By: Wyvernfan - 21st February 2015 at 07:23
One of the most important is the physical task of finding the material. I think a lot of people would be astonished to know just how difficult it can be these days. For example, returning to the subject of Phantoms, I put a lot of effort into getting access to the countless images in the McDonnell archives. But they now belong to Boeing, and getting even a handful of images requires weeks of processing and a huge amount of money that is simply unaffordable. www.aeroplaneicons.com
Twitter – Aeroplane Icons
That’s something I personally find very frustrating. The national museums have literally thousands of images and negs that have never seen the light of day – and probably never will!
I am not sure on the quality of magazines . Looking at the spread of subjects covered in early FlyPasts – you would be hard pressed to recognise it now
In comparison. I think in the late eighties the cult of the warbird started to affect both Aeroplane and FlyPast – that has been to the detriment of everything else.
Indeed. As much as I like Flypast in my opinion it has moved away from grass roots preservation since the early days!
Rob
By: David Burke - 21st February 2015 at 06:13
I am not sure on the quality of magazines . Looking at the spread of subjects covered in early FlyPasts – you would be hard pressed to recognise it now
In comparison. I think in the late eighties the cult of the warbird started to affect both Aeroplane and FlyPast – that has been to the detriment of everything else.
By: WH904 - 21st February 2015 at 00:15
Glad to hear that you were pleased with the F-4 edition in the Icons series FalkeEins. The comments on this thread are certainly interesting and as a slightly obsessed enthusiast I obviously share some of the likes, dislikes and frustrations that have been expressed. I’ll add my ha’peth for what it’s worth… Naturally, commercial considerations are vitally important – if publications don’t sell then they disappear, it’s that simple. But it would be wrong to imagine that publishers (particularly ones such as Key Publishing) are oblivious to the interests of enthusiasts. Quite the contrary in fact, as the publications are inevitably produced by enthusiasts. Certainly from my viewpoint, I always try to produce material that I think I would want to read myself and although I have my own tastes (like anyone else would), I’m old and ugly enough to understand that we all have different likes and dislikes. The reason that things are how they are is generally due to many factors. One main factor is a perception of what is likely to be most popular with the most readers of course, but there are many other factors too. One of the most important is the physical task of finding the material. I think a lot of people would be astonished to know just how difficult it can be these days. For example, returning to the subject of Phantoms, I put a lot of effort into getting access to the countless images in the McDonnell archives. But they now belong to Boeing, and getting even a handful of images requires weeks of processing and a huge amount of money that is simply unaffordable.
Similar problems exist with other sources of good material. For example, countless images have disappeared into the IWM archives and to retrieve them costs money – publishing them costs even more. The frustrating aspect of this is that they were once Crown Copyright PR images that were handed-out for free! Likewise, a lot of material has simply disappeared. The huge collection of images in our own Aeroplane archive has been saved largely by chance rather than design. Thousands of photographs (mostly negatives) were simply trashed decades ago, and it was only through the wisdom of some individuals (and a lot of luck) that so many unique images have survived. Horrors of this nature happen all the time. BAE heritage at Brough have very little material on the British Phantoms because virtually all of it was dumped before anyone thought abut saving it. Harry Holmes at BAE Heritage Woodford rescued a lot of Lancaster material from a skip!
These are just examples of the problems that can affect the choice of subjects, style and content, etc., in any aviation publication. So it’s not a case of readers’ preferences being ignored, it’s more a case of doing the best with what is available. I know it’s easy to imagine that publishers somehow opt for the easiest routes and churn-out material with little regard to the interests of enthusiasts. But that really isn’t the case. Certainly with regard to the Icons series, Key have allowed me complete freedom to produce the series as I think is best, in terms of written and pictorial content, style and subject choice. I think that is a pretty commendable attitude. Doesn’t mean that I’m always right of course (I wish!) but it does illustrate how the publications are effectively produced by enthusiasts, not faceless editorial staff who don’t know a Boeing from a Beardmore.
I think another issue is that we can often have a slightly over-affectionate view of the past. I’ve fallen into this trap many times myself. For example, the late, great “Aircraft Illustrated” has been mentioned previously. I was saddened to witness its demise, having bought every issue since it began. But when one flicks through the early editions from all those years ago, it’s clear that they were really nothing to get too excited about. I think we often imagine that the magazines and books we remember for many years ago are far better than they really were. Practically-speaking, the quality of today’s magazines is better than ever. It’s just that we’ve become accustomed to better (or different) things. Okay, I accept that nothing is ever perfect, but I would at least like to emphasise that the tastes and interests of enthusiasts are certainly not being ignored… even if you might be worrying that they are!
Twitter – Aeroplane Icons
By: Moggy C - 19th February 2015 at 14:20
Doubtless it will.
By: longshot - 18th February 2015 at 15:36
I’m a little puzzled that Aeroplane monthly doesn’t get a Sticky at the top of this forum….it does get feedback here
By: FalkeEins - 18th February 2015 at 14:50
..indeed we can…but after what happened to ‘Aircraft’ (‘Classic Aircraft’) I’m not hopeful. Personally I find it a little disappointing that Key now own just about every decent UK aviation magazine. For the reader this simply means too wide a ‘spread’ of articles/subjects. How can Key expect to be able to generate any ‘brand loyalty’ ? Take the current issues on the shelves; the ‘Bear’ feature in Aviation News – which looked very good – could so easily have appeared in Combat Aircraft or AFM or even AI. I won’t buy AN for one article, equally I probably won’t buy either of the other three mags since the ‘Bear’ article doesn’t feature there – bit of a ‘lose lose’ situation for the publisher as far my monthly tenner to spend on mags goes- my purchases are ‘casual’ at the best of times. I did however buy FP for Ian Black’s RAF F-4 feature, where arguably it wouldn’t ordinarily feature! But that’s probably because BaW looks much like FP nowadays too as someone already mentioned! Two positive points though ; good to see Ben D back – loved Aircraft and Classic Aircraft – and Tim in charge at Aeroplane Icons – the F-4 title looks very good indeed, presumably based on his excellent Classic title. More power to his elbow. Unfortunately AMW also have an F-4 special on the shelves currently, which I shall probably not bother with.
There’s a lot of flag-waving on previous pages here about the quality of the UK aviation mag scene. For quality though I don’t think we beat ‘Avions’, ‘Le Fana de l’Aviation’, ‘Aerojournal’ & ‘Airfan’, four quality, independent (from each other), bi-monthly (for the most part) mags from France…not to mention the German ‘Jet & Prop’ which covers classic & modern in full colour, and -shock, horror – features rather more interesting and ‘off-the-wall’ subjects than the occasionally somewhat parochial (ie RAF/USAF) UK mags.
By: Glen Mhor - 20th October 2014 at 12:28
In the past Aeroplane managed to achieve a unique balance between articles and photographs, civil and military, a reggie type content and good reviews and letters. Sadly lacking lately but looking back through issues of the 1980s and 1990s is a great model, but that’s looking back and maybe not the way the magazine is going to go. We can live in hope.
By: avion ancien - 19th October 2014 at 18:46
I’ll put my hands up. I prefer the erudite, learned journal approach. But I know that I’m in a minority. So I don’t expect the mainstream to adapt to my tastes. I just spend my limited budget where I’m most likely to get that which most appeals to me.
By: charliehunt - 19th October 2014 at 12:54
And one would like to think that the attraction of a more “colourful” presentation would attract younger enthusiasts, who are the life blood of the future. It is easy to sit in a bubble of history but that won’t help to sustain the heritage we have have enjoyed.
By: scotavia - 19th October 2014 at 12:34
There are other publications available if you want dense areas of text, well researched listings some diagrams and images and few if any adverts.These are members journals and a world leader is Air Britain.Also Cross and Cockade is another example. A search on aviation research history via google will produce more. Some content is better suited to a book and thanks to the on line sources it is a lot easier to find specialist titles.
As a subscriber to Aeroplane Monthly I take part in regular market research sent to me by the editorial team. One result has been an increase in workshop articles.
It is not dumbing down to write in a non technical manner and also explain background to events when not all readers have specialised knowledge.Photo content and design of layout has to keep up with wider trends otherwise the end result looks dated and browsers will avoid purchase.
By: Harvard 4 - 19th October 2014 at 12:14
I completely agree Avion, and Flypast and Aeroplane are, sadly, far from being alone in dumbing-down for the masses. Sad, but if it’s what they feel they have to do in order to survive then that’s what’ll happen. A quality magazine that approach does not necessarily make, it simply produces one that will sell the required volume. However, it’s an approach that almost all aspects of the print and broadcast media seem to be taking, along with many other facets of industry. Fair play for them taking that approach, it’s just not for me that’s all.
By: avion ancien - 19th October 2014 at 11:15
But I wonder – is that what the majority of the readers of Aeroplane and FlyPast want? Surely if it is, their publisher would not swim against the tide. Maybe the modern audience for these publications differs significantly from that of the 1980s. Maybe the modern audience – or, at least, the majority of that – prefers ‘picture post’ magazines to ‘learned journals’. After all, it’s not just Aeroplane and FlyPast which employs this style of journalistic presentation. It’s to be found widely across the magazines that fill the shelves of the newsagents. Thus is it not reasonable to assume that the publishers have done their market research and thereby are providing what they perceive to be what the market desires? Is it not usually the case that ‘the public gets what the public wants’? If I’m right, as for the minority, they may shout from the sidelines but they are unlikely to achieve a turning back of the clocks. However their tastes can be catered for – one only has to look at the low circulation/postal distribution/subscription journals that exist. Structured carefully, such magazines can be successful – or, at least, not loss making – although their publishers are unlikely ever to move into the mainstream or become ‘filthy rich’. I suspect that it is to such journals that those who want something more erudite must – and maybe will – turn, rather than adopting a Canutian approach to Aeroplane and FlyPast.
By: Harvard 4 - 19th October 2014 at 10:32
Paper? I’m an aviation enthusiast, not a fancier of quality wood pulp products. I couldn’t care less about the quality of the paper the magazine is printed on, nor I have to say am I worried about B&W pictures. The reason I buy a magazine (or generally don’t these days) is the quality of the journalism and depth of the articles. There is a reason there was an abundance of text in the 80’s, and that’s because articles were covered in much greater depth, better researched, and to me at least of much greater relevance.
By: Seafuryfan - 18th October 2014 at 23:49
I’m sure you don’t mean Cheap paper and loads of black and white, in fairness there was loads of text.
By: Harvard 4 - 18th October 2014 at 23:22
At the risk of taking a great deal of flak, any chance we may see Flypast returned to it’s once former glory of 30 or so years ago?
By: WH904 - 18th October 2014 at 21:33
Notwithstanding the debate and comment here, it is absolutely the intention of Key Publishing to grow and develop the magazine, side-by-side with FlyPast, and to restore it to its former glories.
The popular Aeroplane Icons series is also forging ahead 🙂
Tim (Editor – Icons series)
By: charliehunt - 18th October 2014 at 19:14
Hopefully!;)
By: avion ancien - 18th October 2014 at 19:03
If I might speak metaphorically, has the fat lady now sung?
By: charliehunt - 18th October 2014 at 18:03
Good to have that endorsement, Andy!
By: Sopwith - 18th October 2014 at 17:51
Well that’s good to hear Andy. Here’s hoping that they succeed with it then.
Sign In
September 22, 2014 at 7:53 pm