Printable View
I have been watching the webcams, reading the news stories, and looking at the pics all week... but I rarely see anything to do woth homebuilts. Warbirds, airshows, and airliners are cool but homebuilts are too! Come folks - give us some homebuilt stuff! :)
I would encourage you to read the online editions of AirVenture Today and e-Hotline which are both available at www.airventure.org/live e-hotline has featured almost every day stories on homebuilts including a daily blog from EAA Experimenter Editor Pat Panzera.
I noticed the same general feel.
Thursday's airshow was supposed to be a Rutan tribute. Boomerang and the Starship were all that flew. Why? Catbird, a Defiant, Long-Ez, a Vari-Ez all should have flown in my opinion. Just because some weekend warrior parks his shiny noisemaker in a ditch, the tribute to the man who (with Van) was most responsible for the EAA homebuilt community in the last 30 years gets hacked to almost nothing. Apparently more Rutan designs flew a later day but I was busy with my daughter.
Further, the Rutan display at the (insert high dollar paying sponsor's name here) show center seemed chaotic and unorganized. Aircraft got moved seemingly on a whim after Thursday's "tribute", and everything got shuffled around. Several persons of significance commented that it seemed disorganized and less friendly to homebuilts. Several members of the canard community said they don't fly in any more because of damage to their aircraft suffered during Airventure. I saw several instances of people changing babies, repacking their camera bags, resting other equipment on wings, who were obviously not owners of the aircraft. I spoke to two of these people, they seemed ignorant of the rules. There should have been far more volunteers in the aircraft parking area, and fewer zooming around in Gators and golf carts. That's a separate topic I'll post.
Dave,
You are not alone. I volunteer throughout the week in the BEC next to the homebuilts. I heard quite a few people that expressed the same feelings. Many felt as if the EAA had forgotten about them. They noticed that the corporate people had nice new buildings and grounds, and the homebuilt education area looked like it was falling appart. I have heard a lot of people complain about the magazine Sport Aviation as well. How it seems to be geared more for the guys flying a certified tin-can type IFR than the homebuilder. I asked many of these people if they contacted EAA about their feelings, and all said "no". Well there is the problem, unless somebody knows that a large group of their members is unhappy, they wont change. So write a letter to Mr. Hightower.
I see it as being more geared towards the direction that natural progression would lead an organization such as ours. It has become more about the guy who is looking to build something more than a ragwing, ultralight or LSA and more towards the guys who- like myself (for the sake of disclosure)- are looking to build (and in some cases, design) their own alternative to a "tin-can type IFR". One of the basic tenets of aircraft layout and design is that you understand the "competition" (read as the various kits, plans and even the commercially built LSAs as an example) and so it would seem to logically follow that the folks who are actually building- especially those who seek more of a challenge than a quick build kit from Vans or Sonex offers- need to have a frame of reference. It is nice to have that in the same magazine(s) that cover homebuilt specific issues.Quote:
How it seems to be geared more for the guys flying a certified tin-can type IFR than the homebuilder.
When it comes to simple aircraft, there is only so much that can be said about them and that leaves the a limited number of topics that can be discussed with the concommitant risk of the magazine becoming stale and repetitive. Just my two cents, but I could be wrong.
Notice I said "flying" and not "building" a tin-can :). Its the "building" aspect I think people are missing, and Im not talking about a pop-rivet kit. Look back at the issues from the 60's and 70's and there was a lot more technical information in them. How to build tools, ideas for latches, control systems, metalworking, etc. And aircraft simple or not require the same basic skills to build, and those skills are being lost as well.
Aaron, I agree with you. When I was a kid mom let me buy some magazines at a garage sale, & there was way more emphasis on building & "how to" type of articles.
I still have all of them, there are some good ideas in there.
Point taken, but why rehash something if it has not significantly changed when one can go back and look at those old articles? It's not uncommon for the more basic points in a scientific or medical journal article (something I have written quite a few of in my day) to have their citations be from articles that may be a half century or more (one article I wrote contains a citation from the time of the Black Death). Why do we need a new glossy article to cite when the original will suffice nicely?Quote:
Look back at the issues from the 60's and 70's and there was a lot more technical information in them. How to build tools, ideas for latches, control systems, metalworking, etc. And aircraft simple or not require the same basic skills to build, and those skills are being lost as well.
For most of the non-composite kits (and even to a significant but lesser degree, the composite designs as well) things have not really changed all that much in terms of construction for quite a while. Wood aircraft are still built more or less the same way they were back in the 1920s. Even with the composite builds most of us are still using Rutan's technicues from the 1970s and 1980s for better or for worse. That's my point: most of the major improvements of the past decade have been more related to the flying side of general aviation rather than the homebuilt side of things. The "new" kits on the market are often scaled up or scaled down (the latter being more common with the sudden fixation on LSAs) versions of a previous design from the same company. If you start excluding the avionics side of the market, honestly the differences between 1991 and 2011 are pretty slim in terms of new technology.
I believe- and would wager that you agree- that the field of experimental aviation has largely stagnated in terms of moving forward. Sadly, while I think LSAs have their place and deserve our respect (even though they are certainly not my cup of tea), they have caused us to backslide into reworkings of the same technology that was used 80 years ago. It's a way of maintaining the skills you mentioned, which while vitally important, reduce the moniker "experimental aviation" into something of a misnomer.
Steve
From my perspective homebuilding always seems to have ridden on the backs of formal aviation. Meaning homebuilders used the technology developed for industry. Notice mainstream aviation has slowed its development pace, maybe we are at the extent of the materials available on earth? Things go in swings, first fabric covered, then aluminum, then plastic (composite), back to aluminum, and so on. Guys love an RV, yet a tailwind performs better. Composites expand the design limitations, but have their own severe drawbacks. The information from the 60's "CAN" be good, but it might also be flawed. Lessons Learned, so to speak. Materials change, the old magazines may list welding alloys to use, but they no longer exist and need to be updated. Glues change, covering material changes, paints change. Not to mention that there are new people constantly coming to the hobby, do we always want to tell them to look for some old back issue? The internet is a dangerous place to find information, but thats where people are turing. Add to that the stigma of "whats old is obsolete" .