Ron, both you and I are of the opinion that the FAA has shortchanged experimental aircraft via overinflation of certified stats (hours and aircraft) while underinflating those of experimentals. Additionally ALL types of experimentals (exhibition, racing, et) show in the accident stats along with many older unique certified a/c mistakenly added to those roles. I knew also that certifieds would lose out on the Nall report via reduced registrations. Even with that, there are still many certifieds being registered that are in pieces in the rafters of hangars.
Along comes an example where E-AB has positive stats with various opinionable reasons. I would tend to think that EAA would lend itself toward a more positive version of these opinionable reasons (especially given the aforementioned skewing of stats)
If I were flying a Baby Ace or a Pietenpol (I've flown both), etc and that's was my MAIN exposure then I would concede to the line of reasoning being given. I've got close to 6K hours in a multitude of various certified and otherwise a/c ranging from ultralights to DC3s. I attend lots of aviation events. We're seeing this from 2 different sides of EA-B. IMO, there is PLENTY of cross country activity in homebuilts. Mac doesn't think so. The only factual statements he and I have made is that it's an OPINION. Wouldn't EAA/EA-B, be better served taking a viewpoint of potential optimism instead of negative fatalism? Think about the glass and AP manufacturers that are vendors at Oshkosh, Sun-N-Fun, etc. How many thousands of units do you think Dynon, MGL, Advanced, GRT, etc have sold. Isn't it logical that those planes will be more cross country oriented?