Where is Sport Aviation going?

[prasmussen]

The chapter's techie suggests I not make a bunch of changes to the plans-built that is gradually growing in my shop. Maybe he is right. And so maybe I'm not experimenting as much as I am enjoying Escaping the Regulations and Costs which Surround a Certified Aircraft. ERCSCAA isn't as graceful as EAA but, who can tell, maybe it'll catch on.

[Qmiester]

It isn't just the EAA. I've dealt with one or more FAA GADO/FSDO for almost 40 years now and it seems that most of the younger guys now working there (at least on the maintenance side of the house) are firmly convinced that the smallest light aircraft are either Lear 35s or Cessna Citations!

[Eric Witherspoon]

And here's a radical suggestion! ... "You want me to let my kid fly in someone's science project???". Any thought ever been given to changing the name of the organization?

I already started that thread. Not sure if it was on this version of the forums or the previous one. You want to poke the ant hill with a stick - start this idea as a separate thread. Conclusion - even if "Experimental" brings up some incorrect connotations to those on the outside, the vast majority of people on the inside have real problems with the thought of changing the government-selected word for our carefully crafted replicas of proven designs.

I think there could be some worthy distinction between creating your own, unique, never before seen, flown, or tested creation vice carefully following published manuals and plans to create a replica of something that has been thoroughly tested (and I don't mean ELSA). But others see them all as Experiments, and forever more shall be so. The distinction of not being certified to FAR 23 shall not be messed with!

Of course it would be complicated. Probably TOO complicated. What "falls under" the new "Custom" category? How much of a deviation from published plans is too much? Would such a change really only be taking ELSA to bigger, faster levels (must use the same switches, same lights, same radios, same air vents, etc, or it's back into E-AB with it!)

Can I select my own instruments, use my choice of tires, add an autopilot - where's the line? Or do you propose to throw out E-AB entirely! Then we get into the "be careful what you ask for" part of the argument - multiple in-process FAA / FSDO inspections, licensed engineers to approve any deviations from the documentation... Don't mess with what we have! It's pretty darned free already, and if someone won't ride in it because the government says we have to put a big "EXPERIMENTAL" label on it, then too bad for them!

So Jerry, if you can dig up my previous thread, and get through the battle documented therin, you might conclude that yes, it is too radical a suggestion. Sorry.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Man, where did that all come from? Just suggesting changing the name of the organization - not rewritting the FARs. But, as you point out - prolly wouldn't do much good anyway with that plaquard on the airplane.....

[Joe LaMantia]

If the founder of EAA couldn't get the name changed, Eric's comments certainly explain the difficulty in detail. Brings to mind the old saying; "you can't push a rope"!

Joe

[Bill Greenwood]

If we are talking just about the direction of the magazine, I enjoyed the last issue of the magazine. I am not primarily a homebuilder, though I have some interest in what new designs come out; not from the standpoint of me building another homebuilt, but as another addition to the fun (or sport side) part of aviation. And of course I am interested in most of the other parts of gen av except the modern jet stuff.

I liked the cover of Sport Av., with the great photo of the CAF B-29 flying over Oshkosh and the convention spread out below. I am not a big ra ra fan of atomic bombs, I see the horrible results when used on a civilian population; but I am glad to see Fifi flying again and I am proud of the enormous amount of hard work and just don't quit attitude the went into getting her flying again and with the new engines which seem to be proving a lot less trouble. Gary Austin was the brains and much of the push behind Fifi and Jim Cavanaugh provided much of the financial donation needed. I am a CAF life member, not very active now, but think most any other organization would have been satisfied to have had Fifi as only a dust covered, inanimate object in a museum.

The cover of Warbirds was the Seafire Mk XV, and inside a short piece on flying it, as it is somewhat different from a standard land Spitfire , especially a Merlin engine one. It had some disadvantages as for as landing on a carrier, but certainly no takeoff or climb shortcomings, and once airborne was a potent weapon, far ahead of something like a Martlet,(Wildcat).
Any version of a Spitfire/Seafire is among the most beautiful of airplanes,and the XV has that extra military purpose and carrier look about it.

[Bill Greenwood]

If we are talking about where sport; that is aviation for fun is going, some part of the homebuilt and or LSA movement seem to be making progress. But we still don't have any new design that I know of that is a normal type airplane, not like an ultralight, which can be bought for well under $100,000 and which flights schools and FBO could have for low cost basic instruction and rentals.

There are plenty of sport type kits like R V s in the medium price range and Cirrus, etc. at the high end.