I would love to see the front cover of the January 2016 issue, but it has still not arrived in the post. As a subscriber, I find that when publication dates are changed, the first couple of issues always arrive after the shops get theirs. AND, I know it is coming up to that well known extravaganza called Christmas, and the postmen are doubled over with extra heavy sacks, but I do wish the publishers would leave things alone. If it ain’t broke……….!!

Plus of course, if it really is the January 2016 issue you’re waiting for, isn’t it a month early? (I am aware of this daft situation – but why is it so?)

A few of G-AMPO before, during and after, at Lyneham:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242458[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242459[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242460[/ATTACH]

Lt Lucien Arsine Amedee (Bernard?): 66 Sqn Camel pilot in Italy at this time. He was Canadian.

Edit: crash refers to 9th May 1918 (Camel B7389): he was slightly injured in a forced landing near Legnago after losing his formation and becoming lost on an OP.

I’d contact the RAF Museum, who will have a copy of his Casualty Card (the A4-sized one, not the smaller index card available on their Vault website).

Service record is also available at the National Archives website.

Have you tried Classic Wings magazine from New Zealand? Top quality writing, amazing paper, photography and printing. It’s not that big but it leaves you wanting more of the same unlike the current state of FP. I find Classic Wings very similar outlook to early-mid period Warbirds Worldwide before it lost its way and just became “Mustangs Monthly” and a vehicle for advertising the venture of one of its sponsors…

Oh and there’s none of that overprinting or lines of computer graphic rivets messing up the pages! It’s a magazine by enthusiasts for enthusiasts with hardly any repetition of news articles from over here.

Personally I am enjoying the resurgence of Aeroplane under Ben’s leadership. The paper is better than the Izal stuff being used by the previous publisher but we are never going to see the quality that Aircraft Illustrated used to have again. The magazine went right down the toilet under the previous man at the helm and everyone I know in the warbird community had stopped buying it as a result. The mix of civil and military has improved and there are no endless articles on BBMF or Guy Gibson…
Flypast need to get a grip of quality control as the page design layout is a total mess, difficult to read and the product of some art director trying to sensationalise the content of the articles. The material should be able to stand on it’s own without the need for rivets and bullet holes across the text. And don’t get me started on those hideous computer graphic representations of Beaufighters etc. The covers of Airfix boxes 40 years ago were more realistic and I know because I was making those models!

Roobarb,

I have several issues of CW from some years ago (used to be CW Down Under?) and I liked it a great deal. I must get round to placing a subscription.

And I’d forgotten about those ‘CGI’ images in FP: another sign of dumbing-down, and an attempt to do it on the cheap I feel.

Here is a page from one of the reports. I now believe they are tablets of stone, note the United Kingdom total

I have these reports too, but they are not MDAP-specific documents (USAF Statistical Digest – IIRC they cover all USAF annual reporting, not just MDAP and thus are considerably redacted). They also don’t cover negotiations on aircraft which didn’t eventually receive Gift Aid. As I mentioned, you’d need a good trawl through TNA to finally confirm that Valiants were never under discussion.

Edit: this one from FY 1957 is more telling: it shows Hunters and Mysteres among indigenous MAP-funded types, but nothing non-US in ‘bombers’.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]242392[/ATTACH]

I can’t add much to what TonyT has already said.

But two specific items which might help would be better-quality paper, and more in-depth coverage of the ‘Database’ than the current version: these sections used to list survivors for a start: OK that’s difficult when it comes to types which have hundreds of extant airframes, but it doesn’t excuse its omission for all. And I know that cost will be an issue, but currently it means we have two very similar, cheap magazines.

Other than that I just feel that the major articles are a bit predictable. Sorry to be so negative because I did used to really look forward to reading Aeroplane.

I must admit I’ve been checking the post for the last week as it would normally have been here by now but if they are introducing a “gap” from Flypast that makes sense. After 2 weeks I’m ready for another magazine 🙂

Well I just picked up a couple-month old issue of Flypast and was done in 30 minutes, so I’m impressed that you somehow got 2 weeks out of the magazine.

‘My’ issue contained a couple of nice articles, sadly not particularly in-depth, but all spoilt by sloppy production, poor-quality paper and poorly-presented text and articles. Every page seemed to have some kind of background (either colour blocks, text or a photo), and overall its presentation did not make it look like something one would want to read. I know it’s been like that for some time, and I know there will be an argument for appealing to mass-market sales, but that would be missing the point.

Compare with many other magazines around (the unsurpassed Automobil Sport from Germany being a very prominent example – though obviously not aviation-related, and closer to home (and aviation-related) the gorgeous production standards of the Cross & Cockade Journal being two very good examples) and it’s obvious that ‘quality’ can be done in a news stand magazine. So it seems we still have a massive hole in the UK market for a quality, global historic aviation magazine.

Sadly I now put Aeroplane in the ‘trash mag’ category, which is a shame.