Sport Aviation [Archive]

1600vw

02-04-2015, 12:46 PM

I did not get an issue. I went to renew my membership in Jan. and it said I am good until the 28th of Feb. I was going to take care of this this week or the first of Feb. I receive a letter in the mail saying my membership is on hold until I renew or some crap.

So my membership does not expire until feb28th and I get no magazine and they put my membership on hold or some crap until I renew. I may not ever renew. Kinda pi##es me off. I could see if it lapsed but it has not.

So I have no idea what was in this months magazine, and do not tell me to read it on-line. I am old school and like to hold it in my hands.

Tony

zaitcev

02-04-2015, 01:44 PM

February, 2015 issue; worst in the history of the EAA.

Surely a hilarious exhaggeration if there ever was one.

Eagerly awaiting Mac's departure.

I never understood why members carry this animus. Twin envy?

Anyone cares to argue Mac's aricle on its merits rather than spewing hate? I see how his position of "ADS-B is good, ADS-B is coming, suck it up" may ruffle a few feathers, but I find it remarkable how that little is enough to force people raging. And it's very, very disappointing when those people wants not to argue him, only STFU.

-- Pete

Hal Bryan

02-04-2015, 03:21 PM

Tony -

I'm sorry to hear that things got confused. I'll ask our Membership Department to look into this right away.

Best -

Hal

cub builder

02-04-2015, 03:34 PM

To many, Mac represents the tug of war within the EAA membership as to whether it's about low or moderate budget homebuilts or big bucks multi-engined factory aircraft. Some won't be happy until he's gone. Not trying to open that can of worms as it has already been discussed ad nauseam.

This month's article was a history lesson of how we got to where we are. Although I already knew much of what he wrote, I like history and thought the article was good and timely with the push for ADS-B. The rest of this month's SA was on par with what has been produced recently.

Tony, you were singled out to squeeze more cash out of you. They know you're holding out on them. Now cough up that lifetime membership... ;)

-Cub Builder

Mayhemxpc

02-04-2015, 05:51 PM

As Cub Builder wrote, The article was a history lesson and a reminder that we will all have to buy-in if we want to keep flying. Rather than convincing me it was a good idea, however, it presented the development of our ATC system as completely reactionary to media frenzy and the political drive to DO SOMETHING rather than a comprehensive strategy -- or at least a rational problem solving process. Unfortunately, this has been precisely the process of ATC development up until this point. The FAA did try to change that with Next-Gen. It was originally portrayed as a vision of how air operations could be run more efficiently, less obtrusively, and with greater freedom of navigation. Somehow that did not happen and we are left with ADS-B. I have few complaints about ADS-B, but Mac's description of how we got here and its value leave me underwhelmed. If all I knew about it was what was included in the article, I would join the ranks of those opposed to its implementation.

Jim Clark

02-04-2015, 06:34 PM

Saw this initial post and immediately went to the online version and read it. Then I went back and reviewed it sure that I must have missed some outlandish, insulting or downright un-American comment to support this lashing. Finding none I sat back and what came to mind was the old pilot joke punch line, "Wasn't I married to you once?"

Kyle Boatright

02-04-2015, 08:13 PM

I thought there were some editing issues in the issue. Pelton's column parroted the ADS-B claims Mac made in his blog a while ago "Experimentals have no path forward to ADS-B" or some equivalent nonsense. Then, a few pages later there was a contradictory article. Overall, I thought it was a decent issue.

But I'll be happy when Mac is gone.

Mike M

02-05-2015, 06:49 AM

Byron, I'm hard pressed to agree with you about the Feb '15 issue. So many rich pickings since well you know. But didn't you love the multipage advertisement from the Bahamian Ministry of Tourism in a previous issue? Very similar to "FLYING" or "AOPA Pilot" or "Plane and Pilot", almost on a par with the AAA magazine and no ads for booking a cruise or long term care insurance. Reckon that's why the esteemed editor thought it necessary to include the "Experimental in EAA" article?

krw920

02-05-2015, 08:48 AM

Jim Rosenow

02-05-2015, 11:00 AM

Mike M

02-05-2015, 02:05 PM

To those complaining about Sport Aviation content.....have I seen YOUR article in the magazine? EAA actively solicits input, and diversity of authors is a good thing!

No, I am not without sin, mine either :-)

Jim

Haven't seen either of the two I submitted, Jim. Not even acknowledgments of receipt. Oh, maybe that's what happened! Lost in the mail/email. Gosh.

Mike M

02-05-2015, 02:08 PM

What do you think pays for publishing this magazine you receive for, more or less, free?

You did understand the "ad" I referred to stretched from page 46 through 52 inclusive, full pages, of the Dec 2014 issue - right? And you looked it up?

Jim Rosenow

02-05-2015, 02:35 PM

Haven't seen either of the two I submitted, Jim. Not even acknowledgments of receipt. Oh, maybe that's what happened! Lost in the mail/email. Gosh.

Can't speak to the 'lacka', but I thank you sincerely for submitting them!

Jim

martymayes

02-05-2015, 04:49 PM

Haven't seen either of the two I submitted, Jim. Not even acknowledgments of receipt. Oh, maybe that's what happened! Lost in the mail/email. Gosh.

Doesn't the "editor" decide what to publish?

I'd be interested in seeing what you have to say Cdr. M.

Suppose I'll renew my membership in a few more months.

krw920

02-06-2015, 04:13 PM

You did understand the "ad" I referred to stretched from page 46 through 52 inclusive, full pages, of the Dec 2014 issue - right? And you looked it up?

No, didn't look it up, but again, what do you think pays for your free magazine?

Frank Giger

02-07-2015, 10:09 AM

I finally got around to cracking open my February issue and must say I'm at a loss as to why anyone would find fault with the subject matter.

If anything it's a throw-away piece that could have been written by any member of the EAA writing staff with a short deadline and at a loss to what they should write about. "I know, a 'how we got here' one talking about ATC's, airspace development, transponders, and finally ADSB, I can whip that out in a couple hours! Whew, that's one the editor will say is okay for publication!" Mac is such a good writer that he pulled it off in an engaging, readable style that one can't deny is his forte.

I've disagreed with some of the stances Mac has taken towards experimental aircraft in particular and aviation in general, particularly in his early blog articles, but he's really come to understand his readership and tailor his articles to better match it. His perspective towards aviation is just different from most of the hardcore EAA membership - we tend to use adjectives with flying such as "fun" and "optional" while he's more prone to say "useful" and "required."

This is a good thing. I need the perspective from the IFR twin engine gizmo pilot (er, aviator) for both of our safety, as I'm as far from that as one can get and still be a pilot. I'd hazard to say it's probably been awhile since Mac flew a rectangular pattern to land at an uncontrolled airfield - then again, it's been a long time since I did a straight in approach to land as well. It's not enough just to hear on the radio when a Mac type interlopes into the realm of the UNICOM airfield; it's important to understand his frame of reference when he'll be sharing my airspace. Thanks to Mac, I know he'll be looking as much to a screen for my location as he will be looking out the window, and I'll probably need to be very descriptive of my plane and my location for him (since I won't be visible to his magic box). Since Mac has been slumming with us regular ol' pilots, he's been reminded that the skies are shared with pilots with hand held radios and no transponder of any kind flying tight rectangles around the field. We both win.

Besides, shooting at Mac is the wrong target. Editors assign article topics. Sure they listen to what their writers want to write about and take into consideration their viewpoints (as well as strenghts and weaknesses), but at the end of the day it's the editor that decides if an article passes muster and should be included in the magazine.

I will also say that if one is an EAA member because of SportAviation they've missed the point and main goals of the organization.

TedK

02-07-2015, 12:10 PM

Haven't seen either of the two I submitted, Jim. Not even acknowledgments of receipt. Oh, maybe that's what happened! Lost in the mail/email. Gosh.

CDR M- I can't account for EAA's lack of acknowledgement of your articles, but since you have admitted to being a scrivener (as opposed to us mere ranters), why don't you post your articles here and perhaps you will find a following that will advocate on your behalf?

Standing by for that post. Reading glasses on!

Ted

Mike M

02-07-2015, 02:11 PM

No, didn't look it up, but again, what do you think pays for your free magazine?

Go read it. You might understand.

"Standing by for that post. Reading glasses on!

Ted"

I didn't make a paper copy of my submissions and the hard drive in the XP computer died about three years ago. Ted, I did have USB stick copies of the powerpoints which were composed contemporaneously with the articles. If you'd like I'll email them to you.

Mike Switzer

02-07-2015, 02:19 PM

At least you guys got yours. The mail lady hasn't brought mine yet.

Frank Giger

02-07-2015, 06:13 PM

At least you guys got yours. The mail lady hasn't brought mine yet.

All our Class III mail (magazines, etc.) seems to follow a schedule of its own. My wife is convinced they spend a day or a week reading her entertainment magazines...and I guess there's a homebuilder working at our USPS distro center as well.

I received my December and January SportAviation magazines three days apart from each other, for example.

zaitcev

02-07-2015, 06:49 PM

At least you guys got yours. The mail lady hasn't brought mine yet.
Mine came in today. Even in a plastic bag.

zaitcev

02-07-2015, 06:51 PM

What do you think pays for publishing this magazine you receive for, more or less, free?
Sorry, I never asked for a magazine. I just wanted a membership, so could be a member of a local chapter, where people actually experiment with aviation. As far as I'm concerned, money on the magazine are wasted. I throw it into recycling right away.

TedK

02-07-2015, 08:44 PM

While Mac does seem to have a talent for inciting the herd, I'm not necessarily sure that is a bad thing.

While many are screaming, "off with his head!,"...who would you replace him with?

i can think of some marvelous aviation writers who could likely do better than Mac, but without resurrection, they aren't available to the task.

Marc Zeitlin

02-07-2015, 10:09 PM

...who would you replace him with?How about Peter Garrison? He's a good writer, a clear thinker, and has built two experimental aircraft from the ground up - designing them himself.

I'm not hard over about changing anything, but you asked - Mac has gotten better, though.

Ha - saying that reminds me of "Moose Turd Pie", by Utah Phillips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zb1qsVqjwg

Bill Berson

02-07-2015, 11:08 PM

Peter Garrison would be my choice, and I said so a few years ago on this forum when Hightower asked for names.
But Garrison may be too "technical" for the current masses.
And there was also that time 30 or 40 years ago when Garrison critiqued EAA, and that probably eliminates him forever.

In any case, EAA had announced a few months ago that the new Director has been selected.

Jim Heffelfinger

02-07-2015, 11:29 PM

Sorry, I never asked for a magazine. I just wanted a membership, so could be a member of a local chapter, where people actually experiment with aviation. As far as I'm concerned, money on the magazine are wasted. I throw it into recycling right away.

Might take your copy and drop it when you get a haircut, waiting room for Dr/DDS or local library. My Chapter saves copies to hand out at airshows or other aviation outreach events. I slip in a chapter business card that tells the date/time/place of our meetings.

TedK

02-08-2015, 08:00 AM

Peter Garrison would be my choice, and I said so a few years ago on this forum when Hightower asked for names.
But Garrison may be too "technical" for the current masses.
And there was also that time 30 or 40 years ago when Garrison critiqued EAA, and that probably eliminates him forever.

Wow! sounds like one strike and you are out...no redemption. Kinda like the Communist Party under Stalin. Is EAA really that dogmatic?

Frank Giger

02-10-2015, 08:37 AM

Whoa, that's quite an accusation without any basis of fact!

I can think of a dozen reasons why a particular person might not write for SA or the EAA that don't involve an "enemies list" at EAA headquarters.

Sheesh.

krw920

02-10-2015, 08:55 AM

Go read it. You might understand.

"Standing by for that post. Reading glasses on!

Ted"

I didn't make a paper copy of my submissions and the hard drive in the XP computer died about three years ago. Ted, I did have USB stick copies of the powerpoints which were composed contemporaneously with the articles. If you'd like I'll email them to you.

Ok, had to go look. So Mac wrote an article about visting the Bahamas? What's your beef with that? Sounds like fun to me!

Byron J. Covey

02-10-2015, 12:13 PM

....who would you replace him with?
.

Mary Jones.

BJC

Mike M

02-10-2015, 01:07 PM

Ok, had to go look. So Mac wrote an article about visting the Bahamas? What's your beef with that? Sounds like fun to me!

Sigh. One more time. My beef was, it's a generic article which could have been in any one of the mainstream aviation magazines, leaving room in "Sport Aviation" for the E (as in experimental) aircraft which are the reason this is NOT the mainstream of aviation, it's a specialty group. Not to mention that page 46 wasn't text, wasn't a photo of beautiful Bahamas scenery, it was just a graphic page - which could have been sold as an ad to support the magazine as has been so delicately pointed out, even though I didn't bring that up, and wouldn't have now if it weren't already out there. But this is enough, I shouldn't have brought any of it up in the first place, everybody else loved it, it's just me being contrary again. Sorry. I'm ready for the flight test report on the new Gulfstream V or VI or VVVV or whatever with the triple redundant four dimensional flight director and fly by wire from one's multimedia room.

Byron J. Covey

02-10-2015, 03:38 PM

Sigh. One more time. My beef was, it's a generic article which could have been in any one of the mainstream aviation magazines, leaving room in "Sport Aviation" for the E (as in experimental) aircraft which are the reason this is NOT the mainstream of aviation, it's a specialty group. Not to mention that page 46 wasn't text, wasn't a photo of beautiful Bahamas scenery, it was just a graphic page - which could have been sold as an ad to support the magazine as has been so delicately pointed out, even though I didn't bring that up, and wouldn't have now if it weren't already out there. But this is enough, I shouldn't have brought any of it up in the first place, everybody else loved it, it's just me being contrary again. Sorry. I'm ready for the flight test report on the new Gulfstream V or VI or VVVV or whatever with the triple redundant four dimensional flight director and fly by wire from one's multimedia room.

Trust me, it's not just you. (I started this thread, remember?). I know lots of EAA members, most of whom are old enough to have enjoyed articles about Experimental Category airplanes in first, the Experimenter, and then, after the name change, Sport Aviation, who think that the magazine is currently worse than any other time.

BJC

Mike M

02-11-2015, 05:59 AM

P.S. I've flown ASEL to Andros, it's beautiful.

Frank Giger

02-11-2015, 10:00 AM

My beef was, it's a generic article which could have been in any one of the mainstream aviation magazines, leaving room in "Sport Aviation" for the E (as in experimental) aircraft which are the reason this is NOT the mainstream of aviation, it's a specialty group.

Then you're shooting at the wrong target. Mac isn't the managing editor, he's a writer. Getting rid of Mac won't change the content of SA; they'd just hire someone else to write articles about the same things that are in SA now.

The magazine is just a thing that comes with my membership - which I have because without being a member of the EAA I can't be a member of my local chapter. And I need to be a member of my local chapter because I'm building an airplane and they're a fountain of knowledge and experience that may keep me from making a mistake that will result in my injury or death.

SportAviation could be nothing but articles about knitting and the rearing of ferrets and I wouldn't really care too much. It's not why I joined the EAA and has about zero impact on how I interact with the organization.

martymayes

02-11-2015, 10:49 AM

Then you're shooting at the wrong target. Mac isn't the managing editor, he's a writer.

That's not what it says on the masthead.

rv builder

02-11-2015, 12:23 PM

Then you're shooting at the wrong target. Mac isn't the managing editor, he's a writer. Getting rid of Mac won't change the content of SA; they'd just hire someone else to write articles about the same things that are in SA now.

Nope. He's the Editor-in-Chief, which means he is the one in charge of deciding what sorts of articles to run and what the focus of the magazine will be.

However, given the trend in EAA towards less and less "E" and more and more big-name manufacturers and such, you may be right about what they would include in the magazine.

SportAviation could be nothing but articles about knitting and the rearing of ferrets and I wouldn't really care too much. It's not why I joined the EAA and has about zero impact on how I interact with the organization.

However, the magazine is a very visible, public presentation of what the organization is about, what it's doing, where it's focus is, etc. As it is now, if I knew nothing about EAA and picked up SA, I'd guess that it's AOPA Redux, with an emphasis on big-dollar aircraft, high-end vendors, expensive things I can never afford, a little bit of kissing butt with the FAA but not really doing anything, and a smattering of outlier things like, you know, homebuilding and kitplanes.

That's either the result of EAA's continual push towards "including everything about aviation" (ergo reducing the importance of Experimental aviation), or the focus of the Editor in Chief of the magazine.

It's no surprise that the guy who edited Flying for all those years simply turned SA into the same magazine. Even his blog focuses on turbines, etc.

MEdwards

02-11-2015, 02:01 PM

Who would you replace McClellan with? Mary Jones.I agree, she produced a very nice looking magazine. But remember, the big transition from 50-ish homebuilder magazine to "just another Flying" came when Mary Jones was editor. Before McClellan. I am confident that was by direction, that it reflected the EAA management's decision at the time that they were losing members and needed to appeal to a wider audience.

To their credit, at the same time they set out to produce a professional-looking Experimenter online aimed directly at the classic EAA homebuilder audience, but that is hardly ever mentioned in these arguments. As a non-homebuilder, I do not know how satisfactory that effort has been.

TedK

02-11-2015, 05:59 PM

Sorry Byron but I found the February SA to be a pretty good magazine. The only stone that I will currently cast is a desire for more meat in the advocacy section. Although Mac seemed to overachieve as a writer vice editor, I thought he did a good job of keeping his turbine lust in the closet. I found his articles to be of interest.

Mayhemxpc

02-11-2015, 07:34 PM

This has been hashed out in many other threads, so I am reluctant to bring it up again, but here goes:

What is the "specialty" of EAA that some are complaining about? EAA has multiple specialties. Yes, it has homebuilders…but even these seem to argue about plans built, kit built, and things in-between. EAA also consists of those who restore and maintain vintage aircraft, ultralights, the aerobatic community and warbirds. Some airplanes in each of these interest areas are certified in the "experimental" category, so the E in EAA can apply to all. Each of these niche groups have their own publications. I believe that Sport Aviation does a good job of bringing some interest items from each of these groups to the attention of the others, making us truly an "Association." Does every article in every issue appeal to my personal interests? No, and I don't expect it to. The same could be said for every periodical I get. Do I find much of interest in every issue, often in areas I didn't think I would be interested in? YES! (For example, I am not much interested in ultralights and have no desire to ever fly one, but I enjoy all of Dave Matheny's pieces.) Are some issues better than others? Of course. I particularly appreciate those articles with broad appeal, such as Stick and Rudder and Savvy Maintenance.

I have no idea what some are complaining about regarding advertising. There was one full page ad for Boeing: But it was for Boeing in general, not a particular product. That seemed more like sponsorship for the magazine than trying to sell anything. There was also a full page for Ford (which is also a big sponsor of EAA.) There was a full page advert for a watch, one for jewelry, and ONE for TBM. The rest were all directly related to EAA interests areas and particularly homebuilders. One turbine advert, and the issue is ruined because of that?

I notice a certain animus against Mac McClellan. I think he does a good job as an editor although I can see the point of some with regard to his articles. But I think that similar complaints could be directed towards Lane Wallace, whose general aviation themed articles really do seem better placed in Flying or AOPA. (A welcome exception was her article on volunteering at AirVenture.) Curiously, though, no one seems to take shots at Lane, which makes me wonder if it something personal against Mac.

In sum, I think that Sport Aviation does a good job speaking to the broad array of specialty groups that make up EAA and I look forward to each issue.

Jim Hann

02-12-2015, 08:37 AM

...who would you replace him with?
Jim Busha

Frank Giger

02-12-2015, 11:35 AM

I hadn't realized Mac got bumped to editor.

Mayhem, understand that Mac came over from Flying under the previous organizational leadership that sought to "broaden" the interest in EAA almost to the exception of anything to do with those grubby low class builder guys with their dirty shirts and inscrutable discussions about airfoils and wiring harnesses (to overstate things a bit).

Mac didn't do many favors for himself by trying to establish his bonafides to a newer audience by trumping up his qualifications in factory twins and only flying IFR. From his early blog posts in particular one got the impression that he didn't think much of homebuilts or the VFR guys that fly them. Hell, most GA pilots think that way about us nuts with hunks of aluminum and wood in our garages, and it's clear he's had a bit of education on that front and adjusted his views.

Anyhow, Mac became the poster boy for the efforts to turn EAA into AOPA and the backlash against it.

Personally I wish EAA was kind of like AOPA in one regard, with more than one hard copy magazine option - let me choose between getting SportAviation or Experimenter in my mailbox. Hell, I'd pay an additional twenty bucks a year to get Experimenter delivered. I get Kitplanes both digitally and in hard copy because I can carry it with me and easily pick and choose my reading order.

[edit]

I'm as far from Mac as one can get, but I'd love to have a long conversation with him over several cups of coffee (or stronger stuff). I'm convinced that he'd probably be an approachable kind of guy that loves talking airplanes and flying.

rwanttaja

02-12-2015, 12:47 PM

I'm as far from Mac as one can get, but I'd love to have a long conversation with him over several cups of coffee (or stronger stuff). I'm convinced that he'd probably be an approachable kind of guy that loves talking airplanes and flying.
I have, and you're right. Had breakfast with him several years ago, as we coordinated the first of my annual safety articles, and we've worked together on the other ones, since. He's as enthusiastic about flying as any of us, but his focus is on the airplane as a traveling tool. And thus his focus on equipment, training, and the *use* (not necessarily the fun) of owning an airplane.

He's been a good editor to work with on my articles, for two reasons. First, he's very professional, which, as a semi-pro writer, is always a pleasure. Second, he *isn't* a dyed-in-the-wool homebuilder. He would question statements and conclusions I made in the articles, and, in reflection, I'd realize that my enthusiasm might have gotten the better of me. That was good for me, good for the readers, and, I expect, good for the other content of the magazine as well.

It's understandable, though, that people are not happy with someone with his background in such a prominent job. But he wasn't hired to build an airplane, he was hired to run a magazine. Mac's own aviation background aside, he's never been the *publisher* of the magazine, just the editor. The publisher sets the policies and the themes, and the editor implements them. If EAA management didn't like the direction the magazine was going, they would have had him change it.

The basic problem is that people don't really like change. EAA has had three Presidents in the past four years, and new brooms sometimes sweep harder than we'd like. Popular people have retired (like Mary Jones), been laid off, or even fired. We're naturally upset, and Mac is a convenient target to focus our displeasure on.

Ron Wanttaja

TedK

02-12-2015, 01:04 PM

I'll second what Ron said. I have goaded Mac into one or two of his blog topics and have had some enlightening email exchanges with him. I interrupted him as he was finishing breakfast last year at OSH had a nice in-person introduction and chat. He and his bride were very gracious.

i'll admit it is easy to poke at him a bit because I don't think he has any desire to build an airplane. I'm not sure I do either, I'd rather tinker and fly than build build build build build build then fly. If you saw my skill with tools you would understand.

I dont always ways agree with Mac, but I think some of his tangents provoke us to thought. What more could you ask for?

i encourage all of us here to write an article for SA. Publish a teaser here so that we can egg you on.

I am going to rise to Chris' thought on Lane Wallace. I always look forward to her articles because she can get to the inner pilot that most of us testosterone powered morons won't publicly admit exists.

Ted

rwanttaja

02-12-2015, 01:23 PM

I encourage all of us here to write an article for SA. Publish a teaser here so that we can egg you on.
For those who are interested, I have "The Avwriter's Primer":

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/avwriter.htm

It's a bit dated, but I think it gives some good advice.

Ron Wanttaja

Mayhemxpc

02-12-2015, 02:03 PM

Frank: I know that at 57 years of age, I am younger than most of the people posting here. However, I have been a member of AOPA and subscribed to Flying for more than 30 years. Therefore I know where Mac and Lane came from.

Lane first: I am not complaining. I have enjoyed her work since her first article in Flying and have written to tell her so. I just pointed out that her topics are only marginally more suited to EAA Sport Aviation than Mac's topics. So my question was why is this directed only at Mac's pieces. I enjoyed Mac's column at Flying. I used to fly a Baron, so his stories were more on point with me then. I still don't mind them now even when they seem to be oriented towards a different readership than on would expect of EAA Sport Aviation. If he seems to be writing something I am not interested in, I don't read past the first paragraph and go on to another article, say Lane's or Dave Matheny, or Mike Busch. Although I wrote that I can UNDERSTAND some of the complaints people have with Mac's topic or approach, that is not the same thing as saying I agree with the vitriol directed against him.

Ted: Over the past few decades, people have asked me why I don't want to build my own plane. I respond that I would never fly an airplane that I had built. I am living proof that mechanical aptitude and mechanical ability are two entirely different things.

Jim Rosenow

02-12-2015, 02:38 PM

For those who are interested, I have "The Avwriter's Primer":

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/avwriter.htm

It's a bit dated, but I think it gives some good advice.

Ron Wanttaja

Nicely done, Ron...thanks for posting this!

Jim

rv builder

02-12-2015, 06:14 PM

Lane first: I am not complaining. I have enjoyed her work since her first article in Flying and have written to tell her so. I just pointed out that her topics are only marginally more suited to EAA Sport Aviation than Mac's topics. So my question was why is this directed only at Mac's pieces.

Maybe because hers tend to just bore me, whereas Mac says incorrect things about E-ABs.

TedK

02-12-2015, 06:28 PM

I know that at 57 years of age, I am younger than most of the people posting here. H

Ted: Over the past few decades, people have asked me why I don't want to build my own plane. I respond that I would never fly an airplane that I had built. I am living proof that mechanical aptitude and mechanical ability are two entirely different things.

LOL! I guess at my late 50s, I too am a youngster here and should be more respectful of my elders. ;-)

I've got plenty of Aero Engineering under my belt and could probably design a rather decent one, but I am most certainly not the guy to build it.

However, I think and hope that EAA really is the Big Tent of aviation. I think what we all want is the freedom to fly what we want, lack of interference, innovation and collaboration.

Mike Switzer

02-13-2015, 11:15 AM

Well, my copy finally showed up. I liked the article by Dick VanGrunsven, and Charlie Becker's little tip about the Tig Fingers. (Added that to my tool wish list)

Byron J. Covey

02-13-2015, 12:58 PM

LOL! I guess at my late 50s, I too am a youngster here and should be more respectful of my elders. ;-)
.

OK you youngesters, shape up! We old farts, er, gentlemen deserve, er, want all the respect that we can get. :)

BJC

Frank Giger

02-14-2015, 10:21 AM

Frank: I know that at 57 years of age, I am younger than most of the people posting here. However, I have been a member of AOPA and subscribed to Flying for more than 30 years. Therefore I know where Mac and Lane came from.

I'm 49, but came to aviation very late. So I never read Flying when either wrote there. Heck, I don't read other aviation magazines now - it's all gizmoes and planes that are downright affordable at only $175,000 each (hell, put me down for two of them at that price!). Well, other than Kitplanes, that is, and usually get glassy eyed over its content.

So my exposure to Mac's writing is from SA and his blog. The funny thing is I delved into his blog stuff because of his casting as the villian of EAA; I wanted to see what the fuss was about. I must admit that I've often felt like one of the Little Rascals being invited into the rich kid's house reading his stuff and have had to note that I'm fond of reverse snobbery. And more than once I fired back in the comment section of his blog with vehement (if hopefully polite) disagreement.

Ted: Over the past few decades, people have asked me why I don't want to build my own plane. I respond that I would never fly an airplane that I had built. I am living proof that mechanical aptitude and mechanical ability are two entirely different things.

Bah. I have neither and that is no bar to aircraft construction! Bigger question: would I let someone else fly an aircraft I had built? That, to me, is the higher standard I strive for.

Hmmm, it would be interesting to string some prose and see if SportAviation would take a pull at it. I'll have to come up with some hook for it and see if they'd take the bait.

rwanttaja

02-14-2015, 10:59 AM

Hmmm, it would be interesting to string some prose and see if SportAviation would take a pull at it. I'll have to come up with some hook for it and see if they'd take the bait.
With a new editor coming in, it'd be the ideal time for it. The current columnists, etc. will still be there, but the new guy may not otherwise have a "set" of preferred writers established. You can see that at work in KITPLANES on some of the editorial changes... a year later, people like Wainfan and Starks are still writing for the magazine, but there's a whole new batch of people involved.

Another option would be "Experimenter". It's a digital production, true, but they're more into the how-to stuff.

Ron Wanttaja

rwanttaja

02-14-2015, 11:00 AM

OK you youngesters, shape up! We old farts, er, gentlemen deserve, er, want all the respect that we can get. :)
And stay off my lawn! :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Mayhemxpc

08-07-2016, 06:49 PM

Kyle Boatright

08-07-2016, 06:59 PM

Floatsflyer

08-07-2016, 07:43 PM

There was actually a better thread for this posted elsewhere but i can't find it, so...

I got my August Sport Aviation yesterday! It was filled with great information about what to see during AirVenture 2016. Hmmm... Is it just my local post office or was there a delay in getting this issue out?

Mine arrived while I was in Oshkosh. It was waiting for me on the kitchen table when I returned after the week. Glad I didn't have to rely on it. I got all the info I needed prior to departure from the EAA website, which was as usual well organized and fully informative.