Jim,

You're right about the troll-like tone of Christley's attack post.

A little background: He's miffed at me because of some past threads where he
didn't appreciate being corrected on some technical points.

Also thanks for pointing out the importance of editorial integrity in
enthusiast magazines. The vast majority of these magazines are nothing but
shills for industry, with the car magazines being the worst.

I buy most of the aviation rags -- but mostly for the entertainment value
and the pictures. There is very little real info to be had in any of them,
with the notable exception of Peter Garrison in Flying who has always
provided very insightful writing. Full props to Dick Collins too, who is
probably the most weather-knowledgable guy out there and can really talk
common sense when it comes to safety.

The most readable and honest aviation journalist I have ever read is John
Deakin who used to write a column for AVweb, but has been on a hiatus
lately. Here is a great storyteller with all kinds of flying adventures from
a long and colorful career. He is one of the most well-rounded pilots you
will ever come across with terrific insight into all aspects of airmanship
and a great technical knowledge of the mechanical side of aircraft as well.
A real airman in the classic sense of the word and a great writer too.

Mike Busch is also an honest and very readable writer and can also be found
on AVweb. For anyone who hasn't discovered these guys yet, go to AVweb and
read every one of their back columns. Yuu will get more real honest info
than reading the newstand aviation magazines for a hundred years.

Regards,

Gordon.



"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:44:24 GMT, Ernest Christley
wrote:

This is the tragi-comic state of "journalism" in the enthusiast magazine
sector. The bottom line is that the reader counts for zero, while the
advertiser is king. And issues like safety and price-gouging are swept
under
the carpet by editorial apologists.


Bzzt! Wrong. The reader accounts for about $4.50 per magazine. That
just barely will cover the cost of printing...maybe. The major revenue,
the money that will keep the lights on, comes from....you guessed
it...the advertisers!!! And guess, what...I don't give money to people
who say bad things about me. And I don't ask that from others. You
could have kept Flying honest if you were willing to open your
checkbook. But of course, as is all to typical now days, you expect
others to sacrifice to coddle you.

This is bordering on troll territotory, but I will bite.

I think he expects what everyone else expects. An honest review.
Anything less than that is just marketing. I have a susbscrition to
Flying, but I'll be damned if I am going to buy the magazine if it's
just a schill for the aviation comanpies.

There are plenty of "Marketing" mags out there for many industries.
All they are is marketing slicks and maybe an occasional fluff
article. They beg you to get a free subscribtion so their demos are
better and advertising revenue goes up. That not what I expect from
Flying. If I pay, I expect information.

The thing you forget about in you money equaiton. Advertising pays
the bills, but without subscribers, their advertising doesn't bring in
squat.

I used to subscribe to a SCUBA magazine that was pretty good in the
past, but then it really started regurgitating the marketing slicks
that the regulator companies produced. So I stopped subscribing.
They didn't miss me perhaps but that rag is known in the industry as a
hack magazine and I think that the only people that subscribe are
newbies that don't know any better. Their revenue is currently
suffereing.



Want a magazine that tells the truth and isn't worried about advertisers
(cause they don't have any), the subscribe to "Consumer Reports".


Good magazine. Doesn't have a lot to do with aviation.


Maybe you can be that enterprising individual that is so much smarter
than all the guys-n-gals that are giving it their all, Gordon.
Personally, I've been building my Delta for over 3yrs now, in conditions
not far removed from the Allegro's that are being put together down in
Sanford. If I was expecting to feed and house my family from building
airplanes, I'd have to look at $100K as fairly minimal.

Hope your plane turns out well.

And I would expect that most of your equipment is idle while you are
working on one particular part. This is called inefficiency of
production. I'm betting Allegro is using an assembly line concept
that is a little more efficient with their resources.

If not, than that's the problem.


Furthermore, sportsplanes will be a marginal part of the aviation scene,
even if the planes were available for $25k. You don't make any money
with a light plane. They can't even be used as a serious mode of
transportation with most pilots, because the weather can rise up at any
time and destroy the best laid plans. Very few people could even use
one to get to work. They are toys, and they will always be toys until
someone finds a way to make money with them other than building and
selling them or giving flight training. That keeps the market volume
low, which drives the price up.

Agreed, but even toys have to reasonably priced.

So, get over the price-gouging bull, until your ready to introduce the
Arnaut CloudWunker costing less than an average family sedan. If you
don't like the prices of the products of offering to you, don't buy it.


He isn't buying. That's the point.

Jim

http://www.unconventional-wisdom.org