What the heck is this???

[Mike Switzer]

I guess I don't understand why the Experimenter content isn't included in Sport Aviation anyway. Look at back issues, that is what the content of the whole magazine used to be. The magazine is going to print anyway, the cost of adding those pages each month is minimal, especially with the modern electronic format printing processes being used.

[m796rider]

To be fair, the TBM article is not all bad--if it had been just a two-pager celebrating Socata's 100-year history as the heir to Morane-Saulnier, with a sidebar on their latest and greatest creation, the TBM 850, I think none of us would be complaining. But a seven-page article on a multimillion dollar business aircraft--neither homebuilt, nor aerobatic, nor antique, nor warbird, nore even a general aviation type that mere mortals might rent on a weekend--has no place in an EAA publication titled and dedicated to "Sport Aviation." If this trend continues I think we will see a lot of negative reaction from the membership.

I am with Mole 100% on this one. I used to keep back issues of Sport Aviation to reread and pore over. Now they go into the recycle bin a couple of days after I get them. Sport Aviation is in danger of becoming like every other "general interest" magazine I buy at the airport and leave in the seatback pouch when the flight is over.

[smutny]

This is why I choose not to get the magazine with my subscription. In fact, the only reason I'm still an EAA member is because it's required to be one to be a member of the IAC.

Until the video archive was created with some focus on maintenance, the EAA portion of my membership had no value to me.

[mikeno]

Experimenter is alive and well, though it's online only, it is all homebuilt coverage all the time. It's a free subscription and we are working on moving it to more of an online magazine, rather than a newsletter. Check it out if you haven't already. Lots of great stuff there! This simply isn't going to happen...I always stress to members that are upset about the magazine that EAA offers so much more for the homebuilder than just the magazine. Hints for homebuilders, webinars, Experimenter, government advocacy (this is huge...), and Sport Aviation, although changing a bit, still has all the homebuilder content it has had in the past...there's just more additional content added. The flagship magazine has to appeal to the entire membership, and the current spread is covering all of it. There are lots of homebuilders on EAA Staff...I think you'll like some of the articles being worked on for future issues...

Of the hundreds of thousands of EAA members around the world how many do you honestly believe are owners or even potential owners of the $3M TBM? What audience is JMac speaking to? You cannot logically argue that it was directed to the homebuilder, the warbirder, the antique/classic guy/gals, or the light sport crowd. Yes, there are alternate sources of information for special interests but Sport Aviation is the magazine of the EAA membership " flagship magazine has to appeal to the entire membership" and articles such as this are so far outside the interests of the membership that one wonders what the motivation was.

[Kyle Boatright]

I finally got my hard copy of the November SA. In addition to the extremely out of place TBM article, there was also a bad article on Mac flying a Bell 47. This was accompanied by the cover photo of Mac in the left seat of the Bell 47. If you read the article, it is a flight report: "I this, I that, I something else". Mac needs to understand that the magazine isn't "Mac's World". His photo doesn't need to be on the cover, and he needs to write in the 3rd person - it ain't about him. If he wants to do a flight report on a Bell 47, great. Find one that someone drug out of a barn and restored. Make the story about the helicopter and the owner, with a flight test thrown in. The current direction of the magazine is horribly misguided.

[Mike Switzer]

I finally got my hard copy of the November SA.

I still haven't got mine - but that is the norm for both EAA & AOPA - I get both of those the 3rd week of the month that is on the cover

[Eric Marsh]

I am a member of the EAA because of my interest in experimental aircraft. My Tripacer may be a classic but if I want to meet other vintage certified aircraft enthusiasts I would expect to also join the VAA. I am a member of the Shortwing Piper Club. My certified aircraft interests are more or less covered by my AOPA membership. So in essence I am looking forward to information about experimental and homebuild aircraft in my EAA publications.

[onpetree]

I really hate the new direction that Sport Aviation and EAA in general is taking... When President Paul created this organization he did so to help guide and promote the "little guy"... There are many reasons to build an airplane in one's garage, and not the least of which is cost of the craft itself! In the old days Paul Poberezny, Tony Bingelis, Jack Cox, Steve Whitman, etc etc... built EAA to inform, promote, encourage others that may be interested in home building their own aircraft. They always had safety in mind, but were NEVER afraid of liability incurred by printing "How to Guides" in Sport Aviation. Further, these guys and others promoted & protected aviation in Washington. I attended Airventure 2011. It had been about 25 years since I was last there for the fly-in. Back in the 80's one could sit on the flight line and watch the homebuilt's, one of a kinds, and Experimental's fly around the pattern. Announcers would expound the virtues of this or that design. One could learn a little about the aircraft & designer/builder. Later in the afternoon those aircraft were parked so that interested potential builders or just the interested could walk right up to them and have a look.This past summer NONE OF THIS happened... NO HOMEBUILTS flew in the pattern except those arriving or departing Whitman Field. The Fly-In was about War Birds & commercial interest. The very reason for EAA's existence is now largely ignored or merely tolerated. BIG MONEY is the theme now at Oshkosh and Sport Aviation. RIP Sport Aviation & EAA... maybe someone will begin again, and pick up the torch of the founders of the original organization. I understand economics as well as the next person, but MONEY is now the driving force behind EAA... It used to be Experimental Aircraft... It's a real shame.

[Bob Dingley]

I may be naive, I thought the issues were mailed over a short time period. Burtles opened the discussion on Oct 26 and I get my copy on Nov 15. Good reason that I didn't know what the discussion was about for three weeks. I'm not complaining, just wondering. Anybody get theirs later than I get mine?
Bob

[Eric Page]

Even allowing for the fact that self-selecting surveys, like this thread, are almost useless from the standpoint of producing statistically useful data, there's clearly a significant current of discontent among many EAA members concerning some of the recent items in Sport Aviation. This is the second multi-page thread on this topic -- a remarkable thing considering the age and member count of this forum.

Are the sentiments expressed here being discussed at EAA HQ meetings? Are EAA's leadership and SA's editorial staff being made aware of these posts, and of their growing number? What is the reaction, if any?

Are the things we're discussing here the result of scientific membership polling that indicates a desire for, e.g. ~$3M turboprop reviews? Or, are they being driven by the desires or "gut feeling" of one or more persons at HQ?