Sport Aviation Magazine

[hydroguy2]

I'm here to stay. I skip the articles that don't interest me, but I read most of the rag. Actually look forward to finding it in the mailbox. maybe I have an aviation problem.

As far as articles go. I would have loved to see my story in print, but most likely no one would care to read it(I barely graduated high school english). I think Chad should take a EAA expense account and come to Montana we'll get some stories.

[Dana]

First person material is hard to find Kyle. We ask for it all the time, and while we get some, it's just not enough (or well written) to put in a publication like Sport Aviation.

The writing needs to be decent, but in a world of amateur built airplanes, amateur writing (as long as it's reasonably decent) isn't necessarily a bad thing... it adds to the flavor, a sense of community, and the sense of "if he can do this so can I!"

Do you pay for articles? That would encourage submission. If you can't afford to, perhaps a year's free membership? I know of at least one magazine that offers a year subscription (or a year's extension of your current subscription) for articles used.

[steveinindy]

In the USA, that means about $30,000 this year. If that seems like a lot -- and it does to many people, especially in these times -- then less is even better.

No thanks. If I wanted a magazine about ultralights, I'd go find one.

[steveinindy]

I know of at least one magazine that offers a year subscription (or a year's extension of your current subscription) for articles used.

Which one is that?

[steveinindy]

Chad, the problem is that EAA has changed how SA is operated.

Once upon a time, EAA promoted the owners and aircraft which won major awards at Oshkosh (err, Airventure). Every month, there was an article, maybe two, about the Grand Champion Antique, Classic, Contemporary, Homebuilt (kit), Homebuilt (plans), Warbird, Ultralight, etc. The owner/builder didn't write the article, Jack Cox did, and EAA's longtime photographer (whose name escapes me) contributed with outstanding photos. Now, we get advertisements (disguised as articles) from Socata, Bose, the DC-7 folks, and a host of others, plus stock photography which seems to include a fair amount of 2nd rate photoshop work.

The magazine is the organization's calling card, and should serve as the organization's point of entry, even if it loses money on a strict accounting basis. It should serve to inspire and recruit members to the dream. Instead, it is being run as a profit center where revenues are maximized and expenses minimized, despite the impact on the quality of the product. Long term, that will be a failing strategy because nobody is going to pick up a random copy of SA sitting in an FBO and say "Wow, I wanna join that organization." Instead, they are gonna say "Meh. I already subscribe to Flying."

Good grief Kyle. I take it you're one of those folks that could find the downside to almost anything. I think I'd have to shoot myself if I lived with that level of pessimism about everything. Lighten up. I think you'll find that it makes life all the more enjoyable.

[cluttonfred]

So you think $30,000 is an unreasonably low budget for a homebuilt aircraft project? Lucky you, and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

No thanks. If I wanted a magazine about ultralights, I'd go find one.

[steveinindy]

So you think $30,000 is an unreasonably low budget for a homebuilt aircraft project?

From a practical standpoint- meaning an aircraft that can haul two modern adults and some decent baggage (say 200 lbs) at a decent speed (say 150 knots to make it have a travel advantage over a car) and not be limited to day VFR only- yeah, $30,000 is not going to cut it in the first world. If one is happy with puttering slowly around a field on sunny days with light winds and not having a decent ability to haul stuff, then yes, I'm pretty sure you could do it for $30,000 to $40,000 and make it look like a real airplane and not just a hang glider with a lawn chair and lawnmower engine strapped on.

$50,000 is pretty much the low end for a practical aircraft and that's cutting it pretty close. I say this because the LSA I designed (which could be easily turned into a useful airplane by putting a slightly bigger engine and a decently equipped panel) would be about $50,000 to build in the metal skinned variant. I also figured out the means to offer a wood version and fabric covered metal variant just to expand the marketability.

Lucky you,

How so? I'm not any more well off than most of the Americans on this forum. I just don't think that trading quality, comfort and what I demand out of an aircraft for the "pleasure" of being able to fly is a good one.

and your attitude leaves a lot to be desired.

So does yours. As does the economy of building an airplane in the post-1940s world in which we actually live. This delusion that aircraft need to be cheap as the bottom end of the car market is one of the most annoying aspects of homebuilt community.

[spungey]

Do we really not want to print interesting articles from the Homebuilder's Corner thread on the forum? Every week I see enough material here in our little chat-room of the sky to fill quite a few magazine pages, and that's without photos. We should glean it for the top four or five things monthly. Not just what's the best prop, but how different power-prop matching formulas can we find? How about emergency repairs for landing gear (to get you back to town?) One non-cert engine examined each month? Maybe a dozen pages of power/torque curves for various engines and some discussion of how to identify "good" engines for aircraft? Do you want to add flaps to your cub? How about a monthly column on alternative ways to do flight sensing? Or understanding and programming digital systems? We have more than enough material for a genuine DIY article or two every month if we thought about it a bit.

In the 1990's we experimenters had our own magazine. Anyone else remember "EAA Experimenter"? I loved it then and would love it now. All about not simply how-to, but tools, shops and even some of the underlying philosophy of the DIY world. It was small--typically 30 pages or so. I always wanted more meat in even it. Maybe it's about "Those who want to build, build. Those who want to write, write." Few of us have Ron W's gift for both. Both skills can be learned, though.

[Marlhalbrook]

From a practical standpoint-

Not to cause any more argument-----but who's practical???

I just don't think that trading quality, comfort and what I demand out of an aircraft for the "pleasure" of being able to fly is a good one.

So does yours......This delusion that aircraft need to be cheap as the bottom end of the car market is one of the most annoying aspects of homebuilt community.

Just one opinion---not that of everyone involved in Sport Aviation.

I'm not trying to ruffle feathers anymore than they already seem to be ruffled.....just want to point out that this discussion had dwindled away to a "my opinion" vs. "your opinion" battle. This is serving no useful purpose for any of us.

Guys-----This thread--along with similar discussions on several other sites that I frequent-- does point out the fact that there is a problem in the eyes of quite a few EAAers as to the content and message of SA. I can almost guarantee that EAA is keeping up with these discussions (correct me if I'm wrong, Chad...) and that they are, and will take our thoughts into account when working to change SA. It's a big ship--and is not easy to change it's course once set----and there is NO WAY to make us all happy with every single issue.

Matthew and Steve have brought to light the division that exists even amongst homebuilders....we can't even agree on what is practical and what is not----so how the heck can we ever expect SA to reach us all at our own level of comfort and skill???

Instead of bashing each other's thoughts and desires with respect to airplanes, we should all direct that energy toward sending information to EAA about what we are doing in our own shops---and let the folks that are trying to make SA better have a chance to pull some of our stories into the mix...I know they's appreciate that a whole lot more than having to listen to us bicker like little school kids........

Please take this for what it's worth --- an no offense intended toward anyone.....

Marl

{{{oh--and practical to me.....2 seat, open cockpit, biplane, some aerobatic capability.....could care less for point "A" to point "B" as of right now----all this subject to change at any given moment or day based on absolutely no understandable criteria or reasoning!!! I can be fickle if I wanna---it's my dream!!! }}}

[Chad Jensen]

I can almost guarantee that EAA is keeping up with these discussions (correct me if I'm wrong, Chad...) and that they are, and will take our thoughts into account when working to change SA. It's a big ship--and is not easy to change it's course once set----and there is NO WAY tomake us all happy with every single issue.

I spend so much time keeping up with the forums that I get the eye roll from my wife on a nightly basis...

It is a big ship for sure, and changes don't happen quickly in the print magazine world, but things will swing back the other way.

Regarding Experimenter...I have the July 2002 issue on my desk right now with the Sky Ranger on the cover...I'm using it as an inspiration for creating the new digital version that can be read and viewed offline after a download. Yeah, it's not a hard copy, but the feedback we get on the current Experimenter is crying out for a pdf downloadable magazine, rather than a newsletter. I hope to launch it in the next few months...

spungey...you mention several good ideas for articles. Can you put them on paper as a subject expert? I'd love to have some submissions on some of that. I can write about a few things as an expert, but I don't claim to cover all areas...