Cirrus in Sport Aviation

[Kyle Boatright]

A rant:

Why does SA bother to publish an article that:

A) Isn't appropriate for SA in the first place.

B) Is a near-duplicate of the cover articles in Flying and AOPA.

There are so many interesting and unique things in the Sport Aviation community, why, oh why, does the magazine waste useful feature article space on content members can get elsewhere?

It is maddening.

[kscessnadriver]

1) Who are you to say what is and isn't sport aviation. 2) Money doesn't grow on trees.

[steveinindy]

*sigh* Here we go again...

[Kyle Boatright]

I'm a dues paying member. Would you like to see a cancelled check or a credit card reciept?

Are you implying that this was a pay for play advertorial or feature article? If you believe that, do you think that's appropriate in a member magazine, especially if it isn't clearly marked as a paid ad?

[Floatsflyer]

I don't get your A) premise. What is it exactly that makes it an inappropriate article/subject for Sport Aviation? It is about "aviation" and it certainly is included in "sport" type flying. So what if 99% of us can't afford to buy one. I suspect that if a Cirrus cost $100K new instead of $600K, you wouldn't be so pissed off.

[martymayes]

Kyle: The beatings will continue until morale improves. EAA has to bring readers up their expectations.






thanks for making my day.

[kscessnadriver]

I'm a dues paying member. Would you like to see a cancelled check or a credit card reciept?

Are you implying that this was a pay for play advertorial or feature article? If you believe that, do you think that's appropriate in a member magazine, especially if it isn't clearly marked as a paid ad?

Is it a paid ad, probably not. But by running the article, is it more likely that Cirrus will advertise, perhaps. I'm just as much a dues paying member as you are, and I've got no problem with the article.

It seems to me that EAA is at as much of a crossroads as AOPA. AOPA has been driving the little guys off by what they are doing, and those are turning to EAA. But, the hard core EAA types, like yourself, don't want to share anything but a few Quicksilver ultralight and Vans articles.

[Bill Berson]

If you read the EAA mission statement, it does not mention factory new aircraft.
(at least it didn't last time I read it last year)

[Dave Stadt]

If you read the EAA mission statement, it does not mention factory new aircraft.
(at least it didn't last time I read it last year)

Through the decades, the organization expanded its mission to include antiques, classics, warbirds, aerobatic aircraft, ultralights, helicopters, and contemporary manufactured aircraft.

http://www.eaa.org/about/ to read the entire statement.

[Kyle Boatright]

. But, the hard core EAA types, like yourself, don't want to share anything but a few Quicksilver ultralight and Vans articles.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I want SA to show the little, uncharted nooks of sport aviation. Research like the CAFE tests, restoration stories, stories about young people in aviation, interesting aircraft, record breaking flights, heck how about a preview of the remake of the Homebuilt Camping area at Osh? Very little of that is covered by Flying and AOPA, leaving the field wide open for SA to fill its niche.

But instead, I get essentially the same article delivered to my doorstep 3 different ways - AOPA, Flying, and SA. At least AOPA and flying have an excuse - the updated Cirrus is the only pseudo-new <$1M airplane they have to report on right now that is in their wheelhouse. SA rolling out duplicate content, especially that content, is a lost opportunity to the organization.

[Joe LaMantia]

Well I don't have a problem with the article, it's one of many that keep me informed on what is available if I win the lottery. I do actually buy lottery tickets, only the ones with big $$$ jackpots it's very cheap entertainment daydreaming about what I would do with a whole lota money! You can't win one of these without a ticket and most of the money goes to state school funds which are badly needed here in Ohio. Today I flew our club TriPacer for 1.61 hours which cost me $120.75 wet, plus a bowl of soup and a Coke ($6.52). The soup was very good since the weather here is excellent, and all the real airport bums were out taking advantage of Springs' arrival. I may never actually own any aircraft new or old, but dreaming is what got aviation started and it's the only thing that can keep it going!

Joe
:cool:

[Bill Berson]

Through the decades, the organization expanded its mission to include antiques, classics, warbirds, aerobatic aircraft, ultralights, helicopters, and contemporary manufactured aircraft.

http://www.eaa.org/about/ to read the entire statement.

Yes I know that Dave, but contemporary is defined from 1956-1970. Sport Aviation magazine is NOT authorized by the mission statement to include "advertising articles" about factory new airplanes.


(Copied from current EAA Judging Manual)
VINTAGE AIRCRAFT
ANTIQUE, CLASSIC, AND CONTEMPORARY
I. FORWARD
The purpose of this section of the EAA Official Judging Standards is to lay the groundwork for a viable set of restoration, maintenance, and construction standards against which Vintage aircraft may be judged. The philosophy of these standards must meet two basic criteria. One, the system must be simple. Two, the system must allow consistent and fair competition between common and exotic types.
Throughout these standards will be found the one concept that reflects the opinion of the majority of those individuals contacted during the development of these guidelines. That concept is authenticity. The standards are constructed to encourage the individual to complete and maintain a “factory fresh” aircraft. If the individual’s desire is to deviate from this goal for personal whim, or other reasons, the “cost of not conforming to pure authenticity is known in advance.” A portion of the guidelines pertains to the documentation of authenticity as it relates to the aircraft. The exhibitor is encouraged to prove the authenticity with pictures, letters, factory specifications, or any of the means, which will alleviate the need for “judge’s opinion” in determining authenticity.
The exhibitor may assist the inspection by the judges. Judges will not remove inspection plates nor open panels without the presence and permission of the owner.
II. DEFINITIONS
A. Antique Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, on or before August 31, 1945, with the exception of certain Pre-World War II aircraft models, which had only a small post-war production, shall be defined as Antique Aircraft. Examples: Beechcraft Staggerwing, Fairchild 24, and Monocoupe.
B. Classic Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or his licensee, on or after September 1, 1945, up to and including December 31, 1955.
C. Contemporary Aircraft
An aircraft constructed by the original manufacturer, or its licensee, on or after January 1, 1956, up to and including December 31, 1970.

[martymayes]

It's a Flying magazine article by a Flying magazine writer. Guess in case you missed it in Flying magazine, you can catch it in Sport Aviation.

[SBaircraft]

Cirrus has been a major customer, and partner, with EAA for many years. Do they sometimes get special treatment? Of course! I'm not complaining because they help support our organization!

As a younger member, I actually enjoy hearing about modern airplanes, composites, technology and advancements. Older airplanes have their place, but aviation will die if we only promote 1930's technology.

[Kyle Boatright]

Cirrus has been a major customer, and partner, with EAA for many years. Do they sometimes get special treatment? Of course! I'm not complaining because they help support our organization!

As a younger member, I actually enjoy hearing about modern airplanes, composites, technology and advancements. Older airplanes have their place, but aviation will die if we only promote 1930's technology.

If you're looking for modern technology, look in the cockpits and engine compartments of experimentals.

[steveinindy]

If you're looking for modern technology, look in the cockpits and engine compartments of experimentals.
Cockpits? Yes.
Engine compartments? Not so much. Other than the variably successful (in some cases, laughably questionable) "modification" schemes, I haven't seen anything modern and practical in the engine compartment of an experimental. In fact, a lot of the "modification" schemes are decades old themselves and are based on technology that has its roots in the 1930s. In many ways a VW engine hasn't been significantly changed since before Ol' Adolf ventilated his skull while holed up in a bunker surrounded by Soviets.

However, I think SB's comment was aimed more at those who are wanting to see classic homebuilts (the various Cub clones and other ragwings, etc) and nothing else. People will gripe regardless about what is in Sport Aviation simply because of differing interests. You have the old timers who want what they grew up dreaming of, you have the young folks who want the latest technology, those who see the airplane as strictly a "Yippeeee!" toy for $100 hamburger runs and occupying traffic patterns and those of us who see aircraft as a means to an end for practical purposes (in other words, as a tool). The problem is that most of the groups want to give no ground. In my case, I don't give a crap one way or the other. I like looking at classic birds. Does it mean I will ever buy one, build one or fly one (unless someone else is footing the bill for it)? Probably not but at the same time I learned long ago that marching in lock step or refusing to move gets us nowhere that is fun nor desirable.

[steveinindy]

Well I don't have a problem with the article, it's one of many that keep me informed on what is available if I win the lottery. I do actually buy lottery tickets, only the ones with big $$$ jackpots it's very cheap entertainment daydreaming about what I would do with a whole lota money! You can't win one of these without a ticket and most of the money goes to state school funds which are badly needed here in Ohio. Today I flew our club TriPacer for 1.61 hours which cost me $120.75 wet, plus a bowl of soup and a Coke ($6.52). The soup was very good since the weather here is excellent, and all the real airport bums were out taking advantage of Springs' arrival. I may never actually own any aircraft new or old, but dreaming is what got aviation started and it's the only thing that can keep it going!

Joe
:cool:

If I hit the lottery, I could do a lot better than a Cirrus. I would start by paying the EAA to have a separate magazine for the low and slow crowd and one for the rest of us just so these stupid "OMG! BURN THE HEADQUARTERS! THERE WAS SOMETHING NOT HOMEBUILT IN SPORT AVIATION!" threads. Then again, if you did away with these threads you'd cause this forum to wither and die....

[Joe LaMantia]

Well Said Steve!

I danced around that issue, on purpose. If these guys read Jack Peltons' one page editorial they would at least have a clue regarding what EAA represents today. If all they want is articles on homebuilding then read the "Experimentor" and join a Chapter where all the action is anyway. I probably wouldn't buy a Cirrus either but CubCrafters has some really nice modern Cub types if you loaded!

Joe :cool:

[Kyle Boatright]

Well Said Steve!

I danced around that issue, on purpose. If these guys read Jack Peltons' one page editorial they would at least have a clue regarding what EAA represents today. If all they want is articles on homebuilding then read the "Experimentor" and join a Chapter where all the action is anyway. I probably wouldn't buy a Cirrus either but CubCrafters has some really nice modern Cub types if you loaded!

Joe :cool:

I have plenty of respect for Jack. But I think the continued path of EAA away from its core is a mistake.

If the trend continues, we're going to have AOPA and AOPA Lite (with a good airshow). Is that inspiring enough to bring new people into aviation? If we're going to maintain or grow GA (and we probably won't, if we acknowledge the reality of today's society), we need to inspire 10 year old kids so they want to be 20 year old pilots and so they will make the investment of time and money to reach that goal. Selling point to point transportation in a Cirrus or a Pilatus isn't going to do it. EAA needs to sell the fun and excitement of aviation. Not 30 pages per issue of "How not to kill yourself". Not "For only $600k, you could have one of these too.". Fun and excitement.

Without passion, GA and EAA are in for a continued graveyard spiral...

[miemsed]

You do not need to build a plane to have passion for aviation. The thrill of flight is just as great for flying point to point as it is for flying a home built if you just love to fly. I know a number of young people who love flying and have no interest in building a plane. I also know some who would love to build a plane. EAA is doing well to include both.

[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]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/4/0/1550044.jpg

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
:cool:

[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:

2965

[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.

[Bill Berson]

Tom,
The EAA Director of publication has never written an article about homebuilts, as far as I know. He did write about a commercial turboprop. So it remains hard for me to believe, (looking at the current SportAviaton) that EAA puts home building before commercial interest while lobbying.
I can cite examples of this conflict from the past, if anyone cares.

[Hal Bryan]

Tom,
The EAA Director of publication has never written an article about homebuilts, as far as I know. He did write about a commercial turboprop. So it remains hard for me to believe, (looking at the current SportAviaton) that EAA puts home building before commercial interest while lobbying.

Bill, the Director of Publications doesn't write all the articles in the magazine, not by a long shot. And, if everyone will look again at the current issue, you'll see that the cover story is actually about one of our Chapters, #1 in Flabob. The other stories featured are the Cirrus, a piece about equipping a homebuilt for IFR, and an update on our staff build project, the CH 750. That's 2 stories about building, one about Tom Wathen and Flabob, and one about the Cirrus, including a sidebar that outlines the company's roots as homebuilders.


I can cite examples of this conflict from the past, if anyone cares.

There are plenty of posts on this topic already...

We love the feedback on the magazine - I'd much rather see members actually looking at it and telling us what they love and hate about it then posts like the one where someone said they just throw it in the trash the instant it shows up. Some of you don't think the Cirrus article belongs, some of you do - that's great, if inconclusive feedback, but keep it coming.

I realize that most of you haven't seen the full effects of the changes that have been taking place since Jack stepped in last fall, but I'm betting that you'll like them when and as you do.

[WLIU]

I will offer some feedback on the magazine and a suggestion for the other readers.

I read most of the articles, some don't interest me at all, but as a aeronautical gear-head, I find a lot of great stuff to read. For instance, even if Mike Busch never writes about home built airplanes, he writes a lot of good info.

I see some articles on topics that I have no interest in. But they are a minority. For example, I've burned kerosene but when I pick up Sport Aviation I would rather read Ed Kolano and flight testing or about building engine baffles for a Lyco rather than a new kerosene burner. I can read Business & Commercial Aviation or other magazines to find out about the latest business exec chariot.

That said, I do NOT throw the magazine in the recycle bin when I have read it. I pass it on to my mechanic who reads what he is interested in. He then passes it on to a friend of his who owns a Luscombe, who may not be able to afford to be a member and get the magazine, and he reads what interests him. Don't know if it gets passed on again, but you get the point. You can help the cause by getting the magazine and passing it on, even if you don't read any of it. There are dreamers out there that will get something out of it. And neighbors who previously only thought of aviation in terms of American Airlines might be a little friendlier about your airplane noise if one of their kids "found" your copy of the magazine.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Joe LaMantia]

Hal,
Thanks for the boost on this months' Sport Avaition, but you forgot Brady's article on his RV-14 demo ride. Brady speaks to the newbies who have dreams of building and flying any homebuilt design. He didn't focus on all the specs and performance stuff, but on what the average guy should look for when deciding whether his "dream" aircraft is actually something he'd be comfortable flying. I would add that taking the Sport Air "Introduction to Homebuilding" course would be another "must do" before writing up an order form and sending in a check. AOPA and EAA work together to promote AVIATION, many of us are members of both organizations. Inside the beltway you can't have too many friends!

Joe
:cool:

[Hal Bryan]

I'd never forget Brady, Joe - he knows where I live! ;) In all seriousness, I was just specifically talking about the articles on the cover in this case. I have what I consider to be the great privilege of being one of Brady's early "sounding boards" on his columns, so I often get to read them quite a ways ahead of time...

As for your mention of taking the introductory SportAir workshop, I'm admittedly biased, but, having taken a few of those course now myself, I couldn't agree more. I think the workshops are among the most valuable programs we offer, and recommend them to anyone starting or a build or restoration.

[steveinindy]

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.

The lack of substantial cockpit structure is another big reason for the fatal accident rate (about 50% of non-ground incidents result in one or more deaths versus about 25% for the Mooneys or 15% for Cessna light singles). Regardless of the parachute or not but if you market a high performance aircraft to low hour or no hour pilots as being as forgiving and easy to fly as a Cessna 172, you'll wind up with a high fatality rate. Add in the "super-Type A" personalities (docs, lawyers, engineers) that Cirrus targets and you get a better explanation than "Oh the parachute causes people to push their luck".


I realize that most of you haven't seen the full effects of the changes that have been taking place since Jack stepped in last fall, but I'm betting that you'll like them when and as you do.

No offense Hal but the only change in the publications I have seen is that the "Safety Wire" column in the Experimenter is being done away with because it's "redundant" to quote the e-mail I received. Granted, I have to admit that I was a major contributor to that so I have some bias towards it but I think moving away from discussions of things that can be done by homebuilders to make their aircraft safer is always a good thing whether it is on the "prevent the crash" or the "survive the crash" end of things. If nothing else, it should be shifted out of the magazine and into a niche on the website where those interested can access the information.