Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=201.225.225.167; envelope-from=rijakits@cwpanama.net
Message-ID: <003801c6cef7$59ad9570$6e5de0c9@usuario5ebe209>
From: "Thomas y Reina Jakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1333403@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA Sport Aviation
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 20:21:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ernest,

I don't know whether my friend is back from Oshkosh and collecting the rest 
of his NXT yet, but I get you in touch with him first chance or was it just 
the title of the online mag you wanted ?

Thomas


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA Sport Aviation


> 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  |
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>