What do you like about EAA.org and why? It is a great sounding board and advocate for homebuilt airplanes.
What would you change about EAA.org and why? More and more the EAA seems to be gravitating toward the $200,000 so-called homebuilts. EAA was formed for those of us who can't afford that kind of airplane. Please return to EAA's roots. The monied types have their own organizations and groups. Keep It Simple.
Not this crap again. As soon as Paul backs down from his "There's room enough for us all" stance then maybe there might be some grounds for your argument but as it stands, the reason EAA seems to be "gravitating towards" those sorts of airplanes is because that is what most people are building (RVs, Lancairs, etc). If you look at the numbers, not as many of us are building Pietenpols or other classics from the days when the EAA was Paul and his buddies hanging out at his house. Times change and organizations adapt or they because stagnant and wither on the vine.What would you change about EAA.org and why? More and more the EAA seems to be gravitating toward the $200,000 so-called homebuilts.
Statement of interests: I am designing a $200,000+ aircraft that I'm going to build so I guess I'm not really a homebuilder because my design is too expensive. The good news is that my LSA design is more in line with the "those of us who can't afford that kind of airplane." In fact, I'll be selling the plans for that to fund my real project.
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
I'd be interested in seeing "the numbers" from which you are making this claim....Originally Posted by steveinindy
Hmm, I disagree with the highlited premise.
IMO, EAA is gravitating towards being a vaguely defined aviation organization ("An airshow with a magazine"). The homebuilt, warbird, and antique focus is way down. That focus has been replaced with content built around columnists and certified aircraft.
Do we really need another thread about how some of us have our panties in a knot? If you're not happy with the "direction" of the EAA, keep your money don't go to Oshkosh and maybe see how successful you are in starting your own group yearning for the "good ol' days" before Van and Lance Neiubauer ruined things.
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
If you have something more interesting to talk about, start a thread. Nobody is forcing you to read this one.
I'm just making the point that this is about the fourth thread since the new forums were put up about the same thing and nothing constructive has come out of any of them. They tend to be the same five or six people griping with no meaningful suggestions about how to improve things other than firing Mac and "returning to the roots of the EAA" (whatever the hell that means). There's room enough in the organization for those of us who want fast airplanes, those of us who want ultralights and those of us who want to relive our childhood fantasies of Cubs and other older aircraft. If someone can't except that, as you say, no one is forcing them to post on this forum, attend Oshkosh or give money to an organization that doesn't meet their expectations. Your admonition that I should more or less mind my own business cuts both ways Kyle. If you want to bash an organization I happen to think is doing quite well in keeping our ability to build planes a viable option and is moving to support the average builder rather than the wishes of a few traditionalists who just like to hear themselves whine, I'm most certainly going to stand up and vociferiously defend the Association. The EAA is my organization as much as it is yours and as my grandmother always taught me, "If you don't have a solution that actually solves the problem without creating bigger ones, then it's usually best to shut the hell up."
It's pretty frequently claimed that RVs are the most commonly constructed homebuilt these days with about 7500 of them built so far (Sport Aviation: 15. January 2012 et cetera). Someone without an agenda would generally look at that as a good indicator that the market has shifted.I'd be interested in seeing "the numbers" from which you are making this claim....
Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.
"I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.
And who is the most prominent poster in all of those unproductive threads?
Those of us who take issue with EAA's direction are not going to take our ball and go home, we are going to work to try to change things. One of the ways that we do that is to use forums like this to persuade others to see things the way we do. That's what this forum is for. Feel free to do the same, but kindly refrain from referring to our opinions as "crap."
Jeff Point
RV-6 and RLU-1 built & flying
Tech Counselor, Flight Advisor & President, EAA Chapter 18
Milwaukee, WI
"It All Started Here!"
If one is not considered a builder until their project is complete, I might be inclined to agree. However, I don't think one can accurately infer that number of completions represents what kind of aircraft are being constructed. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
A 1999 paper published by Attorney Robert C. Owens summarized data from a study that indicated there were four completed kit-built aircraft for every one completed plans built aircraft. The overall completion rate for kit-built aircraft is >60% where the completion rate for plans built aircraft is ~5%.
From your information source I think we can infer that 1) Van's aircraft/kits are very popular and 2) A good kit greatly improves the builder's odds of finishing his project.
While while you do your best to minimize the efforts of those building low, slow, wooden, steel tube and fabric airplanes, they are out there. Construction progress for those builders is likely measured in years, not weeks or months. The aircraft they are working on may never be completed but the builders are just as much a builder as the guy that assembles an RV kit.
concur. example?
EAA Sport Aviation - March 2011
the cover story was covered better in the june 2006 issue of Kitplanes.
Last edited by Mike M; 03-10-2012 at 05:43 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote