Northrop N-63 tailsitter

Orionblamblam

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: USAP
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
5 April 2006
Messages
11,795
Reaction score
9,314
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Issue Volume 1 Number 2 of the new Electronic Aerospace Projects Review has just been finished. In it is an 11-page article on the N-63 turbopropo VTOL fighter from 1950, and its competitor designs. Included in this article is some *very* nice large-format full-color artwork of the N-63 courtesy our very own "Sentinel Chicken."
v1n2ad10.jpg


v1n2ad2.gif


This issue is very large (90 or so pages), so it costs a little more. Unless you're a subscriber, in which case it doesn't. The page for this issue:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n2.htm

The basic eAPR webpage:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm
 
Excellent! I'll be watching my mail for this issue. :)
 
Scott, I'm (temporally) unemployed. After back on track I'll order as much as I can from you.
 
I'm still a subscriber, am I not?



Orionblamblam said:
Issue Volume 1 Number 2 of the new Electronic Aerospace Projects Review has just been finished. In it is an 11-page article on the N-63 turbopropo VTOL fighter from 1950, and its competitor designs. Included in this article is some *very* nice large-format full-color artwork of the N-63 courtesy our very own "Sentinel Chicken."
v1n2ad10.jpg


v1n2ad2.gif


This issue is very large (90 or so pages), so it costs a little more. Unless you're a subscriber, in which case it doesn't. The page for this issue:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n2.htm

The basic eAPR webpage:
http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/index.htm
Click to expand...
 
It's too bad you can't get an ad, I'm assuming it's prohibitively expensive, at Wings & Airpower, Flight Journal, or Aviation Week. I haven't any doubt you would have more subscribers if people knew this existed.
 
Sundog, haven't you heard that Wings & Airpower are RIP?
 
Sundog said:
It's too bad you can't get an ad, I'm assuming it's prohibitively expensive, at Wings & Airpower, Flight Journal, or Aviation Week.
Click to expand...

As the subscriber base builds (hopefully), I'll have more money to buy ads. But this *is* a pretty niche market sort of product, so at some point the returns diminish. I'd *love* to sneak some ads into Av Week... but when I first started APR in the late 90's I contacted them for prices... $15,000 for one full page. Even a tiny 1/16-page ad was *way* beyond my budget. Boeing and Airbus can afford Av Week... I can't.
 
Orionblamblam said:
As the subscriber base builds (hopefully), I'll have more money to buy ads. But this *is* a pretty niche market sort of product, so at some point the returns diminish. I'd *love* to sneak some ads into Av Week... but when I first started APR in the late 90's I contacted them for prices... $15,000 for one full page. Even a tiny 1/16-page ad was *way* beyond my budget. Boeing and Airbus can afford Av Week... I can't.
Click to expand...

With the way things are now, maybe you might be able to get a more reasonable quote?
 
Grey Havoc said:
Orionblamblam said:
As the subscriber base builds (hopefully), I'll have more money to buy ads. But this *is* a pretty niche market sort of product, so at some point the returns diminish. I'd *love* to sneak some ads into Av Week... but when I first started APR in the late 90's I contacted them for prices... $15,000 for one full page. Even a tiny 1/16-page ad was *way* beyond my budget. Boeing and Airbus can afford Av Week... I can't.
Click to expand...

With the way things are now, maybe you might be able to get a more reasonable quote?
Click to expand...

Errr... no. Notice the hope that the subscriber base would build? Didn't happen. Collapsed, in fact, to the point where I now no longer take subscriptions, and producing new APR's is really not worth the effort. So even if Av Leak has lowered their prices somewhat... my income has fallen far more.
 
Is AW&ST really the core market target for a publication like yours? A vast majority of the people involved in aviation nowadays (many of whom read that magazine) haven't got the faintest idea what aviation was like before 1980, and what's worse, they probably do not care.

Aiming at major mainstream aviation publications may not give much more result either: take time to analyse what most aircraft spotters and airshow visitors are interested in, and you'll find that it's mainly modern combat aircraft. Historical aircraft are fine if they are warbirds, otherwise they do not care much. So imagine this: "projects"??? No way.

I think that the research work being done by Scott, Jared and the others is invaluable, but it is mainly of interest to a minority of diehard enthusiasts, core researchers, historians, librarians, and this in itself makes it un-profitable by essence. It is sad but it's a truth that can't be denied.

Now I do not think this is too bad myself since I consider it to be a legacy for the future, part of our world's general knowledge database that needs to be salvaged, documented, passed on, and therefore, like any library book, ought to be freely accessible. But I also understand the plight of those who strive to make, not a fortune, but a few bucks out of their work to repay their expenses and invest in better material and deeper research.

This being said, historical aviation publications are many, and I don't think they would charge half as much as AW&ST. They are read by people like us, who are crazy about all the nooks and crannies of aviation history, and who regularly invest in books and magazines to satisfy that appetite. If you are to get ads published, this might be the best return on your investment.
 
Probably about as workable as the Convair and Lockheed designs that did get built. IMO the only practical way (if one could it that) these could of been deployed at sea would of been to have some sort of elevated arresting gear that would of caught a deployed hook from the A/C that would then be reeled in winching the aircraft to the deck while the aircraft was in hover.
 
Or something like the British Aerospace SkyHook?

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202360.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2372.0
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1304.msg10647.html#msg10647
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=16854.0
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/3939/t/SKYHOOK-Harrier-Carrier.html

Information on original patent can be found here.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
This being said, historical aviation publications are many, and I don't think they would charge half as much as AW&ST. They are read by people like us, who are crazy about all the nooks and crannies of aviation history, and who regularly invest in books and magazines to satisfy that appetite. If you are to get ads published, this might be the best return on your investment.
Click to expand...

I ran a number of ads in "historical" aviation mags some years ago. Best as I could tell... *nobody* subscribed based on 'em. This is a common issue I've heard from others producing niche stuff... ads in mags just don't work unless you shell out for a *lot* of ads over a very long time. Every issue for a few years, and then maybe people will notice.

Of course, once the Carter/Clinton/Frank recession slammed into the economy a few years ago, a lot of people stopped buying such things. And who can blame 'em? The economy goes south, people lose their jobs, investments turn into rubbish... I suspect paying to read about some unbuilt something or other falls pretty low in the priority list. Additionally, most people who are interested in this sort of thing are interested in the *general* concept of the "unbuilt project." And thus years ago when APR was one of the few sources of info about such things, people would pay; now that APR is but one source out of many, with many of the other sources being free, APR looks like a really bad business model. Them's the breaks, I suppose. I was working on trying to make a few nickles from my blog by having ads, but Google yanked the carpet out from under me, so I won't be able to do even that.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom