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!