AOPA Goes Homebuilt?

[Sid Lambert]

Is this something we want?

Don't get me wrong, I love change, but this group as a whole may be bad for experimental aviation.

You guys seem to fly for the pure love of flying. You own the aircraft because it's a machine and machines make you smile. You even have a desire to hang out with people of like mind so you can share information. I belong with each of those statements as well.

While there is nothing wrong with AOPA or it's members, heck they are responsible for some of the greatest accomplishments in aviation but... I worry that if "EAA way" becomes the norm, things will change for the worse. The typical pilot that uses an aircraft simply for impressive transportation may not grasp the concept of build and fly. His or her lack of understanding the systems may put the plane and pilot at risk, thus decreasing safety.

I may just be a snob but I'm not so sure I want AOPA to see the light. I also don't want them to shove us in the corner to be ridiculed and called dangerous because we fly in circles some times either.

I am a member of both organizations because both do great things for aviation in different areas.

[rfinch]

Even Avweb.com interviewed the editor of Kitplanes about fuel economy....

Given the interest in QB kits and pro-builders, it's evident that there is a lot of demand for good performing aircraft that don't won't take several years to build. Like one fellow put it, he'd rather be an assembler than a true builder. I hope the FAA and aviation community accommodate everybody. A big gap has opened over the years between expensive certificated airplanes and experimental (homebuilt) airplanes. Surely there's room for all ranges of owners/flyers.

[breister]

Originally Posted by brianwallis

I must say, I'm glad new editors are being hired. I will personally vouch for Mr Dave Hirschman as he is an outstanding fellow.. I've seen his RV-3
(there just happens to be a long article in an aviation pub about his trip out west to go get it from a master builder) And it's Stunning... He is also a wonderful pilot as well... I hope the new editors all do well!
Best
Brian Wallis

Hehe - did Dave buy you breakfast to say that before he left Brian?

[RV8iator]

As you wish..
On of may all time favorite movies..

[N941WR]

Originally Posted by Sid Lambert

...I may just be a snob but I'm not so sure I want AOPA to see the light. I also don't want them to shove us in the corner to be ridiculed and called dangerous because we fly in circles some times either.

I am a member of both organizations because both do great things for aviation in different areas.

Sid,

Like you I'm a member of both organizations and have been for longer than I wish to admit.

It is not my desire, or the desire of the homebuilt community IMHO, to convert AOPA to another EAA. However it appears as though AOPA has followed the production aircraft industry into the stratosphere of high dollar production aircraft. (This is the reason I dropped my subscription to Flying 15+ years ago.)

The SR-20/22 is a nice airplane but how many of their members can afford one? Not to mention a PC-12 or some of the business jets they review.

Is this AOPA's problem? Well yes and no. It is difficult to buy a new $30K airplane and they have to report on what is available. How many times can they report on the flying qualities of a C-150/152/172/182/210 etc? Until new four place aircraft are available for the price of an 18 to 22 foot power boat, there just won?t be much to report on in the way of production airplanes. They LSA fleet has some impressive airplanes in it but the $100K price tags are going to limit their acceptance.

I suspect, but do not know, that AOPA is struggling with the Homebuilt issue. There are a lot of outstanding and innovative designs in the homebuilt arena that I'm certain AOPA would like to cover. They must be sitting around the boardroom discussing (arguing) if they can or should cover these items in their magazine as there is another organization which already does that, it's called the EAA.

Don't forget, there is an entire group of pilots out there who think all homebuilts are death traps and no amount of education will ever change their minds. As excited as we were to read about the RV in AOPA Pilot, there is a group of pilots who are writing a letter to the editor to complain about it.

As a side note to the thread:
Do you think it is possible that AOPA and the EAA will merge in the next 20 years to create one supper GA lobby?

[RV8N]

I don't think AOPA is totally anti-homebuilt. They just ignore us most of the time. There was an article in AOPA Pilot around 1997 reporting on the flying qualities of the RV-8. The author flew in the yellow production prototype (RIP) and had very good things to say about it.

Karl

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by N941WR

As a side note to the thread:
Do you think it is possible that AOPA and the EAA will merge in the next 20 years to create one supper GA lobby?

Wow..maybe the dinner options at Airventure would see some improvement then?

[tinman]

I am laughing so hard after seeing multiple references to dialogue from 'The Princess Bride'.

'I'm the Dwed Piwate Wobberts...prepare to die!"
- Andre the Giant (RIP)


To make this RV related...I don't think that there is a RV out there that could lift Andre off the ground...

[KPmarc]

Guys. It's simpler than you think.

For starters, when I was a staffer on AOPA Pilot (1988 to 1999, plus a special project in 2000), the association proper didn't have a huge influence on the editorial content of the magazine beyond the service items--political stuff, local airport issues, etc.--that appear in every issue. The flight reviews, product reports--the meat of the magazine--was up to the editor, still the extremely capable Tom Haines. (Point of trivia: I was hired by Dick Collins [something he probably still regrets] then worked under Mark Twombly and then Tom Haines; that's three editors in 20 years, amazing editorial stability for a big magazine.)

Anyway, Tom and his predecessors worked like most editors: You have an idea of what your readership wants, and you write toward that target. Some stories are assigned, some are suggested by the staffers, others come in over the transom.

When I was there, homebuilts were on a periodic rise in popularity. Plus, I was, frankly, bored with the spam can stuff. So I lobbied hard to get more homebuilt designs into the magazine as flight reviews and projects. Because I was the only one with an interest, I got do to many of them in that period. I wish we could have done more, but there was a certain suspicion about Experimentals. Partly, I think that was a leftover from when AOPA tried to embrace ultralights, and a general lack of understanding.

I got so far hooked that I built a Pulsar XP and chronicled the build for the magazine, which may be the only time that's happened. The more I learned about this surprisingly complex industry, the more I became the go-to guy for it.

I suspect something similar is happening now. The new crop of editors has someone who is interested, which creates stories about airplanes that a certain percentage of AOPA members are interested in--and they are interested in homebuilts, at least they were when I was there.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt there's word from across the hall (Phil's office, or thereabouts) to cover more Experimentals or put the move on EAA.

Overall, I think AOPA doing more Experimental coverage is a good thing. There's nothing worse than being marginalized.

--Marc Cook, ex AOPA staffer, current Kitplanes editor

BTW: Avweb is owned by Belvoir, as is Kitplanes. They're starting to catch on at Avweb that we might be of some use to them vis a vis homebuilts.

[ergie63]

AOPA reviews big bucks aircraft because the big bucks manufacturers pay their bills. The sheer number of kit aircraft completed in the last 10 years means that lots of small bucks can add up to big bucks. It seems the AOPA will sometimes lament about stuff like pilot enthusiasm. Perhaps they have realized that homebuilders are enthusiastic by definition.

We may not have noticed, but the advent of repeatable small batch mass production technology behind kit aircraft like Van's will surely be regarded as a tipping point someday. If not at this very moment, then soon. That the AOPA is nodding to homebuilders is evidence of the same.

Also as a consequence of this tipping point is that "certifying" piston singles is a dying concept. While its true that regulations benefit the regulated because the regulations act as a barrier to entry and drive out weaker competition, kit plane technology has shattered that barrier. Lets face it, there are no more Buck Rogers moments in piston singles. That which makes aircraft "safe" is no longer a mystery. If certification does not enhance safety, does not create a barrier to entry, and does not innoculate against the lawsuit menace, then it is pointless.

When Cessna realized how much it would cost to certify their 182replacement, perhaps it was they who started "prodding the bear". A pessimist would fear for the 51% rule as we know it. An optimist would anticipate the adoption of conensus standards for all piston singles.