Now that jet ownership is so inexpensive...

[gatt[_2_]]

From the article "Owning a Private Jet is Cheap" at
http://ezinearticles.com/?Owning-a-Private-Jet-is-Cheap&id=1007987 :


"Owning your own jet may not be as unrealistic as you may have thought.
There are now thousands of business executives, athletes, and celebrities
flying their own personal jets every day. The idea of having this personal
mode of transportation is no longer for just the billionaires and world
leaders.

.....A small jet that could carry 4-8 passengers would usually cost between
$3 to $4 million dollars about a decade ago, but now it could be yours for
roughly $1 million."


DUDE! I had no idea that for a measily million dollars I wouldn't have to
stand in line at the airport! I wonder how much I could get for my jeep,
my boat, my house, my retirement, my kidney... ...no, I probably need that
to pass the physical to fly the jet... What has the entire American
middle class and the other 98% of the world been THINKING, man? Jets are
CHEAP!

"Next time you are on a crowded plane and looking down at your small cup of
soda and the ridiculously small portion of old pretzels, just remember you
could be flying in style in your own relatively affordable jet."


Here's an even more reasonable idea: Buy half a million dollars of pretzels
and soda and use the other half million for air travel. That way, you'll
always have pretzels and soda.

-c

[Longworth[_1_]]

On Mar 13, 8:29*pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> ....A small jet that could carry 4-8 passengers would usually cost between
> $3 to $4 million dollars about a decade ago, but now it could be yours for
> roughly $1 million."

I looked up the latest number of millionaires in the US and found
9.2 millions of them. There are 1.16 millions household with networth
more than $5 million

http://tinyurl.com/2g6yge

For these households, a jet costing only one million is quite
affordable. Besides most likely many of them are business owners and
can easily write off most of the cost to business operating expenses.
Just ask Jay how it is done ;-)

One of my former flight instructors who was a retired college
professor but had nice consulting business bought a spanking new
Bonanza with all the gizmos for 0.64 millions two years ago. It was
before Bonanza lower the price to half a million or so.

I may be one of them jet owners someday when I finally break down
and spend a buck on a lottery ticket. Hey, you never know ;-)

Hai Longworth

[[email protected]]

On Mar 13, 5:29 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> From the article "Owning a Private Jet is Cheap" athttp://ezinearticles.com/?Owning-a-Private-Jet-is-Cheap&id=1007987:
>
> "Owning your own jet may not be as unrealistic as you may have thought.
> There are now thousands of business executives, athletes, and celebrities
> flying their own personal jets every day. The idea of having this personal
> mode of transportation is no longer for just the billionaires and world
> leaders.

The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
planes flying above me. There is already no room and too much noise
from those already up there!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On Mar 13, 5:29 pm, "gatt" > wrote:
>> From the article "Owning a Private Jet is Cheap"
>> athttp://ezinearticles.com/?Owning-a-Private-Jet-is-Cheap&id=1007987:
>>
>> "Owning your own jet may not be as unrealistic as you may have
>> thought. There are now thousands of business executives, athletes,
>> and celebrities flying their own personal jets every day. The idea of
>> having this personal mode of transportation is no longer for just the
>> billionaires and world leaders.
>
> The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
> Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
> planes flying above me.


100% booked?
Really?

I had no idea that was required.


There is already no room and too much noise
> from those already up there!

Nah, you never heard a real airpane fly obviously. Can't have too much
airplane noise.


bertie

[Steve Foley]

> wrote in message
...

> The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
> Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
> planes flying above me. There is already no room and too much noise
> from those already up there!

I wanna move there!!!!

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Steve Foley" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
> > Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
> > planes flying above me. There is already no room and too much noise
> > from those already up there!
>
> I wanna move there!!!!

Sounds pretty good to me, too.

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Mar 13, 8:29*pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> From the article "Owning a Private Jet is Cheap" *athttp://ezinearticles..com/?Owning-a-Private-Jet-is-Cheap&id=1007987:
>
> "Owning your own jet may not be as unrealistic as you may have thought.
> There are now thousands of business executives, athletes, and celebrities
> flying their own personal jets every day. The idea of having this personal
> mode of transportation is no longer for just the billionaires and world
> leaders.
>
> ....A small jet that could carry 4-8 passengers would usually cost between
> $3 to $4 million dollars about a decade ago, but now it could be yours for
> roughly $1 million."
>
> DUDE! *I had no idea that for a measily million dollars I wouldn't have to
> stand in line at the airport! * * I wonder how much I could get for my jeep,
> my boat, my house, my retirement, my kidney... *...no, I probably need that
> to pass the physical to fly the jet... * * * * What has the entire American
> middle class and the other 98% of the world been THINKING, man? *Jets are
> CHEAP!
>
> "Next time you are on a crowded plane and looking down at your small cup of
> soda and the ridiculously small portion of old pretzels, just remember you
> could be flying in style in your own relatively affordable jet."
>
> Here's an even more reasonable idea: *Buy half a million dollars of pretzels
> and soda and use the other half million for air travel. *That way, you'll
> always have pretzels and soda.
>
> -c

I've seen used Leers going for less than some piston singles. Know
what you mean though.

Wil

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:40:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hung wrote:

> I've seen used Leers going for less than some piston singles. Know
> what you mean though.
>
> Wil

Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?
--
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.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:40:09 -0700 (PDT), William Hung wrote:
>
>> I've seen used Leers going for less than some piston singles. Know
>> what you mean though.
>>
>> Wil
>
> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?

It already has crossed, at least in terms of the Eclipse - not no much so
for other models.

[Dallas]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:03:01 -0400, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?

Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
ya go.
--
Dallas

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:28:16 -0500, Dallas wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:03:01 -0400, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
>> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?

> It already has crossed, at least in terms of the Eclipse - not no much so
> for other models.


> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
> ya go.

I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)
--
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.

[es330td]

On Mar 13, 8:29*pm, "gatt" > wrote:
> From the article "Owning a Private Jet is Cheap" *athttp://ezinearticles..com/?Owning-a-Private-Jet-is-Cheap&id=1007987:
>
> "Owning your own jet may not be as unrealistic as you may have thought.
> There are now thousands of business executives, athletes, and celebrities
> flying their own personal jets every day. The idea of having this personal
> mode of transportation is no longer for just the billionaires and world
> leaders.
>
> ....A small jet that could carry 4-8 passengers would usually cost between
> $3 to $4 million dollars about a decade ago, but now it could be yours for
> roughly $1 million."
>
> DUDE! *I had no idea that for a measily million dollars I wouldn't have to
> stand in line at the airport! * * I wonder how much I could get for my jeep,
> my boat, my house, my retirement, my kidney... *...no, I probably need that
> to pass the physical to fly the jet... * * * * What has the entire American
> middle class and the other 98% of the world been THINKING, man? *Jets are
> CHEAP!
>
> "Next time you are on a crowded plane and looking down at your small cup of
> soda and the ridiculously small portion of old pretzels, just remember you
> could be flying in style in your own relatively affordable jet."
>
> Here's an even more reasonable idea: *Buy half a million dollars of pretzels
> and soda and use the other half million for air travel. *That way, you'll
> always have pretzels and soda.
>
> -c

I hope all these people like being flown around because there is no
way the insurance companies are going to let these people fly their
own planes.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:12:31 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:28:16 -0500, Dallas wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:03:01 -0400, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>>> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
>>> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?
>
>> It already has crossed, at least in terms of the Eclipse - not no much so
>> for other models.
>
>
>> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
>> ya go.
>
>I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
>training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)

It's not a jet, but still turbine powered and about twice the cost of
some VLJs but...When I was looking at a TBM-700 insurance was $25,000
a year, At the time I was instrument rated with a tad over a 1000
hours, but no turbine time. The VLJs are a little faster, but as I
recall, not a great deal.

Insurance requirements we 200 hours dual after the two week company
training course and recurrency training twice a year.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:49:08 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:12:31 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:28:16 -0500, Dallas wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:03:01 -0400, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
>>>> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?
>>
>>> It already has crossed, at least in terms of the Eclipse - not no much so
>>> for other models.
>>
>>
>>> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
>>> ya go.
>>
>>I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
>>training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)
>
>It's not a jet, but still turbine powered and about twice the cost of
>some VLJs but...When I was looking at a TBM-700 insurance was $25,000
>a year, At the time I was instrument rated with a tad over a 1000
>hours, but no turbine time. The VLJs are a little faster, but as I
>recall, not a great deal.
>
>Insurance requirements we 200 hours dual after the two week company
>training course and recurrency training twice a year.

200 hours dual? Wow. I'd find a new agent who can negotiate with the
insurance companies, I would have expected 50 or less for 1000 TT.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:21:32 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:49:08 -0400, Roger >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:12:31 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:28:16 -0500, Dallas wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:03:01 -0400, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
>>>>> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?
>>>
>>>> It already has crossed, at least in terms of the Eclipse - not no much so
>>>> for other models.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
>>>> ya go.
>>>
>>>I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
>>>training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)
>>
>>It's not a jet, but still turbine powered and about twice the cost of
>>some VLJs but...When I was looking at a TBM-700 insurance was $25,000
>>a year, At the time I was instrument rated with a tad over a 1000
>>hours, but no turbine time. The VLJs are a little faster, but as I
>>recall, not a great deal.
>>
>>Insurance requirements we 200 hours dual after the two week company
>>training course and recurrency training twice a year.
>
>200 hours dual? Wow. I'd find a new agent who can negotiate with the
>insurance companies, I would have expected 50 or less for 1000 TT.

Zero turbine time, zero flight level time, and at about half the
speed. When figured on insurance per aircraft dollar that was cheap.
Most SEL owners are probably paying about 2 1/2 times that ratio.

I cold have cut the time down for higher rates. If you gotta spend
the money you might as well get some good training out of it. Today
with less than 1000 TT but all in high performance, complex, retract
you'd be lucky to pay twice that IF you could get insurance at all.
Stop and think of the new hull value.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:27:49 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:21:32 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:49:08 -0400, Roger >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:12:31 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:28:16 -0500, Dallas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:03:01 -0400, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Which begs the economic question when does the VLJ (lite versions coming
>>>>>> ~ Eclipse ECJ) cross the expense analysis with a high end twin?
>>>>
>>>>> It already has crossed, at least in terms of the Eclipse - not no much so
>>>>> for other models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
>>>>> ya go.
>>>>
>>>>I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
>>>>training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)
>>>
>>>It's not a jet, but still turbine powered and about twice the cost of
>>>some VLJs but...When I was looking at a TBM-700 insurance was $25,000
>>>a year, At the time I was instrument rated with a tad over a 1000
>>>hours, but no turbine time. The VLJs are a little faster, but as I
>>>recall, not a great deal.
>>>
>>>Insurance requirements we 200 hours dual after the two week company
>>>training course and recurrency training twice a year.
>>
>>200 hours dual? Wow. I'd find a new agent who can negotiate with the
>>insurance companies, I would have expected 50 or less for 1000 TT.
>
>Zero turbine time, zero flight level time, and at about half the
>speed. When figured on insurance per aircraft dollar that was cheap.
>Most SEL owners are probably paying about 2 1/2 times that ratio.
>
>I cold have cut the time down for higher rates. If you gotta spend
>the money you might as well get some good training out of it. Today
>with less than 1000 TT but all in high performance, complex, retract
>you'd be lucky to pay twice that IF you could get insurance at all.
>Stop and think of the new hull value.
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

Well, I have similar numbers and have Malibu time, but wasn't anywhere
near 200 hours for transitioning into the Malibu, and was quoted just
over 12% of your transition time for getting from there into a
Meridian. Obviously each case is different but 200 hours seems
somewhat high to me. The pricing and recurrant training wasn't what
shocked me, just the transition time.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:27:49 -0400, Roger wrote:

>>>>> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
>>>>> ya go.
>>>>
>>>>I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
>>>>training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)
>>>
>>>It's not a jet, but still turbine powered and about twice the cost of
>>>some VLJs but...When I was looking at a TBM-700 insurance was $25,000
>>>a year, At the time I was instrument rated with a tad over a 1000
>>>hours, but no turbine time. The VLJs are a little faster, but as I
>>>recall, not a great deal.
>>>
>>>Insurance requirements we 200 hours dual after the two week company
>>>training course and recurrency training twice a year.
>>
>>200 hours dual? Wow. I'd find a new agent who can negotiate with the
>>insurance companies, I would have expected 50 or less for 1000 TT.
>
> Zero turbine time, zero flight level time, and at about half the
> speed. When figured on insurance per aircraft dollar that was cheap.
> Most SEL owners are probably paying about 2 1/2 times that ratio.
>
> I cold have cut the time down for higher rates. If you gotta spend
> the money you might as well get some good training out of it. Today
> with less than 1000 TT but all in high performance, complex, retract
> you'd be lucky to pay twice that IF you could get insurance at all.
> Stop and think of the new hull value.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)

Is there any reductions in premium cost during the policy term as flight
hours accumulate in a particular type (of VLJ)?
--
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.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:55:35 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:


>
>Well, I have similar numbers and have Malibu time, but wasn't anywhere
>near 200 hours for transitioning into the Malibu, and was quoted just
>over 12% of your transition time for getting from there into a
>Meridian. Obviously each case is different but 200 hours seems
>somewhat high to me. The pricing and recurrant training wasn't what
>shocked me, just the transition time.

Malibu turboprop versio? Even then the Mirage is less than half the
price of the TBM-700 (now the 850) which has a cruise over 300 knots.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:06:24 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:27:49 -0400, Roger wrote:
>
>>>>>> Last time I looked, a Baron 58 would set you back $1.2 million... so there
>>>>>> ya go.
>>>>>
>>>>>I was thinking more than the simple acquisition costs (additional pilot
>>>>>training, maintenace, fuel, insurances)
>>>>
>>>>It's not a jet, but still turbine powered and about twice the cost of
>>>>some VLJs but...When I was looking at a TBM-700 insurance was $25,000
>>>>a year, At the time I was instrument rated with a tad over a 1000
>>>>hours, but no turbine time. The VLJs are a little faster, but as I
>>>>recall, not a great deal.
>>>>
>>>>Insurance requirements we 200 hours dual after the two week company
>>>>training course and recurrency training twice a year.
>>>
>>>200 hours dual? Wow. I'd find a new agent who can negotiate with the
>>>insurance companies, I would have expected 50 or less for 1000 TT.
>>
>> Zero turbine time, zero flight level time, and at about half the
>> speed. When figured on insurance per aircraft dollar that was cheap.
>> Most SEL owners are probably paying about 2 1/2 times that ratio.
>>
>> I cold have cut the time down for higher rates. If you gotta spend
>> the money you might as well get some good training out of it. Today
>> with less than 1000 TT but all in high performance, complex, retract
>> you'd be lucky to pay twice that IF you could get insurance at all.
>> Stop and think of the new hull value.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>
>Is there any reductions in premium cost during the policy term as flight
>hours accumulate in a particular type (of VLJ)?

I don't know of any policy where the premium is reduced during the
term, but most are reduced at renewal when specific minimums are
reached. On mine the numbers change for 600 hours high performance
retract, and some where around there for total time. Both run about
15% while the instrument rating is good for 5% For someone to fly the
Deb who is not a named pilot now requires 700 high performance,
complex, retract, 1000 TT, 20 or 25 make and model, and an instrument
rating. I don't remember the number but consistent recurrency
training also is good for a discount. Although the numbers would be
different I'd expect the same sort of arrangement with the VLJs and
turboprops. "I'd guess" 1200 hours TT and maybe 600 (give or take)
for turbine time. There's even the possibility for requiring the
commercial rating.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:46:32 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:55:35 -0400, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Well, I have similar numbers and have Malibu time, but wasn't anywhere
>>near 200 hours for transitioning into the Malibu, and was quoted just
>>over 12% of your transition time for getting from there into a
>>Meridian. Obviously each case is different but 200 hours seems
>>somewhat high to me. The pricing and recurrant training wasn't what
>>shocked me, just the transition time.
>
>Malibu turboprop versio? Even then the Mirage is less than half the
>price of the TBM-700 (now the 850) which has a cruise over 300 knots.

Yea, the PT6 Malibu (with some other changes). Again, the price of
the insurance wasn't what surprised me, and the Meridian has a book
260TAS cruise (most appear to set power to cruise at 250TAS). Hull is
rarely the most expensive part of a policy anyway.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:55:22 -0400, Roger wrote:

> I don't know of any policy where the premium is reduced during the
> term, but most are reduced at renewal when specific minimums are
> reached. On mine the numbers change for 600 hours high performance
> retract, and some where around there for total time. Both run about
> 15% while the instrument rating is good for 5% For someone to fly the
> Deb who is not a named pilot now requires 700 high performance,
> complex, retract, 1000 TT, 20 or 25 make and model, and an instrument
> rating. I don't remember the number but consistent recurrency
> training also is good for a discount. Although the numbers would be
> different I'd expect the same sort of arrangement with the VLJs and
> turboprops. "I'd guess" 1200 hours TT and maybe 600 (give or take)
> for turbine time. There's even the possibility for requiring the
> commercial rating.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)

Thx, I'm 56, premiums go up in all or most classes as age increases?
Seems to be what I am getting in feedback.

[gatt[_3_]]

wrote:

> The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
> Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
> planes flying above me. There is already no room and too much noise
> from those already up there!

That's the sound of freedom and prosperity.

-c

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
>> Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
>> planes flying above me. There is already no room and too much noise
>> from those already up there!
>
> That's the sound of freedom and prosperity.

Where in hell does this guy live? GA flying is almost non-existent over
95% of America.

Must live under the approach end of a busy commercial airport...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:O7qNj.122862$yE1.57647@attbi_s21:

>>> The last thing anyone needs is everybody buying their own plane.
>>> Where I live, the skies are 100% booked each weekend with private
>>> planes flying above me. There is already no room and too much noise
>>> from those already up there!
>>
>> That's the sound of freedom and prosperity.
>
> Where in hell does this guy live? GA flying is almost non-existent
> over 95% of America.

God you're an idiot.


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:50:54 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>
>Where in hell does this guy live? GA flying is almost non-existent over
>95% of America.

I live in the 5%, here in Central CT.

At any given time on a nice day, I can see at least (3) single engine
aircraft in flight, and often one bizjet.

I live 15 miles from the nearest airport, but there are (5) paved and
one grass strip inside of 25 miles, and a total of (8) within 35.

My house is on the north end of a practice area used by many schools.
I can watch stalls and steep turns from my deck.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:01:39 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:

> I live in the 5%, here in Central CT.

Lucky!

I live under a frequent departure route for TEB. If I was one of those
that got a kick out of IDing those, I'd be quite happy. But jets are
jets to me.

The occasional light GA plane passing by gets a lot more attention.

Well, at least my attention. I'm a little worried that my kids are still
enjoying the jet traffic. <Sigh>

- Andrew

[Jim Logajan]

B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:50:54 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Where in hell does this guy live? GA flying is almost non-existent
>>over 95% of America.
>
> I live in the 5%, here in Central CT.
>
> At any given time on a nice day, I can see at least (3) single engine
> aircraft in flight, and often one bizjet.
>
> I live 15 miles from the nearest airport, but there are (5) paved and
> one grass strip inside of 25 miles, and a total of (8) within 35.
>
> My house is on the north end of a practice area used by many schools.
> I can watch stalls and steep turns from my deck.

I must live in that same 5% too - here in rural Oregon. According to Google
Earth, within 15 miles of where I live there are:

3 private grass airstrips (OR57, 82OR, and 36OR),
2 public airports (77S and 61S), and ...
6 alleged bigfoot "sightings" (I accidently had "Geographic Web" -> "Google
Earth Community" checked and it displayed sighting points. Thought it would
be amusing to list the count.)

And within 35 miles:

14 private grass airstrips(!) (too many too list),
4 public airports (77S, 61S, KEUG, and 5S0), and ...
too many alleged bigfoot sightings to list.

When we get a day of nice weather after a long spell of lousy weather (like
today) we almost always get someone doing aerobatics in our area (from out
of 77S).

[gatt[_3_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> I must live in that same 5% too - here in rural Oregon. According to Google
> Earth, within 15 miles of where I live there are:
>
> 3 private grass airstrips (OR57, 82OR, and 36OR),
> 2 public airports (77S and 61S), and ...
> 6 alleged bigfoot "sightings" (

*cackle*

One time we had a Hollywood film crew using our house for a photo shoot
(and episode of "Nowhere Man".) We own a tree farm in Corbett, so
leaving the door open lets field mice in. I put a sign on the door
telling them to leave it shut because we're in "Bigfoot Country."

Bruce Greenwood is from Canada so he liked the joke, but, some of those
L.A. people seemed really concerned. (And I'm sure a couple thought we
were bat**** crazy. That's fine.)

Right now I live in Gresham between PDX 28L and 28R and the Happy Valley
Arrival for TTD 07. Love it. The F-15s can be obnoxious in the summer
because they drop their gear and pitch up right as they're passing
overhead, and that'll rattle your fillings in the morning.

-c

[B A R R Y]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:15:12 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:01:39 +0000, B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> I live in the 5%, here in Central CT.
>
>Lucky!
>
>I live under a frequent departure route for TEB. If I was one of those
>that got a kick out of IDing those, I'd be quite happy. But jets are
>jets to me.

Watch for King Airs and Caravans! <G>