Jim P

Jim P

Well Known Member
Not sure if this is an April Fools joke (probably not, but good timing)...

I received my April AOPA Pilot Mag today and what-da-ya-know, AOPA had a favorable editorial on page 46, by Mark Twombly titled "Recreational Vehicle" and talked about his desire to go for an RV ride and subsequent ride in Trey Johnson's amphib RV-7.

On page 58, there's a notice that AOPA hired three new editors, one, Dave Hirschman is noted as an RV-3 owner.

Is AOPA finally seeing the light?
 
I noticed a few new ads and articles last month that were related to Experimentals.... We can only hope!
 
no joke

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
 
Next thing you know, Richard Collins of Flying might acknowledge the existence of experimental aircraft. Or maybe even non-King avionics - gasp! What is the world coming to! :eek:
 
Who knows, they might actually have an article on buying an airplane for less than the cost of a house.

The world might just come to an end as we know.
 
N941WR said:
Who knows, they might actually have an article on buying an airplane for less than the cost of a house.

The world might just come to an end as we know.
Click to expand...

I will not hold my breath while waiting for Phil Boyer to embrace us.
 
sprucemoose said:
You keep using that word...
Click to expand...

He needs the appropriate graphic:

inconceivable_1.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
brianwallis said:
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
Click to expand...

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

:)
 
Sid Lambert said:
...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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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
 
N941WR said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
You should read the book... it's even better.

"Hello. My name is Innigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"

And more on subject: I saw a magazine at the local bookstore the other day; on the cover was something like: "Affordable flying! ($new_airplane_name) for only $1000 a month!"

Umm, sure... :rolleyes:
 
ergie63 said:
We may not have noticed, but the advent of repeatable small batch mass production technology behind kit aircraft...
Click to expand...
This technology will bring more engines to the homebuilt market, not just aircraft kits. Look at the Jabaru and Rotec engines for another example of this.

BTW, with regard to GA and AOPA some people would say:
Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
Click to expand...
(Love that movie!)
I have to believe that we will make a come back and be stronger for it. Who knows, that comeback may be headed by homebuilts.
 
rmartingt said:
You should read the book... it's even better.

"Hello. My name is Innigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!"

And more on subject: I saw a magazine at the local bookstore the other day; on the cover was something like: "Affordable flying! ($new_airplane_name) for only $1000 a month!"

Umm, sure... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I quit reading 'Flying' magazine when they came out with the 'cheap jets' article.........:rolleyes:
 
AOPA Pilot's emphasis on planes only Warren Buffet & Bill Gates can afford is way out of line from what AOPA's members fly or can afford to fly. But it is the big bucks manufacturers who pay the bills. When was the last time Pilot had an ad for a homebuilt? Why should Van's advertise in Pilot when they cater to millionaires?

I am guessing there is more to it that the above, however. It seems that all Pilot's writers are IFR, multi-engine qualified and these fancy planes are fun to fly. Hey, cool, for this story I get to fly a Lear jet!

When I first attended Oshkosh in '94 or '95, I talked with an AOPA rep about EAA & AOPA joining forces to recruit new pilots--EAA had their Young Eagles, AOPA had just announced their program to mentor new pilots. The AOPA guy said that you'll never see the 2 organizations get together, implying there was some sort of friction between them.

Now to stray off topic a little, when I wrote to AOPA about working to develop a new unleaded, high octane fuel standard because ethanol was rapidly being mandated by states, the reply I got showed AOPA was mostly interested in supporting the high compression high horsepower engines and they implied we'll just have to get by on our own. Note that it was EAA that developed the autogas STC, not AOPA.

I renewed my AOPA membership, but haven't put their sticker on my vehicle. They don't care about me, I won't advertise them.
 
Support AOPA

I too was pleased to see our segment of aviation acknowleged in AOPA's Pilot this month. I have often thought the Experimental portion of GA was largely
ignored by AOPA. It would be interesting to know what percentage of hours flown is done by experimental aircraft in relation to their percentage of the GA fleet. My guess would be that we fly our airplanes more than the average
spam can owner. That being said, IMHO we should all support AOPA and its efforts to protect GA. From user fees to urban encroachment on our airports it seems AOPA stands mainly alone in the fight for us (as members of the GA community). It's Phil and his gang on the hill and in the faces of the media
trying to get the story right. In the end, AOPA's efforts help us retain our privelage to fly more than any other organization. That's why we should try to avoid "the what have they done for me lately attitude" and consider sending a contribution to the AOPA PAC. I do.

Respectfully submitted.
 
me things we doth protest too much

Anybody else notice that it's pretty common these days for your average RV7/8 to come out of the basement tipping the scales at close to $100k and 5 years of sweat equity ?
Not exactly cheap either....

So says the six fingered man !!!
 
KPmarc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Marc,

Is that how the stories originate at KP? I'm just kind of curious why KP has had such a big push on stories of production airplanes. I mean, it is "Kit"planes, isn't it? There are other magazines that are running tons of articles about these light sport a/c. Why is KP drifting into an area that it traditionally hasn't covered?

Respectfully submitted (but really want to know because I want to read about homebuilts not production),

Karl
 
Good question

Karl:

We get accused of doing too much SLSA (ready-to-fly) coverage, but the truth is that in the last year or two, the reviews have amounted to not much more than Dave Martin's Light Stuff column, so 2 pages out of 60-some editorial pages an issue. In 2007, we had a total of 36 pages SLSA coverage, including the buyer's guide, which I intend to move to electronic form only in 2009, the next time we'd do it. Even with the directory, that's less than 5% of our total editorial pages.

It's true that for awhile there, in 2005 and early 2006, we did cover a lot of the SLSAs hoping that many of them would become quickbuild (beyond 51%) ELSAs; that familiarity would be beneficial to the readers and to us as we looked more carefully at supposedly forthcoming the kits. But that part of the market has just not matured and other readers, like yourself, questioned why we were writing about them. By and large, since the middle of 2006, we haven't.

Maybe there's confusion over the types of LSAs. We have pushed Light Sport Experimentals (either Experimental/Amateur-Built [51%] or ELSA) quite a lot because our readers say, in person and in our recent survey, that this category is high on their list. We treat these much the same way we would larger kit- or plansbuilt designs.

Two recent cover subjects, the Rans S-19 and the Texas Sport Cub, were both EX/AB aircraft, not SLSAs. In fact, I don't think Randy Schlitter has the production line up for the S-19 yet, but he is definitely shipping kits for the amateur-built version. But it can be confusing because the S-19 will be sold as an SLSA as is the Legend Cub. I have been fairly relentless pointing out how much better some of these designs would be under the (current) freedom of the EX/AB rules than as ELSAs or SLSAs. Anyway, maybe you saw those and thought we were covering ready-made SLSAs.

That's a long answer to a short question. Sorry.

As for our planning process, it's er...ah...fairly organic. I have an idea about larger topics, like the metal or composites series (and the Ron Alexander fabric series to launch in the July issue), plus the avionics series Stein is writing for us, and make it happen over the long term. I watch the industry and try to fly the newer models; can't wait to fly the RV-12 myself, actually. Then we get story suggestions from our writers and from elsewhere. These make up probably 30% of the total.

In any case, if you look closely, you'll see that the vast majority (like 95%) of our coverage centers on Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft with an emphasis on building techniques and what we'd have called utility features at AOPA: how to do this, how to do that, how to actually get your airplane finished.

I hope that answered your question.

--Marc
 
Flying/ AOPA magagzines = good reading

I suppose I'm more interested in advanced technology, that you don't often see in homebuilts. However, in numerous cases, the experimental market does the first look at some of the best new inventions.

However, I did find the articles regarding the Gulfstream biz jet set up, with a combination of infra-red cameras & computer 3D terrain data-base extremely interesting. The units work in conjunction with each other to provide a 3D picture on the MFD that's "real time" as well as the topographical data-base. In other words, the terrain must match!

And considering the fact, that "flight into terrain--- prevention" tops my list, aviation wise; I find these magazines of good value.

L.Adamson --- I generally like what the AOPA does for me and others.
 
At the risk of derailing this thread...
You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means...
Click to expand...
Do you know what that sound is, Highness? Those are the Shrieking Eels -- if you doubt me, just wait. They always grow louder when they're about to feed on human flesh.

Love that movie! (I always refer to screaming kids in restaurants as shrieking eels... :D)
 
KPmarc said:
Karl:

We get accused of doing too much SLSA (ready-to-fly) coverage, but the truth is that in the last year or two, the reviews have amounted to not much more than Dave Martin's Light Stuff column, so 2 pages out of 60-some editorial pages an issue. In 2007, we had a total of 36 pages SLSA coverage, including the buyer's guide, which I intend to move to electronic form only in 2009, the next time we'd do it. Even with the directory, that's less than 5% of our total editorial pages. .....


I hope that answered your question.

--Marc
Click to expand...

Marc,

Great response. Answers my question.

Thanks, Karl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.