Sport Aviation

[krw920]

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]

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

Mary Jones.


BJC

[Mike M]

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]

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]

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

[Frank Giger]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.