I too think SA is much, much better than in years past. It can never be everything to everybody but It very effectively covers all areas of sport aviation.
I too think SA is much, much better than in years past. It can never be everything to everybody but It very effectively covers all areas of sport aviation.
I have not been an EAA member for long. I used to be a member for years before I started flying. Then due to circumstances, I dropped my membership. I never seemed to get anything from EAA, and they really did not seem to advocate on my behalf, or help me in anyway since I was not building a plane. I had interest in building one, but the attitude in the magazine and the few EAA members i met really turned me off. Very much of the, you do not belong here if you not starting from plans only building a bi-plane that cannot cost more $5K including the engine (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea, and I was of all things interested in a Kit, oh the horror of a kit).
When Rod Hightower came in, I though I would give it another chance. The mag stunk and I think Rod and the organization made a lot of miss steps. But there were two very successful changes I think which have eventually started to pay off: First they have broadened the appeal of EAA. Second, the advocacy on behalf of the members has been significantly more successful in the past few years then the previous sixty. For example, look at how the grass strips and recreational airports at National Parks, from a few guys involved and public relations that was mostly the effort of EAA and RAF with AOPA providing some support. There are many more examples, if you read the advocacy sections in AOPA and EAA.
Anyway, for all those upset at Mac's articles. Consider it from this perspective, it is all those new members fees, magazine ads, and other broad efforts that allow EAA to have dramatically increased and supported the training sessions around the country, expand advocacy on your behalf, and overall make the organization much more a of force to be reckoned with. Considering the constant assault aviation endures around the country, this is a good thing.
For all those complaining about the number of hours per hour for each category, those numbers come from three basic sources. And most critically, they match. First, is surveys, second is NTSB reports, third is 337, ramp checks and other paperwork submitted to the FAA. Note, the third category mostly applies to certified only. So those who complain, go fly moreOn another board, some pilots were complaining the numbers had to be off; I lived near one of the complainers, so we setup a bet (loser bought lunch) that the average hours of the next 20 pilots that came into the airport would be under 70. I won, the number came in just over 60, and this was at KGAI an airport with a fair amount of corporate traffic.
Last item (this is based on reading, I have not been alive or around aviation that long
Tim
You might want to consider the completion rate of the Vans aircraft--averaging nearly two completions per day (actual FAA registration data) with an average completed cost in the $60K-$90K range. Nobody else is remotely close to Vans when it comes to completion rate (including most certificated manufacturers!).Originally Posted by tspear
Last edited by Sam Buchanan; 02-23-2014 at 08:32 AM.
Amen!
I joined EAA in '76 and became friends with many of EAA's pubs people. They used to share a few criticisms with me, like Jack Cox's overuse of exclamation points, for one. Every writer develops his own style and not every reader will appreciate his style.
Back when Paul was running things, like his generation, he valued quality over quantity (but still valued quantity when it was preceded by a $). He ran EAA as a grassroots organization and stressed that through extensive use of volunteer labor and materials donated by individuals and local businesses.
Then Tom took over with his MBA, pulled up the grass by its roots and paved it over with corporate partners. The attitude of "if you're not growing, you're dying" seemed to take root in the new corporate culture dominated by Directors and VP's. Volunteers were still heavily relied on, but a glitzy, Disneylike atmosphere supplanted the grass-roots rusticity.
But then Tom retired and EAA found itself Pobereznyless, an identity crisis ensued, and in a moment of corporate panic, EAA's subliminal mantra seemed to be "if you're not growing, you're dying." EAA needed more members! Do do that, they needed to become the chimera of "all things to all aviation people." But how do they do that? Hmmmm...since Flying is the top aviation magazine: they hired their writers in hopes that Flying readers will become EAA'ers to continue reading their favorite writers! Sure it was expensive, but EAA could always find another corporate partner to help pay for it. There must be turboprop airfarme manufacturers that like Flying. I have to wonder if it was ever discussed while the EAA was rebranding itself: would more Flying readers make the jump to EAA than would snobby elitist homebuilders let their memberships lapse out of disgust for neoEAA? Perhaps EAA's Chris Jovaag has the data to answer that question, but I doubt it: I don't recall any survey asking if someone recently joined EAA becasue they think Lane Wallace is hot.
EAA has changed in an effort to adapt to the times, just as we all do. We don't like changes, especially the ones that remind us we're getting old, but we have to accept them or move on. I like Mac, I became well acquainted with him and his adorable wife when I was a fellow volunteer with her in Convention HQ, back when our conventions were simply Oshkosh, not AirDisney. So he flys a Baron: would you appreciate his writing more if he flew a Cougar, or less if he flew a Seminole? I find most of his writing is thoughtful, informative, and applicable to flying most fixed wing aircraft, regardless of their pedigree. So please don't make him feel unwelcome.
If you don't like neoEAA, fire the Board and vote in someone you can believe in. I write this with one little history lesson as a caveat: Back in the Rockford days, EAA held elections at the annual meeting, like today. Someone with a LOT of friends at the meeting was voted president, and Paul found himself unemployed. Disappointed, Paul wandered off down by the P-51's, lower than a plumber's pants. The new president soon realized he didn't have time for the job and stepped down, Paul was reinstated, and soon after, your membership renewal form had a proxy attached to it. At the next and every annual meeting thereafter, garbage bags full of proxies were presented and voted however president & board wanted. Good luck out-voting those garbage bags!
I get 4 magazines a month, two of them from EAA, and I read most of the content, certainly not all. If Mac is writing about something that isn't interesting to me, then I just glance at it and go on. Just as I wasn't interested in the Turbine section in AOPA magazine, I didn't have to read it. It is a little easier with AOPA as they let you opt out of the high dollar stinky fuel stuff and send you the magazine without that part. It is a little harder with Sport Aviation, but to me there are many things that I am interested in and do read, at least in some detail. Both EAA and AOPA are so cheap to join, $85 gets you both and thats less than a round of golf many places; that I think we easily get good value for the money.
I am lucky enough that my sisters taught me to read when I was a child and I have always been good at it so can scan a magazine pretty quickly and get the essence of it. I am as good at reading as I am bad at computers. I find maybe 1 of 5 of Mac articles, like accident analysis, that pertains to me, but there is a lot else in the magazine.
The big drawback of any mag is that they tend to clog up and take over your house, and/or car. I finally thought where did all these piles of mags come from, then I realized that being a member of 4 groups means 48 mags a year or so, which is a few hundred pretty quickly. I am currently in the process of disposing of many of them, but who can discard one with a beautiful Bleriot lifting off from Pioneer Field or a Seafire on the cover?
I have found a local school project that wants some.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 02-24-2014 at 12:28 PM.
I have been looking at RVs recently on controller and elsewhere. In addition, I read the completion section of Sport Aviation.
The avionics alone in many of the planes now approach 75-100K alone; look at the cost of a G3X, GTN750 and few more items and your price is up there. In addition, I am seeing more and more experimental planes being finished with certified Lycoming/Continental engines and props. Many of these are 30K engines and 10K props.
So just in avionics, engines and props you break 100K easily. Add in a quick build kit....
I am sure you can see where this is going. People spend a lot more building these kits then they admit. Especially to a spouse
Tim
Tim,I have been looking at RVs recently on controller and elsewhere. In addition, I read the completion section of Sport Aviation.
The avionics alone in many of the planes now approach 75-100K alone; look at the cost of a G3X, GTN750 and few more items and your price is up there. In addition, I am seeing more and more experimental planes being finished with certified Lycoming/Continental engines and props. Many of these are 30K engines and 10K props.
So just in avionics, engines and props you break 100K easily. Add in a quick build kit....
I am sure you can see where this is going. People spend a lot more building these kits then they admit. Especially to a spouse
Tim
I've been a part of the RV community since 1997 when I began the construction of my RV-6. As an EAA Technical Counselor, charter member of the Tennessee Valley RV Builders Group and a moderator of the VansAirforce web forum I've been able to keep a close eye on the RV community for nearly two decades.
Yes, there are RVs, especially the RV-10, with high-$$$$ avionics and engines. But those are the exception, not the "average" RV that is being completed. The average price will indeed climb with time due to more advanced kits (RV-14, etc) and more expensive engines, but avionics prices are stabilizing, not climbing steeply.
Based on my observations, I stand by my statement that RV's are presently completed at an average cost below $100K. FAA registration data shows that two-place RVs are still the lion's share of experimentals joining the fleet, the very high-value examples are still a very small part of new completions. What you are not seeing in the for-sale ads are the huge numbers of experimental aircraft that are being happily flown by builders (and increasingly non-builders) who have not spent exorbitant amounts on their magic carpet.
I'm not sure how all this dove-tails into the topic of this thread, I just wanted to share my observations that reasonably-priced custom-built aircraft are still the bread-n-butter of our corner of the aviation universe.
But I'm not going to touch the spousal component of aircraft finances.....
Last edited by Sam Buchanan; 02-24-2014 at 07:33 PM.
Sam,
Sounds like you have more exposure than me
Mine was anecdotal based on what I see being completed in mags and listed for sale. So that could be a very skewed perspective. But we should get back to why Mac is such a bad influence for EAA.
Tim
So Mac M is likely doing a great job at running the business of the magazine. But there appears to be a lot of folks out there who believe that what he writes has no relevance for the stated target audience of the magazine. In polite terms those folks are saying that Mac M's pages in the magazine are wasted space and that writers who speak to topics aimed at the EAA audiences of Classic, Homebuilts, Warbirds, Light Sport, etc., should get the space that Mac M is using. The vast majority of the readers will never ever even ride in a TMB-800. And when Mac M writes about needing stick shakers, many people just roll their eyes and pick up Kitplanes. Will there be a design contest to put a stick shaker in an EAA Biplane?
Magazines have a business side and a creative side. Both have to be done well for a publication to be a success. There appear to be a lot of EAA members who think that articles about turbines and flying a Baron are signs that EAA is losing its way.
I will second the observation that for every Lancair IV that is completed, there are 10 RV's. Which is why it seems off balance that more magazine space isn't set aside for the meat and potatoes of EAA activity.
Thanks,
Wes
N78PS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote