If you could win any aircraft in a future EAA Sweepstakes, what would be your top pick?
If you could win any aircraft in a future EAA Sweepstakes, what would be your top pick?
Since we're doing the vintage/classic thing this year, I gotta say a Sportsman 2+2 would be pretty sweet. Practical, useful, convertible gear (and floats!!!), won't break the bank to operate, and looks like a lot of fun to boot.
The sportsman would be a great choice. So would any one of the RV series. What would be great is to do a build series in sport aviation were we could follow along and polls to help choose the equipment that goes in it. Let's us help decide. Within reason of coarse.
Tell Brady the good news!
1. EAA paint scheme and logos will be put on his plane!
2. He gets an opportunity to build another aircraft.
3. He'll be reimbursed for the price of the kit.
I doubt the EAA is going to have a kit for the sweepstakes. A finished experimental would have obvious drawbacks. Maybe a sportsman with the Two Weeks To Taxi included but that might exceed the budget. How about a warbirds? Birddog? T-34, although those might also push the budget...
How about a Yak 52.. WAY better perfomrance than a T-34, very aerobatic, yet cheap enough to not break the budget. Plus the guys over at Weeks could go through it pretty cheap given it'e experimental heritage.
No, the real problem is if a Kit is won by someone who does not build airplanes or has no interest or inclination or skills to do so! A kit prize will severly reduce the number of tickets sold.
Additionally, winning a Kit by someone who does not reside in the U.S. could present possible importation restrictions to their country of residence. Same goes for warbirds.
I believe whatever choice is made, it must be factory built and certified. To that end, my choice is the leading edge Icon A5 Amphibian. Oshkosh made them highly visible and successful and helped them put more than 750 orders on the books. As production is currently scheduled for Q4 this year, EAA should ask this cash rich and growing company to donate an aircraft for Airventure 2013. I for one would buy a s**tload of tickets!
Do you have evidence to support what you say is true or are you just guessing? I have no interest or inclination to fly or own a cherokee but when they gave one away a few yrs back I sent in all 30 of my preprinted tickets. Actually, I'd been happy with second or third prize as well. I seriously doubt someone is not going to participate in the raffle because of the choice of plane (or kit).
Well, I have no desire or inclination to own or fly one but I'd sure send in my tickets.Quote:
I believe whatever choice is made, it must be factory built and certified. To that end, my choice is the leading edge Icon A5 Amphibian.
Marty, the "evidence" is that slightly less than one-third of EAA members are homebuilders based on statistical data both duly noted in various threads on this forum and collected by EAA. Add to that the many thousands of predominatly non-flying visitors who attend Airventure daily to see an airshow and would be inclined to buy tickets for a chance at winning a built aircraft they could use immediately to get their licence.
I am part of the two-thirds and I would not want to pay the required mandatory taxes on a prize I would not use or have any use for.
I don't buy your argument. All homebuilders were at one time non-hombuilders. Winning a RV-12 kit might provide the motivation to convert one more non-builder to builder. I don't see a kit discouraging anyone from entering - you do realize the win a plane sweepstakes is a no obligation contest? No purchase or donatation is required.
I agree, which is why I would sell an ICON A5 ASAP or trade it for something I CAN use. Tax liability certainly won't stop me from entering.
A shiney new Luscombe 8A with the radial will do fine thanks. http://www.luscombe-silvaire.com/
Marty, I never expected you to buy my argument so let's just agree to disagree. You're a builder, I'm not. East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet! Winning a kitplane would not convert me or many,many others. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here. I have the greatest respect and admiration for those that have the formidable talents and skills and perseverance to build their own airplane. I neither have the time, interest and especially the skills to do it so 3 strikes I'm out.
"All homebuilders were at one time non-homebuilders." Ya....and all murderers were at one time non-murderers. Might be true but what does it signify?
And yes I know that no purchase is required but I observe that many give a donation.
How about just the cost of one of the small planes that have been given away as a prize towards building something?
Yeah, if I won something I didn't want or had no use for (like a Cirrus, Yak-52, Sportsman, one of the RVs or the "leading edge Icon A5"), I'd simply sell it and use the money to build something that would be useful.Quote:
Well, I have no desire or inclination to own or fly one but I'd sure send in my tickets.
Actually, I'd more than likely "donate" the aircraft to the non-profit we're establishing for research purposes (tax writeoff) then let the NPO turn around and "re-raffle" it off as a fundraiser towards the construction of something better.Quote:
I agree, which is why I would sell an ICON A5 ASAP or trade it for something I CAN use. Tax liability certainly won't stop me from entering.
A strawman argument?Quote:
"All homebuilders were at one time non-homebuilders." Ya....and all murderers were at one time non-murderers. Might be true but what does it signify?
I was suggesting a completed, airworthy experimental, not a kit awaiting construction, as that has the same financial implications of a "free" dog.
Sorry to offend at the notion of someone winning an Experimental Aircraft; I didn't realize they changed the name of the organization to the Everything Aviation Association (except for us minority homebuilders who should be only occasionally seen and never heard).
This year they're giving away a Cub, which is unsuitable for the majority of members, who apparently are all Twin Turbine IFR only types who wouldn't waste their time on a two seat LSA compliant tail dragger (oh the horrors! No GPS, autopilot, transponder, cup holders, radio, or starter - is it even legal?). Clearly the EAA leadership needs to wake up and embrace the new realities.
Sheesh.
Well played Frank, as always. ;)Quote:
Clearly the EAA leadership needs to wake up and embrace the new realities.
Actually the Cub is one of the few planes I wouldn't sell (although it would be getting a transponder and radio installed before I'd fly it) that I have seen in the sweepstakes over the years. Then again, I don't look at a Cub (which is a commercially built aircraft even if people do "clone" them) as any more of an "EAA appropriate aircraft" than any of the "high performance spam cans" some people look down their nose at. To me a "Cub clone" is less of an "spirit of EAA" aircraft than something that is designed to be similar in appearance and performance to for example a Mooney but was designed from scratch to emulate a similar goal and aesthetic. I feel the same way about warbirds and the other "classics" we seem to tolerate or welcome with open arms despite them not being homebuilts. It's kind of an odd double standard.Quote:
This year they're giving away a Cub, which is unsuitable for the majority of members, who apparently are all Twin Turbine IFR only types who wouldn't waste their time on a two seat LSA compliant tail dragger
My only gripe about the Icon A5 is that it's so bloody ugly. I don't care if it can reach warp speed. There is something to be said for aesthetics.
My suggestion was for a completed, ready to fly Sportsman.
My first question would be what kind of budget do we have to work with here? From the "certified" world, I'd love to see a Super SeaBee, Stinson 108-3, Cessna 195, or Fairchild F-24 (with a radial of course). If we were allowed to go experimental, a Carbon Cub EX, Sportsman, or Bearhawk would be fantastic.
All of these are just my personal preferences.
Something similar can be said for fat chicks in dark rooms but then again, you know the social implications of that.Quote:
Like one of my friends says you don't see it from the inside when you're flying it
Yeah, the Sonex is pretty high on the list of my "ugliest airplanes" list too.Quote:
Although I don't consider the Icon ugly....now the Sonex hmmmm.
Your sarcasm and self-righteous indignation was so powerfully dripping off the page, I had to take a shower. Let's put an end to the inferiority complex and hostility you exhibit. No one on this thread to date has said one single negative or disrespectful comment, not literal or metaphorical, about "experimentals" and "homebuilding."
In fact, the exact opposite has been expressed and you take exception to people who have posted cogent arguments regarding why experimentals(built or otherwise)are not a good prize giveaway. You have zero reason to be or feel offended or to offer the childish sarcasm of "sorry to offend at the notion of winning an experimental..." and, "Twin, turbine IFR only types..."
Frankly Frank, your comments are offensive to me because you disrespect everyone in this organization who has a different aviation interest than you. You sir are an intolerant individual who only wants to exclude rather than embrace a notion of inclusiveness to make EAA stronger and representative to all who just have a passion for all things aviation. That makes you a part of the problem and not of the solution.
"Sheesh" is right. Clearly you need to wake up and embrace the reality of your anger and behaviour and find a way to seek out some good things about us "cup holders."
Hey Floats....I may not see eye to eye with Frank (since I'm part of the IFR club to which he referred) but I've always taken his comments to be more or less tongue in cheek at how offended others have gotten on other threads. Granted, I would like to see the EAA be more inclusive (especially among the older members) but at the same time, I don't believe we need to march in lock step to make that happen. I learn more from those who think my approach is a load of crap than the people who agree with me 100%. Maybe I am not picking up on something here but I don't think Frank was trying to be intentionally rude but rather simply sardonic.
Sorry Steve, not gonna fly! Without actual speech inflection, I'm taking his written comments at face value-- comments that are far too cutting and abrasive to be sardonic. He wasn't rude, just over-the-top intolerant which in my books is a more heinous offense.
To each and to their own but I have talked to Frank and he seems to be one of the more reasonable folks on here even if it does usually involve a healthy dose of sarcasm.
If there was one thread that I thought might just be free from controversy, it was this one...
When you participate in a thread like this, remember that it's part of my job to present it to the "powers that be" who are genuinely looking for feedback and suggestions on the topic at hand. That doesn't mean that I just want a rosey, all-smiles list of dream airplanes from people - frankly, I've found the debate on the pros and cons of giving away a kit vs. a completed aircraft (the "free dog" analogy) to be fascinating.
But it doesn't do anyone any good when I have to go to, say, our VP of Donor Relations and say "have a look at some of the interesting ideas on sweepstakes aircraft, and, by the way, please ignore the parts where everyone gets ****ed off and starts insulting each other."
I think these forums, and 99ish% of the discussions that are had on them are important and that providing a platform for all of us to discuss and debate topics of interest and the issues that shape the direction of our organization is absolutely vital. It is one of my key responsibilities, and one of the biggest reasons I come to work every morning. (And stare at my phone every few minutes on nights and weekends to see what's up...) Sometimes, though, I need remind my colleagues just how crucial it is that we keep channels like this open and growing; that's usually easy to do, but not with a thread like this.
Everybody, please, just take a deep breath and count to ten or whatever works, be civil and let's move on.
Thank you all -
Hal
Hal,
Excuse the formatting here, but for all my trying, I can't seem to isolate single sentence quotes for reply within a posting.
1st par.- I would have thought so too. We were soooooo good for 2 1/2 pages in and then TSHTF. And I replied STFU in the nicest but firmest manner.
2nd par.- Funny, funny, funny! Made me laugh out loud. I want to be the fly on the wall when you say that to the VP. And then I read it again...and laughed even louder.
Last par.- I was very civil...but my alter ego went apoplectic. Aren't you pleased I can control my other state?
Floats had it right - I take exception that only a spam can is suitable for a prize; but I should have toned down my response. Hmmm, may have to track him down to have a civil debate over an adult beverage some day!
Back on track - some other ideas:
EAA Super Member Package:
Lifetime membership.
Lifetime "free" admission to Air Adventure (yep, like a "free" dog, but less expensive)
Assorted EAA stuff - shirt, cap, jacket, etc.
Pick three EAA building seminars and go without charge (lodging, etc. not included)
ATC tour - be a fly on the wall as they route traffic into Oshkosh
Two tickets on any EAA ride - B17, etc.
I didn't realize we were throwing out options for all the prizes and not just the big one. In that case, I think an all-expenses paid trip for four to Oshkosh would be pretty amazing. Throw in some tickets to a VIP event or two during the week and reserved parking up front for the included rental car and that would make a pretty special trip for someone.
Hal, thanks, I'll be there to have one...and bring that footage!
Frank, I dunno...maybe... if you're not packin'(yes I read that frightening thread and was so appalled and speechless, I couldn't respond) or have a cleko hidden in your pants.
Steve, of course your welcomed and you can serve as a buffer shield and another target in case Frank goes postal.
Is there a list of the previous sweepstakes planes available online?
Guess being the "one third" you present to us as factual, I miss seeing any of your corporate spirit towards the true identity and historical beginnings of EAA as we know it...........not sure I appreciate your attitude and the thoughts you speak of concerning the other "2/3" not knowing or wanting something along the lines of a kit aircraft? Rather than your opinion Sir, why not rely on and listen to the answers you requested from the people you asked concerning this question to begin with...............
Sid Hausding
Alpena, Michigan 49707
989-356-0048
avidsid@yahoo.com
----------------------------------
Definitely use a certified aircraft for the sweepstakes. Nothing against Homebuilts, I am a builder, but I think the most tickets would be sold if the aircraft is certified and flying.