Autumn Aeroplane Magazine
 

Stopped buying this when Michael Oakey packed in as editor.
However, latest edition on sale in Sainsbury has magazine and a copy of the DH Comet book packaged together for £5.25.
The Comet book has some excellent black and white photos.

Is that the DH 88 Comet or the DH 106 Comet?:O

OK - I'll get my hat and coat .....!

Thanks for the heads-up, Arthur.
Like you, I drifted away after Michael Oakey departed. I'd been buying it since issue #2.


Cheers.

Think yourselves luck - magazine has arrived, but "overseas" we don't get the book. Wonder if that is "discrimination " under EU law...................

I too drifted away at the same time, but tempted back now!

Aerolane Monthly. Bought from issue 1 on subscription back in '73,
HOWEVER . It is now no more than a tabloid and almost identical to FlyPast (Initially openly addressing a less educated audience) which I also have all issues of.
Following a final admin Cock -Up on my overseas subscription to Air International, also held since Issue 1 as AE in 1971 following correspondence with Donald Syner ( "here's the three issues gratis you have missed") I have taken the hint from the current management's attitude, and finally rationalized my buying plan accordingly.
My subscription ( after well over 40 years) to Air International has now been cancelled , due to a total change of its editorial policy and attitude, the mostly vapid (PRO) content of which I can now get for free on the internet.
FlyPast will not be renewed-( read it all before, outside of endless personal reminiscences) and occasional other articles..
Aeroplane Monthly is now also on a cycle of endless repetition of articles ( the latest being of Bee Beamont's already published ( by them) accounts of the P1 and Lightning. Plus ,when printed, repeated cut -aways etc.
Also I regret the huge amount ( typically now c. 30%) of advertising material in these comics.
You may have an audience folks ,but it is no longer me ,I'm afraid.

I too saw it in my local Sainsburys today. However they must giving away different accompanying mags as I think the one I saw was "Cold War Jets" or something similar. The Comet will be the deH 106 not the deH 88. Aeroplane published it about a year or so back.

Have to agree with some of your comments Haraka. In the 70s, 80s and 90s Aeroplane Monthy published some excellent material which was, in my view, authorative. Today, sadly, it is much more tabloid in layout and content.

Planemike

And what do you think actually pays for the magazine staff and overheads...??
Typically, the cover cost will barely pay for the print bill and the distribution cost. One big issue that all publishers have is that they all have to pay to have the magazine put on the shelves - WH Smith charge for this big time. For the magazine to survive, they need the advertising, and if they get 30% then they are doing well...
All magazines recycle articles, they have to as there are fewer people willing to spend the time and effort writing. It's a time consuming task, and the page rates aren't huge. It's more of a paying hobby for most.
The internet is killing the magazine industry. Make the most of it while you can...:bored:

Oh cut it out, Nige, please.
I did spend some years in the publishing industry (including magazines).


What we are talking about here is what 'Aeroplane Monthly' offered before the quantum shift in publishing and editorial policy.


It was not a change for the better as far as the loyal subscribers were concerned.


During some forty years of readership, I don't recall one article reprint, either. (except bonus cutaway supplements and the like.)


Like other tabloid media, its just another example of 'dumbing-down' the product under the philosophy of..."Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average customer".


The former readership of 'Aeroplane Monthly' were not your 'average customers'.

Cut what out?
You did spend some time in the industry.
I'm there now and it's changed, and changing now, big time...
Dumbing down? Perhaps...

The good news is that there are still some "quality" magazines around that contain "new" material, with minimal advertising content. Of course you won't find them on the shelves of WH Smiths or your local supermarket.

I refer of course to the "house" journals of various aviation clubs/oganisations. Air Britain (Aviation World, Aeromilitaria & Archive) and the Moth Club (The Moth) spring to mind. I am sure there are others. Then there are a number of subscription only magazines, Aviation Historian springs to mind here. Again, I am sure there must be many more.

Just an approximation, each copy will be about twice the price of either FlyPast or Aeroplane Monthly. Just looked at the price of my AB membership package: 16 mags for about £ 50:00, so actually very comprable with FP or AM. There are of course other member benefits.

Guess it is a case of "you pays your money and takes your choice"....

Planemike

Interesting to note our ages.I am now 60, I think we had the best of the aviation publishing world.
Maybe AM and Flypast are trying to attract a younger generation.
By the way what has happened to Jarrod Cotter?

Some interesting comments here. The content of Aeroplane Monthly is similar to FlyPast because both magazines cater for the same readership. Of course Aeroplane Monthly has been around a whole lot longer than FlyPast therefore it would be fair to say that FlyPast effectively duplicates Aeroplane Monthly's remit, not vice-versa. Key Publishing bought Air International and Aviation News titles but both publications are obviously rather different to the originals.

Yes, there is a substantial amount of advertising in Aeroplane Monthly, but not a huge amount. It is necessary of course. The cost of publishing a specialised magazine of this nature requires income from both sales and advertising if it is to survive.

The Comet publication and the Cold War Jets publication are produced by the same publisher that produces Aeroplane Monthly. They're not "freebies" though, they're stand-alone publications that are now part of the "Aeroplane Illustrated" series (the free issue of the Comet publication is a special offer promotion). They're a little more expensive than a standard magazine but they have a lot more pages and hardly any advertising, so in terms of value-for-money, they're better than a standard magazine. They provide an opportunity to explore specific aircraft or subjects in far more detail than a typical magazine can, and as such, they work very well - in effect a "monograph" at half the price (or less) than a typical booklet of this type.

As for "dumbing down" editorial, it's a thorny subject. Of course, the key issue is commercial viability. Catering for the interests of enthusiasts is difficult, because everyone has different interests, different levels of knowledge, and different expectations from magazines. Ultimately, the broadest approach has to be taken, so that the publication appeals to the most people. Admittedly it's annoying for those who want something different but there's no alternative, other than doubling the cover price. What was once commercially viable is now no longer possible. There are just not enough aviation enthusiasts out there who want to buy magazines.

I accept that sometimes articles or images are reprinted, but it's usually for good reason - usually because there's a perceived demand to see things again. But I think it would be unfair to accuse Aeroplane Monthly of being any more "dumbed-down" or commercial than any other publication. One only has to look at Key Publishing's magazines and specials to see that they also take hard-headed commercial decisions. As Nige says, the internet has almost destroyed print publishing.

Having said that, if any of you really do feel strongly that there is subject matter, style or content that you feel is missing, then tell the publisher! It's impossible to know what every reader wants unless every reader says something.

WH904,
And many readers just vote with their feet - and their wallets.


If a publishers are not in touch with (or have lost touch with) their target markets then they have only themselves to blame.
One cannot expect the readership to regularly take up quill and parchment to tell one what's wrong with the product. That's just plain laziness.


As for advertising, lowering ad space rates and increasing the volume and prominence of ads between the covers to compensate for falling turnover is a slippery slope indeed - as many publishers have discovered.


I'm sorry I can't contribute more positively to this discussion, but for my part, I simply voted with my feet along the lines that Planemike mentioned in his post.


Cheers.

Of course readers do indeed vote with their feet and wallets. But it's not a case of losing touch with target markets - quite the opposite in fact. The dwindling market for print media means that (as I mentioned previously) style and content has to broaden to suit what is perceived to be the main market. That's why it's no longer possible to produce magazines that cater for the more esoteric interests of people such as yourself (and myself!). It's not laziness, it's more a case of survival in a very harsh marketplace.

I agree that it's rather shabby to simply increase advertising space to compensate for dwindling sales, but that's something that others would have to justify. I don't think that's something that Aeroplane Monthly could be accused of in any case. In the case of Aeroplane's special magazines, the advertising content is virtually zero, so that in terms of actual written and illustrative content they are excellent value for money, even though the cover price is higher than a standard monthly.

But the fundamental problem isn't any lack of standards on the part of publishers, it's the destructive nature of the internet. The web gives us so much as consumers but for print publishing it's poisonous. Obviously it's difficult to compete with an on-line source that costs nothing to produce, and isn't affected even if only a dozen people read it.

Having said all that, there's always value in telling publishers and magazine editors what they want. Obviously there can never be any promise that one's wishes will be translated into reality but unless the wishes are expressed, publishers don't know. No matter how many surveys and market research projects are conducted, nobody has the power of telepathy (as far as I'm aware!) so - as a colleague once told me - if you don't ask you don't get :)

Regarding the two main aviation magazines discussed above, I am the archetypal "floating reader" of both, making my personal choice monthly in the retail outlets after a comparative browse through both. Each month I buy one, or the other, or neither, based on my specific interest in aircraft types featured, and historic articles included. Taking out a subscription would be wasteful, despite the annual saving, because many years of readership have shown me that a certain number of issues of both titles are likely to be of little or no interest to me each year. I prefer to retain total freedom of selection, at point of sale.


The current Autumn Aeroplane magazine is the copy of choice for me this month, (despite having a sealed plastic enclosure with the bonus Comet special, which prevented my usual browsing!), for two reasons:

1. The article on V1 flying bombs advertised on the cover is of very personal interest to me, having lived in Maidstone during the period when hundreds of the infernal devices were flying overhead. Over 1,400 of them crashed down all over Kent, and I witnessed several being pursued by RAF fighters with guns blazing. Exciting to a five year old, but seriously worrying to the adults aware of their deadly effects.
2. The Comet bonus issue was potentially interesting, because in the late 1950s I went to RAE Farnborough with my university engineering society, where we were shown the Comet G-ALYU fatigue testing rig in a large Braithwaite water tank, where thousands of simulated pressurisation cycles and wing-waggling movements had eventually revealed a fatigue failure at the ADF window in the cabin roof. The special magazine showed this in several superb photos, so I was well pleased with my choice this month.

I must confess a partiality towards Aeroplane, and this particular issue tends to confirm the validity of this - but let's see what next month brings, shall we? ;)

Interesting comments :) Of course, one of the big issues at present, is what era is perceived as being more popular. Current thinking is that Cold War subjects are now very popular, and WWII is becoming less-so. Any thoughts?

Years ago perhaps one would conduct a poll of readers with a simple question ("competition") plus a questionnaire. offering selected prizes ( e.g .a year's free subscription).
(Then by derivation perhaps look at the subjects NOT selected by current readers as an indication of possible lost market areas?) .
P.S.
I've just spent some time looking at my combined indices of aircraft subject types covered by A.I. , A.E., F.P and AM over the last four decades or so. It is pretty well dominated by Air International ( before the change) across the board, whilst Aeroplane Monthly demonstrates an interesting geographical and temporal focus evolving over the years with some anomalies. FlyPast comes in a very low third, by international subject type, demonstrating it's particular slant.
Aeroplane Monthly launched at a claimed 55, 000 copies back in '73. IIRC when visiting FlyPast's offices in the mid 80's that they were then estimating themselves as the U.K's most popular Aviation Monthly.
Perhaps this indicates a loss in U.K. interest in historical aviation internationally - part of a more parochially orientated outlook within the emerging readership?

Haraka echoes my feelings, having tried valiantly to accept the change of editor I finally gave up and didn't renew my subscription. We don't get the little add-ons out here in the antipodes which added to the loss of interest in what was the only aviation magazine that held my attention for more than 2 or 3 pages.

I favour Haraka's suggestion of a poll of existing readers, because each of us can only indicate our own, often highly individual areas of interest based on our life experiences to date. Trying to extrapolate from personal preferences to predict trends in popularity amongst others is a hopeless exercise, the sample size would be far too small and easily skewed.

Speaking only for myself, my lifespan encompasses the aviation eras of keenest interest to me, with emphasis on WW2, the Cold War period, and the proliferation of excellent aviation museums and warbird-centered airshows in recent years. The early years from around 1910 to 1930 are of less intense interest to me, and straight away that probably gets a reaction from others whose tastes differ markedly from mine.

My enthusiasms are strongly influenced by personal experiences. WW2 is an obvious starting factor, I have memories dating back to 1942 or so, when my home was overflown by a wide variety of RAF (and Luftwaffe!) aircraft. Then as a member of the RAF section of my Grammar school CCF, I attended all the annual camps at active RAF stations (Driffield, Andover, Hawarden, Waddington), where I encountered Meteors, Chipmunks, Ansons, Vampires, Canberras and the mighty Vulcans of 230 OCU. I enjoyed air experience flights in some of these, and have a vivid memory of a half hour trip in a Canberra T4 when the kind pilot let me have the controls for a while. Then there was the week's gliding course at Halton, where I went solo for the first time. Not surprisingly, any articles and photospreads of any of these will virtually guarantee my purchase of the relevant magazine! But I am not a typical reader perhaps, so I feel that a wide-reaching poll of reader's own interests is a very worthwhile exercise.

Interesting.
 

Some very interesting comments here. I used to buy both magazines in question, though mostly AM, with an occasional annual subscription. FP was originally published on paper somewhat akin to War Economy newsprint. It was also the domain of groups of mudlarks obsessed with digging-up junk. Rather more beer & skittles back then...

AM was far more high-brow. It was very well-connected. There were endless articles written by the subjects, along with lots of fascinating photos, often from personal collections, never seen in public before. B&W of course, but it mattered not. All that first hand account stuff, backed-up by excellent, knowledgeable articles, was it's bread & butter. During these 'Golden Years', it's worth remembering that there were still people alive who could remember ALL of our aviation history..... It was inevitable that this format - the magazines greatest strength, would hit a brick wall when, ultimately, these actors all died off. This has proven to be the case, and for many, has been a core issue. Added to that, instead of aeronautical history being centred on 1914 - 1945, it now stretches for over one-hundred years, and, arguably, folks interests are far more diffuse too. An inevitable shift perhaps.

Sure, the internet has made an impact, but lets not overstate the case.... Frankly, if AM was as good as it used to be, I'd still buy it every month, as I did for many decades. It's not, and I don't. Bluntly, it's too expensive to buy casually, simply hoping that the issue is a 'good one'. A paper mag' can offer what the web cannot easily do. Much on the web is rubbish. A magazine can commission experts to write quality, authoritative content.
Most enthusiast use the web today, so if articles are primarily web-derived, readers will switch off. You can bet they will have already read that content before.

Certain articles appear to have been cut and pasted from 'The Eagle'. Some are, bluntly, just not very interesting space-fillers.

Today, FP & AM are effectively identical. FP has remodelled itself over the years to ape AM to become far better than it originally was, but AM, - for decades a far superior rag, has moved toward FP. They have met and become Flickr in print. In trying to cater for everyone, it is possible to cater for no one.

We all realise advertising is necessary. Actually, I'd say the problem isn't the amount, - it's how intrusive it is. Bookending an article is fine. Splattering it isn't.

For the more serious enthusiast, photos and freebies alone don't cut it. I have never bought a magazine because of a freebie. Ever. Ads' and price aren't decisive either. Content is. If one buys a magazine and a huge percentage is photos and ads.....
It's worth noting that, since many buyers no longer buy every month, they will flick through it before buying. It it's in a plastic wrapper, they can't, - so they don't...

Both magazines now feature terrific photography, in colour, way beyond anyones wildest dreams twenty years ago, but it's in no way a substitute for content. Both magazines have become more Americanised. Style over content.

AM did of course go through rather moribund periods years ago, several times, but it always managed to bounce back. It's not been alone. Pilot magazine used to occupy a similar 'pole-position' in GA. It was ruined and it opened-up the market for rivals. As in many things in life, one doesn't realise how good things are until they change (For the worst.) or are lost...!

Once customers stop buying regularly, they stop looking. I went from a regular buyer, to a browse-before buying punter - but I'd still look every month. Now - unless I suspect there is some big news etc, I don't even bother to browse. That pattern has nothing whatever to do with the web. Of course, I may be an old curmudgeon, but my contacts seem to take a similar view.

Many of these writers were personally involved with , or intimately connected to, the aspects of aviation that they wrote about. Their experience was, therefore, pretty much first-hand in most cases.
Inevitably, today's authors can only draw on largely second-hand information which is of limited availability.
There is also another aspect, not generally spoken about, which was the sensitivity of some information, even after the passage of time.
One reason Harald Penrose, for example, stopped his "British Aviation" series at 1939 was a reluctance to enter what even then (in 1980) was still (potentially litigious) contentious ground.
So, as in other areas, we are now left with in many cases, the "official" version of aviation history, without the folks around now with the background to quietly correct it.
I thoroughly endorse GQ2 on the content of his posting.

Some very interesting stuff there, and thanks for taking the time to outline your thoughts.

I would agree that one clear difficulty is maintaining an authoritative style when so many of the authors with real experience and knowledge have gone. Naturally, even with the best will in the world it is impossible to add anything to existing information, unless one happens to have been personally involved with the subjects that are being described. I guess it's a problem that is likely to get worse, not better.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the "Aeroplane Icons" series too? The most recent issues have covered TSR2, Vulcan and Spitfire. It would be vey interesting to hear what readers (or potential readers) think of them (good or bad points!)...

I had every issue of Aeroplane Monthly from No.1 (September 1973?) all kept in Aeroplane binders. Two years ago I decided that the magazine was becoming blander and blander with every issue and decided that it was time to depart.

I gave the entire collection to my local aviation museum.

I also have the entire collection of FlyPast magazines in binders which look to be headed in the same direction.

However, I have no such plans for my complete collection of Propliner. I still look forward to every issue and have so far not been disappointed.

WH904,
Oh, I see then... so you're a principal of AM, or at least a senior member of the editorial staff - and Nige321 would be a relatively junior employee. No?


GQ2 laid out the whole situation (as far as the ex-readership goes) much better than I did. Please take note of those observations.


At least I have my valued collection of AMs, all carefully shelved and indexed, to which I have occasion to refer, regularly.


I do hope you can find, again, the appropriate (and profitable) niche for AM because simply providing very similar content to FlyPast under a different masthead is not likely to work.


Cheers.

Stanwell I'm slightly confused by some of your comments - I have no idea who Nige321 is! :)

I am indeed taking note of all the observations - it is refreshing to hear the views of readers and potential readers and as I said before, thanks for taking the time to say what you think.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything that has been said, however I should say that of course it is important to remember that the views of one or two people don't necessarily reflect those of a wider audience. This is one of the difficulties in establishing what is the right content and style for any magazine.

But from what has been said here, I'm guessing that the main issue seems to be the perceived reduction in the quality of written material? Does this mean that imagery is less important? What about the question of Cold War versus WWI/WWII for example?

Do please add more views - it's interesting stuff which I will certainly note and pass on :)

Further to my last post, I can't speak on behalf of AM but all of these viewpoints are very useful. Could I refer you to my previous comments regarding the Icons series? They were originally started as a spin-off from AM and primarily intended to be image-based. I wonder (based on previous posts) whether you think the written content is perhaps more valuable? It raises the question as to what content readers really want. History, anecdotes, technical data, scale drawings, colour scheme and markings drawings, "interesting" photos or good-quality "pretty" images...

Also, there's the question of what aircraft types are the ones that are of interest. For example, Sopwith Pup, or Spitfire, or Lightning, or F-15... or less-obvious aircraft (how I'd love to see a publication on the Varsity, but then I'm probably crazy) :)

Any thoughts?

Stanwell, have you missed your medication, that's the funniest post I've seen today.
No, I don't work for Aeroplane, or Flypast - I design UAVs for a living.

However...
I do write, as a 'paying hobby' a bimonthly column in, lets say, a 'special interest technical magazine with an aeronautical connection'.

Trust me, the biggest threat to all these magazines is the internet.
The number of times I've seen 'I don't bother with mags, I get all the advice I need from anonymous forums'...
It's sad, but inevitable that the majority of special interest mags will be gone within, I'd say, 10 years.

I've always liked AM more then Flypast, agreed some months are better than others, but you can never please all the people all the time....

Interesting topic. :ok:

I stopping buying magazines here in the late nineties due to their cost, content and the departure of authors like Green, Gunston and Swanborough. But one British 'magazine' at the time that really impressed me was Twenty First Profile. I have no idea how long it lasted, but it had superb articles on well known and rare aircraft, wonderful photos, colour artwork, cutaways, line drawings (and no advertisements), but I guess these days it can all be found on the net....

http://i62.tinypic.com/p6h60.jpg

WH904,

Since you have an interest in what/why subscribers are failing to renew I'll be blunt and mention that the appalling cult of 'me, me and me' that surrounded the new editor a few years ago had a major influence on my choice not to renew my subscription.

The price is fine, delivery was prompt but I despaired of reading all about the editor and how wonderful he was (is?). The articles became a bit samesame, there are never enough on rotary wing ;) but overall I would say that the change of editor sealed my decision.

Also an interesting topic!
 

Fascinating!

I seem to be seeing views and experiences with these publications virtually identical to my own.b

Also an AE/AI and AM reader since Vol 1 Issue 1 - never Flypast - but gave up on AI for the same reasons stated above? It seemed to became a trade journal.

I still take AM and now also take 'The Aviation Historian' (TAH) which is as close to the closed AE Quarterly as you can get, but bemoan the loss of the mix of current and historic which AI gave in a monthly, and I won't take a weekly like Flight.

Also take specialist journals like Cross and Cockade and Prop Swing (SVAS).

And yes I use the Internet widely, inc. Social Media, but a good printed journal is hard to beat.

Mick Oakey and Co. @ TAH seem to be able to blend and use the different media channels well and understand that need, but I don't feel the mainstream hard copy publishers are there yet.

They have a wealth of archival material they could start to release - will they?

Ahhh! I am not alone...

21st Profile
 

"21st Profile" lasted for 17 monthly(ish) issues( its cover price going up from ₤1:50 to ₤1:70 after 12 issues - Vol 1) It was published in from April '91, the issues are undated.
It was a sort of hybridised adaptation of the original Profile publications concept started back in the early 60's, but had the individual subject matter mixed and spread over a number of issues. The novel concept was that the layout was originally designed for the individual articles to be removed if desired and put into files without disrupting other subjects. Unfortunately,for whatever reason, this idea was abandoned in Volume 2.
The Editor was Eric Morgan and the Publisher Edward Shacklady ( Both of the Spitfire History published by Key) .There was mention implying, in the 17th issue, of Vol 2 going up to issue 24 and being available. Richard Ward did the Colour Profiles.
It suddenly disappeared, which was a shame. It was in my opinion a very good effort with no advertising within the main text and minimal editorial comment.

Bearing in mind we're currently commemorating the start of WW1 (the lights out event recently was very respectful - and respected) I find the current Aeroplane Monthly cartoon cover rather childish.

I've just gone on line at their website and had a look myself Thud.

For those who haven't seen it, the latest front cover is a take-off of that of a 1930's style boys' book for a "Biggles" story. i.e. a cartoon like drawing of, presumably, a "Camel" flying into the picture with an nondescript German Triplane going down in flames in the background.

Apparently within are included a couple of articles drawn from First World War subjects : for which this is dubbed the "Commemorative Issue".

The original editorial policy for "Aeroplane Monthly" front covers was for them to be a close up colour photograph of an historic type in flight.

I find the biggest issue I have with both Flypast and Aeroplane is that as "historic" aviation magazines they feature too many people I have known and too many aeroplanes in which I have flown. Now back to the Horlicks...............

Wow! I'd never heard of that but it looks right up my street!

Agreed, AH looks like an interesting little publication. It's a classic illustration of why commercial magazines have such a hard time these days. It's a real challenge to meet the costs of production, printing and distribution when guys can simply set-up a publication through the internet now. Good look to them though!

PS....
 

It's been interesting to read other peoples views. My aviation friends also fall within this broad consensus. No, that's not a statistically informed poll, but there is a remarkable consistency. I did, during one magazines 'moribund' period many years ago, foolishly take the trouble to write to it's then editor. Far from appreciating the input from a loyal customer, he wrote me a quite excoriating letter for my trouble. Needles to say, I didn't bother to trouble his fevered brow further.
Like most people, I use the web quite a lot. To cast a broad net - pun intended - it's excellent. However, with regard to the specialist subject matter that would interest the readership here, the internet simply does not provide the quality content, so I disagree that the printed magazine is necessarily doomed to extinction. These are not mags for hormonally disturbed teens. It's a niche-market and must play to it's strengths. AH has seen this and seems to have developed a loyal following, so good luck to them with that project. It has a nice familiar feel to it, but for my own tastes, tends to be a trifle too arcane. Well, we all have our little peccadilloes...
Generically, one aspect of these magazines that has grown is the preservation scene. All very nice - but over the last decade or so it's tended to push the actual history content to one side. Now, I like a good 'News' section, to keep abreast of any gossip that I've otherwise missed, but I buy this kind of material to be educated. Websites can provide up to the minute news much more effectively. If a magazine starts to fill-up with such material, it's an aircraft preservation journal, not a historic aviation journal. I'm sure there are already such publications out there.

As for the contributors, in my opinion they should ideally fall into two categories.
1) Experts speaking autobiographically from direct experience. 75% of articles.
2) For the remaining 25%;- Other trusted writers who are able to research Grade A* original source-material and write cogent, balanced and unbiased articles. Generally, I don't give a flying toss what their opinions are, much less four pages of them. I don't want interpretation or revisionism. Just the raw bleeding facts please. Amazingly, I am able to stir my coffee, wield a soggy chocolate digestive biscuit AND form an opinion without requiring a paramedic or psychoactive narcotics.

'Talking Heads' who fill regular columns in many types of magazines with space-filling waffle don't really sit well in a journal that is concerned, primarily with history. If I want waffle, I'll go and sit in the dentists and read five year old issues of Readers Digest or OK. Nor do I need to see a thumbnail of their ugly mush. Folks read F.D.Bradbrooke for decades and didn't give a fig what he looked like. Reading the pre-war mags it's interesting to see how unaffected the contributors, are and lacking in narcissism.

The original little pamphlet 'Profile' publications have been mentioned. These were lean little gems and well executed examples of precis. All meat and no lard. They were always well researched and a handy size too. I'll never part with any of those. One wonders why these, or something similar, haven't been reprinted to include in normal mags to collect....?

Moving away from negative observations, the question was posed as to what punters would like to see? That's very tough. My own interest lies in 1930's British Civil, but aviation is a very broad church. There has been a tendency for articles to veer-away from the staples of famous well-known machines. At times, these efforts become a little contrived when articles appear, no matter how well-written, covering unsuccessful or boring types.
One-off specials are basically a great idea. I do think an opportunity has been missed though. One-off could also be a platform for looking not just at a given type of a/c, but also at manufacturers or events. A whole series perhaps. Something that will be useful for reference is far more likely to be kept (Just like those old Profile Publications.) and therefore more likely to be purchased in the first place.

I have lamented the passing of those generations that were involved in the halcyon years of aviation, yet there is still much that has not been adequately covered and gaps therefore in the collective hive of knowledge. More than enough scope to print a mountain of magazines....:)

Hear, hear, GQ2.
Thanks again for expressing so well what so many of us are thinking.

My appreciation of aviation history is akin to that of a large jigsaw puzzle.
When I can fit an extra piece or two, the whole picture becomes so much clearer - and I'm so much happier. I'm not quite sure what good it's going to do me in the end, though.

Of course, preservation of our tangible Av Hist is important and I'm actively involved in that - with the support of the better half, of course.
The kids, though, still can't understand why dad keeps mucking around with 'old airyplanes'. Their idea of flying is an A380 trip to Europe.

Now, back to comparing the Alvis Leonides with the P&W985...

I fear we may be at a low point in special interest publishing: I also hope we are at the low point.

The problem, of course, is the Net. There is a huge amount of stuff on line, good enough to make it really hard for print publishers. On the other hand, a lot of what is on line is rubbish, and some of the best photographs are not available.

For the most part, what goes on line is free, so professional writers won't do it, still less will anyone pay for editing, and no one has the funding to get the rights for the best pictures. Paywalls are very unpopular (I find I have a quite irrational prejudice against them myself, for some reason), and even Rupert Murdoch hasn't yet found a way to make payment for on-line content really work, apparently. But the BBC Music Magazine, for one, seems to manage to do a hybrid print and digital version fairly well, combined with podcasts (it has to be said they're only half-hearted about digital, because it's just a reproduction of the print format, not re-thought for the Web).

If there is hope, I'm pretty sure it lies in existing print magazines, with experience in commissioning and editing material (curating knowledge) going on line and exploring what they can do. I really hope, and kind of believe, that it should be possible to sustain "publications" of even more specialist interest than the old magazines whose passing we mourn. Given that in a lot of cases, good writing can be had from people who will see it as a remunerative hobby, not a livelihood, it ought to be possible to keep something going with only a very small number of full-time staff, and very little in the way of costs for physical things.

Basically, it wouldn't be hard to be better than Wikipedia (useful though it is), but to make money it will need to be consistently a lot better.

And good luck to everyone concerned.