Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

"WJRFlyBoy" <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote in message
news:hfn7n6njz0jv$.p7mut6zbihbb$.dlg@40tude.net...

> 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

Highflyer wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrgiacona@REMOVE> wrote in message
> news:13tgk6hn06roob8@news.supernews.com...
>> 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.

In article <1bio5hthpitjo$.1tzhqdp3nwbdu.dlg@40tude.net>,
WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:57:02 -0500, Highflyer wrote:
>
> > "WJRFlyBoy" <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote in message
> > news:hfn7n6njz0jv$.p7mut6zbihbb$.dlg@40tude.net...
> >
> >> 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.

On Mar 14, 1:45 pm, WJRFlyBoy <994wjrfly...@geemail.com726> 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 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?

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.

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

WJRFlyBoy <994wjrflyboy@geemail.com726> wrote in
news:1rbjk14e88f4m$.1r21o5f2n4cfw.dlg@40tude.net:

> 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

"Bertie the Bunyip" <AA@AA.AA> wrote in message
news:frhagd$122$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
> William Hung <hung.w@aircav.com> wrote in
> news:e6bf7b9d-1dc6-4bfa-93af-c71ecb77c34c@u69g2000hse..com:
>
>> 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

"cavelamb himself" <cavelamb@X> wrote in message
news:13tjbr1bdf7lod7@corp.supernews.com...
>
> 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