oh, no! eaa membership expiring!

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,074
Location
Rocky Mountains
Chad-

I don't mean to try paint you into a corner - it's not fair to dump all this on you. I admire you for taking the "abuse" here and on the VAF thread.
He probably does feel a bit like he fell into a rattlesnake den on a hot day.


At 34 there is just no way he has the the frame of reference to understand what you and I have experienced, or understand what we miss from the old EAA. Maybe if he gets a little further along with the Tailwind he will begin to?

Growth is rarely a good thing unless your motive is profit or empire building. Development, on the other hand, is to be encouraged. Some organizations can't tell the difference.
 

cjensen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Oshkosh, WI
I am confused about this question (perhaps a typo?).
Are you suggesting that I write an editorial for Sport Aviation?
Sorry, typo...should be why don't you write in to editorial with your thoughts, concerns, and questions.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,074
Location
Rocky Mountains
And with others, let me again commend you on your interest and participation here on HBA, and your patience with our rantings. :)
Ditto! You're getting an earful from us because so far it's the only ear from the EAA in recent memory that even appears to care what the "lost sheep" think.
 

cjensen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Oshkosh, WI
He probably does feel a bit like he fell into a rattlesnake den on a hot day. :ermm:

At 34 there is just no way he has the the frame of reference to understand what you and I have experienced, or understand what we miss from the old EAA. Maybe if he gets a little further along with the Tailwind he will begin to?

Growth is rarely a good thing unless your motive is profit or empire building. Development, on the other hand, is to be encouraged. Some organizations can't tell the difference.
Nah, I probably know you guys (online) much better than you know me. I've been on here for almost 7 years, and I've read many many posts over the years. I love this forum...lots of innovation and excellent knowledge here. I've always been more of a lurker here than other forums I'm on. You're all passionate people and I appreciate that. I like to think that if we met in a bar for a drink that we would have a great conversation and walk away as friends.

I do agree that I'll never have the frame of reference that some of you have. As long as I've been a homebuilder, the Internet has been around. That instant knowledge is what magazines like Sport Aviation a difficult product to keep viable. Even building my Tailwind has proven to me that while building "old school" from plans, the Internet, with Yahoo! Groups and builder websites, provides much more info than one would have ever dreamed back in the 50's and 60's.

While I don't agree with you that growth is rarely a good thing, I do agree about encouraging development. We are growing to provide better products to our members...not to make a bigger pile of money.
 

cjensen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Oshkosh, WI
Ditto! You're getting an earful from us because so far it's the only ear from the EAA in recent memory that even appears to care what the "lost sheep" think.
Thanks guys...sorry it took so long to get someone in here to listen and provide some info.
 

Jman

Site Developer
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
1,881
Location
Pacific NW, USA!
Chad,

I was cringing a bit while reading some of the comments but it's good to see you are a good sport about it. Congrats on the promotion BTW.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,244
Location
Port Townsend WA
I just don't understand why EAA doesn't offer the members a print magazine that covers affordable aircraft.
If EAA can print SPORT AEROBATICS for a small fringe group, why can't the core members get what they want and what aviation needs to sustain new interest?
The magazine should be about affordable aircraft, plain and simple.
Not $2.5 million turboprops
Not filled with articles about flight techniques (EAA is about the aircraft), and especially not IFR. EAA is about sport aviation not IFR.

Why can't the leaders at EAA see and understand the need for a special interest magazine for the core EAA member?
The situation is almost unbelievable and I don't get it.
 

cjensen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Oshkosh, WI
I just don't understand why EAA doesn't offer the members a print magazine that covers affordable aircraft.
If EAA can print SPORT AEROBATICS for a small fringe group, why can't the core members get what they want and what aviation needs to sustain new interest?
This is a VERY common misconception among members and non-members alike...Sport Aerobatics, Warbirds, and Vintage Airplane magazines are not printed or paid for by EAA. Those divisions all have their own budgets, their own boards, and their own staff. EAA does do the copy editing, but it's all billed out to the divisions. That is straight from the original agreement between EAA and the divisions back in 1987. They pay for their stuff from their budgets.

Why can't the leaders at EAA see and understand the need for a special interest magazine for the core EAA member?
The situation is almost unbelievable and I don't get it.
There is a special interest magazine for homebuilders, it's just not in print (right now). Experimenter, while an online newsletter is out there. Ultralights have Light Plane World. Print magazines aren't cheap...I'd love to see Experimenter come back in print form, and perhaps it will one of these days.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,244
Location
Port Townsend WA
Print magazines aren't cheap...I'd love to see Experimenter come back in print form, and perhaps it will one of these days.
I read the online Experimenter and Light Plane World and find it very good, but I suspect that only a tiny portion of EAA resources is devoted to these online publications, perhaps even volunteer is my guess.
I also understand why a print Experimenter probably won't come back... lack of advertising revenue to cover the cost of a print magazine.
 

cjensen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Oshkosh, WI
We have an entire team called the Digital Media channel that takes care of the online pubs. Pat Panzera is our contract (paid) editor for Experimenter, and he and I both contribute to the content. It's not volunteer, and it's not a tiny portion of resources, but it's not huge by any means.

I'd like to see it come back...we'll see.:)
 

Don D

Active Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
37
Location
Oklahoma
I have pretty thick skin, as you may have been able to tell. I'm a level headed guy that doesn't take offense, and respects others thoughts and feelings. ;)
You must be indeed, because I think that you also should have been named a VP of the homebuilders community in the personnel shakedown instead of manager. It may be that you have moved up a little, but my guess is that you will be doing more work personally than the three VPs combined. It usually takes at least three support people for each VP to produce any visible results from their respective positions.

Don
 

delta

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
2,167
Location
Brookside Utah
Advocacy for the penny pinching homebuilder doesn't fall exclusively on EAA's shoulders but it'd be nice to see it in focus once in awhile. I'm in for another year regardless. It's hard to turn loose of something you've considered family for so long. Hey...my brother's a Republican or Democrat, and I still love him. I'd probably still love him if he worked for Exon...

Rick
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
13,244
Location
Port Townsend WA
If Experimenter comes back in print, I think it it should be renamed as:
SPORT AIRCRAFT- "the affordable aircraft magazine for the sport aircraft builder, restorer and experimenter".

The word "Experimenter" is a bit too specific and outdated, in my opinion. Yes, I am an experimenter, but most are not. But a huge percentage of the membership want a magazine that provides news and ideas about affordable aviation in all forms. Should be about aircraft, not about being a pilot and flying trips etc.
 

cjensen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
149
Location
Oshkosh, WI
You must be indeed, because I think that you also should have been named a VP of the homebuilders community in the personnel shakedown instead of manager. It may be that you have moved up a little, but my guess is that you will be doing more work personally than the three VPs combined. It usually takes at least three support people for each VP to produce any visible results from their respective positions.

Don
Thanks Don, I certainly appreciate that. That may come with some time and more experience, but I'm just happy to be in the position I'm in to be able to speak for the communities, and homebuilders specifically.

If Experimenter comes back in print, I think it it should be renamed as:
SPORT AIRCRAFT- "the affordable aircraft magazine for the sport aircraft builder, restorer and experimenter".

The word "Experimenter" is a bit too specific and outdated, in my opinion. Yes, I am an experimenter, but most are not. But a huge percentage of the membership want a magazine that provides news and ideas about affordable aviation in all forms. Should be about aircraft, not about being a pilot and flying trips etc.
I agree! I think Experimenter is still the title because of it's historical value, as it was Paul's first publication. But I like Sport Aircraft...
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,894
Location
Evansville, Indiana
So if even the RV guys think EAA has lost focus, that's very telling!
When saying things like that, one has to be very careful that they are not relying on logical fallacies inherent in a self-selected group. Basically, just because there is a loud and vocal group of people complaining, it does not mean they represent the average member of the population as a whole. We see this a lot in politics lately.

But, I wouldn't say that the RV community feels EAA has lost it's focus. There are about 130 people (15-20 that kept it going) that participated in that thread out of 14,000 members. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, not at all, but I hardly think that is speaks for the community. I am (was) an RV guy...I have had more feedback via PM or email from the RV community about the positive changes they are seeing than the negative views expressed in that thread. And not all of it is negative there either. It's a great discussion. I sat in Rod's office one night last week, and we went through the stacks of emails...the feedback is good. Honestly.
What Chad said.

I'm hoping to be able to provide some for the homebuilding content, but we're serious when we ask for submissions from builders and flyers. Whether you write the article, or we send someone to cover it, we need stories.
Here's my list of ideas:
-Seat and restraint design in homebuilts
-Fuel tank and fuel line design for homebuilts
-Ditching/"water landing" safety
-How injuries are produced in aircraft crashes and why the average homebuilder/pilot should care
-Why the experimental community should be at the forefront of aviation safety (and how doing so would get the NTSB and FAA off our collective butts)/why the "experimental" moniker should be more than just an FAA classification
-Why "newer" isn't always better in terms of safety (materials oriented; wood vs metal vs composites)
-The false sense of security in glass cockpits ("newer isn't always better")

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I can always come up with more and I would be thrilled to write these and anything else you want me to. Just PM me (or catch me on FB since we've talked on there before) and we can discuss it.

encourage the development of a flying car as the embodiment of the dream of affordable and useful flying vehicles
Refer to my earlier comments in another thread about why listen to what might be best described as a zealot's view of a concept might be counterproductive in terms of "affordable" and "useful" beacuse of the maintenance and operational concerns and expenses not to mention the logistics and safety concerns of a three-dimensional traffic jam instead of just a two-dimensional one. The flying car idea is simply one that falls apart once you get past the "can we make a roadable plane?" stage of the planning. At that point it ceases to be affordable (actually, I've yet to see one make it past the concept stage and meet the average citizen's margins for "afforable") or useful.

With no disrepect intended to a man who designed a really nice little amphibian, Molt Taylor was at best a bit crazy and at worse suffered from an almost delusional short-sightedness when it came to the limitations of the concept. That's not uncommon when you have an engineer who really believes in his own ideas to the exclusion of all other input. Occasionally you get someone who proves their detractors wrong but the vast majority of the time it simply keeps them from being more productive than they otherwise would have been because of the expenditure of time, effort and resources on a concept that is not going anywhere.

I met Molt back when I was a kid (my dad's uncle- also an engineer- was friends with him) and I found him to be a nice guy and very sincere in interests but even then, I remember asking him a couple of the same questions of practicality that I have posed to you and others (including one about "Sir, what happens if we simply wind up with traffic jams in the air?"). He freely admitted that the engineering issues were the "smallest thing standing in our way" although due to my age (I was eight or nine) I unfortunately lacked the mental capacity to have a truly in-depth conversation with him about it.

Little "experimentation" as usually understood has taken place in the EAA --nothing greatly advancing the design of aircraft in any way (the Wittman spring steel landing gear came out of air racing pre EAA although sometimes creditted to homebuilding per se )
It's experimental aviation and homebuilding in the strictest sense of the word.

and the real point of EAA was to make affordable and enjoyable aircraft available to the man in the street. ( homebuilding hasn't done this but neither has building antiques in Wichita -- maybe another approach is needed )
It's because the average person isn't attracted to the idea of puttering around the field in a trike or other inexpensive aircraft. If we were to develop a cheap and easy to build point A to point B cruiser to satisfy the needs and desires of the average person, it might help meet that goal. That's going to be much more productive than trying to meet a very small niche market such as is met by the current LSA designs or some outlandishly expensive and impractical flying car concept vehicle. If you'd like to work on such a design with me, I'd be happy to work with you on it.

rather than the sort of vehicle that fitted into peoples everyday lives
The problem is that most of us are still not seeing how a flying car solves any problems without creating many more.

the rare times when an article on roadables appeared in the EAA magazine were mostly to report an restoration for the museum or just as a novelty item.
That's because that's what they are and will remain with a very high degree of certainty.

as another pioneer in roadables -also frustrated and ignored by EAA, wrote in his book on flying cars --the late Dan Zuck of "an airplane in every garage" fame
You make it sound like they ignored him simply because they had an agenda. LOL Most people- myself included- get frustrated when told that their ideas isn't practical or feasible.

Continued -- so bemoaning the dissappearence of the Pietenpol type homebuilt is to me a bit too much like nostalgia for things like wind up gramophones or similar obsoleted technology -- and they were never cheap to own or build in terms of man hours invested .
I knew we thought alike on many things! ;)

Growth is rarely a good thing unless your motive is profit or empire building. Development, on the other hand, is to be encouraged. Some organizations can't tell the difference.
Let's not split hairs over semantics. Growth- when you have to defend yourself politically- or "demographic development" if you will- is absolutely necessary. You don't have to have everyone marching in lock step (in fact, I argue that is far more dangerous in many ways than having a group pulling itself apart over differences) but you do have to have "the numbers" to have the clout necessary to survive in the lobbying world. Either we have the numbers no matter where they come from and learn to live together as brothers or we all figuratively die together as fools. Instead of grousing over griping about magazine content and the direction of the organization, may I suggest the following? If you have any complaint about the lack of technical or other articles to suit your fancy, write one (or make the suggestion and myself or someone else will). Otherwise, you're just as culpable for the path of the magazine as anyone else and have no reason or grounds to complain. Guilt by omission or commission are both still guilt and leave the person involved with paltry little room to express disdain when they full well had the opportunity to avoid or amend the situation.

I just don't understand why EAA doesn't offer the members a print magazine that covers affordable aircraft.
If EAA can print SPORT AEROBATICS for a small fringe group, why can't the core members get what they want and what aviation needs to sustain new interest?
The magazine should be about affordable aircraft, plain and simple.
I would wager a guess that lack of contributors is probably a significant reason beyond the budget issue. I for one would contribute if there was such an opportunity.

Why can't the leaders at EAA see and understand the need for a special interest magazine for the core EAA member?
The situation is almost unbelievable and I don't get it.
I don't think either end of the spectrum has any grounds based on hard evidence to argue that they are the "core EAA member" population. Until such evidence is put forth, it's a bit slanted to argue that one's own opinion represents the "core" of EAA membership.

Chad, is there any hard evidence on what aircraft is most frequently owned or being built by the current EAA membership? That is among the portion that actually own or are building an aircraft....
 

N111KX

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Atlanta, GA USA
Recently, I submitted to the editor of Sport Aviation a cross country story that I had written. It's the story is about two homebuilt airplanes in formation flying from Kitty Hawk to Catalina Island. To me, such a story is interesting, inspirational, and educational. However, I was told that it was too long (by number of words). In fact, it was "twice as long as a typical article" and was never read at EAA or even suggested that it be shortened.

Combined with building, is this not the epitome of the the freedoms and gratifications of the homebuilt experience?

Perhaps if the trip were in a Baron it might be more suitable...;)
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,774
Location
Mojave, Ca
Recently, I submitted to the editor of Sport Aviation a cross country story that I had written...

...Combined with building, is this not the epitome of the the freedoms and gratifications of the homebuilt experience?...
Well, to be blunt - not for me. If it's a story about flying qualities (roll rates, stall behavior, stick force gradients, etc), then I'm interested. I'm admitedly pretty hard core, but "adventure" stories are simply fluff pieces as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of magazines for that stuff.
 

N111KX

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
24
Location
Atlanta, GA USA
I'll add that the last thing on my mind in three years of building was "stick force gradients".

Takes all types, right?

Well, to be blunt - not for me. If it's a story about flying qualities (roll rates, stall behavior, stick force gradients, etc), then I'm interested. I'm admitedly pretty hard core, but "adventure" stories are simply fluff pieces as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of magazines for that stuff.
 
Last edited:

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,894
Location
Evansville, Indiana
Combined with building, is this not the epitome of the the freedoms and gratifications of the homebuilt experience?
No, not really....to me, the story of someone else flying cross-country is about as interesting as my grandmother telling me about her trip to the grocery store.

However, I was told that it was too long (by number of words). In fact, it was "twice as long as a typical article" and was never read at EAA or even suggested that it be shortened.
Then shorten it yourself and re-submit. As someone who publishes in scientific journals and trade magazines, I can tell you what you experienced is very common in the publishing world. It's not the publisher's mandate to inform you how to make your story more palatable and/or acceptable. If you have a compelling pitch, then they will be more willing to offer advice but that's only normally done if you have something really attractive. In other words, don't read more into it than the fact that they didn't accept your first submission. Keep in mind that a lot of magazines receive 50-200 submissions for each article published.

was never read at EAA
....and how do you know this?

If it's a story about flying qualities (roll rates, stall behavior, stick force gradients, etc), then I'm interested. I'm admitedly pretty hard core, but "adventure" stories are simply fluff pieces as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of magazines for that stuff.
Exactly.

Takes all types, right?
This is true, but the complaints seem to be that there's not enough about homebuilding rather than a lack of stories involving homebuilts doing mundane things. I mean, no offense, but long distance flying in a homebuilt isn't exciting, informative, interesting or unusual (which are the things that most publishers want out of an article). The fact they did it "in formation" doesn't make it any more special. Technically being #5 for landing at Oshkosh means you're flying "in formation" if you want to use a loose definition of the term.
 
Top