Doe Mac McClellan Write For EAA?

[crusty old aviator]

So Wes...would that a be the wood tailed EAA Biplane, or the steel tube version, you need a stick shaker in???

[miemsed]

Maybe the meat and potatoes of EAA activity is changing which may not be a bad thing. I enjoy many of the articles including Macs. Some of the home building articles are interesting many are not. So I just do not read them. I do not complain that they should not be there.

[cluttonfred]

Maybe the meat and potatoes of EAA activity is changing which may not be a bad thing. I enjoy many of the articles including Macs. Some of the home building articles are interesting many are not. So I just do not read them. I do not complain that they should not be there.

I know we've had these threads before, but I for one do not embrace the direction that Mac McClellan is taking Sport Aviation. I just went over to Oshkosh365.org and ran a search for all the articles large and small penned by McClellan in 2013. There were a lot of them--36 articles in twelve issues--but only two or three had anything to do with experimental, vintage, aerobatic or ultralight aviation. The rest could have appeared in Plane & Pilot or Flying or AOPA Pilot without skipping a beat and quite a few read like commercial product endorsements.

There nothing wrong with general aviation or the general aviation magazines--we've all picked up a copy to drool over the light jets or newest Mooney--but that is not what EAA is all about. By allowing the lines to blur between our recreational aviation organization's magazine and those of the general aviation community, we are losing what is distinct and special about EAA. Personally, if there were an option to pass on receiving Sport Aviation and just get the Experimenter online newsletter, I would take it, and not because of the cost.

In recent years I have joined the UK's Light Aircraft Association (LAA, ex-PFA) and I look forward with enthusiasm to receiving their magazine Light Aviation every month. The focus is far more on practical advice for amateur, vintage and microlight (light sport) builders and pilots than in Sport Aviation, and even the articles on antique aircraft often focus on modest planes (Polikarpov Po-2, Druine D.60 Condor, RAF BE.2C replica from a Tiger Moth) that more of us might actually envision owning someday. At $105 per year for an overseas membership it's not cheap but well worth it in my view.

Sport Aviation actually improved markedly a couple of years ago when the old paper Experimenter was discontinued: revamped format, more nuts-and-bolts tips and tricks, more prominent coverage of ultralight and light sport aircraft. The recent trend of general aviation articles is a step backwards. Mac, please bring our magazine back!

[miemsed]

I know we've had these threads before, but I for one do not embrace the direction that Mac McClellan is taking Sport Aviation. I just went over to Oshkosh365.org and ran a search for all the articles large and small penned by McClellan in 2013. There were a lot of them--36 articles in twelve issues--but only two or three had anything to do with experimental, vintage, aerobatic or ultralight aviation. The rest could have appeared in Plane & Pilot or Flying or AOPA Pilot without skipping a beat and quite a few read like commercial product endorsements.

There nothing wrong with general aviation or the general aviation magazines--we've all picked up a copy to drool over the light jets or newest Mooney--but that is not what EAA is all about. By allowing the lines to blur between our recreational aviation organization's magazine and those of the general aviation community, we are losing what is distinct and special about EAA. Personally, if there were an option to pass on receiving Sport Aviation and just get the Experimenter online newsletter, I would take it, and not because of the cost.

In recent years I have joined the UK's Light Aircraft Association (LAA, ex-PFA) and I look forward with enthusiasm to receiving their magazine Light Aviation every month. The focus is far more on practical advice for amateur, vintage and microlight (light sport) builders and pilots than in Sport Aviation, and even the articles on antique aircraft often focus on modest planes (Polikarpov Po-2, Druine D.60 Condor, RAF BE.2C replica from a Tiger Moth) that more of us might actually envision owning someday. At $105 per year for an overseas membership it's not cheap but well worth it in my view.

Sport Aviation actually improved markedly a couple of years ago when the old paper Experimenter was discontinued: revamped format, more nuts-and-bolts tips and tricks, more prominent coverage of ultralight and light sport aircraft. The recent trend of general aviation articles is a step backwards. Mac, please bring our magazine back!

I think it is time to put this conversation in perspective. Your appeal in your last sentence is not worded correctly, you say "Mac please bring our magazine back" but I suggest that maybe that is not what you really mean because "OUR" magazine is already here. Sport Aviation is "OUR" magazine as it has articles of interest for all EAA members. Not all of the articles are of interest to me and not all are of interest to you but all most all members can find articles that interest them in the magazine. It seems what you want is to bring back YOUR magazine. A magazine that meets your limited interest in aviation and leaves out any article that does not fit into what you are interested in. EAA is changing and Sport Aviation is changing with it. EAA members have different ideas of what Sport Aviation means and that is reflected in OUR magazine. EAA is doing well with the Magazine in my opinion. I am an EAA member.

[cluttonfred]

I think it is time to put this conversation in perspective. Your appeal in your last sentence is not worded correctly, you say "Mac please bring our magazine back" but I suggest that maybe that is not what you really mean because "OUR" magazine is already here. Sport Aviation is "OUR" magazine as it has articles of interest for all EAA members. Not all of the articles are of interest to me and not all are of interest to you but all most all members can find articles that interest them in the magazine. It seems what you want is to bring back YOUR magazine. A magazine that meets your limited interest in aviation and leaves out any article that does not fit into what you are interested in. EAA is changing and Sport Aviation is changing with it. EAA members have different ideas of what Sport Aviation means and that is reflected in OUR magazine. EAA is doing well with the Magazine in my opinion. I am an EAA member.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I made it to Oshkosh for the first time two years ago and was appalled at how little attention was paid to the experimental, vintage, aerobatic and ultralight aircraft which I thought were at the core of what EAA represents. Instead, such aircraft were shoved to the side and off into the distance by big commerical displays and private corporate stands. If homebuilt aircraft and the rest are no longer at the heart of what EAA stands for, I wonder if it's time to change the name of the organization? "General Aviation Association," "Corporate-Sponsored Aviation," and "Rich Man's Aviation Association" are a few possibilities that come to mind. And yes, I have been an EAA member for over 20 years.

[CarlOrton]

Would NRA's American Rifleman have a story about a Zebco reel? Fishing is closely related to hunting, in fact lots of us don't do one without the other. Yet I don't want a fish story in a gun mag.

[miemsed]

Would NRA's American Rifleman have a story about a Zebco reel? Fishing is closely related to hunting, in fact lots of us don't do one without the other. Yet I don't want a fish story in a gun mag.

Wow is all I can say.

[Chad Jensen]

You guys know this is a never-ending debate, right? I no longer work for EAA, but the magazine as it is put out today covers the best range of what EAA is today. Paul always said, "all are welcome" and I think that's what the magazine is about now. Good or bad, your opinion or mine, it DOES serve the membership well. You may not like it, but from what I know about EAA membership in working there, it really does.

I am a homebuilder at heart...still can't wait to get started on a new project one of these days, but even as a homebuilder and loyal EAA member, I love reading about different areas of aviation within "our" magazine.

There is the Experimenter magazine that is nothing but EAB...quite an awesome digital publication geared directly for the homebuilt community. Each of the divisions have their own magazine too, but I think it's awesome that I can read about a bit of everything in the flagship Sport Aviation.

[Dave Stadt]

Wow is all I can say.

My thoughts exactly. Guess I missed the fish stories.

[CarlOrton]

My thoughts exactly. Guess I missed the fish stories.

Gee, guys, I was just trying to tag along with others in the preceding messages. Cluttonfred and miemsed were commenting about how the emphasis in Sport Aviation and EAA originally represented. I was just providing a short example of another passionate group. I could have picked about a "building birdhouses" magazine (if one existed) and having them branch off into squirrel feeders.

I guess what got me going was that while not 100% thrilled, I accepted Sport Aviation for what it is - an excellent product. Then, someone (can't remember who, but it's in the thread...) made the comment that they at first would ignore Mac's column, then got bothered because pages were spent on things other than things in which they were interested.

The magazine has evolved over the past 2-3 years where it has really become a GREAT experimental-related, sport-related product. What's wrong with asking for more.

I'm not a debater and won't discuss this further; just thought I'd give some insight into why I said it. Like I said - I was just continuing the thoughts of prior posters.