://preview.tinyurl.com/39avgz Use satellite mode

The point would appear to be that if your airpark isn't relatively off
the beaten path,or required (as Captiva is). you potentially face an
ever increasing chance that the gov ain't gonna luv you.

Here's a link as to the ammunition that can be used against the airparks
from the airparks themselves.

http://fmi.typepad.com/lwyp/2008/03/survey-results.html
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:01 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 17, 5:18 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> WJRFlyBoy [endless]
>> blah blah blah blah
>> blah blah blah blah
>> blah blah blah blah
>> blah blah blah blah
>
> Dude... you should spend less time typing, and more time flying.
>
> Or reading about flying.
>
> Or watching airplanes.
>
> Dan Mc

Eight hours every evening not enough?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:03 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:50:16 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> So bitch on, you clearly have nothing to add so PLOINK!

lol

More Bob Hooey.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:03 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:17:57 -0700 (PDT), cavedweller wrote:

>> See signature below.
>>
>> "I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
>> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
>> might kill someone."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
> I confuse easily, you see..... :)

That's correct, I have.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:05 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:46:52 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >,
> cavedweller > wrote:
>
>> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
>> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>
> I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
> So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
> seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).

LS time is more like 500 hours now that I think of it all in the 60s-
early 70s. Things may have changed since then, time to start over again.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:08 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:25:05 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

>>> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
>>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." * Sorry to quibble but
>>> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>>
>> I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
>> So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
>> seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).
>>
>> --
>> Bob Noel
>> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>
> AND NEITHER HAS FLYBOY
>
> See Below:

More Bob Hooey.

Asked and answered but, of course, since you "killfiled" me, you have
nothing more than Bob Hooey facts made of heaping amounts of Bob Hooey.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:11 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:19:34 -0700, gatt wrote:

>> The airport/airpark business is a tough development mark to hit. It is
>> highly specialized, noise, post 9/11 fears, drug trafficking, high
>> liabilities, difficult financing, the list is long.
>
> Fascinating that "post 9/11 fears" and drug trafficking are concerns. The
> latter could be said for low-rent housing, condos, college apartments, etc,
> but the 9/11 thing is weird. I'm positive there's more methamphetamine and
> marijuana trafficing in the hundreds or thousands lower-middle-class
> apartments that have popped up around Evergreen than there was coming
> through the airstrip itself.

I'm sure your right. Relevance to public impressions, none.

Take for instance Immakolee Airport. Because it has a FTZ, and a couple
of busts, the public impression is that it's part Mena, part Islamic
stronghold. (the latter from several Middle Eastern owners who have drop
warehouses there.

Public impressions vote.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:16 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:19:34 -0700, gatt wrote:

>>> Buncha developers getting their asses handed to them in Oregon.
>
>> Not so much the case in FL but I have seen the same kind of disdain for
>> the environment and it is a f***ing shame.
>
> Yeah. I didn't mean this to be an attack on developers as a whole, but,
> there are some real predatorial land-raper dirtbags out here that came up
> with a bunch of money and screwed a whole lot of people out of their own,
> leaving the local economy and culture to deal with the debris. In our
> neighborhood they got bought up a bunch of land, got approval to subdivide
> lots, built and sold giant snouthouses and now the neighborhood is twice as
> crowded, property values are dropping and these guys have long ago sold out,
> collected their cash and moved on to plunder somebody else's community.

Then let me step up and tell you that land developers, a community in
which I muck around in, is full of swarthy corporations and individuals
who could care less about the environmental issue /other/ than how to
get around them. In FL, there are loopholes all over the place. How do I
know? Because we have formed our own ecoscience group to deal with the
Army Corp, the water districts, the DEP, NOAA, USWLF, ad infinitum.

We hold accountability to our processes. Airparks appear to be a
possible development area where we can apply that accountability and
have potential for profits.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:16 PM

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:

>> I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>>
>
> WOW!

Go away, Bob.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 18th 08, 06:17 PM

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>> >> Bertie
>> >
>> > I tried that on my Johnson Rocket and got it to indicate 200 MPH in
>> > level flight! Of course, it stalled at 100 instead of 60. ;>)
>> >
>> > All it is is an O-ring or something similar placed ahead of the
>> > static pickup in the pitot/static system. This works only on planes
>> > that have
>> a
>> > combined pitot/static head, not on those that have the
>> > flush-mounted static port on the side f the fuselage.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Ah, OK, you mean the ones with two tubes, right?
>
> It doesn't matter -- all you have to do is be able to erect an airflow
> fence ahead of the static pickup. This is one of the oldest tricks in
> aviation -- dating back to at least the Thirties. It enabled salesmen
> to sell a lot of "fast" airplanes!
>

Heh! Yeah, I think I've flown a few of those! I've certainly lown a few
where th eASI was next to useless, anyway.

Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 06:20 PM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:01:41 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:

> Recently, WJRFlyBoy > posted:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by
>>> 20 meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will
>>> also learn that there will be times when you will be unable to take
>>> off or land at a chosen airport, and how to judge those times
>>> reasonably well.
>>
>> Here's an article extolling a few of the problems of airparks. Note
>> the one re: extraneous activities on the runways.
>>
> Apparently, your "experience" doesn't involve flying into airports located
> in rural areas. There are all kinds of "extraneous activities on the
> runways", mostly non-human. A pilot knows how to deal with these
> situations appropriately, minimizing the risks.
>
> Neil

Actually, 50% does including such glorified areas as Fayette AL,
LewisburgTN, Senatobia MS Ballground GA and more Podunk towns in AK than
I can remember.

Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 18th 08, 06:57 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>
> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.

Then you need to give up the idea of flying now. Don't waste any more of
your time.

Airparks aren't the only place where animals get on the runway and I've
seen deer on a Class C airport's runway and the only reason I haven't
seen them on a Class B is that I don't fly into them that often.

BobR

March 18th 08, 06:59 PM

On Mar 18, 1:16*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> >> I appreciate the thought Neil but it's not like I haven't had a few
> >> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat.
>
> > WOW!
>
> Go away, Bob.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.

Ah what's the matter, you don't like people posting your own crap for
everyone to see what a bunch of lies you are trying to put over on
them? Sorry but I don't have any intention of going away. I might
however repost some of your other lies for everyone to see.

BobR

March 18th 08, 07:02 PM

On Mar 18, 3:01*pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, WJRFlyBoy > posted:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>
> >> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by
> >> 20 meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will
> >> also learn that there will be times when you will be unable to take
> >> off or land at a chosen airport, and how to judge those times
> >> reasonably well.
>
> > Here's an article extolling a few of the problems of airparks. Note
> > the one re: extraneous activities on the runways.
>
> Apparently, your "experience" doesn't involve flying into airports located
> in rural areas. There are all kinds of "extraneous activities on the
> runways", mostly non-human. A pilot knows how to deal with these
> situations appropriately, minimizing the risks.
>
> Neil

Neil,

His experience doesn't involve flying into anywhere. He nothing more
than a wannabe pilot and based on some of his posts in other threads,
I am not sure he even is a wannabe. I reposted a couple of his posts
from other threads and it proves that he is not a pilot and from what
I can gather as of Feb.28, he hasn't even started with any flight
training.

He is not a pilot and probably never will be.

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 18th 08, 07:04 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>
> http://fmi.typepad.com/lwyp/2008/03/survey-results.html

Are you getting paid to promote this site? You've posted this thing
about 5 times now.

Dan[_10_]

March 18th 08, 07:05 PM

On Mar 18, 2:20 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

>
> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.

How in the world do you get off the ground without flying over one or
more of these liabilities?

I smell a red herring...

Dan Mc

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 18th 08, 07:06 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

>
> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.

Huh?

Bertie

Neil Gould

March 18th 08, 08:01 PM

Recently, WJRFlyBoy > posted:

> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 05:09:55 -0600, Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> A brief example; you will learn that you can't be off the runway by
>> 20 meters at most airports without things getting ugly. You will
>> also learn that there will be times when you will be unable to take
>> off or land at a chosen airport, and how to judge those times
>> reasonably well.
>
> Here's an article extolling a few of the problems of airparks. Note
> the one re: extraneous activities on the runways.
>
Apparently, your "experience" doesn't involve flying into airports located
in rural areas. There are all kinds of "extraneous activities on the
runways", mostly non-human. A pilot knows how to deal with these
situations appropriately, minimizing the risks.

Neil

Highflyer

March 18th 08, 09:42 PM

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> Highflyer wrote:
>> "cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> All it takes is a little collar on the pitot tube (and a bit of tweaking
>>> the position) :)
>>
>> That is how we calibrate the airspeed indicator to get it reading with
>> reasonable accuracy. Old CG himself taught me that one. :-)
>>
>> Of course, nowadays, you have to tweak the GPS also!
>
>
> Anybody have photos of such a collar? Or able to give a good description?

Put an o-ring over the static tube. Adjust its distance from the static
holes in the side of the tube to adjust the static pressure reference for
your airspeed indicator. It also adjusts the static pressure reference for
the altimeter, which usually uses the same static port.

It doesn't work for the new airplanes th at pick up their static pressure
through a port on the side of the fuselage. :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
rec.aviation.homebuilt annual flyin coming up May 16, 17, and 18.
See the faq at http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html and send Mary a note
at so she knows how many groceries to get.

BobR

March 18th 08, 09:50 PM

On Mar 18, 1:57*pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
> > Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> > this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> > liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.
>
> Then you need to give up the idea of flying now. Don't waste any more of
> your time.
>
> Airparks aren't the only place where animals get on the runway and I've
> seen deer on a Class C airport's runway and the only reason I haven't
> seen them on a Class B is that I don't fly into them that often.

Not to mention all those pesky birds that we are forced to share the
sky with. I had an much too close encounter with a buzzard in a 172
once. It resulted in replacing one wing and a soiled seat(g). I have
photos of a twin that was struck in the windshield and tore a two foot
wide section out of the fuselage almost the length of the cabin. If
you are looking for "Risk Free", stay in bed.

BobR

March 18th 08, 09:56 PM

On Mar 18, 1:08*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:25:05 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> >>> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> >>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." * Sorry to quibble but
> >>> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>
> >> I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
> >> So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
> >> seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).
>
> >> --
> >> Bob Noel
> >> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>
> > AND NEITHER HAS FLYBOY
>
> > See Below:
>
> More Bob Hooey.
>
> Asked and answered but, of course, since you "killfiled" me, you have
> nothing more than Bob Hooey facts made of heaping amounts of Bob Hooey.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Naw, not going to kill file you yet...to much fun watching you try to
lie your way out of the deep pit of **** you got yourself into.

BobR

March 18th 08, 09:57 PM

On Mar 18, 1:05*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:46:52 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *cavedweller > wrote:
>
> >> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
> >> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." * Sorry to quibble but
> >> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>
> > I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
> > So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
> > seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).
>
> LS time is more like 500 hours now that I think of it all in the 60s-
> early 70s. Things may have changed since then, time to start over again.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.

DAMN, that lie gets bigger every time you tell it.

BobR

March 18th 08, 10:00 PM

On Mar 18, 12:53*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:30:47 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
> > I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of
> > instructional
> > and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the
> > FAA,
> > what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would
> > require? I
> > am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
> Note sig below.
>
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.

Hell, based on what I have seen, you are not a student...slow or
otherwise. You did get one point right though, you are not qualified
to give advice!

BobR

March 18th 08, 10:03 PM

On Mar 18, 2:05*pm, Dan > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2:20 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
> > this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
> > liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.
>
> How in the world do you get off the ground without flying over one or
> more of these liabilities?
>
> I smell a red herring...
>
> Dan Mc

Dan, you are being way to nice to the troll.

Peter Dohm

March 18th 08, 10:25 PM

>"BobR" > wrote in message
...
>On Mar 18, 1:08 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:25:05 -0700 (PDT), BobR wrote:
>> >>> But you said, upthread, "..but it's not like I haven't had a few
>> >>> hundred hours in single/twin in the left seat." Sorry to quibble but
>> >>> I confuse easily, you see..... :)
>>
>> >> I know a CFII who always flies from the right seat, even when solo.
>> >> So his wife has probably close to a thousand hours in the left
>> >> seat (but never did get her pilot certificate).
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Bob Noel
>> >> (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
>>
>> > AND NEITHER HAS FLYBOY
>>
>> > See Below:
>>
>> More Bob Hooey.
>>
>> Asked and answered but, of course, since you "killfiled" me, you have
>> nothing more than Bob Hooey facts made of heaping amounts of Bob Hooey.
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
>> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
>> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Naw, not going to kill file you yet...to much fun watching you try to
>lie your way out of the deep pit of **** you got yourself into.

Now, I also have to forget all the "legal" and "developer" advice about HOAs
as well.

Peter

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 10:45 PM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:04:27 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Are you getting paid to promote this site? You've posted this thing
> about 5 times now.

> http://fmi.typepad.com/lwyp/2008/03/survey-results.html

Now I have to give you part of my commission. Sheesh, make your own
money.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 10:46 PM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:06:12 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
>> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
>> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.
>
> Huh?
>
> Bertie

Huh what Bertie?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 10:48 PM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:05:13 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2:20 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>>
>> Cows, deer (by the dozens), infants...the whole scheebang. You look at
>> this as acceptable challenges, I look at this as exceptional
>> liabilities. Same view, two different eyes.
>
> How in the world do you get off the ground without flying over one or
> more of these liabilities?

Out of context.

> I smell a red herring...
>
> Dan Mc

Get your nose out of the fish section then.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 18th 08, 10:49 PM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:57:50 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Airparks aren't the only place where animals get on the runway and I've
> seen deer on a Class C airport's runway and the only reason I haven't
> seen them on a Class B is that I don't fly into them that often.

Thanks for the valuable, out of context FYI <rolls eyes?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Dan[_10_]

March 18th 08, 11:27 PM

On Mar 18, 6:48 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> > I smell a red herring...
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Get your nose out of the fish section then.

You made a funny!

You're so darn clever.

And yet so useless....

Dan Mc

gatt[_2_]

March 19th 08, 12:07 AM

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then let me step up and tell you that land developers, a community in
> which I muck around in, is full of swarthy corporations and individuals
> who could care less about the environmental issue /other/ than how to
> get around them. In FL, there are loopholes all over the place. How do I
> know? Because we have formed our own ecoscience group to deal with the
> Army Corp, the water districts, the DEP, NOAA, USWLF, ad infinitum.

Sounds great!

> We hold accountability to our processes. Airparks appear to be a
> possible development area where we can apply that accountability and
> have potential for profits.

Hmm. Well, best of luck with that. I've lived under one traffic pattern
or another pretty much all my life and I haven't gotten tired of it yet!

-c

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 19th 08, 01:40 AM

gatt wrote:
> "cavelamb himself" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>They shut down NWPilot's historical old grass strip airport for
>>>development. Last time I drove by, it's closed, but the field itself is
>>>still undeveloped. 'Course with the huge condos all around so close to
>>>the airport that they required red lights on the roof, it's no surprise
>>>that complaints against the airport exploded and the outside developers
>>>were able to make a case to shut it down.
>
>
>>Where abouts are you located, gatt?
>>
>>We are looking at a possible move up to the Portland area this summer.
>
>
> East of Portland, a few miles from Troutdale Aiport at the mouth of the
> Columbia Gorge. Excellent airport. Portland's expensive right now but
> the housing market is flattening. email me at gatt at juggerbot dot com
> if you have any questions about moving.
>
> -chris
>
>

Sent email.

Steve Hix

March 19th 08, 02:38 AM

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Then let me step up and tell you that land developers, a community in
> > which I muck around in, is full of swarthy corporations and individuals
> > who could care less about the environmental issue /other/ than how to
> > get around them. In FL, there are loopholes all over the place. How do I
> > know? Because we have formed our own ecoscience group to deal with the
> > Army Corp, the water districts, the DEP, NOAA, USWLF, ad infinitum.
>
> Sounds great!
>
> > We hold accountability to our processes. Airparks appear to be a
> > possible development area where we can apply that accountability and
> > have potential for profits.

In other words, screwing over other people for (your) fun and profit.

Charming.

> Hmm. Well, best of luck with that. I've lived under one traffic pattern
> or another pretty much all my life and I haven't gotten tired of it yet!

He sounds like an ambulance chaser looking for a more sedentary life.

WJRFlyBoy

March 20th 08, 02:33 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:25:55 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

> Now, I also have to forget all the "legal" and "developer" advice about HOAs
> as well.
>
> Peter

If you are talking to me, I never give any legal advice. If you want to
talk HOAs, ignore or listen as you desire.

If you don't live in a subdivision with deed restricting HOAs, why would
you care in the first place?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 20th 08, 02:35 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:07:25 -0700, gatt wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Then let me step up and tell you that land developers, a community in
>> which I muck around in, is full of swarthy corporations and individuals
>> who could care less about the environmental issue /other/ than how to
>> get around them. In FL, there are loopholes all over the place. How do I
>> know? Because we have formed our own ecoscience group to deal with the
>> Army Corp, the water districts, the DEP, NOAA, USWLF, ad infinitum.
>
> Sounds great!
>
>> We hold accountability to our processes. Airparks appear to be a
>> possible development area where we can apply that accountability and
>> have potential for profits.
>
> Hmm. Well, best of luck with that. I've lived under one traffic pattern
> or another pretty much all my life and I haven't gotten tired of it yet!
>
> -c

Thanks. Environmental accountability, FYI, doesn't include traffic
patterns in the sense that I meant it. More about wetlands, mitigations,
etc.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 20th 08, 02:36 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:38:25 -0700, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> "gatt" > wrote:
>
>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Then let me step up and tell you that land developers, a community in
>>> which I muck around in, is full of swarthy corporations and individuals
>>> who could care less about the environmental issue /other/ than how to
>>> get around them. In FL, there are loopholes all over the place. How do I
>>> know? Because we have formed our own ecoscience group to deal with the
>>> Army Corp, the water districts, the DEP, NOAA, USWLF, ad infinitum.
>>
>> Sounds great!
>>
>>> We hold accountability to our processes. Airparks appear to be a
>>> possible development area where we can apply that accountability and
>>> have potential for profits.
>
> In other words, screwing over other people for (your) fun and profit.
>
> Charming.

No, that would be your words, Hix. Convolution noted for your w/e
agenda.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy

March 20th 08, 05:51 AM

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:27:47 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 18, 6:48 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>>> I smell a red herring...
>>
>>> Dan Mc
>>
>> Get your nose out of the fish section then.
>
> You made a funny!
>
> You're so darn clever.
>
> And yet so useless....
>
> Dan Mc

Pass it along

To BobR

When you figure it out.

Ever

http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

Todd W. Deckard

March 21st 08, 01:06 AM

Many years ago I had a '170 based at the Waunakee Wisconsin airpark. I was
coming in to land and a little
fellow cuts towards the runway on his bike. As I overfly he drops it right
on the centerline and bolts.
Now there was enough runway left in the denominator and with careful
attention to any more animal crossings I land and scoop up the offending
bicycle.

Pretty soon his lawyer shows up with some sort of explaination I cannot
remember in an effort to get the bike back -- and I get a good chance to
give the Airport Safety Lecture. I suggest that if he would like to sit in
the plane and put the headphones on that is fine. Now the rest of The
Little Rascals are hiding behind rocks and bushes nearby watching to see
what happens. I suggest that if someone can produce a responsible parent
there might be enough daylight for a ride or two. Eventually some parents
are located and it is another chance to reinforce the airport safety lecture
(and make sure bail was posted and a sentencing hearing was scheduled).

One mom had been in the Navy which made her most qualified to interview hobo
pilot and she asked various questions about my freshmen flying background
(she even looked at my logbook). One or two of the kids got Young Eagles
certificates. One of the others certainly learned his lesson as I can be
sure Navy-Mom narced on him.

I did give him his bike back.
Todd

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
> kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
> strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
> --

WJRFlyBoy

March 21st 08, 05:01 PM

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:06:10 -0500, Todd W. Deckard wrote:

> Many years ago I had a '170 based at the Waunakee Wisconsin airpark. I was
> coming in to land and a little
> fellow cuts towards the runway on his bike. As I overfly he drops it right
> on the centerline and bolts.
> Now there was enough runway left in the denominator and with careful
> attention to any more animal crossings I land and scoop up the offending
> bicycle.
>
> Pretty soon his lawyer shows up with some sort of explaination I cannot
> remember in an effort to get the bike back -- and I get a good chance to
> give the Airport Safety Lecture. I suggest that if he would like to sit in
> the plane and put the headphones on that is fine. Now the rest of The
> Little Rascals are hiding behind rocks and bushes nearby watching to see
> what happens. I suggest that if someone can produce a responsible parent
> there might be enough daylight for a ride or two. Eventually some parents
> are located and it is another chance to reinforce the airport safety lecture
> (and make sure bail was posted and a sentencing hearing was scheduled).
>
> One mom had been in the Navy which made her most qualified to interview hobo
> pilot and she asked various questions about my freshmen flying background
> (she even looked at my logbook). One or two of the kids got Young Eagles
> certificates. One of the others certainly learned his lesson as I can be
> sure Navy-Mom narced on him.
>
> I did give him his bike back.
> Todd

lol Great story, thx.

WJRFlyBoy

March 21st 08, 05:09 PM

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:58:19 GMT, Blueskies wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message ...
>>> On Mar 10, 6:05 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>>> If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
>>>>> strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
>>>>> them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
>>>>> critters, etc.......
>>>>> Ben
>>>>> www.haaspowerair.com
>>>>> N801BH
>>>> It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
>>>> neighbor's kids.
>>>> --
>>>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>>> The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
>>> Around ??????????
>>
>> No offense but this is like arguing with a 16 yo (not you personally) "Dad,
>> there is a stop sign, people STOP."
>
> Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
> those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
> lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
> there in the case of an accident.

Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.

1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.

--

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 21st 08, 06:09 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>> Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
>> those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
>> lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
>> there in the case of an accident.
>
> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>
> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>

So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 21st 08, 09:07 PM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> > WJRFlyBoy wrote:

> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>
> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>
> --

Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
values.

Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
county (near Daytona Beach).

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Dan[_10_]

March 21st 08, 09:09 PM

On Mar 21, 2:09 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >

> > 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> > 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> > of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>
> So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?
>
> If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
> my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

Soon you will see that things are not as they appear, for you are
expecting a conversation, when in fact you debate with MXJunior...

Dan Mc

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 21st 08, 09:11 PM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> > WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>
> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>
> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>
> --

Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not hurt real estate prices.

Spruce Creek (with 600 airplanes resident) has some of the highest real
estate prices in the Daytona Beach area.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 21st 08, 09:35 PM

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> > WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>>
>> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
>> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and
because
>> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>>
>> --
>
> Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
> values.
>

I'd pay more to live near one.

BTW, have you ever seen a Rocket on floats?

Bertie

WJRFlyBoy

March 22nd 08, 02:55 AM

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:09:42 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>>> Most houses are closer to the street than any runway is to any house. On
>>> those streets are cars driving just as fast as the average airplane
>>> lands and they way many times more which means there is much more energy
>>> there in the case of an accident.
>>
>> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>>
>> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
>> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
>> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>>
>
> So you've changed your whole argument to perceived dangers now?

I took your lead "houses...closer..street..etc. The dangers are both
real and perceived regardless.

> If that's the case then I'll opt out of this conversation. When I posted
> my reply you were stating the case that there was a real danger.

There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.

Orval Fairbairn[_2_]

March 22nd 08, 02:56 AM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> >>
> >> > WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> >
> >> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
> >>
> >> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> >> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and
> because
> >> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
> > values.
> >
>
> I'd pay more to live near one.
>
>
> BTW, have you ever seen a Rocket on floats?
>

Yes -- I have an original copy of the Popular Mechanics magazine that
shows an illustration on the cover (no story inside, however). I
seriously doubt that they ever tried that one, however! There wou;ld be
too many compromises to make it work well.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Dan[_10_]

March 22nd 08, 02:57 AM

On Mar 21, 10:55 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
> history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
> then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
> with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.

Like every week there's some broadcast form a local airpark - "Oh the
humanity!!!!"

WJRFlyBoy

March 22nd 08, 03:01 AM

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:07:05 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>>
>> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
>> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
>> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>>
>> --
>
> Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
> values.

Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
near an airstrip.

> Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
> county (near Daytona Beach).

There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
they are mathematical and historical facts.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 22nd 08, 05:11 AM

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
>> news:o_r_fairbairn-D875AE.17070521032008@70-3-168-
216.area5.spcsdns.net:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>> >
>> >> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>> >>
>> >> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
>> >> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and
>> because
>> >> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> > Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
>> > values.
>> >
>>
>> I'd pay more to live near one.
>>
>>
>> BTW, have you ever seen a Rocket on floats?
>>
>
> Yes -- I have an original copy of the Popular Mechanics magazine that
> shows an illustration on the cover (no story inside, however). I
> seriously doubt that they ever tried that one, however! There wou;ld
be
> too many compromises to make it work well.
>

I saw a photograph of one on an old air trails or something. At least I
think it was a photo. I'll see if I can find it and post it somewhere.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 22nd 08, 05:17 AM

Found it. It's an old copy of Air World for sale on Ebay item #
270220832828

Looking more closely, I think it's a painting. Might even be the same one
you have.

Bertie

[email protected]

March 22nd 08, 01:27 PM

On Mar 21, 9:01*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:07:05 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> >>> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
> >> Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>
> >> 1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
> >> 2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
> >> of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>
> >> --
>
> > Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
> > values.
>
> Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
> by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
> in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
> example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
> Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
> near an airstrip.
>
> > Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
> > county (near Daytona Beach).
>
> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
> they are mathematical and historical facts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....

William Hung[_2_]

March 22nd 08, 03:16 PM

On Mar 17, 10:31*pm, "Highflyer" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in .com...> > wrote in
> :
>
> >> The Kitfox reminds me of the Coupe.
>
> Bunyip:
>
> > It's supposed to, the bump cowl and such. But it's nothing like it,
> > really. For one thing, the 'coupe wasn't built like lawn furniture.. And
> > a 'coupe with a two stroke? Shudder!
>
> > Bertie
>
> If you want to see a "modern" homebuilt version of the Monocoupe take a look
> at the "Mullicoupe" that were designed by Jim Younkin. *It looks like a
> "standoff" scale model of the clipwing Monocoupe with the Warner radial
> engine. *Actually it *is somewhat larger, being basically a two place
> version of Ike Howard's "Mr. Mulligan" racer, which later became the Howard
> series of airplanes. *Jim built a Mr. Mulligan replica which goes like
> blazes. *Bud Dake had a lovely Warner Monocoupe and wanted something a bit
> bigger. *Jim told me he used a lot of Howard in the Mullicoupe. *Bud told me
> that the pilot visibility in the Mullicoupe was a lot better than in the
> Monocoupe. *The Mullicoupe was powered by a 450 HP R-985 Pratt and Whitney
> so it had the power to get up an go. *It would cruise at well over 200 mph.
> I never got to fly it before Bud was killed in an unfortunate crash with his
> Monocoupe at St. Louis a few years ago.
>
> Highflyer

Thanks HF. I Googled "Mullicoupe". Beautiful is not adequet of a
word to describe the plane.

Wil

WJRFlyBoy

March 23rd 08, 12:47 AM

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>>> Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
>>> values.
>>
>> Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
>> by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
>> in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
>> example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
>> Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
>> near an airstrip.
>>
>>> Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
>>> county (near Daytona Beach).
>>
>> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
>> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
>> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
>> they are mathematical and historical facts.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
> leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
> itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....

Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
average).

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 24th 08, 01:19 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

>
> There is a real danger. If you care to deny the fact that there is a
> history of loss of life, physical destruction to property in airparks,
> then you had best opt out. I certainly have no more use to discuss this
> with you if you're position so flagrantly flies in the face of reality.

Have there been accidents at airparks? Sure, but it isn't like it
happens all that often.

The old saying that the bathroom is the most dangerous room in your
house isn't because it faces a landing strip.

[email protected]

March 24th 08, 02:05 PM

On Mar 22, 6:47*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >>> Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
> >>> values.
>
> >> Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
> >> by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
> >> in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
> >> example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
> >> Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
> >> near an airstrip.
>
> >>> Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
> >>> county (near Daytona Beach).
>
> >> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
> >> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
> >> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
> >> they are mathematical and historical facts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
> > leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
> > itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....
>
> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
> average).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence.... Is it unique
or not . ?????????

WJRFlyBoy

March 25th 08, 11:36 PM

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:05:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On Mar 22, 6:47*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>>>>> Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
>>>>> values.
>>
>>>> Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
>>>> by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
>>>> in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
>>>> example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
>>>> Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
>>>> near an airstrip.
>>
>>>>> Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
>>>>> county (near Daytona Beach).
>>
>>>> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
>>>> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
>>>> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
>>>> they are mathematical and historical facts.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
>>> leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
>>> itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....
>>
>> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
>> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
>> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
>> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
>> average).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence.... Is it unique
> or not . ?????????

Unique for Kansas, not unique for Florida. Do you see why?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

[email protected]

March 25th 08, 11:56 PM

On Mar 25, 5:36*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:05:54 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 6:47*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >>>>> Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
> >>>>> values.
>
> >>>> Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
> >>>> by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
> >>>> in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
> >>>> example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
> >>>> Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
> >>>> near an airstrip.
>
> >>>>> Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
> >>>>> county (near Daytona Beach).
>
> >>>> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
> >>>> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
> >>>> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
> >>>> they are mathematical and historical facts.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
> >>> leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
> >>> itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....
>
> >> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
> >> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
> >> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
> >> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
> >> average).- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence.... Is it unique
> > or not . ?????????
>
> Unique for Kansas, not unique for Florida. Do you see why?
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Beats hell out of me,,, I Live in Wyoming,,, not Kansas
.
P.S.. I was born and raised in Fla and you guys can have that god
forsaken state now. Se habla espanol ?????????

Ben

Margy Natalie

March 26th 08, 03:26 AM

Todd W. Deckard wrote:
> Many years ago I had a '170 based at the Waunakee Wisconsin airpark. I was
> coming in to land and a little
> fellow cuts towards the runway on his bike. As I overfly he drops it right
> on the centerline and bolts.
> Now there was enough runway left in the denominator and with careful
> attention to any more animal crossings I land and scoop up the offending
> bicycle.
>
> Pretty soon his lawyer shows up with some sort of explaination I cannot
> remember in an effort to get the bike back -- and I get a good chance to
> give the Airport Safety Lecture. I suggest that if he would like to sit in
> the plane and put the headphones on that is fine. Now the rest of The
> Little Rascals are hiding behind rocks and bushes nearby watching to see
> what happens. I suggest that if someone can produce a responsible parent
> there might be enough daylight for a ride or two. Eventually some parents
> are located and it is another chance to reinforce the airport safety lecture
> (and make sure bail was posted and a sentencing hearing was scheduled).
>
> One mom had been in the Navy which made her most qualified to interview hobo
> pilot and she asked various questions about my freshmen flying background
> (she even looked at my logbook). One or two of the kids got Young Eagles
> certificates. One of the others certainly learned his lesson as I can be
> sure Navy-Mom narced on him.
>
> I did give him his bike back.
> Todd
>
>
>
>
>
> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>I just read several airpark descriptions, many were relating the fact that
>>kids were riding their bicycles not only along the strip but across the
>>strips. Including 3 wheelers, etc.
>>--
>
>
>
Good for you!!! Turn an bratty kid into a learning experience! We had
our plane at a Dulles Days Plane Pull and went back to the plane to find
3 kids running up and down the wing (with mom looking on). Ron
retreated to the plane next door with the owner and said "she's going
into teacher mode". I had all three kids, sniffling but not crying and
promising NEVER to touch another airplane without the permission of the
owner and then they all got inside, with my supervision and learned
quite a lot. They had a great time, mom learned not to let her kids
touch stuff that wasn't theirs (maybe) and airplanes ruled the day!

Margy

Margy Natalie

March 26th 08, 03:29 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:07:05 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>
>>WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>>>Then there are trains and train tracks but two things differ.
>>>
>>>1) People, right or wrong, don't view the danger the same
>>>2) You can invest a potload of money into an airpark house and because
>>>of perceptions alone, your resale market gets smaller and smaller.
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>Utter nonsense! A GA airport does not negatively affect real estate
>>values.
>
>
> Never said that. I said the market for resale is significantly affected
> by perceptions which reduce the number of people who would be interested
> in purchasing in an airpark. I would particularly point to the Captiva
> example. it's an absolutely gorgeous place...with a limited market.
> Resales there take loads of time, one reason is the perception of living
> near an airstrip.
>
>
>>Here at Spruce Creek we have some of the highest-priced homes in the
>>county (near Daytona Beach).
>
>
> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
> they are mathematical and historical facts.
Duh, every "specialty" neighborhood poses a difficult time for resale.
I for one would NEVER buy a house in a golf community, but I'm building
in an aviation community. There are more golfers than pilots (sad, but
true) so the market isn't as limited, but pilots are more fun :-}!

Margy Natalie

March 26th 08, 03:31 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>>I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
>>leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
>>itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....
>
>
> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
> average).

Oh, even better, you can't get there from here! No wonder resales are
hard. I giggle.

Margy

cavelamb himself[_4_]

March 26th 08, 04:30 AM

Margy Natalie wrote:

>>
>> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
>> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
>> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
>> they are mathematical and historical facts.
>
> Duh, every "specialty" neighborhood poses a difficult time for resale. I
> for one would NEVER buy a house in a golf community, but I'm building in
> an aviation community. There are more golfers than pilots (sad, but
> true) so the market isn't as limited, but pilots are more fun :-}!

It will be great when i's done!

Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

It's never too late to be the person you might have been.
George Elliot

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 06:28 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>>>>> I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
>>>>> leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
>>>>> itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility.....
>>
>>>> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
>>>> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
>>>> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
>>>> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
>>>> average).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence.... Is it unique
>>> or not . ?????????
>>
>> Unique for Kansas, not unique for Florida. Do you see why?
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
>> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
>> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Beats hell out of me,,, I Live in Wyoming,,, not Kansas

There's a radical change in potential island living.

> P.S.. I was born and raised in Fla and you guys can have that god
> forsaken state now. Se habla espanol ?????????
>
> Ben

As I warm in 80 degree weather in the winter, and the flying days
restricted by weather are few and far between, I am happy to
teemendously my state and I thank you for the discarded gift.

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 08:15 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:31:19 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

>> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
>> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
>> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
>> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
>> average).
>
> Oh, even better, you can't get there from here! No wonder resales are
> hard. I giggle.
>
> Margy

lol

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 08:17 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:29:56 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:

>> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
>> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
>> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
>> they are mathematical and historical facts.

> Duh, every "specialty" neighborhood poses a difficult time for resale.

Not so.

> I for one would NEVER buy a house in a golf community, but I'm building
> in an aviation community. There are more golfers than pilots (sad, but
> true) so the market isn't as limited, but pilots are more fun :-}!

Depends on whether the Mile High Club or the On Green Association is
your preference.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

BobR

March 26th 08, 02:00 PM

On Mar 26, 1:28*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:56:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
> >>>>> I have not been to captiva in years but back then there was no bridge
> >>>>> leading to it. The only access was by aircraft or boat. That fact in
> >>>>> itself makes comparing captiva to anything else a act of futility......
>
> >>>> Still no (rebuilt) bridge but capable, full time shuttle, easy boat
> >>>> access, plane....Captiva isn't unique by a long shot for FL though. But
> >>>> few of the islands have their own airstrips which equates to a very
> >>>> unique living circumstance (as evidenced by the number of resales to
> >>>> average).- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Your first sentence contradicts your second sentence.... Is it unique
> >>> or not . ?????????
>
> >> Unique for Kansas, not unique for Florida. Do you see why?
> >> --
> >> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> >> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> >> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> >> might kill someone.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Beats hell out of me,,, I Live in Wyoming,,, not Kansas
>
> There's a radical change in potential island living.
>
> > P.S.. I was born and raised in Fla and you guys can have that god
> > forsaken state now. Se habla espanol ?????????
>
> > Ben
>
> As I warm in 80 degree weather in the winter, and the flying days
> restricted by weather are few and far between, I am happy to
> teemendously my state and I thank you for the discarded gift.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Too bad that you are just another self proclaimed wannabe pilot and
can't take advantage of those great flying days!

BobR

March 26th 08, 02:03 PM

On Mar 26, 3:17*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:29:56 -0400, Margy Natalie wrote:
> >> There are $10M homse on Captiva. The price of the home means nothing in
> >> terms of what I said, MOF, the higher the price of the home, including
> >> airstrip, further limits the resale market. These are not speculations,
> >> they are mathematical and historical facts.
> > Duh, every "specialty" neighborhood poses a difficult time for resale.
>
> Not so.
>
> > I for one would NEVER buy a house in a golf community, but I'm building
> > in an aviation community. *There are more golfers than pilots (sad, but
> > true) so the market isn't as limited, but pilots are more fun :-}!
>
> Depends on whether the Mile High Club or the On Green Association is
> your preference.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
> I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
> just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
> might kill someone.

Now who would want to live in one of those golf communities? Everyone
knows that it is very dangerous to live on a golf-coarse. One of
those errant hooks can come into your backyard, hit you on the head
and kill you.