Sport Aviation Magazine

[Kyle Boatright]

I've been disappointed with SA in recent months. An article on used certified twins? An article on C-182's? Columns that could have been lifted straight from the pages of Flying or AOPA? Not what I expect from Sport Aviation and redundant with what you find in those other publications.

Show me something interesting. Chapter activities. Interesting projects. Antiques, Warbirds, Experimentals. Seriously, the magazine's representation of all three of those core groups has declined significantly over the years. That's why I read the magazine, not to read about an aircraft I can find on every airport ramp in the country.

[Aaron Novak]

I see the lack of homebuilt information a 2-fold problem. The writers of SA are not actively seeking information to print, and people do not contribute. The people out there in the homebuilt world that have the knowledge and skill apparently do not feel the need to help the next generation. Every year the BEC at AV struggles to get instructors to teach basic skills of homebuilt fabrication. Every year I will have some fellow come up and tell me that he has welded up a dozen fuselages or something like that, I ask him if he wants to teach the skills then and he gives me a funny look as if to say " why would I wast my time teaching others?". I think its a fairly selfish attitude. So write an article for SA and submit it!! If you have something to share, share it! Its hard for SA to print articles that are never written. Some people think that once something is written about in 1968 it doesnt have to be re-hashed later, I dont believe that. Some materials change, some dont. Sometimes we learn lessons since the last article was written and that information needs to be passed out to the homebuilding community. Its on our shoulders to keep the technical and homebuilding information in SA.

[martymayes]

The hardcore fabricating, building and restoring articles still exist in SA, unfortunately, it's down to about 5 pages. The rest of the magazine content is "how to fly articles" like how to fly at night, how to program a GPS, how to make a forced landing, how to avoid midairs, how to fly without a checklist, etc. Then there are a couple of what appears to be Flying magazine reprint articles, at least one "romance" article, i.e. "There I was floating amongst the white puffy clouds in my Tomahawk," and advertisements. A while back I answered a questionaire about what kind of content I wanted to see in SA. I figured based on the changes, not many folks want the hardcore stuff anymore. Or maybe they didn't respond to the questionaire.

At any rate, until something better comes along, I'll read the 5 pages that interest me then throw the magazine in the trash.

[sdilullo]

For what it's worth, while I am a fan of the overall Sport Aviation re-design and content, I think adding Mac McClellan was a terrible move. I agree 100% with everyone who says his articles don't belong in an EAA publication. We don't need to be reading about bizjets and fancy pressurized twins in Sport Aviation.

[steveinindy]

The writers of SA are not actively seeking information to print, and people do not contribute.

I'll bite. Who do I speak to about contributing? They don't even have to pay me (although if they comp me my EAA membership I wouldn't complain).

Some people think that once something is written about in 1968 it doesnt have to be re-hashed later, I dont believe that. Some materials change, some dont. Sometimes we learn lessons since the last article was written and that information needs to be passed out to the homebuilding community. Its on our shoulders to keep the technical and homebuilding information in SA.

The problem isn't so much that things have changed with the technology of (as an example) the fabric-covered bug smashers, but that there is a perceived attitude among a fairly decent sized swath of the rank and file members of the EAA that anything that isn't built using traditional means (wood, fabric or aluminum) or non-turbine powerplants isn't living up to the "true spirit of what experimental aviation is all about!". That is in quotes because it came from a rant I watched a member of a local EAA chapter go off on when there was a mention of the fact that I'm designing something with a turboprop and a fuselage of carbon fiber and Kevlar. The fit continued with a tirade about why didn't I just use a modified engine out of a car or focus on something other than this "new fangled obsession with plastic planes" (his words).

In some circles, you mention that you are building something that can't run on mogas, you better start running lest the members of the local chapter come after you with pitchforks and torches. In my admittedly limited experience, it seems to be that the folks who are most resistant to the idea of anything other than the "classics" are the elder members of the EAA. A lot of these folks are thrilled to hear that I do, as a point of fact, want to learn wood frame construction and how to put on a fabric covering. One of my dream planes is a Piper Cub so it's not all about going fast for me. The other side of the coin is that the moment some hear about my design (usually through one of my friends introducing me and pointing it out) they immediately want to clam up, not teach and will not answer questions.

Articles about building are fine, wonderful and have their deserved place in SA and other EAA publications, but at the same time if we simply serve those interests then we are missing the bigger role that our organization plays. Education first, education foremost from the first line on a new design to the last entry in a retiring pilot's logbook, we must continue to learn and to teach. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon which side of the camp you stand on) the flying side of education these days involves a lot of avionics, regulation, psychology and other factors that might not seem to initially fit. How dare we bemoan the safety record that has led the FAA and NTSB to scrutinize us and at the same time complain about efforts to improve the operations of EAB aircraft.

What seems to be missing is that the realization that while there is a significant and important "vintage" component to the EAA's mission, we oft forget that first word in the group's name: Experimental. It's more than a moniker, it's more than just our certification class and it is most certainly more than simply a throwback to the days when Mr. Poberezny (my apologies to the family if I misspelled that) and his fellow brand of trailblazers were working out their landmark designs. Our place, our rightful goal in the aviation community is as standard bearers for the advancement of all aviation. Never forget where we come from, never stop looking for somewhere new to go (literally and figuratively) and support each other in whatever we endeavor to do.

Sorry for going a little overboard....this is just something I feel very passionate about.

Steve

[Petrinko]

Steve / Neil: I fully agree. I grew up with a aircraft in my living room as it took shape it eventually went into the basement. I watched both of my parents read SA cover to cover scowering the magazine for this building tip or that. Having worked in aviation field for over 30 years (military), I know I will never put a PT6 turbine on my aircraft, never fix my Thorp T18 with kevlar or install a EFIS in my aircraft. About 20 years ago I stepped away from EAA, continued to build my aircraft because SA use to stand for homebuilt aircraft, classic, warbirds, grass roots, etc. Sadly the focus shifted to corporate, and for most of us aircraft and technology that many can not afford.

I came to the realization that, I find more support for my aircraft via aircraft forums, and the internet. I suspect that your scratch built aircraft would fall into this catagory as well.

Great post.

[steveinindy]

I suspect that your scratch built aircraft would fall into this catagory as well.

I have found a nice mix between forums, the various magazines out there and the technical journals (since a lot of what I am trying to do is practical application of things that have been previously described but not really applied to general aviation). I don't disregard or shy away from any potential source of information. My approach is simply "trust but verify". I cannot afford to do any less.

[Neil]

Steve, as someone who has built a good portion of several Carbon Fiber/Turbine Powered aircraft, my hat is off to you. They are a tremendous amount of work and are in the true spirit of homebuilding. I am however glad to be back to work on my tube and rag biplane.

We have to remember that the old Sport Aviation was written by builders for builders. Not so much any more.

[steveinindy]

We have to remember that the old Sport Aviation was written by builders for builders. Not so much any more.

Well, let's get back to that then. I'm a believer that if you're not willing to fix a problem you have zero room to grouse about it publicly.

[Aaron Novak]

I think art of why the technical homebuilt information gets "stale" is that its always written for the beginner. Thats fine but at some point there needs to be some advanced material added as well. I will take welding as an example as its something I am familiar with on aviation materials. Over the last 10 years there has been a number of beginner type articles, and a few articles that are just BS from the welding machine companies. If a person were just to read those articles they would not get 1% of what they needed to know, and would be swayed by marketing more than anything. So I can see something like this, a series of articles on designing and fabricating tubing weldments, not too wordy, but filled with sound engineering and background. No articles written to sell welding machines, or filler material. Just sound basic welding engineering translated from industry to homebuilding. Start with a 101, then do an advanced article answering the "why" questions. Heck Id skip for joy to write that! Someone can do the same for composites, metalworking, woodworking, wiring and such. Just keep out the politics, the corporate funding and get back to real engineering.