EXPENSIVE AND APPEARS INEFFICIENT I want to agree with those who have already touched on the subject of this magazine being expensive for a digital subscription and its limitations of paper or digital only, as well as no incentive for paper subscribers. Too expensive. It seems to be only about jets and corporate flying one way or another. Far from realistic. Another con for this magazine is that of interactive feature availability for Android devices. Well, I just got official information that this magazine is optimized for Apple devices with their retina display features and so on "as Apple remains the dominant force out there for devices". Hum, Google what are you doing about that? Is Android really a second base runner? Well, I am an Android devices fan. I do not like Apple. And if a services is short handed and over charged because of my device preference then I guess is clear that I better stay away from that short handed over priced service. Flying Magazine and every magazine out there want us to buy their product. So why one version better than the other? Shape it up or dump it out publishers. Android is a well established system with nothing to envy over Apple. Treat me the same way and we can do business.
like the magazine, private pilot -but can't afford it - sorry You know it is the same thing over and over, in anything to do with flying, it cost me over 20 grand just to get a private pilot license - not because I can't get the hang of it -soloed in 11 hrs,-but live in a hick town and had to go through 5 different instructor's because they lost planes to the bank, 1 a low wing warrior, 2-old 172 not in great shape -then had to go from low to high wing, no big deal now but for a student it was difficult -3rd C -172 skyhawk almost new not glass panel, only got about 25 hrs in that and could not pay $200 an hr rental specially in 08, then #4 C150 to small -I'm a big guy weighed 220 in jr high but was able to solo, fast so that helped then after about 20 hrs ready for check ride and -port,another pilot rented it and went on a 1000 nm,X,-country and had engine failure -I waited for about 2 months and had to look for another -ins and plane -#5 was another 150 and finally -but I would have been money ahead to just buy a 172 -now I am so poor I had to buy a little 150 and I can't even take my wife with me, now the magazine I like it, but $4 is to much anything to do w/ flying is to much money, people think your rich -hav2 stick to AOPA mag -sorry
Yep: The new format / design is a bust. I've gone back to try and find some sort of flow, but the choices Flying's design staff made for layout and fonts is terrible. I'm sorry, but I'm canceling my subscription.
Very expensive! Come on guys. Anyone with a print subscription should be able to access the on-line copy as part of their package. At the very least, maybe a small convenience charge for existing subscribers. But, in addition to requiring a second full subscription, the price is 2x to 3x more than a print subscription. I guess I'll stick with the paper copy until you figure things out.
Love it! Thank you Flying Some of you people need to stop giving this a bad rating because you think that paper is better. Your opinion is invalid to those of us who prefer digital so why would you give something one star when you won't use it because you don't prefer it? STOP IT! Thank you Flying for providing this for us. I gladly will pay double as some of these people are saying.
Flying Even Baron Von Richtoven would ENJOY the reading here.....too bad I don't own a Fokker Tri-Plane!!!! Shud I, She would get painted BLACK! !!♥♥♥♥!!!