What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Kitplanes or SportAviation?

N941WR

N941WR

Legacy Member
I dropped Flying a number of years ago, kept my AOPA membership (20 years now), and liked SportAviation for the builder articles.

Occasionally bought Kitplanes but never subscribed to it. Now that SportAviation has turned into what looks like an AOPA publication, should I drop that and subscribe to Kitplanes?
 
Last edited:
I like Kit planes the most, since I started building. Agree, the others have apparently relegated homebuilding to a back seat and its all about turbines or some crap which I dont have any use for. Stopped all of them.
 
I get and like Kitplanes, SportAviation and SportPilot. I never liked Flying and AOPA got too far away from regular pilots (too Beechcraft and Citation) for my liking.

Roberta
 
Bill,

I agree with you. Did the same. SportAviation seems to be too non-experimental for me. Not that there is anything wrong with that, just not my taste.

N941WR said:
I dropped Flying a number of years ago, kept my AOPA membership (20 years now), and liked SportAviation for the builder articles.

Occasionally bought Kitplanes but never subscribed to it. Now that SportAviation has turned into what looks like an AOPA publication, should I drop that subscribe to Kitplanes?
Click to expand...
 
Hands down my favorite magazine is Sportsman Pilot (www.sportsmanpilot.com) published quarterly by Jack and Golda Cox. (The Coxs ran the EAA magazines for years.) Best of all, it is only $12.00 per year! Can't beat that. The magazine reads like you are part of a hangar flying bull session. Lots of good inside stuff. I maintain a membership in AOPA and EAA just to help our cause, and you should, too. But their magazines don't interest me that much. John Yodice often has an interesting column about aviation legal matters in the AOPA Pilot. It is both fascinating and horrifying to read about pilots who get snared by the FAA or the tort lawyers. Sport Aviation now seems to traffic in nostalgia and puff pieces about overweight professionally constructed trophy "homebuilts". I give it 30 minutes and then pitch it in the recycle. If you are new to wrenching on airplanes, Light Plane Maintenance is pretty good, but expensive at $74/yr. It is geared toward the owners of certified airplanes trying to save a buck on maintenance but the stories tend to repeat about every three years. In fact, if anyone wants them, I'll box up any LPMs I can find laying around and give them to you for the cost of shipping or for any trinket you have that piques my interest. Steve
 
EAA was good, got bad, now of late good again.

robertahegy said:
I get and like Kitplanes, SportAviation and SportPilot. I never liked Flying and AOPA got too far away from regular pilots (too Beechcraft and Citation) for my liking.

Roberta
Click to expand...
I am with Roberta, never liked the AOPA rag, and frankly (have no evidence) but they do not support experimental aircraft. They are more aligned with and support Cessna, Piper, Beech, Helicopters and Corporate aviation. I got sick of hearing "On our test flight of the Biz 3000 jet ATC held us up at flight level 2-3-0, on our way up to flight level 3-7-0". I fly jets and that is boring. Their attitude is reflected in their magazine.

I am not sure but not only does AOPA not support experimental planes I think they may be Anti kit planes? They do provide some GA lobbyist representation in D.C. for all pilots, but lets face it the government is going to do what they want. They are supporting LSA planes.

Recently the "AOPA" adviser gave an AOPA member advice, who was selling his kit plane he built. He was told that he would get sued and should part it out!

FACT:There has YET to be a legal precedence of ANY builder of a kit plane being sued. In fact there are leagle "HOLD Harmless" disclaimer documents that can be drawn up by a lawyer. Would that hold up? Who knows no one has been law suites have gone to court. I think that advise is ridiculous. As long as the plane is built per planes and no known critical defects, than you are pretty safe, especially when the buyer says he accepts all risk.

AOPA members write AOPA and and ask the question about selling your RV and liability. Let us know what AOPA says. What I hear is they will tell you to dismantle it and sell it for scrap! I would be interested in hearing what they say.


EAA: I had some complaints about Sport Aviation last year or so. I talked to the editor and even Tom P. sent me a reply. I am happy to say the last 6 months or so has been very good. With some interesting articales. They knew they had a problem and admitted lack of material. Many of the old hands had retired. I grew up on Tony B. articles. A year or so go, many SA issues where just just advertisements (including the so called articles) or very superficial. I am happy to see they have really steped it up and I look forward to them again. The last one was a dog, but they all can't be great. I don't know about Sport Pilot, the other EAA mag. I have heard mixed reviews. I get Sport Aviation.


I read KIT PLANE sometimes at the book store and tempted to buy one in 10. It is not cheap I recall so I just look at it on the new stand. Jim Weir articles where good but think those are gone. I would get Kit plane before AOPA. Sorry AOPA.


It does not matter, but EAA use to have the Experimenter, but that is gone.

G
 
aopa &eaa

seems i did see an aopa article several years ago on the rv-6. it was a favorable article. and aopa is first rate regarding your medical certificate. eaa is sympathetic to your medical cert issues, but of no real value for advice if you lose it. call aopa if you have a medical certificate question.--- my 2 cents---- :D your mileage may vary.
 
robertahegy said:
I get and like Kitplanes, SportAviation and SportPilot. I never liked Flying and AOPA got too far away from regular pilots (too Beechcraft and Citation) for my liking.

Roberta
Click to expand...

You are SO right on the money. Every month it's the same barage of junk....TBM's, KingAir's, jets of all kinds etc etc etc. Everyone who's building an RV must be doing better than average to have $40,000 to $100,000 of "play money" they can foresee sinking into an airplane but if they GAVE me some of these featured aircraft I couldn't even afford the fuel to fly them regularly. Forget purchase price, maintenance etc.... holy cow :eek:

AOPA itself, though, does advocate pretty regularly for ALL pilots and our interests. Recently, they've become a little looney on some things, but overall I'm glad to have them and I'll continue my membership in spite of totally out of touch magazine.
 
I like Pilot Getaways for its sheer builder's motivation value (g). I don't have a problem with SportAviation and I'd dump Flying in a second if it weren't for Lane Wallace. If I have to read one more Richard Collins screed against the media or anyone who disagrees with him, I'll scream.

I like Kitplanes since the new editor took over but I didn't resubscribe because at least 3 of their issues were the kitplane directory. Maybe that's changed now, I don't know. But that one usually went right inthe trash. I already selected the plane I want to build.

All in all, however, anytime I come home from work and find an aviation magazine at the bottom of the pile of bills and credit card offers, it's a good day regardless of which one it is.
 
Bob Collins said:
I like Pilot Getaways for its sheer builder's motivation value (g).
Click to expand...

I like this magazine as well. Though I do have to say, I'm sad that about 60% of the destinations described are "a charming little town with a nice (i.e. average) resturant and a bed and breakfast." Ugh.

Occasionally though they have some real gems.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
Jim Weir articles where good but think those are gone.
Click to expand...
Jim's still doing the electric series in Kitplanes. One of my favorite columns.

Somebody mentioned the new editor of Kitplanes. Marc Cook is a brilliant dude. I'm honored to have had the pleasure of spending hours shooting the stuff with him about engines, fuel injection, ignitions, etc. He's a fascinating guy. He recently built a Glastar Sportsman 2+2 in...get this...18 days!!! I've heard the account firsthand but I'm also looking forward to reading about it. He's a great writer.

To be honest, I dropped my Kitplanes subscription back when I started building my RV-7 -- I dropped all of my "doesn't come with association membership" magazine subscriptions at that point. I only re-subscribed when I started writing articles for 'em. Man, I'm glad I did. Reviews on planes like the Viper Jet and the EVO Rocket...I drool over reading that stuff. The magazine has really turned over the past couple of years. I don't know if that's entirely Marc's doing or what, but I like it!

But to the original poster's question -- you can't "drop" Sport Aviation (that I know of) without also dropping your EAA membership. Sport Aviation is part of the package. I don't recommend dropping EAA...they support us and likewise need our support.
 
If more of us let the mags know what we want, maybe they would oblige.I must confess of being non-active so just stop subscribing. Wrong attitude I guess.
 
Kitplane: rules.
Plane & Pilot: has some interesting and relevant stories.
Aviation Safety: always relvant to all pilots but expensive at about $80 per year.
Aviation Consumer: same comments as Aviation Safety.
Sport Aviation: It has turned into a 12 month preview and epilog of Oshkosh; if it didn't come as part of the membership, I'd drop it in a heart beat.
AOPA Pilot: for spam can drivers but it comes with the membership.
Flying: for large tin.

I highly recommend supporting the sport by joining AOPA and EAA. Both organizations lobby for GA and experimental aviation friendly laws. GA and especially experimental aviation are very small subsets of the population and we need a collective voice to be heard. Most people, including lawmakers are pretty much ignorant of our needs and the benefits GA brings.

AOPA has a legal service for about $26 a year that has become more important with the new airspace restrictions.

Jekyll
 
Last edited:
I get all of them

I like Kit Planes, and find that I can learn new little things that I can apply to my RV8 in just about every article. I usually challenge myself at the beginning of each article to see what I can mine out of there, and it's rare that I come away empty handed. Lately it's been fun to see how our young Dan can get an "action shot" of himself in each article. I'm sure he's going to have IMG Modelling calling soon for a GQ photo shoot. :)
 
Alternative uses

I am both an AOPA and EAA member, so receive both of their magazines. I have very little use for AOPA Pilot for the reasons mentioned in previous posts, but I have found a few useful technical articles in the EAA magazine.

The best use I've found for them, though, is to pass them on to friends and neighbors that have expressed an interest in learning more about flying. Granted, for the most part these folks aren't in the AOPA "go out and buy a TBM700" demographic, but the magazines seem to answer a lot of their questions, and more importantly, cause them to think of even more sophisticated questions.

So, if you get them but don't want them, don't be blind to hand-me-down opportunities.
 
Kitplanes or SportAviation

I'm aviation-obsessed and I get and enjoy Kitplanes, SportAviation, AOPA, Pilot Getaways, Air & Space. For me, they are all good, and I couldn't pick one over the other. I had "Flying" for a year and it didn't do much for me.

... Bill
 
I'm reading Kitplanes and Sport Aviation. If you want to choose between these and are building something, I would defenitely go for Kitplanes. If you are just looking for nice planes and not so interested in building, I would select Sport Aviation. Get couple of issues of both and I think you pretty well see the differencies of these magazines.
 
For just the magazines, Kitplanes is the best for me. However, you MUST continue to support AOPA and, perhaps EAA. These are the only organizations fighting on our behalf in Washington. Airspace grabs, user fees, closing airports, new regs, etc....AOPA is the only organization I ever hear speak on our behalf. I agree their mag is driven more towards spam can drivers, but who cares. Kitplanes and occasionaly EAA talk about homebuilts. It's really a shame what has become of the EAA mag.
 
Ive been unimpressed by Sport Pilot and Kitplanes magazines; the former is mostly written at a grade school level with only surface coverage of potentially interesting subjects (no CAFE data on planes anymore, few comparative specs, limited plane-building help), the latter is a little better but seems grossly overpriced and underweight. The adds and classifieds are the most interesting part, and there are better sources for that...

Im very impressed with local EAA chapters' activities. But IMHO, I have to wonder why support of the National group is warranted- $40/yr for what? The only action I see seems to be geared to supporting a buroacracy (admin staff) that doesn't do much, organizing money-grabbing airshows, providing expensive rides in old bombers, and discussing/kicking about ultralight regulations in which I have no interest at all. Where is the value for us grass rooters?

Bottom line, the internet sources seems to provide significantly more data and valuable advice for a whole lot less expense, this board is an excellent example of that.
 
Jekyll said:
Sport Aviation: It has turned into a 12 month preview and epilog of Oshkosh; if it didn't come as part of the membership, I'd drop it in a heart beat.
Click to expand...
Couldn't have put it better myself. Kitplanes is also my current favorite, although you have to read it with some skepticism. The authors sometimes don't fully research their topic (except Dan of course).

Dave
 
flybill7 said:
I'm aviation-obsessed and I get and enjoy Kitplanes, SportAviation, AOPA, Pilot Getaways, Air & Space. For me, they are all good, and I couldn't pick one over the other. I had "Flying" for a year and it didn't do much for me.
Click to expand...

I enjoy all the above, but also like "Flying". Richard Collins advocates the moving map GPS technology, and so do I. Therefor, I find many articles regarding GPS, as well as twins and business jets interesting. "Flying's" aftermath articles are intersting too.

And....... add one more to the list, "Airliners".

L.Adamson
 
I guess the magazine subscription selections depend on your individual situation.

I think Kitplanes and Sport Pilot are a little tailored towards the newbie. No disrespect intended because that service is always necessary, good, and entertaining to the "student". I see plenty of "how to" articles like Sport Aviation USED to have. Unfortunately, having read zillions of "how to's" I get bored with them so I don't subscribe. I read them occasionally.

Sport Aviation has also become a little hit or miss of late, but the hits are good (like the canopy glueing some months ago) so I'll keep the subscription and save the mags for the time being. I think experimental aviation is changing and the mag is changing with it. I wonder if my current mild dissatisfaction is similar to what a rag and tube scratch builder would have felt beginning in the 80's since everyone was agog about glass birds and now the Tamiya, er.. Vans, kits. :D

Flying mag and I don't live on the same planet. :mad: I have a free subscription, but I still find it hard to enjoy.
 
IMO, Sport Aviation is a total waste. The content doesn't interest me and the writing is atrocious. When I open it, I go right to the Who's-Building-What section to see the RV's, then to Lauran Paine to see if he mentions his RV-8 project (which he seldom does), then it goes straight to the recycle bin. I still read Flying but it has really gone downhill in recent years. When I started flying 35 years ago, I got AOPA Pilot and Flying and the difference in the two magazines was very stark. Flying was very professionally done and had a lot of meaty articles and good columnists while Pilot was very thin and amateurish. Now, it's somewhat the reverse. Pilot is usually twice as thick as Flying, with lots of features, while Flying has abandoned the Feature section altogether and most of their good columnists are long gone. And the latter's love affair with all things turbine is really shameless and annoying. They still have Peter Garrison though, and he is definitely worth the price of the subscription by himself. I don't think there is a more thoughtful and intelligent author out there. And the guy can write! Plus, I do have a soft spot in my heart for the rag because of my trip to Oshkosh in 2000. I stopped by their tent to see if I could spot my idol Garrison, but the only two guys there were Tom Benenson and Robert Goyer. I didn't recognize them and didn't really plan on talking to them but they came over and started talking to me. At first I thought they were just being polite and when they found out I was a homebuilder they would probably excuse themselves. But we ended up talking for almost an hour and they seemed genuinely interested in hearing about my RV-8 project.
 
I'm new to kit planes (just bought my RV-10 empennage at Sun 'n fun), but I've been subscribing to Kitplanes for a year now. I really like the magazine. My only complaint is that it takes over two months for a change of address to take effect. Since I move back & forth between two houses every three months, I never get to read the magazines in order. Also, one of the two post offices throws magazines away if a temporary change of address is in effect.
It's a two year subscription so I'll just drop it next year - too much work on the address changes. My other magazines are not a problem.
John
 
If you really are into it

I was thinking about this thread and what do we want. We want to be entertained and educated, right. How many times can you read about the same thing, like another new glass-cockpit display. Wow! boring. So here are some great suggestions many may enjoy:

The grand daddy of aviation magazines:

Aviation Week & Space Technology

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000065ALE/103-9004023-3285423?v=glance&n=599858


Nothing to do with homebuilts in particular but if you are into aviation and want to know what is going on in the aviation world, military, commercial and space, this is the place to go. Even at $60 you will not regret this if you have a general interest in all things aviation/aerospace. Also its weekly! Some Libraries have it.


The other is Smithsonian aviation magazine. Beautiful photos, history and aviation interest stories about cool airports and the interesting people at them. Remeber the "Lost Squadron" from the Greenland glacier expedition to dig for the P-38's.


I get other magazines from McGraw Hill like Professional Pilot and Business and Commercial Aviation. I don't recommend them, but they have good info on flying safety, mostly IFR related and technology. I was a corporate pilot years ago, so I like seeing the latest Biz Jet. The state of the art is on the Biz Jets like the GIV, with their HUD, IR camera's and latest and greatest avionics. When I win a $900 million lottery, I'll want to know which jet to buy. :D

George
 
Last edited:
Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions. I'm hoping that we're taking Kitplanes in the right direction for the majority of our readers.

As has been pointed out, it's possible to be too advanced and lose the entry-level reader (someone just starting a kit or considering entry into our world) or too oriented toward the beginner (making the old hands antsy). Believe me, we constantly wonder how we should aim the magazine, and the thrust is in constant correction. I hope we can entertain both, but I admit that in the last year the emphasis has been a return to hands-on pieces and practical information and less on how to design your own fly by wire flight control system. (A great story but how many of us are really going to do it?)

So, if I may, I'd like to turn this around. What would the ideal Kitplanes contain? Where should our focus be? (Besides all Van's all the time. <grin>)

--Marc

PS: As for the subscription/fulfillment issues, I'm sorry. There's nothing we can do from the editorial side and it remains a major frustration, not just for us but for all magazines.
 
Magazines

I've subscribed to Sportaviation since 1980, and used to love the builder articles that actually described how they did things, and the Bingelis ones also. The last few years I too have been very disappointed with them. Now it is all advertorials, product placement and no detail. They are either afraid to give any technical detail for fear someone may misuse it and blame them, or they want to 'upsell' members to their specialty mags. I also get the IAC mag, all 3 pages per issue! I'll be dropping both next year. I get 'Contact' but I admit it's content varies in quality between issues. Last issue was 100% Carter-something! I think all wide circulation magazines that also have a lobbyist/regulatory aspect get corrupted by having to be seen to do the right thing, i.e. push safety in all areas and don't rock the boat. WE have all seen craftsmen work miracles, and do a quality job very economically and efficiently, many times these same jobs cannot be done 'safely' in any affordable way.

We can only hope new magazines will come forth to fill an apparent void. These same magazines will have to be published in upper Zambia by a shelf company and written by faceless people residing in Panama, but I won't mind provided it is full of good stuff!
 
Kitplanes Suggestions

KPmarc said:
...So, if I may, I'd like to turn this around. What would the ideal Kitplanes contain? Where should our focus be? (Besides all Van's all the time.
Click to expand...
Hi Marc, First a big thanks for participating here.

Here are my suggestions:
  • I personally would like to see a hands-on related to wiring and one on fiberglass, similar to what Checkoway did with metal.
  • I think you should just put the "buyer's guide" of all the kits and all the plans on the net, and keep it updated there. You could perhaps highlight the top 10 completions you receive in a few categories.
  • More interaction with your website would be great. You guys have made some huge improvements on the website, but there are no forums or discussion groups. That would better bind your customers to you.
  • Allow paper subscribers to download content without the additional charge. I really don't understand the additional charge thing.

Thanks for listening!
 
Mickey:

Good ideas. I have a composite series in the works, and have more electrical stories in the hopper as well. I also think that we should take a close look at every system in the typical homebuilt and consider each for extended how-to coverage.

The Buyer's Guide issues are a problem, though, because while a few subscribers complain about them, those issues--particularly the main kit directory in the December issues--sell very well on the newsstand. Perhaps we need to convince the powers in charge of our print order to let us have additional pages to offset the directory. We do get more pages, but not enough to cover all of the directory. What I'm saying is that the directories are here to stay but perhaps there's something we can do to make the rest of the magazine (during those issues) more useful so that if you're not interested in the directory portion you can just ignore it. (To be fair, our love-it:hate-it ratio regarding the directories is about 10:1.)

Website stuff....well, don't get me started. <grin>

It's not within my power to do anything about the online charges, but I have to say I agree that we should recognize our paper subscribers in that deal. I would also like to have more interaction on the web, but we're a small outfit, with few people working full time, and it has proven difficult to put resources on the task. Simple math: too much to do with too few people.

I have plans for more unique web content that perhaps could start with Oshkosh this year, if we can put all the pieces together.

Still, I'd like to hear from the rest: What can we do that we're not doing now, and how can we improve what we DO do?
 
This is a tough one, and just about everything that can be said has been.

However, when I started flying, (long long ago and far far away...) I got ALL the mags. Time passed, and I didn't have time to read that much anymore. So the ones about planes other than my interest (RV stuff after I started building) got cancelled. I still look at them at the newstand when I fly commercial, have to read something to keep my mind off the fact I'm in an airliner, yuk. What I see of Plane and Pilot, Kitplanes etc. had kept me from actually buying one for the flight. My impression is that they are for people that dream of flying, but aren't actually pilots.

AOPA Pilot, I'm afraid it went even farther astray when the boss started flying a jet. That's okay, it's for those guys too. It's just that it ain't me.

Interesting point, my wifes boss gets AOPA pilot, and his copy is different from mine. Mine had "turbine pilot" section, and a different cover, than his. I'm a commercial pilot and he isn't. I have to think that they take that into consideration and issue different issues accordingly. It was quite a surprise to me. Another thing, and this one really torques me off. They continually refuse to award me the annual airplane giveaway. What's that all about?

Sport aviation...I have to admit, I don't read it like I did when I was still building. I go right to "completions" and then put it aside till I have more time. With one glaring exception...When the Spitfire showed up on the cover last month...well, I still haven't got all the drool cleaned up. My wife asked "what's WRONG with you, and what is with all the "yummy" noises?"
If they put a real engine in that thing they would really have something. A plane like that shouldn't be slower than an RV. Very suspicious though that NOWHERE was there a mention of the price...Hmmm.

Jeff
 
If you don't like AOPA's magazine, write to them. Remind them that the vast majority of pilots fly old 150's, 172's, Pipers and homebuilts. I suspect that they report on the fancy new expensive planes because the manufacturer's PR departments arrange for their writers to fly the newest whizzers, so they are obligated to report on stuff that less than 1% of their readers could ever hope to afford. If Van's thought they would benefit from advertising in Pilot, they would probably get more coverage. Remind AOPA of who their members are. I did recently and got a civil reply, but of course they didn't change their editorial policy because of just one voice.

Kitplanes? Except for Jim Weir's column it seems like their mission is to market everybody's kits. Not very informative.

I read almost everything in Sport Aviation, but being a chapter officer for many years there may be stuff there that is not of interest to those who are not involved in a chapter. Again, if you don't like what they publish, let them know.

Flying? Let's see, I last bought a copy of that in the 1970's, I think. Every time I look at it on the news stand, I find little to spend my money on and it's overpriced, to boot.
 
Last edited:
RScott said:
Kitplanes? Except for Jim Weir's column it seems like their mission is to market everybody's kits. Not very informative.
Click to expand...
What would you consider informative? Marc is asking for people's "wish lists" -- so at least take him up on that by letting him know what you'd rather be reading.
 
KPmarc said:
So, if I may, I'd like to turn this around. What would the ideal Kitplanes contain? Where should our focus be? (Besides all Van's all the time. <grin>)

--Marc
Click to expand...

I really like the direction Kitplanes has been going.

My wish list would be more articles on the level with Dan's. The metal working articles don't do much for me (already working on my second plane) but the level they are writen at is great. I could have used those articles before I started my plane. I'd like to see articles about: Flight testing, wiring, painting, engine maintence/building, airframe maintence, steel tube frame, wood, and fiberglass construction, fabric covering. Those types or articles. Of course the whole magazine wouldn't be filled with tech articles but maybe one or two articles a month.

About more RV specific articles, please no more. There is so much info about RV's out there already. I'd like to hear about some of the more obscure homebuilts out there. Maybe about some of the pop riveted light sport planes. (Before Van's takes over that area too :D )
 
So many choices!!

I've read all the posts here and concluded that there are a lot of different likes and dislikes with respect to aviation magazines. Because of this particular forum, we tend to at least go for tech articles on different building processes and even some exposure to other types of homebuilts.

Even though AOPA isn't particularly "experimental" minded, they are general aviation minded and you can bet they have been up to their keesters in Capital Hill appearances trying to protect all of our interests. Forget about the magazine. That's just a periphoral benefit to being an AOPA member.

As one who lives under the Washington D.C. ADIZ, I see first hand, the effects of uninformed politicians and government knee **** reactions with regard to aviation. What a pain in the @$$ it is to have to either be on hold for up to 20 minutes waiting to file a flight plan, or stand in line at the FSS to get a full briefing just because I got a wild hair to pull the bird out of the hangar and take her around the patch!!! ...Ok..too much of a tangent here.

Picked my first copy of Kit Planes the other day and I am really impressed with the content! Marc, keep doing what you're doing!

Used to love reading Len Morgan in "Vectors" and Gordon Baxter in "Bax Seat" from Flying magazine, but that was many moons ago. Gordon Baxter wrote a lot the way Lauran Paine writes today...from the soul of grassroots aviation.

There are a lot of fine publications out there, but only so much money to spread around. For me, my current list is Sport Aviation, AOPA Pilot (periphoral benefit...), Air Line Pilot (..ugh!), and ..SOON TO BE....Kit Planes!!

Jeff
-8 wings
 
RScott said:
Kitplanes? Except for Jim Weir's column it seems like their mission is to market everybody's kits. Not very informative.
Click to expand...

Besides the directory/buyer's guides everyone mentions, what is the basis for this comment? In fact, I try very hard to make the magazine informative, which is a break from the traditional stance of the book.

I'd like to know more precisely why you think Kitplanes is not informative.

--Marc
 
jhallrv4 said:
When the Spitfire showed up on the cover last month...well, I still haven't got all the drool cleaned up. My wife asked "what's WRONG with you, and what is with all the "yummy" noises?"
If they put a real engine in that thing they would really have something. A plane like that shouldn't be slower than an RV. Very suspicious though that NOWHERE was there a mention of the price...Hmmm.

Jeff
Click to expand...


Jeff:

I'm drooling also and have developed a neck twitch. Check the website: www.supermarineaircraft.com.

Prices are VERY steep:

QB with wet wings $118,000 AU
Engine (2 choices) $49,500 to $58,409 AU
Crating $2,400 AU

I haven't checked the exchange rate but when I was there in November, it was $1 AU = $.76 US.

Jekyll
 
The Best Education....

Seeing as how this thread has digressed a bit, I'll add my thoughts....I have so little time to do any recreational reading these days that even the couple of mags I subscribe to rarely get read cover to cover like they used to. I get Flying and Sport Aviation, the first out of shear habit and nostalgia, and the second because I am paying HOW MUCH every year to EAA so that I can go to Oshkosh??!!

As many have mentioned, Flying has gotten a long way away from the kind of aviating that most of us can afford, but they still have a couple of columnists that I enjoy. The reason I keep subscribing, however, goes back to my college days, when I discovered that the basement of the Engineering library at the University of Minnesota had a magazine collection - and they had every single issue of "Flying", even back to when it was called "popular Aviation". In my first year of school, I started with the first issue, and skimmed/read my way through all those years during my spare time (when I probably should have been studying coursework) right up to where my own collection started in the early 70's. And of all that I learned in those four years as an Aeronautical Engineering student, I probably took more useful information away from that history of aviation than any set of courses I ever took! ;)

I sure miss Gordon Baxter...and when Garrison leaves, my subscription is done...

Paul
 
Dangit! This was going to be the year I cut back on all my subscriptions and use the money on a few airplane parts.

After reading Dan and Marc, I just went to the Web site and subscribed to Kitplanes (despite the (&#(*#& directory issues).

I'm just gonna have to finally dump FLYING magazine, I guess. :)
 
Flight Tests in Kitplanes.

OK, here is something I would like to see in Kitplanes.

In your flight tests, I would like to see a real flight test with the handling rated according to standard aircraft flight testing. Just having some guy who has flown a bit and says the handling is great is not valuable to me.

Yes, this probably would not be popular with some of your manufacturing clientele, but we, the buyers of the magazine would like a real rating of the handling. There is a standard rating system that Navy Test Pilots use for instance that puts a numerical value on handling, the F-86 Sabre jet having the current highest value.

I have jumped into homebuilts with handling that was rated good by magazine writers but found them to be sadly lacking. Your magazine could be the first to "Do it Right". Employ the services of a professional test pilot. Explain to the readers the Handling Rating System that has been in existence for years. Then apply the rating sytem to the test flown aircraft, which is mission specific BTW, not expecting a C-130 to be rated against a fighter, but rated against aircraft in it's own niche.

BTW, I like Kitplanes and buy almost every isue. I read it completely from cover to cover. I think the magazine is improving and that you are heading in the right direction.

Obviously, from being on this forum, I am an RV builder, and I have about 45 years of Aviation experience with close to 17,000 hours.

Cheers, Pete
 
Flight testing...

Pete:

Good suggestions. In fact, improving the flight-testing routine started out as one of my main priorities and slipped back a notch or two while I extinguished other fires. It is working its way back to the top of my priorities.

I see several ways to do this from a logistics standpoint, but all will take a bit of finessing. (I don't mean to be vague, but you never know when the competition is watching.)

Possibility 1: Create the perfect pilot/writer specimen. As you can imagine, there are good writers and there are good test pilots, but for one person to possess both skills is extremely rare. The Amazing Cloning Kit(TM) that I ordered off the internet came with a few pieces missing, sorry to say, so I'm a little behind in my gene splicing.

Possibility 2: Employ a writer AND a test pilot for each review. Even if we could afford it--and we might with the right attitude on the part of some retired test pilot who loves to fly (perhaps with 45 years of experience and, oh, maybe 17,000 hours or so....hint, hint ;) )--the simple logistics could turn and bite us. It's often just not possible to spend several days flight testing when there are many other parts of the puzzle to wrangle: photography, interviewing, travel, working around weather, etc.

We have to achieve a balance in the story, too; I don't want the reviews to be dull recitations of the handing qualities, but I'd like them to be more substantial--and more consistent--than they are now.

(You know, this is not a new problem. When I worked for AOPA Pilot and did flight reviews, I'd often see--before or after--another review on the same airplane and just as often wonder how the other guy could be so WRONG.)

You are all probably aware of the excellent story Chuck Berthe did for us on the RV-10: full of accurate flight data, well described and analyzed, a very thorough job. And I think it works extremely well in the context of the other coverage we'd done on the airplane. But it wouldn't have worked as the only piece; just too focused on the handling to give us the full picture.

So, Pete, this is my way of agreeing with you in a most public way. We could do better and I have a plan to make our reviews more accurate, detailed, consistent and useful. There are other ways we can make our reviews more useful, but that's probably enough said for now. I hope to surprise our readers with improvements this year.

--Marc
 
dan said:
But to the original poster's question -- you can't "drop" Sport Aviation (that I know of) without also dropping your EAA membership. Sport Aviation is part of the package. I don't recommend dropping EAA...they support us and likewise need our support.
Click to expand...
Actually you could drop it and take the "Sport Pilot" magazine instead. I would not recommend that however. I took that magazine during its inaugaral year. Man, what a disappointment. Every month I could read it word for word and cover to cover in less than 30 minutes. I have since changed my "subscription" to Sport Aviation so I am one who is happy with getting it as a residual bonus for my membership in EAA. Any EAA big whigs reading this should seriously look into that "Sport Pilot" magazine and figure out what they can do to make it worth spending all of that money to publish.

KPmarc said:
PS: As for the subscription/fulfillment issues, I'm sorry. There's nothing we can do from the editorial side and it remains a major frustration, not just for us but for all magazines.
Reply With Quote
Click to expand...
KPmarc said:
It's not within my power to do anything about the online charges, but I have to say I agree that we should recognize our paper subscribers in that deal. I would also like to have more interaction on the web, but we're a small outfit, with few people working full time, and it has proven difficult to put resources on the task. Simple math: too much to do with too few people.
Click to expand...
I would think the editorial side could inform the subscription sides that there are some readers who have some very serious negative concerns about the subscription issues. My big complaint you have addressed in this forum. The fact that as a subscriber to your hard copy magazine I cannot gain access to your website content. I have to pay an additional subscription to view your website. Since you have access to those individuals involved with this decision and we do not, you could pass the concern onto them.

rv8ch said:
Here are my suggestions:

* I personally would like to see a hands-on related to wiring and one on fiberglass, similar to what Checkoway did with metal.
* I think you should just put the "buyer's guide" of all the kits and all the plans on the net, and keep it updated there. You could perhaps highlight the top 10 completions you receive in a few categories.
* More interaction with your website would be great. You guys have made some huge improvements on the website, but there are no forums or discussion groups. That would better bind your customers to you.
* Allow paper subscribers to download content without the additional charge. I really don't understand the additional charge thing.
Click to expand...
I would agree with these statements.

KPmarc said:
Perhaps we need to convince the powers in charge of our print order to let us have additional pages to offset the directory. We do get more pages, but not enough to cover all of the directory.
Click to expand...
I am one who does enjoy the kit manufactuers listing. I would like to see them somehow set up so that they do not become the only content for that month's magazine.

I find that I enjoy Kitplane above all other magazines I read. Mainly because it has content that is pertinent to my interests. It is informative and easy to read.

I agree with everyone else about Flying. I will have to take other's word on the fact that the magazine used to provide content for the regular aviator. I have never read that magazine when it was not focused on the notion that a new biz jet was a "bargain" at $2,000,000.

RVBYSDI
Steve
 
I can see the need to charge people to use the Web site; you should make a buck off it, but $49 a year????

That reminds me of what happened to me when I ordered some baseball tickets on mlb.com last week. $45 per ticket. Fine. Convenience charge $3. Shipping and handling $6.

But THEN they give you the option of printing out the tickets and they charge another $1.75 eachon top of that. Your ink. Your paper. No postae for them to pay. No envelopes. No paper. No people to mail it...and they make an ADDITIONAL $1.75 above the $6 you pay for shipping and handling even though at that point, there isn't.

So I just resubscribed for two years to the paper version at $48 for two years rather than $49 for one online. Hard to believe that the cost of running a Web site is twice the cost of ink, paper, and mailing...but maybe.
 
Why all the crash-and-burn articles?

Why must nearly every article in EVERY aviation rag be somehow related to crashing and burning?

I rode and built Harleys for twenty years before I got into flying. Motorcycles are at least as dangerous as airplanes. But believe it or not, the average issue of "V-Twin" is not a cover story about the latest factory Dyna-Glide followed by 10 articles on how to avoid crashing your scooter and then a wrap-up of every crash in the country since the last issue!

Why can't we get an aviation magazine that inspires us to GO FLYING? I want stories about great flights. Pictures of great planes. How-to construction/maintenance articles. Interesting antiques and what it's like to fly them. Honest critiques of planes or kits that I might actually buy. You know -- the kinds of things you would find in any normal hobby magazine.

"Kit Planes" or "Sport Aviation"? How about "Model Airplane News"!
 
Mustang said:
Just having some guy who has flown a bit and says the handling is great is not valuable to me.
Click to expand...
I actually found Kitplanes' flight test reviews to be most informative -- in particular their review of the F-1 EVO Rocket. After seeing the EVO in person and having researched its performance envelope, I was convinced I was going to build one. The lure was the high and low speed capability and efficiency...and the looks. But it was actually Kitplanes' review of that airplane, which I thought was a very objective analysis of its handling characteristics -- but written in layman's terms -- that convinced me the EVO is not the plane for me. There was plenty of substance in the way the article was written. It wasn't a "dull recitation" as Marc put it, and it wasn't a glittering "flies great" either. It was the perfect balance for me to understand what the pilot/writer was trying to convey.

I also want to point out that in the latest issue, Doug Rozendaal does the review of the Titan T-51, comparing it to an actual P-51. Who better to write this article than a guy who actually does fly a P-51 on a regular basis (and has flown countless other designs from which to draw comparisons)?

Anyway, I just want to say that I'm happy in general with the quality of the flight review portions of Kitplanes articles.
 
KPmarc said:
Pete:

You are all probably aware of the excellent story Chuck Berthe did for us on the RV-10: full of accurate flight data, well described and analyzed, a very thorough job. And I think it works extremely well in the context of the other coverage we'd done on the airplane. But it wouldn't have worked as the only piece; just too focused on the handling to give us the full picture.



--Marc
Click to expand...

To provide an adequate review of a kitplane, you need two side-by-side articles, one from the builder's perspective, and the other from a professional flight test engineer/ pilot. Neither can fully describe the other's domain.

Get Chuck Berthe or Ed Kolano to document the detailed performance and handling characteristics. Their early reviews in Kitplanes and Sport Aviation set a new standard for flight reviews, and condensed the arcane world of flight test into terms all of us could understand and try on our own.

Incidently, "Experimental Aircraft Technology" is a very enjoyable recently introduced magazine from Brett Hahn. Check it out at www.extechmag.com

Regards,
Hawkeye Hughes
RV-3, Skyote
 
REHughes said:
Incidently, "Experimental Aircraft Technology" is a very enjoyable recently introduced magazine from Brett Hahn. Check it out at www.extechmag.com
Click to expand...

Linkie no workie. I tried several times. I also googled the mag. name with no luck.
 
Hawkeye:

I'd love to be able to do just that--send someone like Ed or Chuck along on every flight test--but it's really hard to make work on a monthly basis. These guys are busy!

Look how long it took CAFE Foundation to publish its tests, which I consder to be benchmark items in our world.

As I said, somewhere between that and what we now do is probably a good compromise to bulk up our reviews and keep them entertaining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top