3DStewart

If you don't mind a 1.5 hr drive from Coventry the RAF Museum at Cosford (Junc 3 of the M54) is outstanding, with some unique exhibits. The shop has a limited range of Airfix and Revell kits. Ignore the rude comments about Coventry, it got bashed about in the war, but it still has some noteworthy sites from it's important medieval past. I can recommend the cathedral and it's surroundings, Ford's Hospital and Spon Street, where you can see genuine 13th century buildings still in use as shops. You might like to look around St John's Church where Royalist prisoners of war were held after the battle of Edge Hill. The fiercely parliamentary citizens of Coventry showed their disdain by standing with their backs to them as they were led through the streets to captivity. Hence the phrase "being sent to Coventry" was born. Although not things you can visit, Coventry was also the origin of the phrases "peeping tom" and "true as Coventry blue", later "true blue". If you're interested I can tell you more about their origins. As you may guess I'm a big fan of Coventry, I lived their for a while as an adult and it was a good period in my life.

Reduce the volume of the kits. Sell the biggest. Debox others?

For aircraft I overwhelmingly prefer 1:72, or the occasional 1:144. I've always thought of 1:48 as being a bit of a compromise scale: too small to be impressive and too big to be convenient, but others will disagree. Advantages of 1:72: Price Range of subjects. If it flew and fought there's a 1:72 kit; that's not true for 1:48. Space needed to display Space needed to store the stash Less compulsion to include fiddly detail, so build times tend to be less Disadvantages of 1:72: Not considered cool or glamorous. It's an arithmetically cumbersome scale that only makes sense if you measure your world in feet and inches, though this is also true for 1:48. In a metric world 1:50, 1:100 or 1:150 would be more straightforward and make sense. It doesn't match with scales used in complimentary modelling activities (e.g. model railways), which are 1:76 or 1:87. The same is true for 1:48, where 1:43 is the nearest railway model scale. I also model armour subjects in 1:72 for most of the reasons above and to preserve scale comparison between my builds. I accept that the availability argument for 1:72 armour isn't as strong, but it's still there.

I think plinth is an excellent description, so I would use that. Alternatively you could call it a pouring stub, but that's not as convenient as plinth.

It may be vintage, but in my experience using language like 'stretched sprue' (actually stretched runner) is entirely confined to builders of plastic construction kits. No toolmaker I've every come across refers to runners as sprue. It's akin to calling a crankshaft a connecting rod. Airfix dallied with this misnomer a few years ago when they marked frames in their kits as 'Sprue A' etc., but they've given up on it with recent kits. I assume it caused complete communications breakdown with their toolmakers and moulders.

Alas, not so. The sprue is the point where the plastic enters through the back of the tool and in simpler tools often looks like a tapered rod attached to the runners, though this may be cut off before packing. The sequence of flow in plastic kit tools is sprue - runner - gate - cavity.

I don't know why build authors go to great lengths to specify the paints they use, which in many cases are not widely available. Presumably the kit came with instructions? If you disagree with the manufacture's recommendations form your own opinion on what paint to use. Why copy the builder, who is just as likely to be wrong as the manufacture? And in forming your own opinion you are at liberty to use any method you want!

No, I don't think it's a projection. The data is casualty rates for car drivers per distance driven – Great Britain 2014 and is taken from Reported Road Casualties Great Britain and the National Travel Survey. For some reason the report authors have used units that aren't helpful - Deaths per 100 million people is a bit hard to comprehend in a population of c. 60 million, but it's based on observed facts and shows the relative risk of injury or death.

Certainly, download Supporting Safe Driving Into Old Age Page 6 (9 in pdf) gives the key chart. Here are few interesting quotes from the report: "For the first time, the Task Force was given ‘catastrophic claims’ data from a leading insurer in the older driver market providing important insights. Some older drivers, possibly those in the over 80 group, may be disproportionately involved in crashes leading to very serious third party injuries." p6. "As you get older you are more likely to be at fault after middle age." p20. Yes, it's a complex subject that can be interpreted in many ways, but there is no doubt that concern is increasing about the risks posed by older drivers. If you want to see what happens when you don't ensure older drivers haven't lost their faculties then read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-42568690

Old people who don't realise they've become a dangerous driver and who retreat behind the "it's young drivers who are dangerous excuse". Not true, the statistics show per mile that old drivers have the highest accident rate of all. Compulsory periodic eye tests and compulsory periodic competency testing I say! You wouldn't be happy with an 80 year old train driver or pilot without rigorous supervision, so why should old car drivers be any different?

What's interesting about the photos above is that though they show true wear and weathering, I think almost none of it looks like fashionable modelling techniques such as panel line inking and pre-shading. Even the gloss levels of some of the aircraft are higher than you often see on models, though I know that scale sheen is hard to achieve.

I think the observation is the wrong way around. If you think a technique is unrealistic or unnecessary you're not going to invest time learning how to do it.

Really? I thought all senior officers started as constables (the same as everyone else) and had to work their way up. I know it's changed recently, but that was the universal practice back in your day, at least in the UK.

And on the subject of modelling heresies, why is panzer grey fashionably depicted on models as a medium or light grey?

Burn him! Burn him! Remove his teachings from correct modelling thought so other models are not created corrupted. Any more of this type of thinking and the gullible will start to believe that aircraft and vehicles work better if they are maintained and that armed forces care about how things are presented.

QC = quality control, sorting out good from bad during or after production. QA = quality assurance, organising things so you never make anything bad in the first place.

I've never owned a ZM kit, but examined some that friends have had and looked at examples at SMW. I don't understand why they provide details for parts of the plane that will never be seen. It just adds to the cost, without adding to the pleasure. Perhaps a few modellers will do cut-aways, but they will be a tiny number.

The tracks have an incorrect tread pattern and I don't think the colour is prototypical. Seriously, it's a fabulous creation and you've done really well to build an obvious T34-85 from Lego. I could never do that.

If your opening post is an accurate record of your conversation, then l think it could come across as sarcastic and rude and likely to annoy staff members who might have helped you. Why not just explain what's happened, say you're unhappy and say what you want them to do to rectify the situation? It usually works.

I've come late to this thread and not being a 1:48 modeller I won't be affected by the Fury short shots. But it's interesting to see the frustration being displayed above. It's not just annoyance at one purchase being slightly marred, it seems like a sense of betrayal - our first love is cheating on us! If ever a company showed the power of branding it's Airfix and if ever a company showed how to destroy its brand values it's Airfix!

Replied, but there wasn't an option to say that the amount I want to pay for a modelling magazine is zero. Well that's not quite true as I do pay 20-30p at shows for old copies, but with so much free info on the internet I really can't see the point of still publishing them. Britmodeller gives me the reviews, builds and historical information for free. My thanks to Mike and contributors.

No, they said 1 in 10 old second hand toys wouldn't meet current toy safety standards. But, as the man from Lego said you'd need to be using 40 year old Lego to be exposed to less safe materials. Personally I'd be more concerned about the bacteria containing slobber and faeces that will no doubt coat some old toys, but I suppose they can be washed and disinfected if it bothers you.

I'm rising 59, with state retirement still 7 years away and two children of school age to support, so no chance of retirement yet. But I enjoy my job (mostly) and I'm looking for a promotion before I retire, so still firing on all cylinders. Interestingly, I'm the youngest in my team, so my employer is going to have a succession problem if it doesn't take action soon, as I keep on pointing out to them. It seems like most of my university friends are now taking early retirement, so I do wonder how society can afford able bodied people having subsidised lives of leisure.

I haven't signed up for any, but I was sternly warned with big red alert to check whether I was receiving any and if not to report on this thread. I wasn't getting any, so added my comment to this thread.

I've had nothing, but I'm delighted with that as I don't want emails about stuff I don't need to know!