56134

Guideline Publications is pleased to announce the third ‘Colour Conundrum Compendium’. Pre Order today. Available at Scale Model World https://tinyurl.com/cc-no3-pre-order

Guideline have assured me the print stock used this month won't be repeated. As regards the perfect-bound format I hope we'll all get used to it - I'm a fan myself, and we've had plenty of positive feedback - and as the editorial mentioned, binders will be made available to accomodate the new format.

'Egg on face entirely mine (thoroughly cooked to a crisp in the heatwave) and apologies to author, artist, and all readers for the faux pas. Correction to follow and in the meantime if anyone contacts me on the editorial address I can email the correct information, although thanks KLN for posting it above. Off now to shoot the other foot'

That would surely be down to the individual interpretations of two different profile artists. Paul himself rarely offers any branded paint numbers. His articles where possible quote from source material. Vallejo paint matches indicated are based on the artist's interpretation of the information presented in the article, as Vallejo do not have exact matches for every shade in the RAF vocabulary of stores. Jan Polc's work includes the caveat 'denotes appropriate match', as seen on the 2021 artwork. Neither of Paul's articles include the word 'Vallejo'.

https://www.guidelinepublications.co.uk/index.php?GOTO=855&PICFILE=855&STKNR=855&STRH=&ORDN=&RNZ=212545&THISVIEWMODE=2&SUPPLIER=&FINDRETR=&WIDENET=&CATEGORY=4&SUB=2&VWW=1&VANCE=99 Author Kev Darling

There's a new Warpaint Special out by Kev Darling any minute ...

Already compiling it...

For the record 'the Editor' does read this too - in between half-finishing model aeroplanes and pursuing the kind of obscure ugly trains that no self-respecting enthusiast has paid attention to in the 40 years since they were built. The editorial team would be very happy to hear from anyone with any ideas, suggestions, recommendations or pet hates. As previously noted we can't please everyone all the time, and we almost certainly won't try, but moving forward our aim is to broaden the magazine's current perspective while retaining the high standard of presentation that Chris has overseen. I'm currently entertaining all manner of submissions from writers and modellers but looking especially for modelling articles covering conversions, scratchbuilds, illustrating research, or that have a historical tie-in. Of course quality out of the box builds are always welcome but I'd like to present a more varied content. SAM for me was always the magazine that offered ideas - I remember building six very inaccurate Sea Hurricanes following a piece on Operation Pedestal when Neil Robinson was Editor. That kind of 'look what you can do' feature I find motivates me more than any other. As Jonners said - give us a couple of issues and then let us know what you think... GH

Thanks. I considered other options but I know the Airfix tracks work fine with liquid poly and am not sure how the Matchbox/Revell one would pan out. Plus it's cheap and cheerful and that's what I'm looking for at the moment!

Deciding to tackle some kits I might actually stand a chance of finishing I've recently turned to Airfix 1/76 armour. Hugely excited at the prospect of revisiting stuff I built 45 years ago it's been very satisfying. I started with an Airfix Churchill that my son brought back from a school trip to the Normandy beaches, but this has led to some issues... I banged one together for him a year or so ago and following the instructions ended up with a passable result but the tracks bow inwards. Looking at the parts on the workbench and trying some dry fits it became apparent that possibly due to the age of the moulds the two halves of the side sections don't fit together in a way that will allow the wheels to sit level. I checked a few online builds and no one else seems to have encountered this problem - or if they did they have ignored it. I decided to get round the issue by fitting the sides together without the suspension mounts and wheels and make sure they were square before adding the running gear retrospectively. Has anyone else encountered this problem? By applying glue only along the mating edges at the bottom I was able to ensure that the sockets for mounting the suspension axles were absolutely parallel. Once this was set solid I was able to force the sides together and end up with somethig a little less askew then I was achieving by following the instructions... This is the kit I knocked together a year ago for my son. It's a bit of a bodge but even so you can see the tracks slope inward... This is the second Churchill showing the tracks sitting square after deviating from the instructions and fitting the running gear after joining the halves together. Tracks were added by using a shortened length inserted and glued, ignoring the top of the run, which is hidden by the mudguards... Here the sockest for the axles are parallel. Of course there are fit issues elsewhere, but on the whole the problems arising from building it this way are lesser evils than those I was experiencing with the canted tracks. The sprockets can be added in retrospectively as well by simply cutting off the pins and sloting in and gluing them - trying to glue the two halves together with them in situ proved impossible for me as the holes didn't seem to match. Of course this may be my hamfisted bungling at work, but again this enabled me to line them up square Here we have the hull ready for the running gear to be added. The pins were simply removed from the axle/suspension parts and they were slotted into place, The suspension springs butt up against the hull and ensure they are all level. The holes that should have been filled by the pins were simply covered with sections cut from an oval plastic rod - neither more nor less accurate than the shape of thr pins themselves had they been left on... Here's where we are at the moment - awaiting several rounds of sanding and filling and generally tidying up. The main thing is it sits square on its tracks. Note the axle covers covering the holes left by the absent axle pins. I drilled out the gun and muzzle brake but have found metal replacements online from Dan Taylor so those are in the post. Lots to do yet, but the detailon the kit is surprisingly good. This project has been a huge relief from 1/35 panzers - I've worn myself out adding etched tool handles and not looked at a kit for the best part of a year. This has inspired me no end. Plenty more to do though - scratch details to follow based on a site I found - http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/modelMiniatures/churchills.html#main L-R - the kit that came back from Normandy, another started while waiting for the gunbarrels and decals to arrive from Dan Taylor, and the bodged model complete with wonky tracks and panniers on upside down! This has been - and continues to be - hugely enjoyable. I built a Cromwell for my boy as well last year, and that is such a beautiful little tooling I can't wait to get the Churchills done and crack on with some of those! Lots of conversions around too. Are Millicast still trading? Seems to be some ambiguity about that? Any feedback on this welcome - have I just been making life difficult for myself? Cheers GH

'....publishing convention is that figures are expressed in words for less than ten, and digits for more than' My own preference is to remove as many actual digits as possible from paragraphs including a lot of technical data. Thus for instance in a hypothetical sentence where '37 Spitfire Mk. IIs of 303 Squadron encountered 24 Bf 110G-4s of 7/N.JG.III escorting 8 Do 217s of KG 53 and 15 - 20 Ju 88A-4s of 9/KG. 27' I would write any numbers that were not directly applicabl;e to aircraft type or unit as complete words. Otherwise - for the same reasons of cutting down too many confusing digits in a paragraph of technical information - my own preference has been to use digits only for numbers greater than 100. I like to think publishing convention could allow some flexibilty if it is in the interests of clarity

Having looked into this issue several years ago I have completely forgotten any conclusions I reached at the time. I wonder if anyone would care to comment on the matter - upper surface camouflagd or all-over green. I know there is a body of opinion on both sides. There is a picture at http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/aircrafts-2/hs123/hs-123-1939-poland/ Any opinions?

Hello everyone. For the benefit of those of you commenting who have not seen the announcement in the latest issue of SAM here is the text in full: 'Great news for subscribers to Scale Aircraft Modelling from the start of our 39th volume, with the March 2017 issue. We will be adding eight additional pages of editorial material to the subscribers mailed copies at no additional cost, so there has never been a better time to take out, or renew a subscription to the most essential scale model aircraft title around. This means that for the price of only £49.50 for fifteen issues, or £94 for thirty issues you not only get the regular magazine delivered to your door, but a full eight extra pages of features and reviews. This works out at almost a 1/3 off the full retail price as well as the benefits of postal delivery and the bonus material Subscriber offers are nothing new – a free CD you don’t really need, a free pen, a free plastic wallet with a logo printed on it… Our Editorial team have put their heads together and come to the conclusion that the best offer we can make is to give you more of what you buy the magazine for in the first place. It’s not rocket science – and it won’t be either as despite rumours to the contrary Mr Hatcher is planning on keeping the content rooted in traditional aviation, barring the occasional flight of fancy from Mr Tony Grand, or the odd ICBM. The eight page extra will be bound seamlessly into magazines prepared for the subscription database and will to all intents and purposes simply follow on from the rest of the content. The Editor advises us this will consist entirely of additional sourced articles and reviews and will not draw on the existing content. News stand issues will retain all the regular items and favourites that have made SAM the number one choice. It’s up to you – if you want more for less then take out a subscription today. As a gesture to all readers, and just to show what we can actually offer, we will be binding in the extra eight pages to all copies of the March 2017 issue, newsstand and subscribers. Thereafter the extra value will be available to subscribers only. But that’s not all! Further offers will become available to subscribers in the coming months so watch this space.' Naturally you may draw your own conclusions as to whether this leaves the cup half full or half empty...

hahaha my usage of 'amount' stems from the inconclusive number referred to. The word implies a large but unquantifiable mass rather than an orderd quantity. Or so it said on a thing what I found on the Internet. RE ships - I know, I know. They say come and I cometh. They say go and I goeth. They say inserteth ships and I inserteth them, while trying to make the measure as palatable as possible. I plead the Nuremberg defence Stevehnz - please drop me an email at [email protected]

Thanks for the feedback chaps. No one's mentioned the font size of late? RE the cock-ups yes they do creep in, usually as a result of proofing pdfs at hyper-speed on a computer screen while someone is breathing heavily down the phone waiting to print it at the last minute. I do find proofing from a hard copy much safer than a PC but there is rarely time to do so with late pages because of the printing schedules we work to. V.poor. Will try harder. RE the Bulldog canopy it's an easy oversight if you're building from the box - look at the amount of Airfix Provosts out there with the canopy framing on the outside. I personally had no idea that was an error too until Adrian Balch sent me a picture. Easy to be an expert when you know. As for the ships I have discussed this in the Editorials. It has been surprisingly popular despite my own reservations - but I have also tried to ensure we don't let the content suffer as a result. It's 4 pages every 3 - 4 months and that's as far as it will go. We try to save that much space each issue by making better use of the pages we have. Apologies as well for the missing plans. That should have been deleted from the cover that issue. My old adversary Captain Cut 'n' Paste strikes again... Harrogate Model Club is out in force at Bolton in January so if anyone wants to come and berate us in person we'll be glad to discuss any further issues you may have.