It's very subjective. Sometimes it can be very easy to think that the good old days were much better but having been down to the vaults and gone through copies from 1971 onwards I can't see it.
True. Some of the old editions weren't all that great, and in the 70's they were certainly pretty thin.
But there was excellent writing, and a high level of accuracy. Just to take one example, compare some of the old articles on short-field landings (by Alan Bramson and, I think, Neil Williams) with the rubbish that was published recently.
Alan Bramson's flight tests may have been a bit formulaic, but he'd clearly usually done more than just have a 30 minute jolly with the owner or test pilot, which seems often to be the case nowadays. The flight tests by Bob Grimstead are usually informative, but some of the others are dire. (To be fair, Pilot isn't the only offender here.)
Look back in your archives at the articles by Stephen Wilkinson, Bernard Chabbert (I hear a rumour that he may write for you again? Good news if true), Brian Lecomber, John Templeton Smith (much better at magazine articles than at thrillers), Neil Williams, James Gilbert.... You will have to admit that those "good old days" were better than today, and you may even feel that you could fill a few pages each month by re-printing classic articles from the past!
In order not to upset our moderator, can you tell me if the hands on the watch glow in the dark?
