Sounds like I did. You just proved my point. Notice I differentiate between GA and Recreational. Here's some of the main articles in this months EAA newsletter:
EAA Airventure (ie Oshkosh)
First time Builder Couple's Glastar success.
Father & Son restore a Cessna 120
Better Pilot: Keys to a Successful Forced Landing
EAA and AOPA both work hard for GA, they just have slightly different emphaisis' I'll Probably never use a plane to commute for business (I've asked, too many liability concerns for the company), and I'll certainly never fly a King Air, and I don't even fly IFR approches currently. However, I'm slowly restoring my 150, one part at a time. And a forced landing is something that applies to all GA - though I'm sure the King Air has a few more options available than the c120 And yeah, they both review fancy toys that I'll never use, and don't have much interest in.
Phil
P.S. - I was deliberatly exagerating earlier when I mentioned turbin twins. B-)
It was an emphasis on instrument conditions and maintaining safe flight. They do not do anything that emphasizes on charters and a guy who bought an arrow and figured out a way to use it for buisiness has more in common with you than you seem to be willing to admit. However, a program that they have that is very handy IMO is the legal services plan which pays for a lawyer if you mess up and get in trouble with the feds (say you misunderstand an ATC clearance and get a violation).
The point is that you said they only talked about planes flying for hire
They also aren't about twin turboprops or jets. It's all light pistons and mostly singles. The kingair crash is dealt with because it's a crash. Since you asked about IFR the kingair instance is something you may want to pay attention to.
AOPA's primary focus is light general aviation. They cover a broader range than EAA, true, but their focus is still on the small aircraft.
BTW, just because they did an article on a guy who uses his airplane in connection to work doesn't mean that's all they are about. It seems you're applying a higher standard to AOPA on what they should cover than you do for EAA.
Too bad AOPA covers aircraft restorations, introducing people to aviation, and emergency procedures as well!
I'd say the biggest difference between the two is that AOPA has a larger focus on legal issues, such as new laws and airport closures than EAA does while EAA focuses more on Kit planes.
And it looks to me that EAA covers as much expensive stuff as AOPA, so applying a double standard isn't fair.
I'd love to see the challenger and the Bearhawk Patrol... two aircraft at once though? That's gotta get confusing sometimes with the parts! I have a little time in a 150 (more in a 152), but the 150 was a newer one (slant tail and not a razorback)... but the two 150 flights I had were the first flights in small aircraft for me. I have probobly 150 or so hours in a 172 and might have 30 or 40 in 152s (we used the 152s for the fli ght team).