EAA life membership value?

[skyking3286]

I joined back in 1978 or so. Thought about lifetime after ten years, but was too broke then! So I support sport aviation by keeping my membership yearly. I’ve got a low number to brag about but it’s more about keeping a legacy alive.

 

[Half Fast]

But, if you did restore a 1965 Bonanza, I bet SA or Vintage would love to publish an article on it.

Let’s find out.

Beech Aero Club bought and restored “Threesie,” the Musketeer that Gene Nora Jessen (one of the Mercury 13) flew on the Flight Of the Three Musketeers, a 48-state promotional tour when the model was introduced. The plane is on display at the Beech museum in Tullahoma. Gene Nora recently passed away.

Who at SA would be interested in writing an article? Give me a name and contact info and I’ll get them connected.

 

[kyleb]

Let’s find out.

Beech Aero Club bought and restored “Threesie,” the Musketeer that Gene Nora Jessen (one of the Mercury 13) flew on the Flight Of the Three Musketeers, a 48-state promotional tour when the model was introduced. The plane is on display at the Beech museum in Tullahoma. Gene Nora recently passed away.

Who at SA would be interested in writing an article? Give me a name and contact info and I’ll get them connected.

The point is.. You write the article. THEY are going to write articles about the airplanes that appear at Oshkosh. That's what THEY do because you and me don't submit articles. They want us to submit articles. But we don't. So they write articles about what falls into their collective laps. Shoot, I have an article I wrote a year and a half ago to go into the "What members are building" section. Pretty well written, if I say so myself. But I forgot to send it and it is stale now...

Remember, SA is supposed to be a member publication. Either members write articles or we have to read a rehash of something Budd Davisson wrote for Plane and Pilot 30 years ago.

 

[Half Fast]

The point is.. You write the article. THEY are going to write articles about the airplanes that appear at Oshkosh. That's what THEY do because you and me don't submit articles. They want us to submit articles. But we don't. So they write articles about what falls into their collective laps. Shoot, I have an article I wrote a year and a half ago to go into the "What members are building" section. Pretty well written, if I say so myself. But I forgot to send it and it is stale now...

Remember, SA is supposed to be a member publication. Either members write articles or we have to read a rehash of something Budd Davisson wrote for Plane and Pilot 30 years ago.

Baloney. If that’s their business model, it sucks and they’re doomed. If they’re waiting for amateur writers to create articles for them, it’s no wonder SA has become so much worse in recent years.

 

[kyleb]

Baloney. If that’s their business model, it sucks and they’re doomed. If they’re waiting for amateur writers to create articles for them, it’s no wonder SA has become so much worse in recent years.

How many professional writers want to do the work to collect a few dollars for writing for SA? It is a hobby at best. Look at the folks who write for those magazines. They are (mostly) hobbyists. They are high profile hobbyists because they write articles for SA or Kitplanes. That's their claim to fame - they will do something you and I won't... I guarantee you could write something worth publishing. If the Musketeer is something you value, you ought to write the article. I'm sure Budd Davisson, Tony Bingelis and Ron Wanttaja got their start doing exactly that - submitting an article on something that interested them.

 

[DaleB]

Baloney. If that’s their business model, it sucks and they’re doomed. If they’re waiting for amateur writers to create articles for them, it’s no wonder SA has become so much worse in recent years.

I disagree. In fact, I think they need to do a much better job soliciting and developing said amateur written articles.

For a while I was getting two magazines every month - SA and Kitplanes. I would flip through SA to check for anything of interest, usually finding none, then read Kitplanes almost cover to cover. Plenty of those articles are amateur written, and they do a good job of asking for and editing them.

I was an ARRL member for years (and will soon be again). Their member rag, QST, was mostly articles written by members and other non-professional writers. A couple of them were even mine. It’s a great way to get a constant stream of articles that are actually relevant and of interest to the members. Unfortunately, they decided to put the really good stuff in a separate magazine and charge extra for it, then made THAT one - well, I digress. It’s enough to say, I would welcome MORE articles in SA by everyday builders and restorers. Seeing someone drop a few million “restoring” a corroded data plate into another warbird has limited appeal to me.

All they need to do is find the three guys in the country who are building something other than an RV….

 

[Half Fast]

In fact, I think they need to do a much better job soliciting and developing said amateur written articles.

I can’t see that they’re doing anything to solicit articles.

But my original point was about articles I want to read, not articles I want to write, and that they’re not publishing content for guys like me who are flying contemporary-category vintage aircraft. Saying “so write your own articles” is a pretty weak answer. They have staff writers who should be able to write a different story than “someone dropping a few million “restoring” a corroded data plate into another warbird,” as you put it.

 

[DaleB]

I can’t see that they’re doing anything to solicit articles.

But my original point was about articles I want to read, not articles I want to write, and that they’re not publishing content for guys like me who are flying contemporary-category vintage aircraft. Saying “so write your own articles” is a pretty weak answer. They have staff writers who should be able to write a different story than “someone dropping a few million “restoring” a corroded data plate into another warbird,” as you put it.

Do you think they have staff writers who are restoring contemporary category vintage aircraft?

Articles like that would, to be honest, have very limited to no appeal to guys like me - we’re here for the E. Not saying they shouldn’t have them. I mean, I share your frustration with EAA not having squat for coverage of my specific corner of the envelope, just don’t know how realistic it to expect them to fix that.

To put it bluntly, I’m really only a member of EAA at all because it’s a requirement to be a member of my local chapter. I think that sums up why I’m not a life member.

 

[pfarber]

Seems like, for you, it doesn't matter if it's $48 or $1400. It's not an organization that reflects what you want.

I am currently a dues paying member... but I have stopped/started many times. The EAA video archive is worth it, as is (well, was) the Solidworks benefit. But things like the EAA bookstore has had almost no new builder content for decades. Kitplanes has a luke warm new builder video series but that quickly turned into a sales pitch for the worst company in aviation: Aircraft Spruce.

I've sent in a letters to the president and since I want nothing to do with the sacred cash cows: OSH, TriMotor, Young Eagles and Aircraft Spruce and not matter how sane and well thought out my reasons are.... EAA is, at this point, nothing more than those 4 catagories.

 

[kyleb]

Do you think they have staff writers who are restoring contemporary category vintage aircraft?

The challenge is there may not be any staff writers. They (EAA) have staff and they have columnists. The staff edits and publishes the magazine. The columnists offer wisdom on their appointed topic every month. The writers of the focus articles are the Sparky Barnes, Budd Davisson's, and Ron Wanttaja's of the world. The same folks who (often) write for Kitplanes, Plane and Pilot, AOPA, etc. They aren't on EAA's staff, as far as I can tell.

 

[DaleB]

The challenge is there may not be any staff writers. They (EAA) have staff and they have columnists. The staff edits and publishes the magazine. The columnists offer wisdom on their appointed topic every month. The writers of the focus articles are the Sparky Barnes, Budd Davisson's, and Ron Wanttaja's of the world. The same folks who (often) write for Kitplanes, Plane and Pilot, AOPA, etc. They aren't on EAA's staff, as far as I can tell.

That was kind of my point, yes.

 

[pfarber]

Baloney. If that’s their business model, it sucks and they’re doomed. If they’re waiting for amateur writers to create articles for them, it’s no wonder SA has become so much worse in recent years.

EAA and SA are like any traditional publisher and none of them have figured out the internet or how to harness it. I have quite a few personal builder blogs, youtube channels and forums bookmarked for the wealth of knowledge they publish. The downside to those avenues for information/entertainment is there always seems to be a moderator or 'click' that wish to run their fiefdom more than they want to have discussions. How many builders will edit a weekly hour long video ON TOP of actually building? The correct answer is THOUSANDS. And no, the solution is not a link from the EAA website.

Most people have had or know of a builder who has a solid weekly blog/video/construction update. All EAA needs to do is find some interesting builds and get the builder on board... they are already making the content.... EAA/SA needs a way to funnel that to SA (aka the paying membership).

 

[geezer]

Half Fast, who do you know who has restored a Classic Vintage airplane?

I had a neighbor who did a couple, including a Navion, but he has died, so cannot report his work.

I think pfarber is correct, EAA needs to reach out to the personal builder bloggers, and recruit them to establish a mutually satisfactory business relationship.

Some of those may develop into staff writers to replace those who have gone.

Replacing the old guys that leave should be a priority, and those types of talent should be the place to start looking.

 

[Half Fast]

Half Fast, who do you know who has restored a Classic Vintage airplane?

Not my area of interest. For contemporary category vintage, see my post #42 above.

 

[Pinecone]

Where do you think the articles come from???????

PEOPLE write them. People like those on this forum.

So, write and submit an article. And maybe that will stimulate others to write similar articles.

IMO, 56-70 "Vintage" is not really Vintage. The difference between the basic airframe and power plant of a 1960 C-172 and a 2024 C-172 is MINIMAL.

 

[pfarber]

Half Fast, who do you know who has restored a Classic Vintage airplane?

I had a neighbor who did a couple, including a Navion, but he has died, so cannot report his work.

I think pfarber is correct, EAA needs to reach out to the personal builder bloggers, and recruit them to establish a mutually satisfactory business relationship.

Some of those may develop into staff writers to replace those who have gone.

Replacing the old guys that leave should be a priority, and those types of talent should be the place to start looking.

The EAA does support an online builders blog but I'm not sure how active it is since there is zero chance of monetization for the builder. I have an account there and I never use it... I don't feel like duplicating the work I already logged.

I doubt EAA would monetize those blogs for builders.... even though youtube authors would not be making significant revenue via youtube (a builders video might get a few dozen views... nothing close to 'influencer' money.

It might be worth EAA's time (and money) to explore scraping content creators for articles for SA. It would be a great partnership: SA gets articles from active builders solving current problems, and builders would get 'exposure' and well, cash, for their effort.

The only real, real issue is finding someone NOT building an RV lol

 

[Half Fast]

IMO, 56-70 "Vintage" is not really Vintage.

It is vintage in the opinion of the EAA, and that's what we're discussing.

And the solution to getting the content I want to read is not for me to write it for myself. That's a non-answer. There are writers on the masthead of SA who are largely ignoring this aspect of vintage aircraft. That's the fault of the editors and the content they solicit or select.

 

[Pinecone]

How many professional writers want to do the work to collect a few dollars for writing for SA? It is a hobby at best. Look at the folks who write for those magazines. They are (mostly) hobbyists. They are high profile hobbyists because they write articles for SA or Kitplanes. That's their claim to fame - they will do something you and I won't... I guarantee you could write something worth publishing. If the Musketeer is something you value, you ought to write the article. I'm sure Budd Davisson, Tony Bingelis and Ron Wanttaja got their start doing exactly that - submitting an article on something that interested them.

Also, where do you find professional writers with expertise in building, maintaining and even flying airplanes????????

 

[Pinecone]

It is vintage in the opinion of the EAA, and that's what we're discussing.

And the solution to getting the content I want to read is not for me to write it for myself. That's a non-answer. There are writers on the masthead of SA who are largely ignoring this aspect of vintage aircraft. That's the fault of the editors and the content they solicit or select.

Hmm, that is what I was saying. They call it vintage, but they aren't really vintage because many of those planes are still being made today.

VERY arbitrary to say that a 1969 Mooney is "vintage" and special, but my 1986 (almost 40 years old) is not.

Or even better, that a 1969 Super Cub is "vintage" but a 1979 Super Cub is not.

 

[DaleB]

It might be worth EAA's time (The only real, real issue is finding someone NOT building an RV lol

That’s me. What I’m building is just about as far from an RV as you can get. Plans built, no kit, all wood, slow, open cockpit.

I’ve used EAA’s build log, but it kind of sucks. I run my own, just using Wordpress. Once in a while I update the EAA site just to note that the real info is in my build log.

I have absolutely zero interest in “monetizing my content” or any such nonsense. I just want my build documented. I want to make it known that, yes, people can still do this stuff. If I come up with any good tips along the way, or more often make mistakes that others can and should avoid, I want to make that information available to others. And it’s a good repository of information and detailed pictures that may very well come in handy some day, for me and whoever buys this plane after I croak… assuming I don’t croak IN the plane.

It sucks when a good build log disappears. There was a really nice one I found from a builder in Italy who was building a Celebrity also… and now it seems to no longer exist. Happens a lot.

 

[Ghery]

I was an ARRL member for years (and will soon be again). Their member rag, QST, was mostly articles written by members and other non-professional writers. A couple of them were even mine. It’s a great way to get a constant stream of articles that are actually relevant and of interest to the members. Unfortunately, they decided to put the really good stuff in a separate magazine and charge extra for it, then made THAT one - well, I digress. It’s enough to say, I would welcome MORE articles in SA by everyday builders and restorers. Seeing someone drop a few million “restoring” a corroded data plate into another warbird has limited appeal to me.

I am a member of ARRL. Have been for decades. I am a member of their EMC committee and a TA. One of the duties of being a TA is that you get to review articles proposed by members for inclusion in QST or QEX. Is there an equivalent to a TA in the EAA? Not that I've heard of and, yes, I am a Life Member of EAA.

 

[Half Fast]

Hmm, that is what I was saying. They call it vintage, but they aren't really vintage because many of those planes are still being made today.

VERY arbitrary to say that a 1969 Mooney is "vintage" and special, but my 1986 (almost 40 years old) is not.

Or even better, that a 1969 Super Cub is "vintage" but a 1979 Super Cub is not.

Is a 1969 Ford Mustang not a vintage car just because Ford still makes Mustangs? If that’s the criteria, though, my 69 Musketeer is certainly vintage since they’re no longer made.

But that’s not the criteria. The criteria is age, so imagine this is 1970. Wouldn’t you call a plane from 1910 “vintage?”

That’s a 60 year span. It’s now 2024, so why wouldn’t a plane from 1964 be vintage?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yes and as I stated in my reply I am not happy with the EAA becoming a recruiter for airlines.

EAA should be about Part 147 schools and mechanics. Have you read any of the issues from the 80s? Significantly different tone. Even Kitplanes has turned to trash. Almost every issue of Sport Aviation is nothing more than a rich guy showing off what he did with his money.

As the EAA done a lot regulatory wise? Basic Med was a win, but had a lot of help.

So yeah, I'm not willing to support EAA in a significant manner because in the mid 90's they stopped supporting me. I am a huge proponent of auto conversions... and in the 80's/90's there were many articles about them. Now not so much. Has the EAA ever done something like a series on designing? Kitplanes (again, way back) did have a series 'Stress without Tears' that I remember to this day. But now? Gotta fill the pages with OSH ads, Garmin ads, and a $250k barn find restoration.

Blah blah blah, you're old and things were better back in the day.

All I remember from the EAA magazine in the 80s was the incessant bitching about being required to equip with a Mode C transponder to fly within 30nm of what are now class B airports. And talk about Oshkosh. I don't think it's changed that much!

But in the grand scheme of things -

I don't fly aerobatics, though I wish I could. But I know people who do, and need someone to give them a home.
I don't have a warbird, though I like warbirds and know people who have them, and appreciate what EAA does for them.
I don't have a vintage airplane - My Mooney is a 1997, a baby in this industry. But I have lots of friends who fly vintage airplanes, and I'm glad EAA has helped to guide regulators so it's possible to maintain them.
I don't build airplanes, I don't even fly homebuilt airplanes, but I know people who do and have built airplanes, and I'm glad EAA's original core mission still exists and is thriving, even if it's different now.
I do appreciate having another voice in the room besides AOPA when it comes to advocating for recreational aviation.
I do appreciate the amount of effort required in making aviation heaven appear on a piece of earth called Oshkosh one week a year for me to see my pilot friends from several continents, and meet new ones.

So yeah, I'm going to be a member of EAA even if I'm never going to restore a plane or build a new one or be a part of many of the corners of aviation that I am still happy can exist. EAA provides a voice for all of us that is far stronger than any individual specialist organization would be. That's enough for me.

Is a 1969 Ford Mustang not a vintage car just because Ford still makes Mustangs? If that’s the criteria, though, my 69 Musketeer is certainly vintage since they’re no longer made.

But that’s not the criteria. The criteria is age, so imagine this is 1970. Wouldn’t you call a plane from 1910 “vintage?”

That’s a 60 year span. It’s now 2024, so why wouldn’t a plane from 1964 be vintage?

A 1910 airplane is made from wood or welded steel, covered in fabric, insanely hard to fly in many cases, probably has two wings, and has (an) engine(s) that is heavy and weak and breaks frequently.
A 1970 airplane is made from aluminum semimonocoque construction, fairly forgiving, probably has one wing, and has an engine with a decent balance of power to weight ratio and durability.
A 2024 airplane is usually still made from aluminum semimonocoque construction, fairly forgiving, probably has one wing, and has the exact same engine as the 1970 airplane.

1910 airplane

1969 airplane:

2025 airplane:


1969 Mustang:

2025 Mustang:

In aviation, age alone isn't a very good divider of what is "classic" or "vintage", whereas with cars a lot more has changed.

 

[Half Fast]

In aviation, age alone isn't a very good divider of what is "classic" or "vintage", whereas with cars a lot more has changed.

Then convince the EAA of that.

But until you do, age has been chosen as the deciding factor. And SA largely ignores a large part of the vintage category.

 

[Lowflynjack]

The challenge is there may not be any staff writers. They (EAA) have staff and they have columnists. The staff edits and publishes the magazine. The columnists offer wisdom on their appointed topic every month. The writers of the focus articles are the Sparky Barnes, Budd Davisson's, and Ron Wanttaja's of the world. The same folks who (often) write for Kitplanes, Plane and Pilot, AOPA, etc. They aren't on EAA's staff, as far as I can tell.

I've worked with several of the writers at Oshkosh, but mostly Budd. The way it works is, he rides around on a golf cart looking at planes. He sees something he likes, like a Pink Piper Cub for instance, talks to the owners and if he thinks it'll be an interesting story for EAA, he submits a request for us to do photos.

The hardest part about working with Budd is all of the people who flag us down to meet him!

 

[Half Fast]

So, regarding @kyleb 's assertion:

What I'll tell you is that EAA is interested in what its members are interested in.

It seems that the reality is quite different.

I've worked with several of the writers at Oshkosh, but mostly Budd. The way it works is, he rides around on a golf cart looking at planes. He sees something he likes, like a Pink Piper Cub for instance, talks to the owners and if he thinks it'll be an interesting story for EAA, he submits a request for us to do photos.

The reality is that SA publishes whatever happens to interest Budd Davisson. Budd Davisson's tastes are not necessarily encompassing of all EAA members.

As I said above, this mostly falls on the editors. Until they start telling Budd and others, "No, we've had too many stories on Pink Piper Cubs already. Cast a wider net," this is what we'll continue to get. It's the editors' jobs to solicit and screen content.

 

[Lowflynjack]

So, regarding @kyleb 's assertion:


It seems that the reality is quite different.



The reality is that SA publishes whatever happens to interest Budd Davisson. Budd Davisson's tastes are not necessarily encompassing of all EAA members.

As I said above, this mostly falls on the editors. Until they start telling Budd and others, "No, we've had too many stories on Pink Piper Cubs already. Cast a wider net," this is what we'll continue to get. It's the editors' jobs to solicit and screen content.

It's not Budd, its EAA. He sometimes frustrates the EAA staff because he requests so many photo shoots and wants to write so many stories. It's how he makes his living and he knows they will pick and choose from what he submits. They reject a lot of story requests of his that are probably more interesting than the Pink Cub, but it's a feel-good story. If they told him they wanted mostly stories on homebuilts, I guarantee he would camp out there!

 

[tsts4]

So, regarding @kyleb 's assertion:


It seems that the reality is quite different.



The reality is that SA publishes whatever happens to interest Budd Davisson. Budd Davisson's tastes are not necessarily encompassing of all EAA members.

As I said above, this mostly falls on the editors. Until they start telling Budd and others, "No, we've had too many stories on Pink Piper Cubs already. Cast a wider net," this is what we'll continue to get. It's the editors' jobs to solicit and screen content.

I disagree that Budd is somehow the gate keeper of SA articles. IMO Hal Bryan, as managing editor, has way more to say about the overall content. The fact is EAA has evolved beyond the grassroots organization it started as and simply can't make everyone happy all of the time. There are avenues to provide feedback but how often do folks take advantage of them and how much of the rank-and-file membership would be in agreement with a given position? For example, Vintage, Warbirds, backcountry, and Acro are all topics that while interesting don't mean that much to me. So any emphasis or lack there of doesn't bother me in the slightest. If there's an article about them I'll read it, if not I don't note their absence. The bottom line is I have zero desire to write articles so don't get too wrapped up in SA's content. Also SA had zero to do with my being an EAA member thases past decades (both annual and no Lifetime) .

 

[172andyou]

And the solution to getting the content I want to read is not for me to write it for myself. That's a non-answer.

I mean, it seems to work for you here.

 

[geezer]

We need somebody who will make a list of just 5 planes that Budd needs to do stories of, different from the ones he does.

Someone can then email that list to EAA, and we will have an improved magazine.

Meanwhile, just posting here what is wrong achieves nothing.

More likely, the critics are the vocal minority, and their favorite topics are of interest to a relatively small group of EAA members.

Take a look at the threads here, related to EAA, most are about going to Oshkosh, not help in building from scratch, or a plans built tube and fabric.

Personally, I would love to see a replica of Melmoth, which died at an attack by a jealous factory built.

 

[Half Fast]

It's not Budd, its EAA. He sometimes frustrates the EAA staff because he requests so many photo shoots and wants to write so many stories. It's how he makes his living and he knows they will pick and choose from what he submits. They reject a lot of story requests of his that are probably more interesting than the Pink Cub, but it's a feel-good story. If they told him they wanted mostly stories on homebuilts, I guarantee he would camp out there!

I disagree that Budd is somehow the gate keeper of SA articles. IMO Hal Bryan, as managing editor, has way more to say about the overall content.

I mostly agree with both of you, which is why I wrote:

As I said above, this mostly falls on the editors. Until they start telling Budd and others, "No, we've had too many stories on Pink Piper Cubs already. Cast a wider net," this is what we'll continue to get. It's the editors' jobs to solicit and screen content.

There are avenues to provide feedback but how often do folks take advantage of them and how much of the rank-and-file membership would be in agreement with a given position?

I have provided feedback, but of course I have no way of knowing whether the rest of the membership is in agreement. I suspect, though, that many of us own planes in the "Vintage - Contemporary" category and some related stories would be appreciated.

 

[Half Fast]

I mean, it seems to work for you here.

No, here I write content, not for my own amusement, but for everyone else to enjoy.

 

[Half Fast]

We need somebody who will make a list of just 5 planes that Budd needs to do stories of, different from the ones he does.

Someone can then email that list to EAA, and we will have an improved magazine.

Okay. I already provided one suggestion in post #42. If you'll also recommend a story, we'll need three other people to each do the same. I'll be happy to send the list to the EAA, and perhaps @Lowflynjack would be gracious enough to also pass the list along to Budd.

 

[Pinecone]

Is a 1969 Ford Mustang not a vintage car just because Ford still makes Mustangs? If that’s the criteria, though, my 69 Musketeer is certainly vintage since they’re no longer made.

But that’s not the criteria. The criteria is age, so imagine this is 1970. Wouldn’t you call a plane from 1910 “vintage?”

That’s a 60 year span. It’s now 2024, so why wouldn’t a plane from 1964 be vintage?

Each generation of Mustang is a totally new car. That sort of looks like the previous ones. So yes, a 60s Mustang is "vintage" and a 2024 is not. But the 60s Mustang is no longer produced.

What is the difference between a 1969 Super Cub and 1979 Super Cub? Or a 1969 C-173 or PA-28 and a 1971 version? A straight tailed C-172 is definitely vintage. And I would say a Hersey bar wing Cherokee is also. Both are no longer produced in that form.

And yes, a 1910 airplane is vintage. But really was so in the 20s as the technology moved so quickly.

 

[tsts4]

On things like EAA's definition of what's Vintage, they have to draw the line somewhere and based upon the GA fleet size and composition I think it's a decent compromise. I guess you could quibble +/- 10 years, but what difference would it make? I mean are tons of people bent out of shape that they have to park in N40/S40 vs Vintage at Osh? In the end I'm not seeing a lot of alternative suggestions on how EAA could do it better and what the benefit would be if they did.

 

[172andyou]

On things like EAA's definition of what's Vintage, they have to draw the line somewhere and based upon the GA fleet size and composition I think it's a decent compromise. I guess you could quibble +/- 10 years, but what difference would it make? I mean are tons of people bent out of shape that they have to park in N40/S40 vs Vintage at Osh? In the end I'm not seeing a lot of alternative suggestions on how EAA could do it better and what the benefit would be if they did.

Yeah, I mean at the end of the day it's a parking problem. Vintage already keeps expanding as more people keep showing up. So, can't really make the cutoff more liberal. I suppose you could make it more conservative, but it's already cutting off at 50 year old planes. That seems old enough.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I mean are tons of people bent out of shape that they have to park in N40/S40 vs Vintage at Osh? In the end I'm not seeing a lot of alternative suggestions on how EAA could do it better and what the benefit would be if they did.

Yes, a lot of people get bent out of shape about having to be in the South 40. It's the biggest complaint I hear every year. They're improving it each year, but I think it's the least desirable airplane camping location.

However... the same people would whine if they got turned away. In years past, they would turn you away because they ran out of spaces. The goal was to stop this and they've achieved it.

 

[tsts4]

Yes, a lot of people get bent out of shape about having to be in the South 40. It's the biggest complaint I hear every year. They're improving it each year, but I think it's the least desirable airplane camping location.

However... the same people would whine if they got turned away. In years past, they would turn you away because they ran out of spaces. The goal was to stop this and they've achieved it.

Yeah I know folks hate S40 (and know it's getting better as I drive from there to Basler so get to see all of the OSH parking/camping areas to include most of Scholler firsthand) but how many have other options other than N40? But my point is I'm thinking it's not a huge number of folks with planes that are just a couple of years outside of the Vintage cutoff. That said, IMO EAA has been too slow to react to the growth in arrivals and developing S40 to be a true N40 equivalent. And Increasing the Vintage cutoff date is not going to fix that problem. Bottomline AirVenture is a victim of its own success.

 

[rwellner98]

Yes, a lot of people get bent out of shape about having to be in the South 40. It's the biggest complaint I hear every year. They're improving it each year, but I think it's the least desirable airplane camping location.

However... the same people would whine if they got turned away. In years past, they would turn you away because they ran out of spaces. The goal was to stop this and they've achieved it.

I will say, Fond du Lac is worse than S40. Having camped there because OSH was sold out, I think some people need a history lesson.

 

[RussR]

And yes, a 1910 airplane is vintage. But really was so in the 20s as the technology moved so quickly.

That is so true, and amazing when you read biographies and such of WW1 pilots. They will sometimes mention a plane being an old, obsolete design - which always surprises me a little, since aviation had barely been around for 10 years at that point. The pace of progress was incredible. Think about today, calling a plane designed and built in, say 2019 an "old, obsolete design"!