The problem is that all those $100K plus airplanes don't do much to "foster aviation" since few can afford them.Originally Posted by Bob Meder
The problem is that all those $100K plus airplanes don't do much to "foster aviation" since few can afford them.
They DID get organized - A gentleman started the EAA. They DID have a magazine, it was called Sport Aviation. But in chasing the dollar, the "new" EAA has forgotten it's roots. Don't get me wrong, the EAA does a lot of good things, it's jusy my personal observation that in its desire to continue to GROW Airventure, they have created a monster - constantly needing more and more money. I'm of the belief that maybe instead of focusing on growth so much, they should focus on improving and refining what they already have. Pretty hard getting someone interested in flying when you keep throwing 6 and 7 figure planes in their face. No wonder most people don't think they can get into aviation.
I don't know. Most of the planes I saw there this year (unless you go out to the North 40 or Warbirds section) were not multi-million dollar machines. The proliferation of LSAs has certainly filled the aviation equivalent of (No offense intended...I'm just using it because of the "We can rebuild him, we have the technology, we just don't want to spend a lot of money" comment)Pretty hard getting someone interested in flying when you keep throwing 6 and 7 figure planes in their face. No wonder most people don't think they can get into aviation.
Greg,
I guess you are going to see what you are going to see...EAA still puts out the same information it did before...just in different ways. Just because it is not in SA in a way you were used to seeing doesn't mean that EAA has abandoned its mission.
.
Last edited by Seerjfly; 12-31-2011 at 08:31 AM.
Ok, make that 4 + part of a third thenscratching my head & wondering to whom you are referring hereOf the president & 6 VPs at EAA, 5 of them are pilots; 3 of those own, between them, at least 4 aircraft, & 1 is working on building an aircraft.
The president own two outright and part of a third.
Then add in all the other staff members who are enthusiastic pilots, aircraft builders, aircraft owners & chapter members. I'm still puzzling where Greg gets the whole "corporate types at HQ" impression from. It would be interesting to understand that one if he would care to expand on it?
I'm not sure that is entirely true.
While I am a builder on a budget, I do know people that can and do purchase those "$100k plus" airplanes. Many of them also love to roll a Piper Cub or small single out of the hangar when they have time. Must the entire experience be "experimental" in order to qualify for our convention or magazine? That would eliminate an awful lot of what people enjoy seeing each month/year, but if you think about it... ALL of the items on display in print or in person were experimental at one time or another. What about the non-builder or aspiring young person that might be interested in aviation or aerospace? Shouldn't we be proud to help introduce cutting edge technologies that might inspire people to educate, consume, work, refine, fly, build, etc.?
Actually, where aircraft are concerned, "$100k plus" accounts for an awful lot of the GA fleet. An RV-10 or nice restoration could get you there pretty quick. How about the Warbirds? I know, they have their own division/magazine, etc., but have you priced any of them lately? A nice P-51D will set you back a couple million... even the AT-6 and other trainer types are well above the $100k mark you mention, never mind the maintenance cost. Surely we don't want those folks to stay home too? I don't, I appreciate them bringing their toys to share with us. I like it all, and if people or manufacturers are willing to showcase their goods at OUR convention or in OUR magazine, I'll look at it. Oh, perhaps I can't afford it... heck, I may not even have a use for it... but I'll look at it and take my son along to look too. Never know where we might find our next idea or interest... and as far as my young son, I have no idea what might inspire him to greatness. I have high hopes for him (as parents do), and I love to see the amazement on his face as we walk the grounds and flip the pages of SA. He can appreciate a nice looking Champ, Tailwind, Pietenpol, ultralight, etc., but also likes the other flying machines that frequent the pages of SA and AirVenture grounds.
I know this is slightly off the topic of SA, but the argument of high end commercialization seems to be a common thread in discussions about our magazine and convention. I would argue that if the opposite were true (experimental trade and techniques only), many would likely be upset that no one provides any of the widgets that we might like to see in our hobby. Seems to me that industry has done a pretty good job at offering reasonable priced widgets and materials as a result of the work that went in to developing those high end offerings. Could there be more stuff geared towards the lowly builder? Perhaps, but we aren't the only one's paying the bills.
My family and I are relative newcomers to EAA, so we don't remember Rockford or the early days of OshKosh, but we enjoy it and I don’t know of anything else like it. The last two years we have returned home ramped up and energized about our project and the EAA. For those that don't like the overblown style of our convention, or multi-page articles about the latest widgets... join Vintage (you’ll still see many $100k+ birds), sign up for a type newsletter or Experimenter or Contact or one of the many lively web forums or e-mail lists. One thing is for sure, regardless of your interest, we have more material available to us today than at any other time... I'm ok with the broad appeal of SA. As for the event on the ground... there are several low key events like Brodhead, WI, Lee Bottom, IN, Gardner, KS, Reklaw, TX, to be had all over the country, not to mention the abundance of local events.
Alright... off my soapbox. I'm really not trying to start an argument, I'm just hoping to point out that EAA SA and AirVenture offer a variety of things to a variety of aviation enthusiasts and I hope that we keep it that way.
Last edited by Hangar10; 08-10-2011 at 09:49 AM.
No argument here. I'm only annoyed that you said what I wanted to say, before I could say it. And better, too!
I think this kind of hits the nail on the head. If you omit the word homebuilt from this quote it explains the content of Sport Aviation. Scratchbuilders are definitely a minority (although I am one) yet the EAA has not left us high and dry. Sport Aviation is my favorite magazine. It used to be Kitplanes.
I agree..What's ironic is that you responded to someone pointing out the need for advanced technical material. Kitplanes always has that but it is as dry as toast and tough to digest. I'll take Sport Aviation over any other aviation magazine.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote