Plagiarism in major US flying magazine?

[UGA]

There was an article in Air & Space Magazine from 2000 regarding turboprop conversions of DC-3s. In May 2002, an article on the same subject appeared in one of the largest and most popular flying magazines in the US. Upon closer observation, it turned out, the articles were virtually identical in many respects, and the later article never made any reference to the earlier one. Here are a few examples (sorry, some of the quotes are fairly long). These are only a couple of many paragraphs from the 2000 article that were remarkably similar to the 2002 article.

Air & Space, 2000:
"One of the most interesting turbo conversions was done by aviation legend Jack Conroy in the 1960s. His modified DC-3 initially featured three Dart engines, two on the wings and one stuffed in the nose. He sold the airplane to the Specialized Aircraft Corporation, which replaced the engines with Pratt & Whitney models. DC-3 experts then trace the Tri-Turbo to Santa Barbara Polair, Inc., which leased it to the U.S. Navy as a ski-equipped arctic research aircraft."

And the lines from the later article:
"One of the most interesting turbo conversions was done by the Turbo-Three Corporation in the 1960s. The modified DC-3 initially featured three 1535-shp Dart engines, two on the wings and one stuffed in the nose. It was sold to Jack Conroy of the Specialized Aircraft Corporation. He replaced the Dart engines with three PT6A engines. This trimotor DC-3 then went to the U.S. Navy as a ski-equipped arctic research aircraft. "

Air & Space, 2000:
"The aircraft's notoriously temperamental 14-cylinder piston radial engines have always been seen as its weakest feature, so hanging turbines on DC-3s is not a new idea. The British tried it at the end of the 1940s using Armstrong-Siddeley Mamba and Rolls-Royce Dart turboprop engines. The engines helped, but the unpressurized aircraft couldn't be flown at an altitude that would use the engines to their best advantage, and the project was quickly dropped. "

The later article:
"The DC-3's temperamental 14-cylinder radial engines had always been seen as its weakest features, so hanging turbines on its wings was, in its day, a unique idea."

"The British made the Armstrong-Siddeley Mamba and Rolls-Royce Dart conversions with a minimum of airframe modifications.... The Rolls-Royce Dart engines were an improvement, but the unpressurized aircraft couldn't be flown with passengers at an altitude that use the engines efficiently."

Well, anyway, while some of the lines from the later article seem to have been paraphrased slightly, I think that the plagiarism is undeniable, and the rest of the fairly lengthy articles provide much more evidence. I called and spoke with the editor of the later ("suspect") magazine, with whom I explained my observations, and he promised to speak with the author and get back with me. He never did, so maybe I'll try to call him again and remind him about this.

I think plagiarism is a pretty despicable act, especially in a magazine I'm paying for.

[castlepines]

What's the magazine? Who are the authors of each article?

[UGA]

The original article was from Air & Space in 2000, and the author was Mark Huber. Link to original article

I'm holding off on naming the later magazine and author (although I don't think it is that hard to figure out). The later-article author is quite respected and well known (as is his magazine!), and I hope that it is the case that he had permission to use the prior article. I certainly give him the benefit of the doubt, until I learn otherwise. But the fact that I tried to contact him and he never replied was somewhat suspect, and that's why I'm following up.

Actually, I had forgotten about this, until I found that magazine tonight as I was cleaning out my room in anticipation of moving.

[CraigH]

Why hold out on the name? They are both public magazines (I assume the 2nd is) so you are not violating anyones privacy by disclosing these facts.

[Cloud Dancer]

This whole process shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone.

One look at any news gathering search engine and you will notice that every paper media outlet regurgitates the same story. Makes you kind of wonder what happened to good ole' investigative & objective reporting.



I also wonder why you would hold out on naming the 2nd "author" of the article.

[Jeff S KDTW]

Why not write to the magazines?

[RickF]

What, plagiarism and sensationalism in the media? Naw, couldn't be.

I used to suscribe to Flying, Plane & Pilot, Private Pilot and all that good junk until I decided I was just wasting my money. I'll take the National Geograpic over Flying anyday of the week.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Cloud Dancer
I also wonder why you would hold out on naming the 2nd "author" of the article.

One would assume

1 - To give the author the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, both quotations read a little like a press release as far as I'm concerned, so it could be that they both came from the same source document.

2 - At the very least, as a courtesy to Neil, to make sure that studentpilot.com doesn't get caught up in potentially libellous comments (IANAL but I assume this could be the case)

Both seem quite reasonable to me.

[martyt]

I know something you don't know...

[Canuck]

Originally posted by RickF
I used to suscribe to Flying, Plane & Pilot, Private Pilot and all that good junk until I decided I was just wasting my money. I'll take the National Geograpic over Flying anyday of the week.

Same here, but when all three publish identical mags month after month....

April is "Top 10 cheapest twins" and each one does it.

May - "Night Flying"

June - "Better Landings"

You start to wonder why you are buying three mags when they are almost identical.

[ziggy29]

Originally posted by Canuck
April is "Top 10 cheapest twins" and each one does it.

And not only that, but when they do the articles on "cheapest" or "most affordable" aircraft, the market values they tend to place on them are ridiculously low. You can usually either find only unairworthy pieces of junk, fixer-uppers and aircraft with engines past TBO for the prices they quote.

$35,000 for a Skyhawk? $15,000 for a C-150? $60,000 for a "cheap twin?"

Try finding decent, airworthy planes at these prices. Unless you're exceedingly lucky (and the seller is either extremely gullible or is, say, your father), you won't.

[UGA]

Originally posted by Mongoose
One would assume

1 - To give the author the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, both quotations read a little like a press release as far as I'm concerned, so it could be that they both came from the same source document.

2 - At the very least, as a courtesy to Neil, to make sure that studentpilot.com doesn't get caught up in potentially libellous comments (IANAL but I assume this could be the case)

Both seem quite reasonable to me.

#1 is basically my reason. I just thought the similarities were interesting, I'm not trying to be an "industry watchdog" or anything. And I didn't want to make the later author look bad unless I knew all the facts. As you said, it could well be that both of the articles are based on a single press release.

As far as libel issues, I don't think that's really an issue here.

[NatefromRI]

I think that if you're going to question it here, you should publish the name of the author and link to the article here (if available) or at least tell us where we can find it off-line. If you want people to really take an interest in answering your question, why not ask the entire question? I'm sure the author won't mind, even if he happens to be one of the 2,016 (as of this writing) members. It would give him a chance to answer it himself. And if he does mind, well shame on him for writing it.

I also agree that libel complaints are not really of concern. If it's true, it's not libel. If it's false, the truth can resolve itself here with a response.

--Nate

[Navajokid]

Originally posted by ziggy29

$35,000 for a Skyhawk? $15,000 for a C-150? $60,000 for a "cheap twin?"

Try finding decent, airworthy planes at these prices. Unless you're exceedingly lucky (and the seller is either extremely gullible or is, say, your father), you won't.

The Skyhawk and Cheap twin are doable at those prices (40,000 for a decent Apache). I did see a nice 150 for say for $15,500 because the guy was getting out of aviation and the airplane was easily worth $25,000.