Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

"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.)

"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.)

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...

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.

"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)

"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...

"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 ;-)

"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

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/imag...0Special-1.jpg
Coupe

Wil

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