EAA life membership value?

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

It's not age as in "52 years old" it's age as in "Up through 1970". Because the real heyday of aviation was in the 1970s and production numbers were large, each year that they add represents a LOT more airplanes. And I can't really find much evidence that "Vintage-Contemporary" exists for any other reason than to show people that things haven't changed much in the last 70 years and ensure that Vintage parking at OSH is always full.

FWIW, in 2002 Vintage went up through 1966. By 2005 they expanded it to include 1967. In 2010 they suddenly bumped it to the current 1970. I'm guessing that with the economic collapse in late 2008 there were fewer airplanes at Oshkosh in 2009 and maybe the Vintage area had a lot of holes, so they expanded the definition to ensure it got filled up.

But let me ask: If Vintage was 1966 in 2002, that was only 36 years old. If EAA had chosen an age of 36 as the deciding factor, and thus this year every aircraft manufactured through 1988 qualified as "Vintage" and the Vintage area took up the entire South 40 as well, would that make you happy? I'm not really sure what you're after.

 

[Half Fast]

I'm not really sure what you're after.

I really don't give a rip about Osh parking.

This started with a discussion about EAA and SA reflecting members' interests. I disagreed and made the point that the EAA has categorized pre-1970 airplanes as vintage but gives almost no attention to planes from the 1960s. I'd bet that many EAA members own planes classified as "Vintage-Contemporary" and it would be nice to see articles about them from time to time.

 

[Dave Theisen]

With regards to Vintage, we are a few years away from having Homebuilt, Cirrus, and then everybody else.

 

[pfarber]

and I'm glad EAA's original core mission still exists and is thriving, even if it's different now.

you can't say this seriously, can you? the original intent of Paul P was building airplanes... not getting your PPL or letting the inner city yutes sit in an airplane.

The original intent of EAA has long been dead. OSH is nothing more than a cash cow. And I don't think many of EAA board have built aircraft. Owned, yes, pilots, sure. But actually did the thing the group they run is supposed to champion?

 

[pfarber]

I really don't give a rip about Osh parking.

This started with a discussion about EAA and SA reflecting members' interests. I disagreed and made the point that the EAA has categorized pre-1970 airplanes as vintage but gives almost no attention to planes from the 1960s. I'd bet that many EAA members own planes classified as "Vintage-Contemporary" and it would be nice to see articles about them from time to time.

pre 70s would include a lot of airplanes with construction methods that are just not a significant part of what little building SA does cover. You're talking fabric over either wood or tubes and that really not popular now. the 80s were totally about composites (thanks Rutan!).

While it would be interesting to read about fabric and wood and tube construction I don't think SA has the insight to pull off an engaging series or articles. They would give one paragraph to fabric and the rest of the article to Garmin avionics install.

 

[kyleb]

pre 70s would include a lot of airplanes with construction methods that are just not a significant part of what little building SA does cover. You're talking fabric over either wood or tubes and that really not popular now. the 80s were totally about composites (thanks Rutan!).

While it would be interesting to read about fabric and wood and tube construction I don't think SA has the insight to pull off an engaging series or articles. They would give one paragraph to fabric and the rest of the article to Garmin avionics install.

Your points are both valid. The interest in wooden or rag and tube scratch built aircraft is low these days, and there’s little depth to SA’s articles. There used to be a lot of depth (say 40 years ago), but unless you were a dedicated scratch builder that content was too far in the weeds. I remember picking up old (say 1990) editions of SA in the occasional FBO and finding them to be near unreadable for someone (me) who owned a spam can at the time.

EAA and SA have moved towards the money. It is a pretty big business now, not a niche organization. I ***** about that sometimes, but the big picture (I guess) is it is better for EAA to be a large organization that promotes all GA than if it was still a niche organization lost in the margins of GA.

 

[kmacht]

Just because there aren’t many people who choose to build wooden or rag and tube airplanes doesn’t mean that people aren’t still interested enough to read articles about the process. Stop by the workshops during anirventure and you will find the wooden wing rib and fabric covering workshops filled to capacity each time they are held. Very few people go on to build that type of plane after taking the short workshop but it still shows that there is a lot of interest in just learning how it all works.

As far as articles, counting on member submitted articles doesn’t work. Most who are working on something interesting enough to write about are not writers themselves. EAA could use to take some of that cash earned at air venture and hire more staff writers to travel the country and find interesting topics to write about. They could even partner with a few colleges and offer internships to journalism students who are eager to learn and write. The problem is that the magazine is not a money maker for them but they also don’t realize that for many people the magazine is the face of EAA to them.

 

[murphey]

you can't say this seriously, can you? the original intent of Paul P was building airplanes... not getting your PPL or letting the inner city yutes sit in an airplane.

The original intent of EAA has long been dead. OSH is nothing more than a cash cow. And I don't think many of EAA board have built aircraft. Owned, yes, pilots, sure. But actually did the thing the group they run is supposed to champion?

I'd like to go back and concentrate on computers that still used core memory and punch cards and took up an entire room just for the mainframe and you had to boot the system by setting switches on the panel, but the technology has advanced and so has the world.

I'm definitely not the target audience for AOPA or NBAA. I fly a 1969 cherokee, so EAA is the only organization that is even marginally relevant to my flying. I refuse to apologize for intruding in your view of the organization.

 

[tsts4]

TImes have changed. EAA simply changed as its membership and the environment it operates in changed--for better or worse. The pilot/builder population with a proclivity to tilt at less popular kits, much less plans only designs, is getting smaller by the day. I wouldn't use Forum/workshop attendance at Osh or SnF as a barometer for anything. I don't have a crystal ball so have no idea what the future holds, but as a natural cynic, I don't see any kind of GA renaissance occurring that would return us to the bygone days. As the posts indicate the opinions of EAA (and membership thereof) covers the spectrum. Just like most things in life, It's not for everyone. I like it and love our annual trip to Osh. Some folks prefer SnF. Others prefer smaller gatherings like Brodhead, Jean Petit, or Gastons. Still others like IAC events. Some like type-specifics organizations. Some like modern GA and gravitate towards AOPA adn subscribe to Flying. The list goes on and on. The point is no organization can be all things to all people. Is EAA perfect - no. Can they do better - sure. But I also think they are doing the best job of walking a compromise path of any aviation group out there that has such a diverse portfolio of aviation interests across their rank-and-file membership.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

you can't say this seriously, can you? the original intent of Paul P was building airplanes... not getting your PPL or letting the inner city yutes sit in an airplane.

Yes, I'm serious. Homebuilding is doing pretty well today. New, certified spam cans cost ridiculous amounts of money to purchase and maintain, which makes building and flying E-ABs far more attractive.

No, there's not a whole lot of people doing random one-off designs. We don't have a whole lot of Wittmans or Rutans around these days. And there's probably fewer people doing plans-built stuff. But that's because the kit-built portion has matured and there are lots of great airplane designs that one can buy a kit for and build. If you're a truly experimental (vs just homebuilt) purist, then I can see how you're disgruntled. However, the portion of the population with the skills to *design*, build, and fly is exceedingly small and always has been. EAA still has resources to support those people thanks to the fact that they also offer value to those of us who will never build an airplane.

I'm definitely not the target audience for AOPA or NBAA. I fly a 1969 cherokee, so EAA is the only organization that is even marginally relevant to my flying. I refuse to apologize for intruding in your view of the organization.

NBAA, no. AOPA, you are still in the target audience. Yes, they publish stuff about turbines and things I'll never own, though I really like those articles and read them just to learn. But they also do a lot to keep local airports open, keep regulations favorable to us, and generally keep us little guys at the table.

IMO, every aviation lover should be a member of both AOPA and EAA... And make sure those organizations hear your voice.

 

[kmacht]

If they are actually interested in supporting home builders then why don’t they spin off experimental aircraft and GA into their own EAA groups like they do for the Aerobatics and Warbirds. They should rebrand themselves as something other than the “experimental” aircraft association and move all the non home building content into its own magazine and let experimenter go back to being purely home built content. I bet it would give AOPA a run for its money.

 

[JOhnH]

How did you math account for unknown annual dues increases?

The same way he didn't account for the diminished value of his initial investment over time.

 

[kyleb]

If they are actually interested in supporting home builders then why don’t they spin off experimental aircraft and GA into their own EAA groups like they do for the Aerobatics and Warbirds. They should rebrand themselves as something other than the “experimental” aircraft association and move all the non home building content into its own magazine and let experimenter go back to being purely home built content. I bet it would give AOPA a run for its money.

Lots of discussion over the years that builders of experimental aircraft have seen their share of the cheese diminished. No doubt about that. EAA rolled Experimenter into SA a while back (10 years?) and promised that the experimenter content wouldn't diminish. That didn't work out so well. But EAA did get the savings from not duplicating a lot of content (Pelton's column, safety columns, etc) between magazines. So I'll give 'em half a win. They saved money but gave up content.

Are you suggesting that EAA bring back Experimenter, and opining that it would out-do AOPA? I can't see that happening (Experimenter outcompeting AOPA). Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[pfarber]

New, certified spam cans cost ridiculous amounts of money to purchase and maintain, which makes building and flying E-ABs far more attractive.

A RV kit is more cash up front than a decent used 172, and multiple times the cost of anything non-Cessna. No one is buying Certified AC, they are all building RVs which have an entry fee of at least $100k BEFORE a motor, avionics, and build time.

I would think that if you cost out a 70's era 172/Piper vs a new EAB (aka an RV) that the RV would be more expensive initially and also TCoO

for 10 years would favor the certificated 172.

An RV-10 with all the quick build options is $111,000 BEFORE a motor ($30-40k) and avionics ($10-30k) and paint. $60-100k)

 

[pfarber]

They saved money but gave up content.

That's a nice way to say 'failed at their core purpose'

As for saving money, according to the EAA website OSH is a $14,000,000 expense. Membership and subscriptions is only $6,000,000 income. Whatever they are doing its not benefiting the anyone NOT going to OSH.

Read the EAA mission statement... it never says 'build' or 'experimental' once. But they do want to 'Embrace diverse interests'... so that's like hearding cats.

Tell me again what the E in EAA stands for?

 

[kyleb]

A RV kit is more cash up front than a decent used 172, and multiple times the cost of anything non-Cessna. No one is buying Certified AC, they are all building RVs which have an entry fee of at least $100k BEFORE a motor, avionics, and build time.

I would think that if you cost out a 70's era 172/Piper vs a new EAB (aka an RV) that the RV would be more expensive initially and also TCoO


for 10 years would favor the certificated 172.

An RV-10 with all the quick build options is $111,000 BEFORE a motor ($30-40k) and avionics ($10-30k) and paint. $60-100k)

You've got your firewall forward and paint numbers reversed, but the total for a -10 is still gonna be $250K. More if you need a 777 style panel and the interior from a Lexus. There are pre-wired, everything possible done by a 3rd party panels that approach $100k and you can spend big bucks with an interior shop if that's your thing. To your other point, there is no C-172 or Piper Cherokee that offers the capabilities of an RV-10, so that comparison is apples vs oranges.

One thing I will point out is it is still possible to build a two seat RV for under $100K, but it involves some scrounging and more DIY than lots of people are willing to do.

 

[tsts4]

A RV kit is more cash up front than a decent used 172, and multiple times the cost of anything non-Cessna. No one is buying Certified AC, they are all building RVs which have an entry fee of at least $100k BEFORE a motor, avionics, and build time.

I would think that if you cost out a 70's era 172/Piper vs a new EAB (aka an RV) that the RV would be more expensive initially and also TCoO


for 10 years would favor the certificated 172.

An RV-10 with all the quick build options is $111,000 BEFORE a motor ($30-40k) and avionics ($10-30k) and paint. $60-100k)

Compare apples to apples— new vs new. How does that new RV-10 stack up against a new 172?

EAA isn’t what it used to be but neither is GA. Funny thing is a just reread a thread over on the EAA Forums from 12 years ago that mirrors a lot of the discussion in this thread. The gist being that some felt that EAA had evolved beyond them. That maybe true. For me EAA is doing well enough. Apparently a significant slice of the aviation community feels the same way since membership hasn’t suffered and Osh continues to grow. Sure the experimental side has diminished but that’s a reflection of the times and the broader audience that EAA now encompasses. No one is forced to be a member so join or don’t join. Of course all the detractors are free to start their own organization to fill the void created by EAA neglect.

 

[DaleB]

Compare apples to apples— new vs new. How does that new RV-10 stack up against a new 172?

Hmmm. 60 knots faster, 7 knot higher stall speed, more payload, bigger cabin, lower cost... it's more like apples to grapes...

A RV kit is more cash up front than a decent used 172, and multiple times the cost of anything non-Cessna. No one is buying Certified AC, they are all building RVs which have an entry fee of at least $100k BEFORE a motor, avionics, and build time.

I would think that if you cost out a 70's era 172/Piper vs a new EAB (aka an RV) that the RV would be more expensive initially and also TCoO

for 10 years would favor the certificated 172.

An RV-10 with all the quick build options is $111,000 BEFORE a motor ($30-40k) and avionics ($10-30k) and paint. $60-100k)

And an RV-9 without QB is $46K, plus engine and avionics. If you don't get carried away it could be done for $100K or less. Yeah, you could probably buy an older 172 for less money... then fly it 60 knots slower and pay through the nose for maintenance and repairs. I think those TCO numbers might work out in favor of the E-AB if you do your own maintenance, which is a big reason many of us fly them. Plus... even my lowly little RV-12 is a hell of a lot more fun to fly than a 172 and will happily pass one up while burning about half the fuel.

Look... if all you want to do is fly, go buy whatever. Cessna, Piper, Grumman, RV, whatever. When it needs maintenance or repairs, take it to an A&P and write a check. I get it. The guy in the hangar next to mine is swapping out Cirrus #2 for a fancier Cirrus #3. Says the only time he sees us is when we've got the airplane torn apart working on it. Well, yeah... I see him about once a year, when we're doing the condition inspection. This year we had to replace the ELT battery and our ADSB GPS failed, so it's going to be a spendy one... with the oil change and all, we might hit $600 total.

Me, I'm flying the RV while building yet another airplane. I like doing it. When the new one's finished I may sell off my share in the -12. Or maybe not. Do I miss flying a 172? Not even a little bit, no.

 

[ateamer]

A RV kit is more cash up front than a decent used 172, and multiple times the cost of anything non-Cessna. No one is buying Certified AC, they are all building RVs which have an entry fee of at least $100k BEFORE a motor, avionics, and build time.

I would think that if you cost out a 70's era 172/Piper vs a new EAB (aka an RV) that the RV would be more expensive initially and also TCoO


for 10 years would favor the certificated 172.

An RV-10 with all the quick build options is $111,000 BEFORE a motor ($30-40k) and avionics ($10-30k) and paint. $60-100k)

A 172, no matter how good shape it’s in, will not cruise at 165+ knots on the same fuel burn, is not aerobatic, doesn’t climb at 1800 feet per minute, and upgrades can cost multiples of the same equipment for an RV.

 

[kmacht]

Compare apples to apples— new vs new. How does that new RV-10 stack up against a new 172?

EAA isn’t what it used to be but neither is GA. Funny thing is a just reread a thread over on the EAA Forums from 12 years ago that mirrors a lot of the discussion in this thread. The gist being that some felt that EAA had evolved beyond them. That maybe true. For me EAA is doing well enough. Apparently a significant slice of the aviation community feels the same way since membership hasn’t suffered and Osh continues to grow. Sure the experimental side has diminished but that’s a reflection of the times and the broader audience that EAA now encompasses. No one is forced to be a member so join or don’t join. Of course all the detractors are free to start their own organization to fill the void created by EAA neglect.

Membership hasn’t suffered because they tied directly to Oshkosh attendance. They make it so if you attend the show for more than a day or two that you need to become a member in order to not pay a higher enterance fee than what the membership costs. You also need to be a member in order to camp in Scholler. I have taken many people to air venture with me for the week and each one of them signed up for membership in order to buy a weekly pass. They had no interest in a membership before attending and haven’t renewed after.

 

[tsts4]

Membership hasn’t suffered because they tied directly to Oshkosh attendance. They make it so if you attend the show for more than a day or two that you need to become a member in order to not pay a higher enterance fee than what the membership costs. You also need to be a member in order to camp in Scholler. I have taken many people to air venture with me for the week and each one of them signed up for membership in order to buy a weekly pass. They had no interest in a membership before attending and haven’t renewed after.

True, but I don't think those folks you mention really skew the overall membership numbers but I've no evidence to back my position. There's really no EAA alternative so I stand by my opinions.

 

[Bob Noel]

Tell me again what the E in EAA stands for?

ooh, ooh, I now this one.

It stands for Enterprise...

 

[Half Fast]

Tell me again what the E in EAA stands for?

Ed’s?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Ed’s?

Ed, Ardy, and Airplanes!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

A RV kit is more cash up front than a decent used 172, and multiple times the cost of anything non-Cessna. No one is buying Certified AC, they are all building RVs which have an entry fee of at least $100k BEFORE a motor, avionics, and build time.

I would think that if you cost out a 70's era 172/Piper vs a new EAB (aka an RV) that the RV would be more expensive initially and also TCoO

for 10 years would favor the certificated 172.

An RV-10 with all the quick build options is $111,000 BEFORE a motor ($30-40k) and avionics ($10-30k) and paint. $60-100k)

So you're into it for $200K and you have a FAR nicer, brand new airplane. The trainer market has cooled down, but for a while there even $h!+box used 172s were approaching those numbers.

Then, there's the difference in maintenance costs which is staggering. Parts costs for certified are an order of magnitude higher, sometimes more, and labor is approaching $150/hr.

That's a nice way to say 'failed at their core purpose'

As for saving money, according to the EAA website OSH is a $14,000,000 expense. Membership and subscriptions is only $6,000,000 income. Whatever they are doing its not benefiting the anyone NOT going to OSH.

Read the EAA mission statement... it never says 'build' or 'experimental' once. But they do want to 'Embrace diverse interests'... so that's like hearding cats.

Tell me again what the E in EAA stands for?

Maybe you should start a competing organization then, strictly for homebuilders?

 

[geezer]

I have never been to OSH, but have been to SnF several times.
I missed OSH one year by failing to make a phone call after arriving in Missouri, and the Baron left at sunrise the next day with just 2 people on board.

Spam cans dominate the turnout at Lakeland, and according to the first guy I bought my membership and tickets from, most of the fly ins are not members until they purchase tickets. He claimed that was the best bargain on the field, and on hindsight, I agree.

Perhaps it has become the GAA, General Aircraft Association.

Down by the tents and hangars there were lines of homebuilts, mostly kits, with proud owners supplying all you wanted to know about their pride and joy. They did not seem to mind that I did not intend to build one. They also did not seem offended that I flew in a Skyhawk, but did take an interest on my satisfaction with the facilities. Lunch time came while talking to one such homebuilder, and we went to lunch together. Pleasant surprise, he had done his training in an early Cessna 150, as I had, and very much liked it as a trainer. His current plane was faster, and suited to his current needs.

Down in the tents and hangars, most of the purchases were by spam can owners. I bought one of the first Garmin IFR legal GPS's, a big ticket item, a lot of rechargeable batteries, and two Lightspeed noise canceling headsets.

Between entrance tickets and their share of the business that took place with the booths, the fly in would have been a miserable flop without the spam cans. EAA knows and understands this, and plans accordingly. The new members from last year still get the magazine, so advertising to get them to return, in spite of not being builders of any sort, is very productive.

Acres and acres of spam cans keep EAA live and well at OSH and SnF.

The 'E' guys seem to be in active local chapters, and their fellow members actively help the builders. The chapters that I have visited seem to be older guys helping younger guys with their builds. Those old guys aged out, but still have the urge, so get real satisfaction in bringing someone else's plane to the taxi tests. I have turned a wrench on several plane None were plans or scratch built. For better or worse, self engineered planes are pretty much a thing of the past. The modern safety and performance requirements are hard to meet, and the FAA expects that they are met before the plane is signed off.

I think the EAA knows this, and have adjusted to the reality of todays pilot population.

 

[Half Fast]

Acres and acres of spam cans keep EAA live and well at OSH and SnF.

Most of those spam cans qualify for the EAA Vintage category, yet, as I said (several times) above, the EAA pays little attention to them.

 

[pfarber]

One thing I will point out is it is still possible to build a two seat RV for under $100K, but it involves some scrounging and more DIY than lots of people are willing to do.

You can still buy and operate a certified AC for less. Two seats are not the same category as a 4 place, so of course they are cheaper. Also if you skrimp and scrape you're adding years to the build and greatly increasing the chance it will never be finished. I bought my unfinished EAB that had no less than 4 previous owners and it never flew. I can trace notes back to the mid 80s

Compare apples to apples— new vs new. How does that new RV-10 stack up against a new 172?

Does a 172 have a 260hp motor and a constant speed prop?

And an RV-9 without QB is $46K, plus engine and avionics.

RV-9s are not 4 place and it weighs 900lbs less... something about comparing similar fruits??

Its a moot point and EAA and SA would probably STILL publish more articles about a barn find $250k 172 restoration than teach anything about building anything. Or worse, little timmy took his first flight and wants to be a pilot when he grows up.

Maybe one of members could write up an article about build vs buy... something with meat, not 3 pages with 5 photos. You could easily spend 6 issues on going over the pros and cons.

 

[kyleb]

In the EAA's e-mail update today:

We Want Your Story Ideas. EAA is always looking for leads on new and interesting story ideas for Sport Aviation magazine, and we want you to help be our eyes and ears. Do you have or know of an interesting aircraft? An uncommon build or restoration project? An especially interesting friend or family member whose story would inspire our readers? If you have a tip, send it to editorial@eaa.org, or if you’ve written something and, ideally, can provide high-resolution top-quality photos, you can use our form at EAA.org/Submissions.

 

[nauga]

Membership hasn’t suffered because they tied directly to Oshkosh attendance. They make it so if you attend the show for more than a day or two that you need to become a member in order to not pay a higher enterance fee than what the membership costs. You also need to be a member in order to camp in Scholler. I have taken many people to air venture with me for the week and each one of them signed up for membership in order to buy a weekly pass. They had no interest in a membership before attending and haven’t renewed after.

I've always wondered what happens to the voting rights of these 'members.' Are they assigned proxies or just no vote at all?

Nauga,
who is a member because the EAA discount on his insurance is more than the membership fee.

 

[Half Fast]

In the EAA's e-mail update today:

We Want Your Story Ideas. EAA is always looking for leads on new and interesting story ideas for Sport Aviation magazine, and we want you to help be our eyes and ears. Do you have or know of an interesting aircraft? An uncommon build or restoration project? An especially interesting friend or family member whose story would inspire our readers? If you have a tip, send it to editorial@eaa.org, or if you’ve written something and, ideally, can provide high-resolution top-quality photos, you can use our form at EAA.org/Submissions.

Cool. I’ll send them a tip.

 

[bbchien]

It’s also a gamble on what the organization might become in the years ahead.

THIS!

 

[Half Fast]

In the EAA's e-mail update today:

We Want Your Story Ideas. EAA is always looking for leads on new and interesting story ideas for Sport Aviation magazine, and we want you to help be our eyes and ears. Do you have or know of an interesting aircraft? An uncommon build or restoration project? An especially interesting friend or family member whose story would inspire our readers? If you have a tip, send it to editorial@eaa.org, or if you’ve written something and, ideally, can provide high-resolution top-quality photos, you can use our form at EAA.org/Submissions.

I just fired off an email and received this autoreply:

Thank you for writing to EAA Publications. We're sorry we can't personally acknowledge receipt of every e-mail and instead offer this automatic response. As you might imagine, given the size and passion of our membership, we receive an enormous volume of e-mail. We do review every message. If your e-mail is about a magazine delivery problem, EAA's Membership Services staff will take care of it ASAP. If you've submitted a story you will receive a reply when an editorial decision is made.​

I'll let you know if I get a response to my suggested story.

 

[skyking3286]

Add to this mix that Seattle Avionics just announced 7/19 that all lifetime memberships will be void within a year. Anyone who buys anything for a "lifetime" is basically doing a Las Vegas gamble that the company will not be taken over by a corporate raider, the death of the founder, a market that doesn't support the product, unethical folks rising to leadership or anyone of a thousand other ways a company or organization can disappear overnight - well, playing the lottery appeals to some, so who I am to say it's risky math.

 

[Half Fast]

Add to this mix that Seattle Avionics just announced 7/19 that all lifetime memberships will be void within a year. Anyone who buys anything for a "lifetime" is basically doing a Las Vegas gamble that the company will not be taken over by a corporate raider, the death of the founder, a market that doesn't support the product, unethical folks rising to leadership or anyone of a thousand other ways a company or organization can disappear overnight - well, playing the lottery appeals to some, so who I am to say it's risky math.

Also, you gotta ask whose lifetime they're talking about!

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...etime-membership-expired.147757/#post-3531705 post #26.

 

[BaltimoreBill]

I "was" thinking about EAA dues for a year but, instead, just opted to do a fundraising donation here at POA. I likely get more value here that at either EAA or AOPA (but I am an AOPA member for at least the current year). Ah, I am also a paid member of the Ercoupe Owners Club, Inc.

 

[tsts4]

I have never been to OSH, but have been to SnF several times.
I missed OSH one year by failing to make a phone call after arriving in Missouri, and the Baron left at sunrise the next day with just 2 people on board.

Spam cans dominate the turnout at Lakeland, and according to the first guy I bought my membership and tickets from, most of the fly ins are not members until they purchase tickets. He claimed that was the best bargain on the field, and on hindsight, I agree.

Perhaps it has become the GAA, General Aircraft Association.

Down by the tents and hangars there were lines of homebuilts, mostly kits, with proud owners supplying all you wanted to know about their pride and joy. They did not seem to mind that I did not intend to build one. They also did not seem offended that I flew in a Skyhawk, but did take an interest on my satisfaction with the facilities. Lunch time came while talking to one such homebuilder, and we went to lunch together. Pleasant surprise, he had done his training in an early Cessna 150, as I had, and very much liked it as a trainer. His current plane was faster, and suited to his current needs.

Down in the tents and hangars, most of the purchases were by spam can owners. I bought one of the first Garmin IFR legal GPS's, a big ticket item, a lot of rechargeable batteries, and two Lightspeed noise canceling headsets.

Between entrance tickets and their share of the business that took place with the booths, the fly in would have been a miserable flop without the spam cans. EAA knows and understands this, and plans accordingly. The new members from last year still get the magazine, so advertising to get them to return, in spite of not being builders of any sort, is very productive.

Acres and acres of spam cans keep EAA live and well at OSH and SnF.

The 'E' guys seem to be in active local chapters, and their fellow members actively help the builders. The chapters that I have visited seem to be older guys helping younger guys with their builds. Those old guys aged out, but still have the urge, so get real satisfaction in bringing someone else's plane to the taxi tests. I have turned a wrench on several plane None were plans or scratch built. For better or worse, self engineered planes are pretty much a thing of the past. The modern safety and performance requirements are hard to meet, and the FAA expects that they are met before the plane is signed off.

I think the EAA knows this, and have adjusted to the reality of todays pilot population.

Just so everyone’s tracking SnF is not an EAA sponsored event and is roughly a quarter of the size of OSH so it’s not a good comparison between the two. There a lot of vendors that don’t attend SnF because they don’t have the travel budget to attend more than one event so they go where the money is which is OSH.

 

[tsts4]

You can still buy and operate a certified AC for less.

Does a 172 have a 260hp motor and a constant speed prop?

Not new you can’t which was my point. A new tricked out RV-10 is cheaper than a new 172. So what you’re saying is you can get a used standard certificated aircraft cheaper than a new E-AB which is true.

 

[kyleb]

Not new you can’t which was my point. A new tricked out RV-10 is cheaper than a new 172. So what you’re saying is you can get a used standard certificated aircraft cheaper than a new E-AB which is true.

And that certified airplane will have about 2/3 the performance.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

 

[geezer]

SnF may be very much smaller, but the crowd there is amazingly diverse.

I had a long conversation with a pair of Icelanders, and learned a new instrument approach term. MDA is "Bump". At Reykjavik, he was at about 20 hours, and signed off for solo out of the immediate area. He flew about 20 minutes, noticed high clouds had covered he sky, abd theair was cooling. He headed back in, as the dew point spread was small. Before he arrived, fog covered the airport, and he was given radar vector to the runway, with altitude guidance. He descended until BUMP, HE HAD ARRVIVED. 30 hours later, he achieved PPL.

A little further away, a Brazilian PP, who few commercial to Fla, and rented a Cessna to fly in.

Others near me were from Minnesota, Wisconsin *Yes, they also went to OSH, Texas, they had a Cherokee 6, and complete BBQ rig, and put together a group of volunteers to go for food supplies and charcoal, and we had an amazing meal.

There wee several such group grilling events, and mostly put together with whoever was nearby.

It may be viewed by the OSH crowd as distinctly second best, but third best is nowhere near as big or good.

Back then, they were still affiliated with EAA.