Got my first issue of Kitplanes

[woxofswa]

Originally Posted by Onewinglo

I really like Kitplanes magazine but I have also have noticed the negative overtones regarding RVs and RV builders. I say let the naysayers gripe. I really enjoy being a part of building, flying and maintaining our RV-8.
I'll step aside now and let the innovators innovate.

I am one of the newest columnists for Kitplanes. I built and fly a Van's RV10 which has been detailed and referenced in several columns.
I am passionate and open minded about all of aviation and am currently considering a second build. I tremendously admire the position that Van's holds in the industry yet I would also consider a new project from any one of several manufacturers. I would also have zero hesitation building another Van's product and like many, anxiously await their next creation.

I have worked with Paul, Mark, and now Marc Cook. I have also done work with the sister AvWeb group and I just want to say that nobody within the entire Belvoir organization has ever said one word to me for or against Van's Aircraft or any other established entity, nor has there ever been any attempt to control a message positively or negatively on any manufacturer or supplier. One of the things that I really admire about this organization is that the passion and focus is on aviation, particularly the E-A/B industry, period. Van's is deservedly the 800lb gorilla in this industry, and likely always will be, and they wear the crown well. Nevertheless, I believe they would be the first to tell anyone that there are a lot of other interesting and vital creatures in the zoo.
Thanks to those who read and thanks to those who engage.

[DanH]

Originally Posted by AlpineYoda

I received a copy (my first) in my stocking this year. Soooo many references to why Van's planes are the Toyota Corollas of aircraft, why they are bad for the experimental segment, why they aren't really "experimental" anymore and are a bad trend, why Van's "owning the entire market segment" is bad for innovation, etc etc etc.

It might take more than one issue to develop a true picture of editorial viewpoint. As a new subscriber, you have access to past issues; read the last 24 or so and see if you feel the same.

[KPmarc]

Myron beat me to the response here. (That's what I get for taking some holiday time off!)

There's absolutely no bias against RVs, Van's Aircraft, or any RV builder segment in KITPLANES. It's my job to make sure there isn't. Moreover, under Paul Dye's excellent stewardship, I think he did an amazing job balancing the needs of our entire readership with a natural, genuine kind of RV coverage--his efforts are especially heroic considering how active he was/is here and his own building history.

What I suspect bothers builders the most is Tom Wilson's recent commentary piece on how (and I'm deeply paraphrasing here) orthodoxy is "bad" for innovation. To a great extent that's true. If I were starting a new kit-aircraft company, would I try to build some outlandish design that looks like no other (that's the dreamer side) or would I aim for what is clearly the biggest part of the market, with the greatest acceptance and success, and therefore build a design that would have to be fairly RV-like? It's a seriously expensive endeavor to create a new airplane. Do you start with one you feel strongly will succeed or just blow people away with innovative design choices? I suppose that depends on where the money's coming from. You know if there are business managers in the room, they're going for the "sure thing."

In any event, this is a piece of commentary, Tom's opinion on a subject. Having been part of the Experimental landscape (even as just a reporter) since the late 1980s, I agree with most of his points. We simply aren't seeing the radical designs we did before, and those of us who got into Experimentals following the heady scent of wild ideas definitely miss that just a little.

Having said that, would I, today, rather start on a design with radically new construction materials and methods, with just a handful flying, or would I choose a design known to be utterly, totally "completable" and an excellent airplane once it's flying? The latter, for sure.

I hope that at least gets started answering your questions.

Incidentally, I visit this site quite often but do not have notifications turned on. If any member here wants to shoot me a message, do so at editorial@kitplanes.com. That comes to me as well as Mark Schrimmer. I'll be happy to answer questions privately if you'd prefer.

Thanks.