Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 00:30:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from echo.voice.rackshack.net ([216.40.198.12] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b1) with ESMTP id 1231039 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 06 May 2002 16:49:32 -0400 Received: from fsc (user161.sarofim.com [208.255.59.161]) by echo.voice.rackshack.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g46L0BS14365 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 16:00:11 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Don Parsons" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Flying ES's X-Original-Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 15:50:47 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Actually... that is 24 that were registered with the model name "Lancair ES". I'm pretty sure that is an incomplete list. There is a fair amount of variation in how Model Name can be recorded for experimental aircraft registration. For example, not only are some recorded as a "Lancair ES", some are recorded in the database as "Super ES", "Lancair Super ES", "Lancair"... "ES", and other possibilities. They don't even have to include "Lancair" and/or "ES" in the model name. There are a few flying ES's that I know of (one that I have ridden in) that did not appear in that list. I am pretty sure they were registered with some other model name variation that did not get picked up with the "Lancair ES" search criteria. There also is at least one that I see has been included in the list that is still at least 8 months away from completion. BTW... Steve is being modest. His 320 is pretty nice too. If his is the one I saw this last weekend when I was at Lon's hanger. He can be pretty proud too. :-) Don Parsons ES-166-FB