What does the Kitfox community think of Sport Aviation?

[HighWing]

Sorry Chad, don't believe it for a minute. I participated in one of your surveys lately and was very disappointed in the format. Must answer questions that didn't have any of the multiple choice selections that remotely addressed my experience or preferences. Like most surveys, it was designed by experts who can manipulate the results simply by selecting certain questions then supplying the multiple choice answers that best suited the agenda. Then, sadly, not even the usual blank space at the end for a written response giving freely composed opinions. Maybe one question you can answer - how many people in the decision making councils in EAA or the editorial staffs of Sport Aviation have actually gotten their hands dirty in the construction of an amateur built airplane? Does your "love to see a bunch of Kitfox articles from owners and builders, so if you have something to write about, send it to me!" comment suggest that there are no staff writers interested enough or qualified to write about such things. I just logged on to Kitplanes website and looked over the contents pages. All build or maintenance related articles with some aerodynamic theory. Not all experimental airplane owners are builders, but the vast majority maintain their own airplanes. Not much in the mag there for me. Then this from the EAA website - "The new EAA Sport Aviation is chock full of all the things that set EAAers apart. You'll find "how do I?" features with special emphasis on innovation, affordability, fun, and the spirit of community and camaraderie." I refer you to Av8or3400's comment that resurrected this thread - Show me the beef!
Lowell
EAA 448383 1/04/1994

[Chad Jensen]

Sorry Chad, don't believe it for a minute. I participated in one of your surveys lately and was very disappointed in the format. Must answer questions that didn't have any of the multiple choice selections that remotely addressed my experience or preferences. Like most surveys, it was designed by experts who can manipulate the results simply by selecting certain questions then supplying the multiple choice answers that best suited the agenda. Then, sadly, not even the usual blank space at the end for a written response giving freely composed opinions.

The survey's are undergoing a major overhaul so we can better capture member inputs, but it's part of a larger redesign of our digital offerings, including the website...which is clearly dysfunctional.

Maybe one question you can answer - how many people in the decision making councils in EAA or the editorial staffs of Sport Aviation have actually gotten their hands dirty in the construction of an amateur built airplane?

3 of 4 but if you go in to editorial staff or contributors, it goes up from there.

Does your "love to see a bunch of Kitfox articles from owners and builders, so if you have something to write about, send it to me!" comment suggest that there are no staff writers interested enough or qualified to write about such things.

Absolutely not. We have several people qualified, we just want more people participating in the content. That's one thing that has been severely lacking over the last few years...member submitted stories and articles (we see very few...). I want the new Experimenter to be chock full of interesting member building stories, tips, and how-to's.

I just logged on to Kitplanes website and looked over the contents pages. All build or maintenance related articles with some aerodynamic theory.

You have to remember something when comparing SA to Kitplanes (and I LOVE Kitplanes...). Kitplanes has one mission. To cover amateur-built airplanes. That's it, that's all they have to do to be successful. Sport Aviation is just that...the sport of aviation...aerobatics, vintage, warbirds, ultralights, rotorcraft. All areas that Sport Aviation has included for a long, long time. Go back and look at the covers in the archives. You won't see a homebuilt on every cover. You'll see jets, turboprops, warbirds, vintage airplanes...even girls!! My point is, EAA has always been a place for everyone (ask Paul!). Perhaps the recent content swing was a little too far, and we are working to correct it back the other way, but there is a balance to find again, as there always has been.

One big reason I'm bringing Experimenter back, though, is to get all-encompassing EAB magazine back in to the fold at EAA. Sport Aviation is the flagship for our membership, and the membership has a multitude of interests.

I completely understand and get what you're saying Lowell...Sport Aviation is different as a whole now. The EAB content is still there (28 pages by my count in the July issue), but it's a bigger overall magazine now too.

I need to go home and pound out some ribs over lunch!

[Av8r3400]

Chad bringing back Experimenter is an excellent idea. However maybe 1 in 10 "experimenters" are on line or not savvy enough on the computer for an online magazine to be of use. You are setting yourself up to fail by going cheap and not publishing it as a "hard copy" periodical. You have the Warbird and Classic focused publications, why not the CORE FOCUS of the EAA?

You have to remember something when comparing SA to Kitplanes (and I LOVE Kitplanes...). Kitplanes has one mission. To cover amateur-built airplanes. That's it, that's all they have to do to be successful. Sport Aviation is just that...the sport of aviation...aerobatics, vintage, warbirds, ultralights, rotorcraft. All areas that Sport Aviation has included for a long, long time. Go back and look at the covers in the archives. You won't see a homebuilt on every cover. You'll see jets, turboprops, warbirds, vintage airplanes...even girls!! My point is, EAA has always been a place for everyone (ask Paul!). Perhaps the recent content swing was a little too far, and we are working to correct it back the other way, but there is a balance to find again, as there always has been.

I truly believe that the publishers of SA have lost sight of the forest because the trees are in the way. I would challenge you to do the same exercise and see what was on the covers in the 70's, 80's and 90's. I have those issues and I know. No, not every cover is a Tailwind or Dyke Delta, but there surely are not any articles about rewiring a new panel in an AZTEC or proper IFR techniques in a Bonanza!! Doesn't EAA stand for EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association? There is plenty of room for Classics and Warbirds in SA. By that I mean the aircraft, not the touchy-feely human interest stuff from cover to cover now.

I challange you: Bring back the experimenter magazine as an option and you will see so many people drop SA in favor of the focused EAA journal, SA will stop being published as it is or it will be lost.



(I'd be happy to give you a tour of and ride in my Kitfox. I'll be parked down on the Ultralight Farm all week. My cell number is always on my prop tag. I'd love to meet and talk with you. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I value your interest in our discussion here. We all want EAA to continue to succeed, that's why we are offering the ideas. )

[inzersv]

Chad, I echo Av8r3400 completely. I don't throw away my hard copies. I switched to an online copy of Kitplane for a year and didn't really like it. I like hitting the sack at night with my magazine in hand. I realize that you are dealing with a diverse audience and something like the current magazine may reach more of the people; but we Experimenters want more how to and in a magazine format. I like the two magazines when they were out except there was too much duplication. Two different magazines for two different audiences could work. Just rub down with a little Icy Hot tonight and you should feel fine in the morning. Keep us in the loop.

[Chad Jensen]

Same here...one of the reasons I chose to start this topic in this forum (haven't done it elsewhere yet, though there are plenty of discussions out there that I did not start) is because I observed what I feel are level headed people in this group. Now I'm very much looking forward to my Kitfox ride!!

Market research (done by our new marketing team) and chapter presentations that I do have revealed the opposite...especially in keeping young people involved in aviation...that the digital strategy on a new magazine is the way to go. And it's by no means cheap. My cost in going from newsletter to digital magazine is quite substanital...to the tune of about $18k for the first year. Print magazines are another magnitude higher, which I simply can't afford right now. That's not to say it won't happen and we'll have both options available, but this is where we are starting. I saw the first cover a few minutes ago, and I'm really excited about it!

I have all of the magazines back to 1953 here too (and online)...I actually find some of them floating in to my dreams at night because I look at them so much!

[DesertFox6]

I'm a bit surprised by the negative undertone of some of our replies to Chad's queries about Sport Aviation here and would like to weigh in with a different perspective. I like the new format from front to back and I've kept every issue since its debut with the January 2010 issue; I have very few prior issues stashed away for such future reference or fun re-reading.

In the April 2012 issue, Jeff Skiles shared his opinion of EAA's flagship publication and how it fits into the larger EAA picture. In his article entitled EAA Roots, our newest (still wet behind the ears?) commentary contributor discussed various subsets and type clubs within the EAA community and what they bring to the GA table in general. He frankly quoted the sentiments so many people who have decided to split from the EAA's sub-groups and form their own self/type-interest groups because "EAA has lost its way," or similar such sentiments. I don't find this evolution as detracting from the larger EAA vision but rather adding to it. When members of any family go off to start families of their own, we say "the family is growing," not "the family is drifting apart and will be lost." I find EAA is still leading from the front. When the FAA comes to the GA school of thought looking for data or with an axe to grind, they go to the biggest voices on campus, not the students in the subtropical sesquiplane studies department. The AOPA and EAA are, alphabetically, the BMOCs of our campus; experimental, antique, or certified spam. We need to support this hierarchy that WE built.

For those who've never been charged with writing, editing, or producing mass-media copy, you have only to read editor Mary Jones' review of the workup required to produce the new format on page six of the January 2010 issue. I can fully appreciate what went into the new version; in short, the larger paper makes for better photo-spreads and print integration. I can read the majority of the stories with a flip of the page instead of excavating crammed columns entombed among the want-ads in the back and I could go on. I enjoy the diversity of the articles BECAUSE they represent a wide-field-view of what EAA represents. We can slake our thirst for in-depth building tips faster on this site than anywhere else where The Experimenter had filled this need earlier; I agree it would be nice to see its return.

Jeff Skiles summed up the gist of his introspective article on EAA Roots with the simple observation that "EAA isn't about you, or about me. It's about all of us and so much more." I maintain that Sport Aviation's new look is actually strengthening EAA's charter and mission statement, "To Grow Participation in Aviation." It speaks to a larger audience than just we Kitfox fanatics and I'll remind all of the wisdom of strength in numbers.

If you've missed the recent news about the NTSB's latest concerns addressing how we experimenters are flying (and crashing) or how a new organization of hard-nosed, strong-willed souls representing us has just hit the streets with Dick Vangrunsven as its president and our own beloved Kitfox LLC among the charter membership, don't worry. I'm sure we will read all about it in Sport Aviation!

"Over"...(click)

"E.T."

[jrevens]

Very well said, as usual, "E.T."

Overall, I prefered the smaller format, and the way the magazine was when I started receiving it in the early '70s. I loved the people who wrote & put it together. I still appreciate it today, but I'm grateful for Kitplanes. It interests me more. I also realize the extreme importance of continuing to support the EAA, AOPA, and all of my local aviation groups. I'm active in & a past president of my local EAA chapter, as well as serving the national organization in a small way. I also still love Oshkosh, even though it's grown & changed. I've flown there in different aircraft over the years, and this will be the 15th time I've flown my Thorp T-18 there from Denver, and it's one of my favorite things... because of the friends from all over the world who will be there. Someday before too long I'll fly my Kitfox to OSH. Thank you John & Debra, and thank you, EAA!

[quote=DesertFox6;24609]I'm a bit surprised by the negative undertone of some of our replies to Chad's queries about Sport Aviation here and would like to weigh in with a different perspective. I like the new format from front to back and I've kept every issue since its debut with the January 2010 issue; I have very few prior issues stashed away for such future reference or fun re-reading...."

[Av8r3400]

(Deleted by courtious request, untill further confirmation is published)




But most exciting of all is:

Paul H. Poberezny and Ed Fisher are working to reform the SAA - Sport Aviation Association. Returning to the roots of home building and flying fun rather than politics and mega money GA special interests.

You can email Ed directly: raceairdesigns (at) hotmail (dot) com with your name, address, email and phone number to get on their mailing list for future developments. They are not asking for dues or money at this time but will accept donations to help get the organization going.

Link to more information.

[jrevens]

Please keep in mind that the SAA is not anti-EAA, but expects to again be a complimentary presence, with a more specific focus than the EAA. It may never return to being able to produce a fine quality magazine like it did until late in 2005 (TO FLY – very reminiscent of early Sport Aviation magazines), but it still feels like it could be something special to me. These are my words and my understanding of the goals of the organization.

[Av8r3400]

Hightower is taillights per AvWeb today. He's claiming it's too much of a hardship to move his family to Oshkosh. Yup.

Maybe they're hearing us finally...