OTF Vol 18, #2

[Cigogne]

Stephen,

Yes, the latest issue of Cross & Cockade is great! Todd does great with his artwork and Hannes Täger has done a fantastic job on his "Training in the German Air Force" article. Plus, that cover Roland C.II being trailed the the SE is fantastic!

John G.

Hey, did you just copy and paste that from the last time you said that? I could have sworn that you said the exact same thing last year! A4 or no, there are some differences in page count. Let's do the math together, shall we?

Cross & Cockade = 68 pgs. per issue (plus 4 pgs. color covers = 72 pgs.)

Over The Front = 96 pgs. per issue (plus 4 pgs. color covers = 100 pgs.)

Cross & Cockade per year = 272 pgs (plus 4 pgs. color covers = 288 pgs per year)

Over The Front per year = 384 pgs (plus 16 pgs. color covers = 400 pgs per year)

You don't have to be a math wizard to see that is a difference of 112 pgs per year... almost an extra 1.5 issues of content if you compare it page for page w/ Cross & Cockade... and it ain't just Author bios and white space! White space, hmmmph!

Just a word about white space. That is a design practice to aid the reader. Type that is too dense fatigues the eye. Many of our respective members are older and so important design considerations such as white space aid them by making for a cleaner layout and allowing the eye to "breath". The same w/ type orientation. If body text is justified instead of ragged right, the reader can lose his/her place. These are design practices that are commonly used. Go to any fine newstand and look at the best publications... design is an important practice to build the character of a publication. If you compare a publication merely by how much type you can cram on a page... that is a mistake, and frankly pointless. I'm not saying that is what C&C does. They have a very attractive publication! Our publication also, although informative, is for enjoyment... not a text book!

Now, about organizations... we all have day jobs as well. Except those who are retired! Those would be some of the Issue Editors. The Issue Editors gather content for their respective issues... they don't write it, but there are some exceptions. It comes mostly from their contacts that they nurture, unless the Managing Editor inserts other content he deems pertinent. They are all volunteers.

To me, since they are on a rotating schedule, it isn't the same as a team that works together all of the time and are used to each other. Their are niggling problems that arise because they aren't into the routine. That is what I meant about the differences in the way our respective organizations run. I wish ours ran as smoothly as yours seems to... but we are working these kinks out!

The new Managing Editor is doing good work. It is the timeliness of the handoffs of the final content that need to be improved. And they are!

As to schedule... there is another difference between C&C and OTF. Our publishing schedule (dates to press) are 1 month later than C&C. I don't know why that is... I will bring that up w/ them now that I know that.

Cheers,

Cigogne

[john_g]

Cigogne


Sorry about the delay, not been able to get to the PC.

Yes I did say much the same last year, but it was you who brought up the subject by comparing the two Journals.

I do not intend to reply to your patronising point about the number of pages and the rather basic arithmetic involved, which of course is not the whole story.

I accept that you have your design practice and C&C have theirs. But as a subscriber to both I am entitled to have my opinion, just as you chose to express yours about C&C.

The thing with our organisations is that there is not 12 people working regularly on the Journal, it's seven. The Managing Editor is there to do just that. All articles are generated from individuals research in the same way that yours is I suspect.

As to the schedule that is not a subject I brought up. But if as you say OTF dates are 1 month after C&C, how come I have only just received issue 2 and C&C issue 3 ? Not something I am going to delve into. What each organisations subscribers must remember is that there is no "staff" involved, just volunteers who give up their own time and expertise in some cases so that interesting research can be disseminated to others with a similar interest.

John

[cameldriver]

Calm down, fellows. As a subscriber to both C&C and OTF, I appreciate the wonderful job done by both organizations. Keep up the good work!!

[Zulis]

OK folks... a big deep breath here...

I dont think anything good can come from comparing and quibbling over them. I love both, and would be sad to see either one go. A lot of people who could certainly find other, more lucrative, ways to spend their time put their hearts and souls into this.
It is very easy to, even unitentionally, get their noses out of joint.

I spent the weekend poring over old copies of Aerodrome Modeller. Some of the members of this forum were the backbone of that early effort, and the work at that time was state of the art. Look at what we have now, be it OTF or C&CI.... we may well be in the Golden Age for this field of study and not even know it.

Dave Z.

[Cigogne]

Greetings All,

Nose out of joint? Don't worry, my nose is just fine. My comments weren't meant in any way to be confrontational, just informative. The comments about schedule and other problems were not meant for John, but rather for the group as a whole to answer other questions and comments that had been lodged about the OTF schedule in other postings. I guess I should have addressed the group as such. Sorry for not inserting a break in there to show where those comments broke from addressing John G.

My initial comments about differences in page numbers, etc. were made after Stephen Lawson made his "accept no substitutes" comment which acted like a "stick in the spokes" so to speak since the thread was about OTF 18/2. We all know that Stephen likes to have fun in the postings and he drew me out on that one! That is what I was responding to initially. (Points for Stephen!)

If it came across as too jingoistic, well... I stand behind my work! Nothing wrong with that.

I must point out that including the remark about the difference in page numbers, which is not a slight, just a valid difference neither good nor bad, I made no remarks that could be construed as disparaging comments against C&C... quite the contrary! They are absolutely complimentary on the whole. The negative comments were about the schedule and refer to OTF! If we were sitting around a table in person and discussing these and comparing actual copies, it would be a non-issue. So why get worked up over them online, eh?

Both are great publications! Both are worthy of subscription and represent good value for the money no matter what the page count is.

Regards,

Cigogne

PS. Thumbs up John G. Here's to ya!

[StephenLawson]

First of all let me apologize for any 'sticks in the spokes'. I have published in both journals and have a good deal of respect for many concerned in their publishing.

In the case of OTF let me harken back to the Old C&C USA. The originator. It operated in much the same way as OTF does to day. There were times when the old C&C USA was just as late. They constantly were trying to push the envelope and be the very best at what they did. There were also times when it came on time but the late Mr. Miller (a former editor) set pen to paper and reminded the membership that the staff were all volunteers.

Comparing C&C Intl. to OTF let me say that Cigogne is correct in his assessment of the amount of pages and output. Yet the amount of pages for me is not the telling difference. If putting more pages into an issue negates the Volume number and its issue date my question is it worth the extra pages? Part of the membership expectation is 4 journals within a year or one every three months. So even if OTF puts out more quality pages the effort to do so mildly irritates the membership because of the 4 journals a year expectation. With C&C Intl. they have stayed in business a very long time because they improve the quality and their journals are like clockwork in production. I have noted in each journal the arrival date to me of both publications for a long time.

Both journals are governed by a single entities and an elected board. Without going into personal issues here the bottom line is that both journals are viable. I have been rarely disappointed in the content of either. OTF began as an organization that meant to go beyond the failed C&C USA. Their tradition of stepping beyond and doing better has been based on self examination. C&C Intl. lives by the standards that they have been successful with. Both journals are originals anything that comes after them would have to imitate them.

[leo]

For what its worth, I love them both. I haven't received my CC copy yet. Is there a german language WWI aviaton mag that one can subscribe to?

[Rick]

Is there a german language WWI aviaton mag that one can subscribe to?

Try:
* * * * * http://propellerblatt.de/

Hope this works. * * * R.

[Immo_Frese]

*Is there a german language WWI aviaton mag that one can subscribe to?

Hi Leo,

yes, two years ago a group of german aviation historians started a project called "Interessengemeinschaft Luftfahrt 1900-1920". Their journal is called "Das Propellerblatt". The "outfit" is not as professional as the OTF or C&C journals, it's home-made, but the articles and photos are great.
There are 7 journals out now. You can fin d more information about them here:

http://www.propellerblatt.de/inhalte.htm

Immo

[Rick]

Immo, great minds think alike!! R.