I posted a question on the General Discussion forum, seeking opinions from forum members about the relative merits of Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly. One of the members thought that it should have been posted here and from the poor feedback, perhaps he was right.
Rather than repeating myself, might I ask members to read that post and respond here as to what their feelings are about the merits of the two magazines? I read both every month, and feel that each has its strong points, but I agree with some other members recently that the content of Flypast needs updating, particularly in relation to aviation archelogical matters.
What do you think?
Regards
Wombat
By: JASE - 30th December 2002 at 10:56
RE: Wrong forum
I would like to see more archeology,and a few more follow ups from the news sections.As you right in saying there are sites on the webb dealing with restoration matters,but Flypast used to be a great place to hear about them.
By: SpitfireAce - 29th December 2002 at 23:32
RE: Wrong forum
>>>>quarterly reports on progress on major projects, such as the FW-189. I know they have a web-site, but I think there is room for this kind of article in the mags.<<<<
Totally agree.
By: Wombat - 26th December 2002 at 20:40
RE: Wrong forum
Neilly
I think you’re right about the merits of both mags. I buy them each month regardless of content and always enjoy the read.
I agree with you about the excessive comment regarding Lancs and Spits, perhaps Mustangs could be included. I particularly enjoy the historical articles regarding squadron operations, histories and personal stories, but have little interest in air-show reports, and I do think that Flypast overdoes those. Others may well disagree – perhaps it’s because I reside so far from the few air-show venues in Australia and have never actually been to one.
I haven’t really thought about the excessive coverage of American aviation – perhaps that’s included in the air-shows.
Whatever, I will continue to purchase both mags, but would like to see a return to the archeological reporting, as neither magazine covers that in great detail.
The other area I would like to see is quarterly reports on progress on major projects, such as the FW-189. I know they have a web-site, but I think there is room for this kind of article in the mags.
Regards
Wombat
By: neilly - 25th December 2002 at 11:55
RE: Wrong forum
Hi Wombat,
As someone who subscibes to both magazines (& have done for many years), I like both formats & I’m quite happy with Flypast. The only comments that I do have to make about Flypast is:
There’s too many articles to do with American aviation. There’s not enough veriety in the articles on Bomber & Fighter Command, by which I mean Lancasters & Spitfires are to heavily featured. These are, in my opinion, only slight niggles & Flypast is an excellent mag.
Cheers,
Neilly
Sign In
December 24, 2002 at 11:13 am