Return-Path: Received: from pop016.verizon.net ([206.46.170.173] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1) with ESMTP id 2510424 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Aug 2003 17:26:15 -0400 Received: from [67.225.117.66] ([65.239.57.194]) by pop016.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.33 201-253-122-126-133-20030313) with ESMTP id <20030803212609.MGYY24927.pop016.verizon.net@[67.225.117.66]> for ; Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:26:09 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: res0c5l1@incoming.verizon.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 14:25:41 -0700 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Ken Welter Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Oshkosh report Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1152176500==_ma============" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at pop016.verizon.net from [65.239.57.194] at Sun, 3 Aug 2003 16:26:08 -0500 --============_-1152176500==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Hey Wade I am with you on de commercializing it as two years ago someone at Arlington told me that I could not pass out business cards and info flyers on the coot parts and redrive units that I sell and that I would have to rent a booth and space for my plane to do so. My answer to that is I just put them in the seat and told people to steal them when I turned my head and I let everyone know why they had to steal them and what I thought about the EAA. Ken Welter >To all, >First let me say that I have nothing against warbirds, restorations, or >certified aircraft. They are great for those people who desire and can >afford those endeavors. > >But...what is the true definition of experimental? Is it what the FAA and >EAA says it is? > >I would think that auto/non aircraft engine conversions and homebuilts would >absolutely be the most qualified and premier part of the show. > >Maybe its time to look at or ask the EAA for a separate OSH date or other >location in order to separate the major varieties of aircraft under the EAA. >Or, lets say, separated according to FAA rules and or by major types. Maybe >call it Experimental Air or anything but Airventure. > >Bottom line is that its too big and too commercialized. Something needs to >be moved either by date or location. > >How about Kitty Hawk? Would that work? Any location is fine by me but it >needs to be a decommercialized fly-in with true experimental homebuilt >aircraft and kit/homebuilt suppliers? A flyin that every average income >earner would not be objectionable to attend? Add a new and used aircraft >parts and tools swap meet? >If you put it near a major discount shopping center and or beach location, I >would have all the time in the world to attend. > >My family and I turned down the opportunity to go this year (we've always >wanted to go), even though we are now only one state away. Based on the >total costs involved, the crowds, and what friends have said about >seeing/not seeing much of the real homebuilt / experimental aircraft we >stayed home. > >What I do want to see is what and how other average Americans have >accomplished their dream of affordable and pride filled flight. Besides, I >need that cash for this 20b and a kit! >Just my opinion. Still a member, for now. >Wade Bush > > >.flyrotary.com/ >> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html --============_-1152176500==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" [FlyRotary] Re: Oshkosh report
  Hey Wade I am with you on de commercializing it as two years ago someone at Arlington told me that I could not pass out business cards and info flyers on the coot parts and redrive units that I sell and that I would have to rent a booth and space for my plane to do so.
 My answer to that is I just put them in the seat and told people to steal them when I turned my head and I let everyone know why they had to steal them and what I thought about the EAA.

 Ken Welter


To all,
First let me say that I have nothing against warbirds, restorations, or
certified aircraft. They are great for those people who desire and can
afford those endeavors.

But...what is the true definition of experimental? Is it what the FAA and
EAA says it is?

I would think that auto/non aircraft engine conversions and homebuilts would
absolutely be the most qualified and premier part of the show.

Maybe its time to look at or ask the EAA for a separate OSH date or other
location in order to separate the major varieties of aircraft under the EAA.
Or, lets say, separated according to FAA rules and or by major types. Maybe
call it Experimental Air or anything but Airventure.

Bottom line is that its too big and too commercialized. Something needs to
be moved either by date or location.

How about Kitty Hawk? Would that work? Any location is fine by me but it
needs to be a decommercialized fly-in with true experimental homebuilt
aircraft and kit/homebuilt suppliers? A flyin that every average income
earner would not be objectionable to attend? Add a new and used aircraft
parts and tools swap meet?
If you put it near a major discount shopping center and or beach location, I
would have all the time in the world to attend.

My family and I turned down the opportunity to go this year (we've always
wanted to go), even though we are now only one state away. Based on the
total costs involved, the crowds, and what friends have said about
seeing/not seeing much of the real homebuilt / experimental aircraft we
stayed home.

What I do want to see is what and how other average Americans have
accomplished their dream of affordable and pride filled flight. Besides, I
need that cash for this 20b and a kit!
Just my opinion. Still a member, for now.
Wade Bush


.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html


>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--============_-1152176500==_ma============--