Feb 2017 isn't it great that a…,

A Spitfire/Mustang/Lancaster/B-17 etc census is relatively easy…The hard part is deciding what warrants being called a project as opposed to a box of parts dug up from a crash site. IIRC, last year a poster proclaimed the existence of a “new B-17 project”, but the news turned lukewarm when it was apparent that the collection of small parts was a long was from a project.

Also, some owners seem very reticent about their various remnants/projects/aircraft.
Why that is, I don’t know but in the hobby there are secretive owners and their friends who like to play the “I know something you don’t know” schoolyard game.

Another problem is keeping track of preserved examples of more common or newer “warbird” types, many of which are still being scrapped as collections close…or types in wide use and are wrecked in private use.

I also miss the survivors list but have a theory why its been dropped. It takes too much time to maintain a database which is considered accurate enough? Sure they could do a copy and paste job from Wiki but those type of sources lag behind.

Not sure what you mean by this – it is not as if new examples of old types are unearthed everyday, or even every month, so adding one when it is revealed is not that difficult, unless maintaining the database is down to one person in addition to their other work. Now starting off the database might be the stumbling block, unless you copy and pasted from somewhere else and not concern yourself with whether their research is accurate.

Out of interest how many Spitfires were rediscovered last year, and other types as well? What types, if any, were resurrected from extinction and what types have are on the verge?
Now maybe there is an annual article for a future Flypast…

I also miss the survivors list but have a theory why its been dropped. It takes too much time to maintain a database which is considered accurate enough? Sure they could do a copy and paste job from Wiki but those type of sources lag behind.

Hi All,
Speaking as just an enthusiast I enjoy both FP and Aeroplane, the only niggle with me has been the survivors list at the end of whatever aircraft they are featuring as a special for whatever reason Flypast stopped doing that my favourite special are the From The Workshop.

As far as to many spitfires in Flypast could be the following 1. Spitfires are easier and cheaper to restore. 2.There just are not that many people having or wanting to spend x-amount of millions on other aircraft particularly warbirds as an example the Beaufighter at Duxford ?

Geoff.

I bought an occasional copy of Flypast and finally got a subscription 2 years ago.
I look forward to the last week of the month when the latest copy lands.
There are a wide range of articles including Cold War subjects.
I experimented with a couple of iPad issues but unfortunately I’d actually forget it was on there and didn’t enjoy a magazine on a tablet, I much prefer to have the latest issue lying around to read during a spare moment.
I am also weighing up a subscription to Combat Aircraft because my aviation interests cover pretty much everything from WW1 up to the present day.
As for the dear old Spitfire I can’t get enough of it ! I joined the legions of others who have flown/flown in one last year and my affection for the Spitfire family has grown even more .
That said, it isn’t my favourite aircraft of all time, that accolade goes to a design that first flew 36 years after the Spit and is still flying very effectively today and despite efforts to bin it 😉

Thank you Andy for the editorial viewpoint, I do not mind the variety and the choices now are much greater, we expect colour content when in the days of my youth we were eventually given a colour cover…Air Pictorial or a free insert in Flight International (much treasured were the Charles Brown air to airs). I only have one small moan, can someone ask the graphic designer to leave all of the aircraft in the print version (Flypast) he keeps clipping wingtips off and ease up on the rivet ridden underprint designs.

I bought it yesterday, because of the Spitfire articles, couldn’t help it really, as I’m an eternal optimist hoping to learn something new re Spitfires. In fairness, we all expect a lot from magazines now. When Flypast started in the beginning it was a breath of fresh air as there was nothing like it and it was more “specialist”,if that’s the right word but now it has become more commercialised and lost something along the way.

(No Peppa Pig, though!)

Cannot help thinking you are missing out on the opportunities of kiddy pester power there…

I can only speak for another Key title, Britain at War.

Although one reader suggested:- ‘when in doubt, throw in a Spitfire article…’ it is a fact that such articles are generally very popular. And that is also the case with our magazine, too.

To keep magazines like these in business it is essential to compete with the clamour of other magazines (and not necessarily just competing titles) and to stand out on the newsagent’s shelves. In this respect, a cover illustration of a Spitfire or a Lancaster, say, and with related content, can have a positive impact on sales. Something ‘iconic’ on the cover (and not just the main image) is always our aim at Britain at War, and when we don’t do that then the corresponding figures can sometimes be quite noticeable. There is a tale, for instance, about a children’s cartoon magazine which has a myriad of characters on each cover. Sometimes, though, the publisher noticed that sales slumped. When the figures were analysed against the covers, one thing stood out; the poorly performing editions didn’t have Peppa Pig somewhere on the cover. As the most popular character (apparently) among kids of a certain age, those kids didn’t pressure Mum or Dad to buy one if they couldn’t see Peppa! Broadly, the same applies to any magazine cover (and content) which needs to appeal to the wider potential audience.

All I can add is that I know that the editorial teams across all titles work really very hard to produce magazines that are ‘right’ for their respective target audiences, but are always keen to hear the views of readers or those with an interest in the subject matter. Pleasing all of the people all of the time is something of a challenge, though! 😉

Meanwhile, you wouldn’t expect me not to sign off with a reminder that the January issue of Britain at War is now on sale. And yes, it has a Spitfire on the cover – albeit behind a Messerschmitt 109! (No Peppa Pig, though!) So,rush out now and buy one to read over the holidays.

Happy New Year!

In combat service?
.

No, of course not, don’t get hung up on the book title. Tony has located a DH blueprint dated Jan 1942 for a Mosquito derivative that was to be powered by two Halford H1s and given the inspiring name of Aeroplane A 🙂
I guess what it shows is that you get a better range of articles in Aeroplane than in Flypast although even then there is a lot of repetition. A better bet is the quarterly magazine that cannot be mentioned here, far better for the dedicated aviation historian 😉

I din;t have much use for the general interest coffee table books…but as usual there are some exceptions to the rule.

Examples:
The Great Planes by UK journalist and owner of Pilot Magazine, the late James Gilbert. He took his own excellent photos to go along with his excellent chapters on various types (Spitfire, Moth, Mustang, Boeing jetliner).

Classic Aircraft by Walter Boyne. Published by the Smithsonian, it provides as you might expect general histories of various types, matched with period photos and modern paintings from well known aviation artists.

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Propeller Airliners by Bill Gunston. From 1980, it profiles well known and obscure types with nice artwork. The stereotypical coffee table book it redeems itself my being a handy one volume source for histories of lesser types.

Ernest K. Mann’s Flying Circus. Classic airliners (plus the Mossie) are profiled and illustrated by a single painting. Not technical by any means but worth reading for Gann’s thoughts.

Ah, you need to get hold of a copy of Aeroplane winter 2013, or British Experimental Combat Aircraft of WW2, both by Tony Buttler

In combat service? My informant (a former colleague who shared an interest in aviation with me) believed their reporter had got a Mosquito mixed up with a Canberra and travelled back in time to serve in WWII on the verbal meanderings of some old chap trying his best to explain his war service.

Not even there; all Churchills I believe.

Indeed. Not my strong point (some will ask what is) but I did know there were no Shermans (Shermen?) at Dunkirk, and I can identify one from the other. Usually.

I bought a subscription for my nephew when he was in secondary school and I’ve always called it a “dentist office” magazine….in other words, designed for general audiences who might have a slight interest in aviation history, but hardly one for serious students with a firm background, or those interested in “nuts and bolts” technology.

Something for the coffee table, maybe?
We used to have large format books with large glossy, colour pictures of vintage aeroplanes (sometimes with an ‘N’ registration and ‘Confederate Air Force’ painted on the rear fuselage) with no indication in the tiny caption that the machine was preserved nor that the image was not a period piece. The sort of thing an aunt might buy for her nephew on hearing he was interested in airplanes, chiefly because there were pictures of aeroplanes in it, any old aeroplanes in no real order other than (maybe) chronological, a Boeing Peashooter (or whatever) across one spread, followed by a Dakota (in some colourful civil scheme with unremarked upon scenic windows), followed by a Lancaster (THE Lancaster, the only one flying at that time, and without the upper turret too…), large and in colour, with a title like The Everyman’s Book of Aviation and, probably most importantly, it was cheap.

I used to have several.

For articles covering all eras, diverse types and different countries I thoroughly recommend Air and Space magazine from the Smithsonian.
Cheers Paul

I’ve never been a huge fan.
I bought a subscription for my nephew when he was in secondary school and I’ve always called it a “dentist office” magazine….in other words, designed for general audiences who might have a slight interest in aviation history, but hardly one for serious students with a firm background, or those interested in “nuts and bolts” technology.

I never took to Flypast as it just told me superficial war stories about things I already knew. I preferred Aeroplane Monthly because of the purely historical articles like the excellent series they did on the 20s and 30s RAF aircraft, but when they started doing those “specials” on common aircraft some years ago I dropped it as well. I couldn’t see the point in spending money on magazines that just repeated what I already knew.

I would guess that the general-interest consumers keep aviation- and military-themed magazines afloat, not the relatively few of us who can wax eloquently about the differences between a Mk this and a Mk that version of an aircraft type. It is economic reality, most likely, that leads editors to target a certain audience…with popular interests (as in “Spitfires”), same as for newspapers, movies, TV, etc. Give ’em what they want, at least to a point, because there has to be in-depth historical research presented, as well.

Fortunately, the Internet gives real in-the-weeds aeronuts forums for sharing the seemingly trivial fine points. They’re anything but trivia to some.

The dozens of Sherman tanks apparently left behind during the evacuation at Dunkirk, according to one old soldier (maybe he was thinking of Dieppe,

Not even there; all Churchills I believe.

For articles covering all eras, diverse types and different countries I thoroughly recommend Air and Space magazine from the Smithsonian.
Cheers Paul

When something on the aircraft type beginning with S is posted here you can expect very soon to read negative posts about it. Which I find a very negative turn of events and downgrades this forum. Perhaps more people should post more about other types, which is absolutely welcome. I don’t care which type is posted on, I like em all (except Vulcans).:D
Cees

Has anyone had negative posts about Stirlings Cees? Just teasing 🙂

But at least the recent issue did cover our efforts with the S(tirling)

John

….. not to mention a jet engined Mosquito apparently mentioned in the Daily Mail a while ago….

Ah, you need to get hold of a copy of Aeroplane winter 2013, or British Experimental Combat Aircraft of WW2, both by Tony Buttler

I think I started a similar thread when aeroplane upped their game. Merge the two and be done with it (I hate saying that) but the interweb thing has killed off so many news stories before they reach print.

And even though it’s intresting why so many news items from Argentina? ?