Just came across this thread and though I would add my comments and thoughts. The first new look issue was great, well the editorial are not going to fall at the first fence are they? September's issue was an interesting read with good coverage of the the airshows and a couple of nice pieces on the French Normandie squadron and a good 'potted history' of Pan Am. I thought the article on the Battle of Britain film was very poor with little new info (least not compared to Aeroplane's recent work) and I did not really like the autobiographical stuff on Rod Dean and the Thunderbird pilot. Now having finished reading the October Issue I am very disappointed with not only the content but the quality of writing. I know that the editorial team can magic up new stories and may good reports out of bad airshows, preservation news only accounted for eight pages and airshows only six, once again the history of British Eagle was interesting but yet more personal stories (I simply dont like them) 20 pages on RAF Mildenhall is too much for a single issue of the mag, and it did not say anything new, did we not have a review of Mildenhall airshows last year under the "air legends title" ? I will leave my biggest complaint to last, the new title emphasizes "classic" on the front page, what on earth has a 2009 Scottish float plane service got to do with "classic" !!! even the previous article on Beavers, Otters, etc in Canada is a modern piece, great for the old Aircraft Illustrated, but nothing to do with preservation and history. I dont like it and I have told the Mr Dunnell, although I dont expect I will receive a reply, what makes matters worst is that all the good 'fast Jet' stuff is now over on Combat Aircraft mag, which just seem an excuse to make people buy both. As long standing subscriber I feel cheated that Aircraft Illustrated format has been changed and I dont expect that I shall be renewing my subs.