Flaps on take-off and landing

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:47:02 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote in
:

Is $400,000 expensive for a house? In
some parts of the country, yes. In other areas, it would be so cheap you
would think something was seriously wrong with it.


Like this one:
http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/Home...3&lnksrc=00002

$839,000
2 Bed, 1 Bath
940 Sq. Ft.

Property Features
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Family Property
Area: East of State
County: Santa Barbara
Subdivision: 15 - Mission Canyon
Year Built: 1950
2 total bedroom(s)
1 total bath(s)
1 total full bath(s)
Approximately 940 sq. ft.
Heating features: Gas
Interior features: Dining area, Refrigerator, Wood flrs
Exterior features: Level lot, Storage/out-building(s)
Approximate lot is 60x99

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:

"Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house?

By a factor of ten or so, yes.

In some parts of the country, yes. In other areas, it would be so
cheap you would think something was seriously wrong with it.

I go by the construction cost, as opposed to the sale price. Most
homes priced at $400,000 don't cost $400,000 to build.


Does your construction cost figure in the cost of the land? How about the
carrying costs (interest either paid or lost opportunity), inspection
costs, and property taxes until the sale completes? Are the architects,
builder, and the subcontractors allowed to make any money, or do they just
supply their time and effort gratis?

There are areas in California where houses are sold in the $1,000,000 price
range and immediately torn down. Just the land is worth the purchase
price. The "construction" cost is the cost of the land + demolition cost +
building cost.

Do you have any idea what the 3 most important factors in determining the
market value of a house are? Hint: Construction cost is NOT one of them.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Mxsmanic,

"Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house?

By a factor of ten or so, yes.


Oh? Can you get me one of those 40,000-$-houses in your neighborhood in
Paris?


Gee, I'd sure like one of those $40,000 houses here in Palo Alto. I'll
even take a dozen! :-)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:




So what? Are these apartments only available for rent or are they sold
(such as a condominium or cooperative)? If they are sold, are they
available for $40,000 (31,472 Euro at the 4:30 PM EDT exchange rate)?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marc Adler" wrote:
I'm completely new to this, but it doesn't seem to me like owning is
such a great proposition if you're just a recreational flyer. Aside
from the cost of the plane itself (min. $50K, right?) you've got to pay
for maintenance, repairs, insurance, taxes, parking, etc., etc., etc.
The operating costs have got to pile up real fast. I don't know why a
recreational flyer would want to own. Plus, if you don't own, you can
fly lots of different planes.

As I say, though, I'm completely new to this, and this is an uninformed
opinion, so I welcome all responses.

You raise some valid points. It is costly to own, and understandable
that some people prefer to rent.

As for why any recreational owner would want to own:

- you can fly whenever you feel like it. You don't have to plan your
flights around when the airplane you rent is available, and don't have
to go through any inconvenience if you need to get the keys for a flight
when the office is closed, or return same.

- you can take it wherever you want for how ever long you want and not
have to be back by a pre-designated time or date. Suppose you go
somewhere and want to stay longer but somebody has the plane reserved
after you? I prefer not to have to punch a time clock when I fly.

- you can opt NOT to go without having to call, give a reason, and
cancel within a specified timeframe or be charged anyway.

- you are only governed by the currency regulations that the FAA
stipulates, not the ones stipulated by the insurance company or the FBO
where you rent. So you don't have to go rent when you wouldn't otherwise
just to avoid having to do another checkout.

- you can do your BFRs and some subsequent ratings in your own airplane.

- you can keep whatever you want in the airplane instead of having to
haul everything you use on every flight back and forth every time.

- you have complete control over routine *and* other maintenance. For
me, this is a biggie! I can choose the mechanic. I can oversee the work
(I have a hangar). I can even *help* with the work as much as the regs
allow. This has been a great source of education and understanding of my
airplane -- no way I'd ever have learned as much about the inner
workings of any airplane I've ever rented.

- you can choose to repair things the FBO isn't obligated to fix.

- you can make whatever changes to the airplane you want (within the
regs). If you want to paint it purple, it's your choice.

- you know whether your airplane is being flown by anyone else and how
they fly. You don't have to fly something that is being used for spin
training at a flight school!

- it's fun to have something to go clean, polish, fiddle with when you
can't fly.

Yes, it's expensive, but those things make it worth it to me, even as a
recreational pilot. You can still fly different things -- there's
nothing stopping anyone from renting different airplanes even if you own
something of your own.

Tell him congratulations for me.

Will he be giving lessons in the Extra 200? I might have to save a few bucks
up to try that baby.

mike

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:94wPg.1162$HZ5.257@trndny08...
"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my
tripacer.
I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost
too
good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was
used
to in my TP.

mike

Mike, in case you didn't know:

1) Billy sold the Decathlon and bought an Extra-200.

2) He got married last weekend.

Some of that depends on the panel the TP has. Mine doesn't have the hump in
the middle, so it's not really that bad.

mike

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...

The Tripacer, however, is notable for having terrible over the nose
visibility. I have to sit on a booster cushion to get anything like
adequate forward visibility in a Tripacer!

You'll tear the wings off of a normal category plane before you can do
either of those.

I guess you really don't have a clue, do you?

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Positive G's can make you pass out. Negative G's can cause
hemorrhages and strokes.

mike regish writes:

You'll tear the wings off of a normal category plane before you can do
either of those.

Normal categories of planes don't usually make the types of moves that
I dislike, at least if the pilot is competent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
It's not really based on Flight Simulator. It's based on a common
complaint I've heard from people who are contemplating a real pilot's
license.

Your statements cannot possibly be coming from people who have actual
information. I'm not going to waste time debating them with you, since I
don't really give a crap what you think. But you should not fool yourself
into thinking you have a clue about these things.

Obviously, a lot of people fly. 600,000+ in the US alone. Most people who
fly are NOT wealthy, nor are they particularly insensitive to risk. It's
quite alright for you to not be cut out for flying real airplanes, but it's
insulting and ignorant for you to go around implying that there's something
about *flying* that makes it hard or impossible for a normal person. The
reason flying isn't for you is firmly seated in your OWN personal
characteristics, not in something about flying itself.

You would do well to leave your personal attacks behind, and restrict
yourself to answering questions. There are plenty of people who
specialize in the former, and very few qualified to handle the latter.

You've got a pretty thin skin if you think I'm engaging in personal attacks.
I'm offering you useful advice. Take it or leave it.

Pete