Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.
Mr. Jones ~
Actually, I’ve been subscribing to “Flying” now for about 30 years, and find it to be an informative source of aviation information that complements other sources quite well. One must recognize the potential for influence by advertisers in any publication that accepts advertising, which makes complementary sources - such as Aviation Consumer, Light Plane Maintenance and even these threads - valuable also. But in the final analysis, if the editorial staff of any publication prostitutes itself in favor of its advertisers, it will not long last, and “Flying” has been with us for over 50 years now, and continues to go strong.
Oh, and lest you be the one among us who has never made a mistake, sometimes honest oversights do occur.
Pete
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.
I like Flying. It focuses a bit too much on high end airplanes for my taste, but I find the quality of its writing and the professionalism of its layout and graphics to be far superior to any other aviation magazine.
Other magazines often have typos and other editorial annoyances like pictures that are poorly placed and captioned making it hard to relate them to the articles they illustrate.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
Joe
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.
OK, I give. I was too tough on Flying. I just don’t read anything critical in it. We all know there are problems with some new aircraft. Flying just doesn’t seem to be as up-front with these things. I think critical reviews help to inspire aircraft makers to be inovative and to use the latest technologies in manufacturing. Overall though it’s sales that count… so as long as people keep buying the old stuff they will keep producing it. I guess I should just stay quite, so the queue stays manageble for the SRXX’s.
The Turbocharged skylane is an absolutely fantastic plane-I have had mine for two fabulous years-flying has never been better!>Mr. Jones ~
Actually, I’ve been subscribing to “Flying” now for about 30 years, and find it to be an informative source of aviation information that complements other sources quite well. One must recognize the potential for influence by advertisers in any publication that accepts advertising, which makes complementary sources - such as Aviation Consumer, Light Plane Maintenance and even these threads - valuable also. But in the final analysis, if the editorial staff of any publication prostitutes itself in favor of its advertisers, it will not long last, and “Flying” has been with us for over 50 years now, and continues to go strong.
Oh, and lest you be the one among us who has never made a mistake, sometimes honest oversights do occur.
Pete
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.
Boris,
Hope you have a thick skin. You will need it if
you spend much time in this forum!
Greg
The Turbocharged skylane is an absolutely fantastic plane-I have had mine for two fabulous years-flying has never been better!>Mr. Jones ~
Actually, I’ve been subscribing to “Flying” now for about 30 years, and find it to be an informative source of aviation information that complements other sources quite well. One must recognize the potential for influence by advertisers in any publication that accepts advertising, which makes complementary sources - such as Aviation Consumer, Light Plane Maintenance and even these threads - valuable also. But in the final analysis, if the editorial staff of any publication prostitutes itself in favor of its advertisers, it will not long last, and “Flying” has been with us for over 50 years now, and continues to go strong.
Oh, and lest you be the one among us who has never made a mistake, sometimes honest oversights do occur.
Pete
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.
I like Flying. It focuses a bit too much on high end airplanes for my taste, but I find the quality of its writing and the professionalism of its layout and graphics to be far superior to any other aviation magazine.
Other magazines often have typos and other editorial annoyances like pictures that are poorly placed and captioned making it hard to relate them to the articles they illustrate.
IMHO, YMMV, etc.
Joe
I enjoy Flying, but it is a bit high brow. Dick Collins is definitely a flying snob, who has had it out for the parachute since its inception. I understand he took an SR22 for a ride recently and an article will appear shortly in Flying. Let’s see what he has to say about it in comparrison to the T182.
Based upon my memory of the T182 article, here is how the two planes should stack-up:
Price/value: tie
Speed: SR22
Range: SR22
Rate of Climb: SR22
Payload w/FF SR22
Comfort: SR22
O2: T182
Your Father’s airplane: T182
Not your Father’s airplane: SR22
Ease/reliability of maintenance: 182 (service centers all over)
Avionics: SR22
Altitude: 182 (I think)
Fuel Consumption: SR22
Visability: SR22
Sex appeal: SR22
Final score: SR22 9, C-T182 4! No contest, & we didn’t even disucss the parachute!
There is one more factor: Which airplane does Paul Traina Fly? The SR22 of course!
MHO/YMMV
Anyone who gets “Flying” mag. check out the July issue page 81. I picked this up at a news stand and it just confirmed why I don’t subscribe to it. They have a pict. of the O2 system and in this pict. it clearly shows the O2 meter was mounted upside-down!
Seems “Flying”'s love afair with anyone that advertises in thier mag. back fired here. They where so blinded to the truth of looking at rehashed 30 year old spam-can technology, they didn’t even bother checking there own photos, making Cessna look as bad as they are!.