Modern Aircraft Association

Hello everyone.

I'd like to wonder, here, about the formation of a new division within the EAA: The MODERN AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION.

In another thread, we've been discussing what is a showplane, what is interesting for people to look at, where the groups can park. We have divisions with in the EAA for Warbirds, Vintage, Homebuilts, etc. So why not MODERN aircraft?

I've heard people complain that a modern run-of-the-mill plane is not a showplane and that no one cares, but that's not true. A 1978 Bonanza (which would be in MODERN) is as interesting to onlookers as a 1968 172 (which is in VINTAGE).

AND,

there are a lot of new designs coming out, particularly in the LIGHT SPORT area, that are very new and sleek: Renegade Falcon, CTLS, SportCruiser---on and on. There are some, what, 130 light sport manufacturers now? These things, as well as the new planes being built by more venerable manufacturers, are of interest to people, as much as many others...

...so I thought I'd ask folks what they think about a MODERN AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, as part of the EAA just like Vintage is, or Warbirds...

See you at OSHKOSH!

Ciao :)

Jen

Oh, goodness, let me add please?

I read my note above. I would not mean to give any impression that I'm talking about an MAA for only late models.

I'm envisioning an Association (within EAA) that is for ALL aircraft, not falling into the bounds of another Association, and that means, to me, with an age beginning just after the Vintage cut-off...

...such that any airplane, any airplane owner, is able to be a part of an organization within the EAA, with his/her plane, on a par with other organizations, that is not excluded from being a "showplane" during Airventure, etc.

Currently, regarding parking or grouping at Oshkosh, I see them for

Vintage
Homebuilts
Warbirds
Aerobatics
Ultralight

Why not also "Modern," as being aircraft not in the others that are post-Vintage era?

Jen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eaajen

Currently, regarding parking or grouping at Oshkosh, I see them for

Vintage
Homebuilts
Warbirds
Aerobatics
Ultralight

Why not also "Modern," as being aircraft not in the others that are post-Vintage era?

Jen

---

At Airventure, they hand out a bunch of awards for Classic (postwar 1945-1955), as well as Contemporary (1956-1970). So a 1968 Cessna 172 would be judged as Contemporary, a 1978 Bonanza would be in N. 40 camping.

I think last year a vintage "2007" airplane won an award in the Seaplane category.

How about calling the group A.O.P.A Darn, that is already being used. Which kind of leads to the discussion of a merger of E.A.A. with A.O.P.A -> http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2...m_medium=email which might or might not help the situation in the North 40.

So, in essence, the parking areas would remain the same, but if someone in the N40 is particulary proud of their bird, they should be able to register it as a showplane and have it judged? Given that Sport Aviation's new format is likely to have a review of a factory fresh Bonanza between its covers, and EAA is embracing ALL aviation now (not just builders & restorers like before), it is entirely within the new scope of EAA to adopt a "modern" category and encourage members to register their "modern" aircraft for judging at AirDisney. You may want to remove the damp clothes from your antennae and prop blades when the golf cart with the judges stops by, though.

Good suggestion, Jen! I hope EAA implements it and orders another set of Lindy's for 2013.

Soft landings!

I don't think the majority of attendees go to OSH to see mass produced late model production planes in private ownership. They can go see those planes at vendor booths. There is nothing wrong with those planes, but they aren't show planes and there is no reason for them to be. Folks go to see what new stuff companies are producing for certified and kits are available at various booths and tent displays. They go out to the flightline to see what people are building and restoring.

I think EAA has pushed the contemporary category too far out. I don't know that is for inclusion (drawing in membership) as much as for parking. Personally, I don't care about most contemporary aircraft. Few production planes after 1950 hold little appeal to me other than as potential traveling machines. I tend to walk past those type contemporary types in vintage parking. I'm certainly not hiking to either end to look at them. Few, if any, of the folks I've attended with do either.

Go to the AOPA convention and see if they will park your late model private plane with the show planes.

At OSH, if you don't want to park in the North 40, bring something that meets EAA's criteria or that most attendees want to look at or fly to your type club's fly-in in Peoria and be a showplane.

Aviation isn't the local youth soccer league where everyone makes the team and gets a trophy regardless of talent and performance. Hopefully airshows and fly-ins don't become filled with those of an entitlement mentality. Not every plane has to be a showplane. Be happy non-showplanes are allowed to fly in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crusty old aviator

Given that Sport Aviation's new format is likely to have a review of a factory fresh Bonanza between its covers...

---

When you get a minute, you should actually read, say, the last 3 issues.

Not to mention Experimenter which is focused solely on homebuilding.

Oh, don't go bustin' my chops, Hal, I read Sport and Experimenter every month, including the last three. I also understand that the subject matter in Sport is no longer limited to building and restoring, like it was in the 60's, because it's a LOT better at reflecting the demographics of the membership. There are plenty of EAA'ers who would enjoy reading about the latest factory built GA aircraft, and Mac does a great job of satisfying their interests, just as there are plenty of bus drivers in the EAA membership who absolutely swoon at Skiles' reminiscing about working his way to the majors, and try to recall how they kept from starving, too. I've read the disgruntled postings in the Forum and I understand there are many who feel EAA has wandered from their personal visions of what EAA should be and what it shouldn't, as if it was some kind of sacred tradition with a rigid format, but I'm not one of them. EAA is what it is because, like many organizations, its leadership felt it was "grow or die," and they chose to grow EAA, rather than have it die as many old traditions do. Times change, and EAA has changed with it. If someone doesn't like this change, they can go hide in their "pilot cave." I don't have a cave, BTW, I have a hangar that is very comfortable to work in and just hang out in. The local glider club uses it as their clubhouse on summer weekends, which is fine as long as none of my tools disappear...

So, back to the point of this thread: is EAA prepared to go the next step and help Jen realize her vision of a "Modern Aircraft" division? Maybe EAA should also start a "Transport Division," too. Can you imagine how many bus drivers would join? They could start chapters and work on acquiring and restoring the old grand dames of the skies. They'd sure fill up the center stage ramp at AirDisney! EAA is in a unique position to facilitate this, so don't waste your time getting defensive, Hal, go get pro-active!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crusty old aviator

So, in essence, the parking areas would remain the same, but if someone in the N40 is particulary proud of their bird, they should be able to register it as a showplane and have it judged? Given that Sport Aviation's new format is likely to have a review of a factory fresh Bonanza between its covers, and EAA is embracing ALL aviation now (not just builders & restorers like before), it is entirely within the new scope of EAA to adopt a "modern" category and encourage members to register their "modern" aircraft for judging at AirDisney. You may want to remove the damp clothes from your antennae and prop blades when the golf cart with the judges stops by, though.

Good suggestion, Jen! I hope EAA implements it and orders another set of Lindy's for 2013.

Soft landings!

---

Thanks.

Yes, I think the EAA is embracing all aviation, more and more. Yet, at Oshkosh (AirVenture), planes from 1971 up are treated as "spamcans" no different from people who come in cars to see the show (another thread, here, where a venerable fellow referred to us as such).

I'm seeing Light Sports and innovative designs left out of not just judging, but being included in the show. I'm seeing cramped, overcrowded conditions for aircraft parking in the N 40 where I'm seeing acres of open land in the S 40 (I parked planes inthe S 40 for years, so I really do know).

And the funny things are (1) a 1970 C172 is no more interesting than a 1980 C172, a 1965 Bonanza is no more interesting than a 1990 Bonzanza, and (2) modern innovative production built aircraft designs are BEING IGNORED.

I mean, think about it. The "Experimental Aircraft Association" has divisions for Warbirds, for Antiques. But New innovative things can't have their own Association within EAA that allows them to also have their parking area, same as those? We can't vie for space, like they can. We can't be part of talks about what happens to our planes at Oshkosh, like they can. Why?

A MODERN AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION within the EAA could be set up to encompass ALL remaining aircraft, so that everyone who flies into OSHKOSH can have a group that represents them to the EAA.

Truly, I dn't see why not.

Yet, when I email the EAA, I get nothing in return.

Jen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hal Bryan

When you get a minute, you should actually read, say, the last 3 issues.

Not to mention Experimenter which is focused solely on homebuilding.

---

Yeah, I gotta chime in here and say that when I just joined (middle of last year) and kept hearing all the griping about "modern" and non-homebuilt stuff in Sport Aviation, that's what I expected it would be. However, other than some articles on the Lancair (which doesn't interest me much personally but definitely qualifies as a homebuilt) I have yet to find that to be the case. I religiously read the whole thing cover to cover within a few hours of getting it, and it's right behind FLYING as my favorite magazine.

In fact, some of the articles have been immensely helpful to a prospective homebuilder like me. The one on amateur-builts and FAA paperwork is a good example.

I can see a common thread of building in all the areas listed.

Vintage - restoration.
Homebuilts - building.
Warbirds - restoration.
Aerobatics - restoration/building.
Ultralight - building/restoration.

And I equate restoration with building; replacing a rib, recovering, welding, etc. seems like it would more than a pain in the rear end than scratch building.

To become a member of the Modern Aircraft Club only requires a checkbook. Hey, we get it - somebody bought a new C172. Good for them - really, good for them - but I don't know why they should get a ribbon for it.

Your point is well taken, Frank, but not very convincing, given that a LOT of the "showplanes" at the convention were built/restored by someone else, then paid for, with a check no doubt, by someone who flew it in. Most of the high rollers in the Warbirds line didn't restore their own birds, they hired it done while they were off running their businesses. That's why EAA came up with the "wrench" awards, to recognize the behind the scenes builder/restorer, but the Lindys still go to the best planes, despite who actually expended the elbow grease, talent, and dedication to get her flying.

So, if EAA is truly going to reach out to all of our aviation community, and not just talk and write about it, they should answer Jen's email with a thoughtful response and task someone at HQ to take a thoughtful, enthusiastic look into the possibility of creating a modern division that would include spamcans and the new glass bottles. Maybe they could make Jen the first president of this new division. And Skiles could be president of the new Transport division!