nebpet,
I know exactly what you're talking about when you mention 'sacrificial lambs' in the publishing game.
Cheers, mate.

Yup, one learns the hard way, Stanwell!

The new Aeroplane Monthly is out, new editor, new layout, new 'feel'...:ok:

Hopefully, the new editor, design and new 'feel' of the latest Aeroplane Monthly will satisfy those who worried like me, that the magazine is headed back in the right direction in terms both of design and content.

So What is the verdict on the magazine now that some months have elapsed since the changes?
I find the editors style of "writing imbued with a certain sense of flair and style" (editorial Jan 2015 issue) to be a pain to read.

Early on several readers (obviously, like me, in the upper age range) complained about the tiny font size. It increased for a few issues, but seems to have slipped back to tiny again. And I HATE trying to read print over dark colours of photos or arty-pharty coloured pages!

How right you are Wander00.

I bought yesterday what I think is an Aeroplane Monthly offshoot called Aviation Archive - this one is dedicated to German bombers of WWII.

In the Dornier Do-17 entry I see this...

http://i60.tinypic.com/2nsc0h3.jpg

Now, I thought the story of Lufthansa's involvement in the Do-17's birth were well and truly scuppered by researchers in the early 80's? This is from Air Enthusiast No.30 - 1986...

http://i59.tinypic.com/ap7nlk.jpg

Noyade has picked up on a point that illustrates one of the (several) reasons why I ditched all of my aircraft magazine subscriptions last year.
Many authors these days just regurgitate previously published work, sometimes verbatim and usually without acknowledgement. After a few years of taking 'historical" magazines the same circular reporting, including errors, becomes firstly evident, then increasingly tiresome. Style, often nearly indecipherable, replaces substance.
The case in point illustrated the impact of original work by Karl Kössler. What leads me to believe that he was correct in his analysis is that at the time of publication "Air Enthusiast" was co-edited by Bill Green. Bill had earlier written up the "Lufthansa " version of the Do17's early development in his "Warplanes of the Third Reich", first published in 1970. That the "Kössler" version was later published under his editorship seems to indicate that he accepted it.
Nevertheless the "old" story continues to be regurgitated and not only by the spin-offs of Aeroplane. Wikipedia is, however, somewhat circumspect in its handling of the "Lufthansa" version and includes it as being a suggestion. A more reasoned approach by the author, I would suggest.

Recent issues of Aeroplane have had far too much coverage of displays and of the careers and business affairs of those who run them or fly the aircraft there. In brief, there's too much about people and not nearly enough seriously-written material about aircraft.

An earlier post asked what happened to Jarrod Cotter; whatever it was, it was none too soon. I very quickly tire of long editorials written in the first person, and maybe this was when the emphasis on 'personalities' at the expense of aircraft started.

Do other readers really want double-page colour spreads of a single photo? I certainly don't. It's a trend that infests Time magazine too; maybe it's cheaper to pay a fee for a single image than it is to pay someone to write two pages of copy, but it does nothing at all to add to the interest of the article it illustrates.

At present my subscription renewal hangs in the balance.

I stopped buying it when Philip Jarret packed it in.

Hat, coat, go.

Sounds like you should be taking a look at The Aviation Historian, Buster11 ! :)