Parking in the North 40

[eaajen]

By EAA definition, homebuilts, warbirds, ultralights, rotorcraft, and vintage ARE showplanes regardless of how pretty they are. Your late model spam can is not. I know you don't think it's fair, but that's the way the EAA runs. People don't come to see an 80's era POS Cherokee.

All the parking south of the COM shack/ Vintage Red Barn with the exception of the Ultralight area and three rows next to the Zaugs trailers is Vintage. The area you are talking about (between the Theatre in the woods/Red Barn back to the Hangar Cafe area, is prime Vintage real estate. The first four or five rows of that are reserved for the pre-1945 stuff as well.

Hi ron,

1. I know all planes in those groups are by definition show planes. What I am getting at is the determination to include them in the category is semantics, arbitrary, and it's leaving acres free and open in the S and cramped conditions in the N.

2. I am NOT talking about that field. I said the field south of that field, the one surrounded by trees. It's even rather hidden. It's NOT the field you mentioned.

3. "Late model spam can..."? "'80s era POW Cherokee"? I feel you are being derogatory, and that is uncalled for. I'd like to ask you to please refer to us with dignity, please. We are as much a part of the EAA as anyone.

4. If Vintage, Warbirds, etc., can have their own group within the EAA and designate themselves showplanes, then MODERN aircraft should be able to, as well: A "Modern Aircraft Association," a division with in the EAA as well as any other.

My plane is a 2009 CSA SportCruiser, not an "'80s POS Cherokee." It's an S-LSA, production aircraft. When I stop for fuel anywhere, I get people looking at it, remarking that it looks sleek... It looks rather like a metal version of a Glassair, though it only goes 134 mph. It's quite different. People ask what it is..... I've owned a variety of aircraft in Vintage for 20 years, and none of them have gotten the looks this one gets, and it's the NEW, MODERN DESIGN that's doing it.

There are a lot of such newer planes that people like to see. The new, modern designs are turning heads....

....not so much a 1968 Bonanza, or a 1965 Cherokee, both of which are designated by Vintage as showplanes.

Like I'm saying, the definition of what is and what is not, is arbitrary, by agreement. And the newer ones are turning heads.

So why can't we be given as much consideration?

If it's needed we have our own association within the EAA, then why can't we?

Jen

[RickFE]

I like the N 40. It may be a bit tight but my 3 man tent seems to fit behind the left tent ok, along with my cooler etc. One year we even had two tents and it worked out nicely.

I have a 65 Cherokee so I guess I have the option of doing VAC but I felt that the nice facilities and closeness to things trumped the VAC area. I could live with either but still think I will ask for the GAC N-40 again this year. Besides, I don't spend much time there anyway except at the end of the day when I crawl in my bag and snooze out until the next fun filled day.

Flew to S n F this year. If I do it again next year, I think I will go VAC though. Just seems closer to the things I want to get to.

[eaajen]

I think that, even if Airventure wants older planes (pre '70 ish) to be "showplanes" and have an area for them, then the space still needs to be re-allocated, as the North 40 is so very cramped. You can see what I'm talking about on Google Earth.

North 40 planes are T-ed, overcrowded. Sometimes a plane puts out multiple tents. Sometimes tents crowd into the taxilanes -- see the google earth site for yourself.......

....All this so that acres of open, usually un-used space is available for Vintage or other?

If a 1969 172 is a showplane, then why isn't a modern SLSA?

I think the idea of having older planes be part of the show is great. Truly. But I think time marched on, and space-allocation needs to march with it.

Jen