John ...

That's a question that I've been mentally rasslin' with for a few years now.
Who **is** the reason for the EAA? Is it JUST Experimentals as the name of
the organization implies? Are the warbirds a part of it only because the
founder of EAA flew warbirds or are they an intrinsic part of it due to the
nature of keeping a beast flying for which there are no readily available
parts?

Are White Knight and Spaceship One a part of it? You can say that they are
experimentals with some assurance, but is it "experimental" in the sense of
"homebuilt"? I think not. Several hundred thousand hours of engineering
and craftsman time and several million dollars in development costs take
them a bit out of the "homebuilt" category. But to argue that they aren't
part of EAA is to disregard Burt Rutan's deep roots in the soil of Oshkosh.

The RV lines had a few visitors in 2003 but the C5A nose to nose with the
AN-24(?) had hundreds of thousands of visitors, most of them EAA members.
Do we discount having attractions like these at Oshkosh simply because they
are not experimental in the least?

To bring it down to a personal level ... I've never built an airplane. I've
only flown in a couple of experimentals. Yet a steady progression of
Cessnas from the 170 (straight) through the 172E to the current 182A have
made a 33 straight year pilgrimage to Mecca On The Winnebago. Am I really
not entitled to be the reason for the EAA?

I am not trying to pick a fight. For obvious reasons I really want to
know --- who IS the reason for the EAA?

Jim
EAA 86698



After all, who
really is the reason for the Experimental Aircraft
Association????

John