8:00 AM - 12:00 PMCoffee, juice, sausage and all-you-can-eat pancakes are a great way to start your Sunday morning! Join us from 8am-12pm and alongside breakfast will be hot rods, antique cars, and aviation displays. Plus, bring the kids for FREE introductory airplane rides for kids and more!
This event has passed.
There are currently no future events scheduled at this location.
Shreya - 6/20/2012
- Great job Tim! Each time I look at your work I realize that there's so much more to learn. It's alawys like a breath of fresh air for me (yes, I stole your expression and keep using on special occasions :P), thank you for making me push myself harder.The whole shoot looks very solid, the color tones are so nice and warm. I love the shot with the sun flare peeking through the stairs and a little bit of the tilt shift lens effect. There's something about the very last image that makes it so real and um lasting. PS Your comment about the photo with a purse made me smile. :)June 13, 2011 9:48 pm
Moldir - 6/20/2012
Lisa - I don't know if you realized you cutapred some of the really big names in fashion such as Anna Wintour sitting in the front row. She's the one in the big round dark sunglasses; you can see her clearly in your shot of Michael Kors and also in a couple others. Pretty much every person in the front row of that show was some big name in fashion. Nicely done, Tim!December 9, 2011 2:42 pm
Mhde - 7/27/2012
You continue to amaze us! Alan and I will be doing our best to holufelpy join you a couple of times this year, work schedules allowing. The trailer looks awesome! Sorry we won't make the first game to help break it in, but look forward to celebrating with everyone soon.War Eagle!
Auth - 7/27/2012
- ps: these are amazing, per usual. (I tried to abrteviabe that, doesn't have the same effect in writing. Rather confusing, really). But in all seriousness, awesomeness. Especially the one of the crowd with the one chick looking at you. and smiling. because who can't when they look at you? AWWWWW. I'm so sweet.December 11, 2011 1:42 pm
Sayead - 7/27/2012
- fabulous post. manikg me hungry! You are well on your jet setting way! Ran into a few folks from San Diego while in Miami, am always throwing out your name, You should get with my friend Tim King! :)June 6, 2011 9:08 am
seo service - 9/7/2013
Z1vQPX Very neat article.Really thank you! Much obliged.
online business - 9/12/2013
25EsYN Muchos Gracias for your blog.Much thanks again.
awesome link building - 9/24/2013
2ITN6N Major thankies for the blog post.Really thank you! Really Great.
Lourdes - 10/12/2013
With all respect: Thousands of psoitn engine/airframe combinations are approved under various STC to operate on auto fuel. 20 years ago a review of the FAA registry showed that 70% of all psoitn engine aircraft could operate on 91AKI autogas. Today that percentage is likely higher given the decline in use of 100LL burning twins, 33,000 homebuilts that all may in principle use it, a growing number of LSAs that can essentially all use it, and the continued transition of high-performance singles and twins to turbines. First, the majority of all avgas used cannot be replaced by auto fuel for performance reasons. I know of no one who has ever suggested that this should happen. Many FBOs have added Jet-A in recent years, but I doubt many expect their autogas & avgas customers to start using Jet-A. Somehow these FBOs managed to find the funds to afford a Jet-A system, just as they can find the funds for a modest autogas system if the will is there. And, second, after decades of approved use of auto fuel in some airplanes the fuel has not become available except at a few FBOs. But for decades 100LL and autogas were similar in price, we had many more 100LL refiners than today, there were more large consumers of 100LL than today, and environmental concerns over 100LL were essentially non-existent. Times have changed, which is why essentially all new aviation psoitn engines these days, even those from Continental and Lycoming, are TCd to operate on autogas. In many parts of the world, 100LL has essentially disappeared. Can we afford to wait for this to happen in the US?Note too that in the past year there has been a slight increase in the number of FBOs offering autogas while the number selling 100LL continues a decline begun years ago. So, nothing will change for auto fuel users when a replacement for 100ll is identified and eventually manufactured. And why should it? I do not understand this statement. Autogas supporters want more options not fewer. In our opinion, FBO should offer whatever the market will bear, including Jet-A, autogas, 100LL, 94UL, etc.BTW leading members of the UAR-ARC admitted at their December 2011 meeting that a drop-in replacement for 100LL now looks highly unlikely. After 20 years of research, the fuel industry has failed to produce this, what gives anyone hope that this will change? In the meantime, 100LL consumption has dropped by more than 50%, making this an highly unattractive market for anyone to enter. But for those who have engine/airframe combinations that need a different performance from fuel the replacement for 100ll will need to be widely available, and will be the only psoitn fuel stocked and delivered by most FBOs. Why? Many FBOs already sell a second fuel, Jet-A, but not all do. There are also FBOs who sell only autogas. Why must we dictate to a free market that it can not have more than one fuel for psoitn engine aircraft? The infrastructure that exists to produce and ship autogas is immense compared to 100LL. We have some 110,000 gas stations in the US compared to a paltry 3600 airports (from AirNav). We pump autogas through pipelines all across the US, but avgas has to be shipped in trucks so it does no pollute our gasoline supply with lead. There are perhaps now fewer than 6 refineries making 100LL, and they are all west of the Mississippi. Trucks that supply three grades of gas and diesel to every gas station in the most remote locations of the country all pass near our airports already. We do not need a separate supply chain for autogas, just a place to store it at airports. Since fuel sales generate profits, the cost of adding a fuel system is quickly amortized. The work of EAA and all other members of the fuel replacement study committee does not in any way change the availability of auto fuel, or limit the ability for those with approvals to use it. Sure it does. The EAA is part of the group that wants to dictate a one-size-fits-all, hyper-expensive, overly-octaned, drop-in replacement for 100LL that is not needed by the vast majority of SPORT AVIATORS, the people that make up the EAA. Instead, the EAA should be loudly supporting more options, pressuring Congress to preserve a supply of ethanol-free premium fuel, and working harder to dispel the myths surrounding autogas. Given that the EAA obtained the first autogas STC 30 years ago, one would expect the EAA to defend it more. Instead, the EAA appears to be doing the bidding of the AOPA, NATA, and GAMA, whose primary customers are anything but sport aviators. Let them solve their own problems and please focus on the reason the EAA exists, to help people build and fly airplanes for fun. But auto gas just isn’t the acceptable replacement for the aircraft that burn the biggest volume of avgas. I have yet to see any hard proof of the 70/30 number that has been claimed by many for years. From friends I know running FBOs, the number is likely more 50/50, but this is highly dependent on the airport since GA is a hugely diverse community. Remember too that 100 times more Jet-A is sold annually than 100LL; most FBOs who sell Jet-A make their money from it and not 100LL.Note too that airports make money from sources other than fuel sales. The vast majority of T-hangars are occupied by airplanes that could operate on autogas. They also make up the bulk of business at maintenance shops. All airplane owners also pay for insurance. It's not only about fuel revenue.Most high-performance singles and twins could potentially operate on cheaper 91 AKI autogas with the Petersen/AirPlains ADI water injection system. STCs for Barons and C-210s already exist. Autogas has so many benefits it lowers the cost of flying, is produced in vast volumes compared to our boutique aviation fuels, has no lead-related maintenance issues, it's the targeted fuel for all new engines and all LSA engines, it is the best answer to concerns over lead in the environment, and relieves us of the need to devise/test/produce/ship yet another boutique fuel. If we ever hope to reduce the cost of flying, we must tap into large volume production from other industries. Autogas is the best possible example of this, and it solves the problem with lead at the same time. It is not for everyone, yet, but new electronic controls on new engines and ADI water injection on others could make it the best option for all aircraft. I am sure to that FBOs would love to rid themselves of the lead problem and sell a more conventional fuel.
check out these guys! - 10/16/2013
dpMb8C Muchos Gracias for your article post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
link building team - 10/16/2013
lMDGQy Great post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on...
link building - 10/26/2013
k1GMx3 Im thankful for the article post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.
link building - 11/2/2013
LJj33d A round of applause for your blog post.Much thanks again. Great.