|
|
Thomas y Reina Jakits wrote:
You are right, but at least Kitplanes gets you started in the
right direction - you can't even find that anymore in SA.
David, who are doing this, staying a member, but not subscribing
to SA?
I thought you get one mag automatically - SA or Sport Pilot?
Got myself suckered in this year - again, but if there is not a
radical turn back to the SA-style 10-15 years ago, this will be
the last year.
There is a netbased mag with lots of tech, but I forgot the
name....a friend of mine (Flying a Glassair III, built/helped with
6, and just started NXT#7- with a 720 turbo--self overhauled, cut
oilpan, external intake-spider, etc.) has this mag and I find it
great - will check on the title, if no one here comes up with it
first! :)
Thomas J.
I'd like to hear about it, Thomas. I'm also done sending EAA $40. I just subscribed to Kitplanes and was amazed at how much more useful information it contains in a much thinner magazine.
Last month's SA article on fabric covering left me stupified. Some guy blathering on about things that he obviously hadn't a clue about. The bull he was throwing was downright dangerous according to PolyFiber (applying PolyTack to the outside of the fabric is specifically called out in the PolyFiber manual as a dangerous process). I assume PolyFiber would know more about their covering process than a guy that was obviously fishing for students for his A&P school. (I think it was the last 4 paragraphs that went on about how much money there is to be made with an A&P license, and how his school could help you get one.) The lack of knowledge of the subject matter, combined with the crass promotional nature...was there no editorial review at ALL? The guy was still talking about GradeA cotton, for heavens sake. Is there anyone at EAA Headquarters that has ever covered an airplane with fabric who could see the smoke the guy was blowing?
3 people are dead from accidents at Oshkosh. DEAD. As in "will never go home and see their families to tell them about the pretty new planes that Cessna and Honda are building". What is the response from the guy that heads the organization that produces the event? "the incident doesn't change the success of the event," I still feel a sickness in the pit of my stomach over that foolish statement.
This month's SA contains the yearly report. 26% of the budget is administrative fees. 16% is promotional and advertising expenses. Less than half is spent on programs that will actually help someone build an airplane. I'm trying to remember the numbers (the magazine is at home), but the EAA just isn't looking like a good investment. They don't fund the CAFE to any useful extent, and when I asked about an EAA funded wind tunnel, I was told that it would be too expensive. Sure, maybe a NASA grade tunnel would be, but a 40ftx15ft tunnel able to produce 100mph winds would be a drop in the bucket for EAA and produce reams of research valuable to homebuilders. Basically, we've been told, "All the money is earmarked for producing museums to attract more members and advertising to attract more members so that we can increase Pope Tom's salary and maybe buy him another P-51 to fly. There's no money in advancing the science or knowlege, so we'll cut that part of the budget." Old airplanes are cute, but I only care to study them as object lessons to learn how things were done or can be done. (Maybe it's just me, but I think people were smarter 50yrs ago.) The current EAA is not interested in offering anything I want.
The TechCounselor and FlightAdvisor programs? Pffft! If you're not dragging every knowledgeable person to view your project every chance you get, you're backing up. The programs are just a formallity to make the insurance guy's job easier and make it look like the EAA is doing something. It has nothing to do with experimenting.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm feeling a little betrayed by this organization lately. Feeling like I wasted my $40.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
|
|