Sport Aviation Magazine

[malexander]

December issue of Model Aviation (AMA) has an article of a guy building a Rotorway 162F. Full scale stuff in a model magazine?? What do you think, should we occupy?
I don't have a problem with big/expensive stuff in SA, BUT I'd like to see some actually affordable airplanes as well. Say, something that the average guy could actually afford. Not the $60K-$70K range. The age group we're wanting to entice/attrtact,(young folks/kids) for the most part, don't have anywhere near the funds to fly, build, or own what is usually seen in the magazines.
If we are really serious about young members let's put some Pietenpol, Baby Ace, etc. articles in SA and tell folks these airplanes can be built for as little as.......
I know that the general concensus is airplane=expensive. But I think we could "curve" that a bit if we tried.


Marshall Alexander

[steveinindy]

If we are really serious about young members let's put some Pietenpol, Baby Ace, etc. articles in SA and tell folks these airplanes can be built for as little as.......

But how many 20-40 y/o folks who have grown up on computers etc are going to look at a Piet or a Baby Ace and go "Ooooh! That's neat looking! I want one." Not many is probably the answer because they look like a throwback to an age that simply doesn't interest most young people. It doesn't mean we should not give it a shot, but it does mean that we should not discount using a "bait and change their minds" approach. That or someone needs to come up with a sporty looking bug smasher than can be built for under $100K.

[flyboycpa]

Ok, I'll chime in. I fly turbine a/c for a living (B737), and used to fly corporate jets before moving the 737. I LOVE turbine aircraft, but I do not feel that it is in the spirit of the Experimental Aircraft Association to use so much magazine space on them. Should I decide that I want to read about the TBM850, I'll go find the latest Flying, AOPA Pilot, or Plane & Pilot. While I realize that there are many members of the EAA that fly only certified aircraft (i.e., the North 40 crowd), I think our turbine interests [that are written about] should be limited to experimental, vintage, or classic models. If Mac McClellan wants "to get his jet on" and write about something, send him out to get some L-29/L-39/Paris Jet training. I certainly have no problems reading about something turbine, just make it relevant to our organization (Homebuilts, LSA, Ultralights, Warbirds, Vintage/Classic, or Acro).

Sam Swift
N3760K
Globe Swift GC-1B

[flyboycpa]

December issue of Model Aviation (AMA) has an article of a guy building a Rotorway 162F. Full scale stuff in a model magazine?? What do you think, should we occupy?
I don't have a problem with big/expensive stuff in SA, BUT I'd like to see some actually affordable airplanes as well. Say, something that the average guy could actually afford. Not the $60K-$70K range. The age group we're wanting to entice/attrtact,(young folks/kids) for the most part, don't have anywhere near the funds to fly, build, or own what is usually seen in the magazines.
If we are really serious about young members let's put some Pietenpol, Baby Ace, etc. articles in SA and tell folks these airplanes can be built for as little as.......
I know that the general concensus is airplane=expensive. But I think we could "curve" that a bit if we tried.


Marshall Alexander

I'm going to Occupy Oshkosh next year.

[Bill]

There's no swagger, no "sex appeal", etc to something that looks like that at least in the eyes of the under-30 crowd. If we get the "kids" in the door with the higher end of the spectrum, they will perhaps build something as a stop gap until they can afford their dream airplane

I don't believe that there's much "sex appeal" to the "higher end of the spectrum," which I presume means TBMs, Cessna Citation Xs, big Gulfstreams and Lear 60s. I've flown in all of these, except for the TBMs and I never felt the least bit of "sex appeal" emanating from any of them. Certainly, I, as an aerospace engineer, appreciated the engineering sophistication of these airplanes and enjoyed flying in them as a mode of transportation, but they did nothing to increase my pulse rate. A ride in Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne or a Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo, now that would increase my pulse rate to a dangerous level.

The high end of the spectrum, as well as part 25 aircraft, are carefully engineered to make flight as unexciting as possible (see AC 25-1390-1A for details on the analysis and quantification of how this is done). If we want to get a lot of younger folks interested, it won't be by taking them for a ride in a multi-million dollar spam can, except for those aspiring to be CEOs (I never got a ride in our CL-601 since that was reserved for the CEO).

If we really want the younger folks, we have to give them something aeronautical that is as exciting and up to date as programming massively parallel processors (GPUs) in CUDA or OpenCL.

[steveinindy]

Exactly my point. We can't keep shoveling the same old designs (or rehashings of the same designs) out there and expect to keep recruiting fresh folks with them.

BTW, I agree entirely that there is something nothing sexy about most airplanes. I honestly look at them simply as a good means of getting from point A to point B as well as an engineering challenge. As for flying, the only part I find fun are takeoffs, approaches and landings. Cruise flight- be it at 1000 AGL or FL330- is boring as hell (especially if you have an autopilot) which is why my interest lays mostly in minimizing the time from point A to point B. I know that is damn near heretical to say among people addicted to the act of flying (one of the crotchety guys in the local chapter won't speak to me because I admitted this once in his presence) but that's my take on it.

[malexander]

Steve, the "bait & change their minds" is a sort of what I was thinking. After all, that's sort of what the computer industry has done. We started out with very simple, by todays standards, pagers, cell phones, computers. As technology came about, more sophisitcated equipment came along, folks said "I want one of those" so they found a way to afford it.
I think the younger generation has forgotten they have to crawl before they can walk.
I agree with flyboy, 100%.

Marshall Alexander

[Frank Giger]

Right. "Kids these days" *shakes fist* aren't exactly as enthralled by the idea of a fabric covered Cub or a Pietenpol. Even at the age of 30, I find myself thinking of things like Pietenpols and such as an old man's airplane even though I know a lot of them are built by people closer to my own age. It's just the image they and similar aircraft convey. There's no swagger, no "sex appeal", etc to something that looks like that at least in the eyes of the under-30 crowd.

That's because they (Cubs, Pietenpols, etc.) are marketed completely wrong.

I'm in that targeted "young" demographic - or just outside it - and you know what got me fired up to get into aviation, building my own aircraft and the EAA?

Small, light, slow aircraft.

A C172 leaves me completely cold. It's a Buick with wings.

The Flight Design CTLS I trained in was a means to the end. Glass panel and high tech composites be damned - the plane is just a coupe to go from A to B, the equivalent of a Miata. But without the top down.

A better analogy would be that it's a set of skis, when what I want is a snowboard.

So I went with an open cockpit biplane - and then went one step further with a WWI replica - so that I can swoosh around at 1000 feet AGL and do lazy circles over the countryside.

While I'm waiting to complete the plane I'm building up hours in a Champ, and completely in love with the plane. This is flying! Forget getting to Point B - it is a means to an end at best, and grossly inefficient as a means of transportation. The journey is the destination.

Very few young people I know think of personally owned aircraft as a viable transportation option; emphasis on the pure fun and recreation for the sake of recreation aspects of flying and one will get much more traction. "That makes flying pointless." So what? So is 99% of every other hobby or sport.

"I don't have 100K," says the 20 something.
"Dude, build your own!" says the EAA member.

Or at least one that understands what the Experimental Aircraft part of EAA means.

[martymayes]

Airventure isn't EAA, its just one event that EAA has. Airventure would survive with or without EAA, IMO. I'm saying the organization is dying, because quite frankly, how many members do you see joining under the age of 30? And how many are over the age of 75? You can't keep the organization membership steady or growing if you don't attract the younger crowd. Yes, EAA does the Eagle Flight program. But of those kids that get flights, how many actually end up being an EAA member?

I realize that the old guys are part of the crowd, and I've got no problem with that at all. I just feel that some of the old guys don't want the young guys as part of the crowd, because in general, the younger crowd has a significantly different idea of what they want EAA to be.There needs to be a blend of young and old, and I just don't see that happening with the way the organization seems to be ran.

I really liked the TBM article. Yes, I know most of you didn't like it, because it isn't about "sport aviation", but again, sport aviation in the US is dying, and without something different than the status quo, there's nothing to stop it.

Hey, you know what? General aviation is in a period of contraction. Pilot numbers are down, new pilot starts are down. Airplane deliveries are down. Accept the fact that it may not be possible for EAA to maintain steady membership growth. And so what? Does that mean you close up shop? No! Does that mean sport aviation is dying? NO! The spirit goes on. I think EAA should dust off Duane Cole's old book "This is EAA" reprint it and make it required reading for all EAA staff (and a lot of it's members). This place is quickly becoming a ship with no rudder and yes, you talk about the organization dying, it certainly will if there is no direction.

I'd rather be part of a small organziation of spirited people who understand what the EAA is all about than part of a large membership of sheep who think Mac and his mainstream aviation airplanes and ideas (re: BORING) are something to look forward to each month.




Guess I'm part of the "Occupy OSH 2012" crowd.

[martymayes]

But how many 20-40 y/o folks who have grown up on computers etc are going to look at a Piet or a Baby Ace and go "Ooooh! That's neat looking! I want one." Not many is probably the answer because they look like a throwback to an age that simply doesn't interest most young people. It doesn't mean we should not give it a shot, but it does mean that we should not discount using a "bait and change their minds" approach. That or someone needs to come up with a sporty looking bug smasher than can be built for under $100K.

Most kids these days only know instant gratification. The notion that they will go into the shop to construct something that may take months or years to complete is laughable. They don't have the skills for that and have no interest in obtaining them.

Same is true to a certain extent with the hot rod crowd. Lots of old farts and not a lot of kids in hot rodding these days. The modern young "hot rodders" knowledge base consist of buying a production car then going to an accessory source or shop and choosing "performance items" from a menu like a fat muffler, glittery wheels and bolt on spoiler. Whoopee do. Interesting, the marketing strategy is that the builder is "expressing his individuality" by 'building' a car that represents his personality...lol, bolt-on accessories is not building in the fabricating, cutting and welding sense. There's not as much scratch building as there once was where the builder designs, engineers, fabricates and drives his own creation, the product of his imagination. Sport aviation is not the only activity where future generations might not understand their ancestors.