Cirrus in Sport Aviation

[Bill Berson]

So Jack apparently said EAA should now include factory new airplanes. ( note, it's not part of current EAA mission statement)
And Jack said the words "general aviation" comes close to defining EAA, but he thinks "personal flying" is a better mission statement.

Is Jack talking about Airventure or the content of Sport Aviation?
Because we know that the aircraft displayed at Airventure go far beyond " personal flying". At Airventure we find current military airplanes and helicopters ( C-5 Galaxy, Blackhawks, etc.), commercial airliners and business jets and much more.
It's clear that Airventure is not " pigeonholed" to personal flying.

A few years ago, Tom Poberezny said: " Airventure is the template for Sport Aviation magazine". Which means, I think, anything shown at Airventure is suitable for Sport Aviation.

So, it seems to me that the EAA leaders are still on path to continue with mission " growth" into these other areas of commercial aviation. I hope Jack better clarifies the current EAA mission and future content of Sport Aviation. I fear the future of "personal aviation" is at stake here.

[PA11]

Not to ruin your "anti-Cirrus" campaign, but the Cirrus the article covers came to be after the development of the VK-30, a homebuilt kit that is actually a part of the EAA's AirVenture Museum collection. How dare those boys try to capitalize on their passion.

[Joe LaMantia]

I think we're all a bit confused regarding EAA and "Sport Aviation". EAA was and still is about local Chapters, people who get together to have fun with aircraft...all kinds of aircraft! EAA HQ started out as a focal point for information. Sport Aviation, in the early days was the tool to share information with a growing membership that spread all over the USA and then around the world. As EAA grew larger HQ got bigger, richer, and with more resources was able to do more, like the whole complex at OSH. "AirVenture" is more than a fly-in, it's an introduction of aviation to the general public. Lots of folks on these threads are concerned about the shrinking pilot population, well the "convention" covers all the bases! If your passion is low and slow, home builts, kits, and classics then go to the many local and regional fly-in's, and join a local EAA Chapter. There are many more avenues available to communicate today then what was available in 1950 and the audience is much larger. Sport Aviation reaches a broader more diverse audience, then it's earlier versions. I used to get 4 magazines, S/A , AOPA Pilot, Flying, and Kitplanes. I had a hard time reading all that in a month and there was always some duplication. Today I get 2 S/A and AOPA I can read most of it and still find some duplication. I'm not troubled by articles from writers from "Flying" or other magazines, it all informative aviation related, and holds my interest.

Joe

[martymayes]

Today I get 2 S/A and AOPA I can read most of it and still find some duplication.

makes one wonder if they are not competing for each other's members......

[Tom Charpentier]

You guys might chuckle a little at what we were writing about 25 years ago this month:

[FlyingRon]

I gave up reading Sport Aviation a few years ago. It goes straight in the recycling. After reading some incorrect and dangerous articles and calling them on it and getting rude and arrogant responses from the editor, I've had it.

[Bill Berson]

Tom,
The VK-30 was a Homebuilt and deserved to be on the cover.
EAA is supposed to represent homebuilders. It is a conflict of interest for EAA to also represent commercial aviation. The factories would prefer to limit the freedoms of homebuilders. All manufacturers lobby the government (FAA) for rules that help narrow the market for them.
The manufacturers have several lobby groups (GAMA, LAMA, NBAA,....)

Homebuilders only have (or had) only one focused lobby in EAA.
EAA should lobby for homebuilders. Who else will do that?

[Bill Greenwood]

I notice that Cirrus is on the cover of FLYING now also. I am not all that upset that it is on the Sport Aviation cover one month, even though it is now a factory plane. It did come from a homebuilt, designed by some homegrown Wisconsin Republican Ripon college grads.
It is a fairly high performance sporty type airplane that is of interest to some EAA folks. It probably is a good way to go cross country.
My friend owns one, and I have a little flight time in it. I'd never buy one since I don't like trying to manuever with the silly side stick thing, and no, I don't think I would get used to it. But it has some good points like the chute and good visibility, and is pretty comfortable inside. I think Patty Wagstaff may have done an acro show in it a few years ,so it probably handles well enough, but is not certified for any acro now.

I looked up the VK-30, and found some performance statisics that seem to have a lot of advertising creativity in them, but I can't say for sure.

I see one for sale for a mere $275,000. It was finished in 1992 and only has 70 hours on it. Now if a plane is supposed to be a hot state of the art ship, but has only flown a average of 4 hours per year, then maybe it is not all it is claimed to be. If I was to guess from way out with no test info, it might be that there could be cg problems and stall/spin recovery problems with the weight in the back and maybe engine cooling problems.

Just on one fact, other than seaplanes, what percentage of really sucessful planes are pusher designs?

The parachute, which I think started out as a gimmick to draw a certain type of buyer has proven to be a good thing over the years. I do think it would be best to first design and test a plane that would recover from a spin in a normal manner and then have the chute as the emergency backup.

[PA11]

Not sure you can say the parachute was a good thing, Bill. Some argue that it's existence pushes pilots beyond their normal competence, which the aircraft's fatal accident rate would support.

[Tom Charpentier]

Bill B., without getting too much into the weeds on what we do and don't "lobby" (I hate that word but it's what we do) for, I can tell you that when we go to Washington we do a ton of work on behalf of the homebuilding community and will continue to. We are well aware of who we are and who our members are, and politicians and the agencies alike recognize us as the leading voice for our community. Even when we work on projects such as Part 23 reform it is with the aim of helping owners of vintage and older type-certificated aircraft maintain their aircraft safely and affordably. We work for our membership, and we never lose sight of that. I promise. Without, to use Jack's word, "pigeonholing" ourselves, we do know where our niche is.

I'm a policy wonk by trade but I've loved aviation my whole life and was a chapter member for several years before coming here. I was always interested in homebuilding although I never had the opportunity to try it before I went to work on our staff build. Now I'm daydreaming about building my own and in the meantime flying our RV-6A and CUBy. I love aviation, I love this community, and I speak for our whole department when I say we take defending the freedom to build, own, and fly airplanes very seriously.