A Cirrus? You gotta be kidding me.

I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
becoming AOPA. I guess it pays better or something. When was the last
warbird article in Sport Aviation? OK, how 'bout the last restoration of an
antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a bunch of checks).

Very disappointing.

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> A Cirrus? You gotta be kidding me.

Well it is the grand prize in their sweepstakes, so I didn't have a problem
with it. At least the pedigree of the company has its roots in experimental
aviation (at least I think they do).

> I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
> becoming AOPA. I guess it pays better or something. When was the
> last warbird article in Sport Aviation? OK, how 'bout the last
> restoration of an antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a
> bunch of checks).
>
> Very disappointing.

According to its name and history, I would have expected EAA to put out a
magazine with exactly the content and focus that Kitplanes magazine has. In
fact I subcribed to Kitplanes long before I decided to join EAA (just two
years ago). The EAA magazines are indeed a disappointment.

But so long as they maintain a policy of advocacy and support for
homebuilders then I'm willing to stay a member.

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
>> A Cirrus? You gotta be kidding me.
>
> Well it is the grand prize in their sweepstakes, so I didn't have a
> problem
> with it. At least the pedigree of the company has its roots in
> experimental
> aviation (at least I think they do).
>
>> I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
>> becoming AOPA. I guess it pays better or something. When was the
>> last warbird article in Sport Aviation? OK, how 'bout the last
>> restoration of an antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a
>> bunch of checks).
>>
>> Very disappointing.
>
> According to its name and history, I would have expected EAA to put out a
> magazine with exactly the content and focus that Kitplanes magazine has.
> In
> fact I subcribed to Kitplanes long before I decided to join EAA (just two
> years ago). The EAA magazines are indeed a disappointment.
>
> But so long as they maintain a policy of advocacy and support for
> homebuilders then I'm willing to stay a member.

How many of you have taken the time to send an e-mail to EAA expressing your
displeasure? It would help if every time you see things you don't like that
you let them know. As a magazine publisher, we really need the feedback to
keep the magazine aimed at our subscribers. That said, I also wonder about
EAAs magazine policy. I sent them an e-mail criticizing Tom's corner when
it was called the Homebuilder's Corner and he never said one word about home
building. The answer I got back was that it had always been called that and
it would probably not change. Well it has changed.
I certainly agree that the EAA magazine doesn't even come close to Kitplanes
for content that I'm interested in but EAA does lobby Congress in my behalf,
so I'll keep my membership a little longer. I just wish that EAA would
produce a magazine dedicated to Experimental Aviation.

On Feb 27, 8:57 am, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote:
>
> How many of you have taken the time to send an e-mail to EAA expressing your
> displeasure?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When doing so I suggest you use real mail, typed on your letterhead if
you have one. Then send a copy to your local chapter.

-R.S.Hoover

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I certainly agree that the EAA magazine doesn't even come close to Kitplanes
> for content that I'm interested in but EAA does lobby Congress in my behalf,
> so I'll keep my membership a little longer. I just wish that EAA would
> produce a magazine dedicated to Experimental Aviation.

Like it or not, the EAA magazine is aimed at EAA members in general, not
homebuilders in particular.

I wonder what percentage of EAA members are actually homebuilders? I will
bet that it is a great minority. To be honest, I am a member that does not ever
see himself actually building an airplane. In fact, the first several years
that I was a member, I was not even a pilot.

I am a member of EAA for several good reasons, and I think it is a good
(not perfect) organization that is important to us small guys in aviation,
(homebuilder or not) particularly those of us who might fly Experimental ships.
I am also a member of AOPA, & the SSA. I would rate the EAA magazine higher
than either of those other organizations's publications, though the AOPA rag
seems to have improved in recent years.

Vaughn

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> A Cirrus? You gotta be kidding me.
>
> I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
> becoming AOPA. I guess it pays better or something. When was the last
> warbird article in Sport Aviation? OK, how 'bout the last restoration
> of an antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a bunch of checks).
>
> Very disappointing.

Yes, I dropped my EAA membership many moons ago for just this reason.
It seemed like they were more like AOPA Pilot and Flying every issue. I
kept Kitplanes...

Matt

Whoa! How about JUST experimentals in Sport Av? Warbirds and
Antique/Classics have their own publications from EAA...

Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)



Kyle Boatright wrote:
> A Cirrus? You gotta be kidding me.
>
> I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
> becoming AOPA. I guess it pays better or something. When was the last
> warbird article in Sport Aviation? OK, how 'bout the last restoration
> of an antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a bunch of checks).
>
> Very disappointing.

--

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
> Like it or not, the EAA magazine is aimed at EAA members in general, not
> homebuilders in particular.
>
> I wonder what percentage of EAA members are actually homebuilders? I
> will bet that it is a great minority. To be honest, I am a member that
> does not ever see himself actually building an airplane. In fact, the
> first several years that I was a member, I was not even a pilot.
>
> I am a member of EAA for several good reasons, and I think it is a
> good (not perfect) organization that is important to us small guys in
> aviation, (homebuilder or not) particularly those of us who might fly
> Experimental ships. I am also a member of AOPA, & the SSA. I would rate
> the EAA magazine higher than either of those other organizations's
> publications, though the AOPA rag seems to have improved in recent years.
>

Vaughn,

Like you, I am a member of all three organizations and concur with your
assessment. I would rate "Soaring" at the bottom of the quality list.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

On Feb 27, 3:50*pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in messagenews:q4adnW7skPAdC1janZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@iwvis p.com...
>
>
>
> > I certainly agree that the EAA magazine doesn't even come close to Kitplanes
> > for content that I'm interested in but EAA does lobby Congress in my behalf,
> > so I'll keep my membership a little longer. *I just wish that EAA would
> > produce a magazine dedicated to Experimental Aviation.
>
> * *Like it or not, the EAA magazine is aimed at EAA members in general, not
> homebuilders in particular.
>

Judging by the amount of interest drawn by Cirrus, Piper, Cessna, and
the other production aircraft companies that show at Oshkosh, I would
have to agree.

> * *I wonder what percentage of EAA members are actually homebuilders? *I will
> bet that it is a great minority. *To be honest, I am a member that does not ever
> see himself actually building an airplane. *In fact, the first several years
> that I was a member, I was not even a pilot.
>

You are probably right as a total percentage of EAA Membership. The
EAA for some reason seems to draw a wide spectrum of pilots and as you
say, some non--pilots.

> * * *I am a member of EAA for several good reasons, and I think it is a good
> (not perfect) organization that is important to us small guys in aviation,
> (homebuilder or not) particularly those of us who might fly Experimental ships.
> I am also a member of AOPA, & the SSA. *I would rate the EAA magazine higher
> than either of those other organizations's publications, though the AOPA rag
> seems to have improved in recent years.
>
> Vaughn

I have been a frequent reader of the AOPA magazine and the Sport
Aviation Subscriber. Of the two, the Sport Aviation seem to be much
more oriented to the individual recreational pilot. AOPA tends to
lean more to the commercial pilots at least from my perspective.

"BobR" > wrote in message
...

>You are probably right as a total percentage of EAA Membership. The
>EAA for some reason seems to draw a wide spectrum of pilots and as you
>say, some non--pilots.

More importantly, (and often neglected) that group of "non-pilots" is rich
with future pilots.

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BobR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You are probably right as a total percentage of EAA Membership. The
>>EAA for some reason seems to draw a wide spectrum of pilots and as you
>>say, some non--pilots.
>
> More importantly, (and often neglected) that group of "non-pilots" is
> rich with future pilots.
>
> Vaughn

The problem that I see is that any time you try to be something for
everybody you end up with something that is kind nothing for anyone. In my
electronics experience, any time I saw a "Universal" electronic gadget I
steered clear as it would be at least difficult and would contain a bunch of
stuff that I was not interested in. Same with the magazine. As
publisher/editor of Experimental Helo magazine we are very aware of this
trap and have focussed our efforts. We will not accept ads from Ford, John
Deere or any other group not specifically involved in helicopter related
activity. That includes the gyrocopters. Based on subscriber feed back, we
seem to be scratching a particular itch. With that said, we are not
forecasting immediate indoctrination into the Fortune 500.
It's too bad EAA can't see their way clear to have a magazine for the
Amateur builders like the War Birds, and Antique guys. I tried the
Experimenter and it didn't match up to Kitplanes either.
Stu Fields

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BobR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>You are probably right as a total percentage of EAA Membership. The
> >>EAA for some reason seems to draw a wide spectrum of pilots and as you
> >>say, some non--pilots.
> >
> > More importantly, (and often neglected) that group of "non-pilots" is
> > rich with future pilots.
> >
> > Vaughn
>
> The problem that I see is that any time you try to be something for
> everybody you end up with something that is kind nothing for anyone. In my
> electronics experience, any time I saw a "Universal" electronic gadget I
> steered clear as it would be at least difficult and would contain a bunch of
> stuff that I was not interested in. Same with the magazine. As
> publisher/editor of Experimental Helo magazine we are very aware of this
> trap and have focussed our efforts. We will not accept ads from Ford, John
> Deere or any other group not specifically involved in helicopter related
> activity. That includes the gyrocopters. Based on subscriber feed back, we
> seem to be scratching a particular itch. With that said, we are not
> forecasting immediate indoctrination into the Fortune 500.
> It's too bad EAA can't see their way clear to have a magazine for the
> Amateur builders like the War Birds, and Antique guys. I tried the
> Experimenter and it didn't match up to Kitplanes either.
> Stu Fields

You hit on something with your final statement that has bothered me
since I joined EAA. There were several alternate publications in
addition to Sport Aviation but NONE were oriented to BUILDERS! That
is an oversight that has grown more evident since the SA publication
seems to be moving away from that theme. I did complain a long time
ago about their website not containing much for the homebuilder and
they did improve that substantially.

I will say that I have found something of interest to me in ever issue
of Sport Aviation and would not want to stop receiving it. I would
just love to see a magazine similar to Experimenter that was fully
oriented to builders. I would also add that I have always thought it
strange that the main area at Oshkosh seems dedicated to everthing
except building. You half to go to another area well away from the
main square to find the kit plane and builder oriented displays.

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> The problem that I see is that any time you try to be something for everybody
> you end up with something that is kind nothing for anyone. Same with the
> magazine.

I don't put the EAA magazine in that category, and never have. It is a
magazine that seems pointed directly at the center of gravity of the EAA
membership. Judging from the volume of ad copy, the folks who really matter
(the advertisers) agree. For decades, it has been one of the first magazines
that I pick up every month. The only Aviation magazine that regularly beats it
(in terms of my personal interest) is "Air & Space". That said, I agree that it
is no airplane homebuilding magazine, and perhaps EAA needs to adjust its mix of
specialty publications.


> As publisher/editor of Experimental Helo magazine we are very aware of this
> trap and have focussed our efforts.

Which must be why EAA has a mix of 5 focused magazines in addition to "Sport
Aviation".

Vaughn

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote

> I tried the Experimenter and it didn't match up to Kitplanes either.

***************************************
What do you think of the Kitplanes product of today, compared to 4 or 5
years ago?

I gave up my Kitplanes magazine about that long ago, because there was just
not enough quality content, IMHO.

If it had not been for "Jim Wierd's" (<g>) column, it would have been almost
empty, I thought.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote
>
>> I tried the Experimenter and it didn't match up to Kitplanes either.
>
> ***************************************
> What do you think of the Kitplanes product of today, compared to 4 or 5
> years ago?
>
> I gave up my Kitplanes magazine about that long ago, because there was
> just not enough quality content, IMHO.
>
> If it had not been for "Jim Wierd's" (<g>) column, it would have been
> almost empty, I thought.
> --
> Jim in NC

Well being an ex "Stuck Wing" pilot Kitplanes mainly keeps me up to date on
the experimental "Stuck Wing" world and occasionally has a good "Real"
aircraft article such as Ken Armstrong's PIREPS on helicopters. And I look
forward to Jim Weir's (d?) articles and have liberally pirated parts of his
designs and incorporated them in mine. When Sport Aviation comes in I scan
it, but it usually goes in the trash after one time thru it is rare, but
approx twice a year I find something I want to keep. I keep the Kitplanes
and have found several articles by Jim Weir that I copied and filed. We have
also used Kitplanes as a style guide for our magazine.
I'm a piddler though and have 250 hrs logged in my Baby Belle and about 80%
of those hours are testing some modification that I dreamed up.

I resemble that remark !!

Jim



>
> If it had not been for "Jim Wierd's" (<g>) column, it would have been
> almost empty, I thought.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
>
>

I didn't mind the old Experimenter, but when the name and content
changed to Light Sport, they lost me...

:(

Scott


Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"BobR" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>You are probably right as a total percentage of EAA Membership. The
>>>EAA for some reason seems to draw a wide spectrum of pilots and as you
>>>say, some non--pilots.
>>
>> More importantly, (and often neglected) that group of "non-pilots" is
>>rich with future pilots.
>>
>>Vaughn
>
>
> The problem that I see is that any time you try to be something for
> everybody you end up with something that is kind nothing for anyone. In my
> electronics experience, any time I saw a "Universal" electronic gadget I
> steered clear as it would be at least difficult and would contain a bunch of
> stuff that I was not interested in. Same with the magazine. As
> publisher/editor of Experimental Helo magazine we are very aware of this
> trap and have focussed our efforts. We will not accept ads from Ford, John
> Deere or any other group not specifically involved in helicopter related
> activity. That includes the gyrocopters. Based on subscriber feed back, we
> seem to be scratching a particular itch. With that said, we are not
> forecasting immediate indoctrination into the Fortune 500.
> It's too bad EAA can't see their way clear to have a magazine for the
> Amateur builders like the War Birds, and Antique guys. I tried the
> Experimenter and it didn't match up to Kitplanes either.
> Stu Fields
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

Morgans wrote:
> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote
>
> > I tried the Experimenter and it didn't match up to Kitplanes either.
>
> ***************************************
> What do you think of the Kitplanes product of today, compared to 4 or 5
> years ago?
>
> I gave up my Kitplanes magazine about that long ago, because there was just
> not enough quality content, IMHO.
>
> If it had not been for "Jim Wierd's" (<g>) column, it would have been almost
> empty, I thought.
> --
> Jim in NC

Jim,

I would have to agree with you regarding KitPlanes. It seems to be on
a long slide down as well. I used to really look forward to the
detail articles and the "Annual" review of the available kits and
plans. That "annual" has now morphed into three issues and dominate
25% of the issues. In so doing, they have reduced indepth content
significantly. All that said, I still enjoy reading it most of the
time and just renewed my subscription.

RST Engineering wrote:
> I resemble that remark !!
>
> Jim
>

I also look forward to your articles Jim but hesitated to say anything
for fear that your head would grow even bigger. <BFG>

Thanks for the help that you have given many of us builders.

BOB

>
>
> >
> > If it had not been for "Jim Wierd's" (<g>) column, it would have been
> > almost empty, I thought.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >> I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
> >> becoming AOPA. I guess it pays better or something. When was the
> >> last warbird article in Sport Aviation? OK, how 'bout the last
> >> restoration of an antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a
> >> bunch of checks).
> >>
> >> Very disappointing.
> >
>************************************************** **************

Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????

Reggie

"Reggie" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
> leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????

The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having the
aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to experimental
aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light Sport should come
quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are registered Experimental
even though they may be factory made? Perhaps that is why many of the glider
pilots I have met over the years are members of the EAA, even though they get
precious little coverage in the EAA magizine.

To me, the EAA has always represented the "little guy" in aviation better and
more directly than any other organization.

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Reggie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
>> leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>
> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
> second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having
> the aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to
> experimental aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light Sport
> should come quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are
> registered Experimental even though they may be factory made? Perhaps
> that is why many of the glider pilots I have met over the years are
> members of the EAA, even though they get precious little coverage in the
> EAA magizine.
>
> To me, the EAA has always represented the "little guy" in aviation better
> and more directly than any other organization.
>
> Vaughn

Vaughn:
I'm missing something. How does the word Experimental tie into Warbirds,
Classics, and Light Sport? What category do the factory built
"Experimental" gliders fall under? Exhibition?
It seems to me that EAA is really flying under false colors. A more
representative name eludes me but it sure wouldn't be Experimental based on
what I see in the magazine and the EAA video from Oshkosh as well as the
focus every year at show center. Indeed one year the EAA video did not even
mention the award winners, but did have Mooneys and Beechcraft aircraft
shown.
I do agree that EAA does the best job in defending us from our "Elected"
Representatives and because of that reason alone I maintain my membership.

Stu

"Scott" > wrote in message
.. .
>I didn't mind the old Experimenter, but when the name and content changed
>to Light Sport, they lost me...
>
> :(
>
> Scott
>

That precisely summed up my reaction as well.

Peter

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Reggie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
>> leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>
> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
> second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having
> the aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to
> experimental aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light Sport
> should come quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are
> registered Experimental even though they may be factory made? Perhaps
> that is why many of the glider pilots I have met over the years are
> members of the EAA, even though they get precious little coverage in the
> EAA magizine.
>
> To me, the EAA has always represented the "little guy" in aviation better
> and more directly than any other organization.
>

I believe that the main categories of "Experimental" airworthiness
certificates are Exhibition, Air Racing, Amateur built, Market Survey -
sales demonstration, research and development. I don't believe that Light
Sport is part of this system.

"War Birds" fall in Exhibition and/or Air Racing as do many competition
sailplanes. R&D/Market Survey are normally pre-production version of
aircraft intended for standard airworthiness certificates. Of course
classic/antique aircraft must be maintained in accordance with their
standard airworthiness certificate.

Even though the EAA was instrumental as a lobbying agency for the Light
Sports Aircraft and the transition of ultra-light aircraft to the light
sport category; light sports aviation's birth has been completed and is
live, well and growingl. The successful growth of LSA is no longer
dependant on the EAA.

It would appear to me that the EAA should return to a balance between
Exhibition, Air Racing, Amateur Built, and classic/antique. Isn't this the
organizations legacy? I also believe it is the organizations future.

Wayne
HP-14 N990
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

>
> To me, the EAA has always represented the "little guy" in aviation better
> and more directly than any other organization.
>
> Vaughn
>
Very true, and they still do a decent job of it.

In addition, the chapters continue to accomplish a lot of the tasks that
fell to the magazines before there were so many chapters.

Peter

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Reggie" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
>>> leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>>
>> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
>> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
>> second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having
>> the aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to
>> experimental aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light
>> Sport should come quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are
>> registered Experimental even though they may be factory made? Perhaps
>> that is why many of the glider pilots I have met over the years are
>> members of the EAA, even though they get precious little coverage in the
>> EAA magizine.
>>
>> To me, the EAA has always represented the "little guy" in aviation
>> better and more directly than any other organization.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> Vaughn:
> I'm missing something. How does the word Experimental tie into Warbirds,
> Classics, and Light Sport? What category do the factory built
> "Experimental" gliders fall under? Exhibition?
> It seems to me that EAA is really flying under false colors. A more
> representative name eludes me but it sure wouldn't be Experimental based
> on what I see in the magazine and the EAA video from Oshkosh as well as
> the focus every year at show center. Indeed one year the EAA video did
> not even mention the award winners, but did have Mooneys and Beechcraft
> aircraft shown.
> I do agree that EAA does the best job in defending us from our "Elected"
> Representatives and because of that reason alone I maintain my membership.
>
> Stu
>
>
I believe that you are missing two things:

1) Amateur Built is only the largest, and possibly the best known, sub
category of Experimental. IIRC, most of the the warbirds fall into
Exhibition. But, AFAIK, just about anything that is permitted to fly, and
does not quite fit any other category, is likely to be Experimental.

2) The chapters are a very big part of the EAA, and are home to a lot of
assistance and expertise--in addition to plain old encouragement and
comaraderie. They can also provide linkage to a lot of "home office"
expertise--and many maintain libraries of back issues and caches of tools,
clecos, etc.

BTW, there are also chapters of the IAC (International Aerobatic Club) and
also Warbird chapters which are also part of EAA, but not part of the basic
EAA chapter list.

So the "broader audience" part is far from being the whole story!

Peter

I missed something (probably obvious), but what do Classics, warbirds
and (some LSA) have to do with "experimental" per se? My take is that
an experimental (amateur built) plane is defined as one BUILT by the
owner for educational purposes. It would be nice to have an
organizational leader who has built an experimental amateur built
airplane, but it isn't absolutely necessary for leading an organization
of experimental amateur builders...

Scott


Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Reggie" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
>>leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>
>
> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
> second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having the
> aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to experimental
> aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light Sport should come
> quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are registered Experimental
> even though they may be factory made? Perhaps that is why many of the glider
> pilots I have met over the years are members of the EAA, even though they get
> precious little coverage in the EAA magizine.
>
> To me, the EAA has always represented the "little guy" in aviation better and
> more directly than any other organization.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

On Feb 26, 10:33*pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> A Cirrus? *You gotta be kidding me.
>
> I know, this is a quarterly topic for discussion, but I swear, EAA is
> becoming AOPA. *I guess it pays better or something. *When was the last
> warbird article in Sport Aviation? *OK, how 'bout the last restoration of an
> antique by the owner (not by someone who wrote a bunch of checks).
>
> Very disappointing.

It's worse than the cover there is an entire article on flying the
Cirrus. I understand that they are offering one as a prize but I
don't remember flight reports for the Cessnas, Pipers and Huskys they
used to offer. I am sure they look kindly on Cirrus because of its
roots in Homebuilding but I dare you to find any mention of
homebuilding or kitplanes on the Cirrus website.

On page 83 is one photo and a paragraph describing a PA-12 that took
Reserve Grand Champion in the Seaplane category last year. I remember
that after Oshkosh there would be one issue devoted almost fully to
the show and then over the next year each Grand and Reserve Champion
in the major categories (Homebuilt, Kitbuilt, Warbird, Antique and
Classic) got a full length article. That would be enough articles to
put more than one in every issue till the next show. I haven't seen
that in some time.

I still support EAA and look forward to the day I can start building a
Pober Super Ace with a Moravia in line four engine. I think that EAA
does combine enough disparate groups that would not receive near the
attention they can as part of this organization.

I will send essentially a copy of this post to the EAA this weekend.

John Dupre'

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Reggie" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
>> leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>
> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). >snip<

Homebuilt Aviation Association was considered back in 1953 when the name was
adopted. The "nameing" committee settled upon the "Experimental" Aviation
Association, since all homebuilt aircraft were licensed in a category of the
experimental classification that was created by the FAA especially for us.
That category is "Experimental - Amateur Built" and is what made the EAA
possible. Only "homebuilt" aircraft are eligible for certification in t his
special category. Warbirds and Classics are not.

Highflyer, EAA#9135

On Feb 28, 5:36 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
> "Stuart & Kathryn Fields" > wrote in messagenews:NsGdnZsLjud3bFvanZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@iwvis p.com...
>
>
>
> > The problem that I see is that any time you try to be something for everybody
> > you end up with something that is kind nothing for anyone. Same with the
> > magazine.
>
> I don't put the EAA magazine in that category, and never have. It is a
> magazine that seems pointed directly at the center of gravity of the EAA
> membership. Judging from the volume of ad copy, the folks who really matter
> (the advertisers) agree. For decades, it has been one of the first magazines
> that I pick up every month. The only Aviation magazine that regularly beats it
> (in terms of my personal interest) is "Air & Space". That said, I agree that it
> is no airplane homebuilding magazine, and perhaps EAA needs to adjust its mix of
> specialty publications.
>
> > As publisher/editor of Experimental Helo magazine we are very aware of this
> > trap and have focussed our efforts.
>
> Which must be why EAA has a mix of 5 focused magazines in addition to "Sport
> Aviation".
>
> Vaughn

Which is why I quit EAA. You had to join them at expense and then join
the subgroup at more expense to get the other ones. All amateur
written and edited pubs too and often not very readable.

The EAA is the Poberezny Family Endeavor pure and simple.. I agree
they do SOME good but they are not terribly cost effective IMO. Except
at enriching themselves.

>
> > Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
> > leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>
> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), not
> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
> second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having the
> aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to experimental
> aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light Sport should come
> quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are registered Experimental
> even though they may be factory made? Perhaps that is why many of the glider
> pilots I have met over the years are members of the EAA, even though they get
> precious little coverage in the EAA magizine.

The gliders are registered Experimental as a dodge against filing the
paperwork by their rich spoiled European manufacturers.

Either type certification IS good or it IS NOT good. If it IS good we
should demand adherence and make Experimental non-Amateur-Built
operations really limited to their actual stated purpose. If it IS NOT
good we should get rid of it. If it is good for air carrier and
business aircraft and not good for personally owned non commercial
aircraft, which is what I believe, that's what should be stated and
campaigned for. Not dodged.

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> > Does anyone recall ANY experimental aeroplane built by the current
>> > leader of the Experimental Aircraft Association????
>>
>> The organization's name is Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA),
>> not
>> Homebuilt Aviation Association (HAA). Your point in regards to our
>> second-generation President may be well taken, I don't recall him having
>> the
>> aviation background to match his father's; but there is more to
>> experimental
>> aviation than homebuilding. Classics, warbirds & Light Sport should come
>> quickly to mind, but did you know that many gliders are registered
>> Experimental
>> even though they may be factory made? Perhaps that is why many of the
>> glider
>> pilots I have met over the years are members of the EAA, even though they
>> get
>> precious little coverage in the EAA magizine.
>
> The gliders are registered Experimental as a dodge against filing the
> paperwork by their rich spoiled European manufacturers.
>

I believe all current production European manufactured gliders receive a
Standard airworthiness certificate when imported to the US. It has been
that way for several years. Previously these high performance competition
sailplanes were imported with an Experimental - Air Racing air worthieness
certificate.

As for me, I fly an Experimental (Amateur-Built) sailplane.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/N990/N990.html)
It was designed by Richard Schreder EAA member #504.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Schreder/Richard_Schreder_Biography.html)

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder