Jon Kunac-Tabinor

My point was that your post implied reviewers fill articles with words purely to make up the word count. As another member has said it's usually a case of trying to cut down the word count for it to fit with magazine articles, as we want to say as much as we can that we hope is of interest! ( but plainly isn't a lot of the time it seems alas ) If I inferred incorrectly my apologies. Jonners

Which reviews do that? Plenty of CA on sale at Telford cheers Jonners

Exactly. Well said. Jonners

Why not do the conversion of the T7/T8 yourself and submit it? Perhaps write an article about working with resin? Maybe do a quick build OOB for a beginner using just the colours on the instruction sheet. Come on - participate - help - do something useful and give something back. The issue of simultaneous builds in different magazines is I admit annoying. Thing is we are all modellers so when a good kit comes out we all want to build it! BTW you assume that when asked to do a build we are asked to do OOB. Given the amount of aftermarket at Telford and the rate it disappeared off the shelves, and given the rate at which Hannants sells out of resin and PE for any new release I'd say most modellers stock up on the stuff like a junky hordes skag. It seems many modellers like aftermarket, so I guess when we use it in articles we reflect that. I didn't notice much balsa, talc or dope on sale at Telford though ... times change perhaps? Cheers, Jonners

I'm very very sorry but we do not fill space to fit a word count. That is actually as offensive as me suggesting you must have been a third rate academic or a clock-watching form filler to do that in your field. If you find the lack of articles about conversions to be an empty point in your periodical life, then do what i did, practice, what you preach. I did a conversion of the Eduard Tempest V into Mk II using the old MDC resin set, and Tamiya mag asked me to write about it. I'm working on that Hunter T8 conversion at the moment, it might be published, it might not. I appreciate the annoyance at the lack of what you want - so do something! Write an article for gods sake! I do appreciate magazines cannot be all things to all people. Is there anything you do like in them? cheers Jonners

Top news John! It was great to see you at Telford again too, and thanks for a tour of the Aerodrome Jonners

If you want a review to mention whether tight tolerances of today's CAD assisted models will fit, then "how" you paint the model is pretty important. For example, if you brush paint you will add more paint into grooves etc and fit will be fouled. If you airbrush that will not "necessarily" be the case. If you mask surfaces to be glued first (as i know some WNW modeller do to try and reduce these tolerance bases fit problems) then that is a painting technique and is relevant. Also in terms of painting, how many times have we heard something along the lines of, "the panels lines are a little deep but will look OK under a coat of paint" in a review. Well you have to test that theory if you state it don't you? so again how you paint it will determine how true that assertion is. I would also point out that the old 80's / 90's style of review isn't as prevalent as it used ot be. They are either "in box looks" or builds, the latter tend to be both a review and an, erm ... personal build. I've done some pretty complex WIP threads on here over the years and they are not the same as writing 2500 or 3000 or 200 or 600 words for a magazine with a deadline and a subject you are perhaps not totally "in love" with. I like your trains too, and I hope that Dornier comes good. cheers Jonners

Believe me, we do try and do that as much as possible. When you have a set word count for an article you have to be selective what goes in. For every person like you who gives not a rat's reverse for painting there is someone who will be interested. Forgive me here, but to play devil's advocate, you seem to be asking for a build only review, but you want the decals on too. Well to apply decals one really must paint the model, and if you are going to do that in a review you are kind of honour bound to say what you did. There is another issue with build type reviews, in that many modern kits are very much fall together things, so for many models one could very easily have a review thats says "I followed the instructions, and the kit went together easily with minimal fuss." I mean you could drag it out a bit, but essentially that's what you'd say. So what do you do next? well maybe you describe the only thing that differentiates your building of the kit from someone else's- the painting? See what I mean?. It's tricky to strike a balance, and while I firmly agree that there was a trend a few years ago to be very, very focussed on painting and paint techniques, I would suggest that the magazines are a little more balanced nowadays. If you want a nice gritty build review then pick up the next SAM where with luck you'll see me wade into the Special Hobby 1/32nd scale T-33A, a model that needs a muzzle and a leash As you state you "haven't bought a modelling magazine for several years now". Perhaps its time to try one again? Hell I'll even buy you a copy - just PM me your address. cheers Jonners Sorry you are having problems, contact the editor of the magazines in question. Also, and forgive me for asking, but as you state you are having issues with multiple digital issues and assuming you mean different titles, have you checked your software and OS are up to date? It's amazing how quickly apps will go out of date and stop being supported, or dont support newer features. I'm not trying to turn the blame on you, but its always worth asking first. Cheers Jonners

Thanks for clarifying this. I'll leave my original post intact but add an edit below. Cheers Jonners

Nimrod was released 2008. Over a decade old! Times really does fly. Jonners

with slats and flaps as both dropped and raised options Jonners

I guess Valiant, Victor and V.... would make sense. So a Vultee Vengeance it is then LOL Experience however shows that trying to second guess Aunty is never successful. Jonners, pondering.

I haven't got the November issue yet, so I will wait and see before I reply fully. I am though a little surprised because what you are describing sounds like, to be honest, modelling. OK, model painting. But that is part of modelling. So was the fad the fact that the article is done in the way that it is? Anyhoo - let me get my copy and check it out. I'm glad you liked the I-16 though Cheers Jonners

Thanks for reminding me, those cockpits were such a source of inspiration! He did cram them full of stuff. "scrap" was such a great portmanteau thing in the 80's! I still have a box of scrap plasticard that I recycle bits into. I just rebuilt a Vickers K gun in 1/72 and sliced a piece of round sprue to use as a magazine. Terrence has died I believe ( in the late 80's early 90's??) and there was a trophy on his honour that the IPMS had for a while. I think his daughter, or son, used to present it. And If I got any of that wrong then my sincere apologies to his relatives. cheers Jonners

I loved those builds. I do suspect that Terrence Marriot had shares in a pencil company though- as the amount of sanded down graphite he used to weather things could only have been some sort of proto-ponzi scheme! It remains one of my favourite things to use (in moderation)! They were both huge inspirations for me. Jim Howard's articles were the best mix, I always felt, of building and finishing. His finishing wasn't what one would expect today but it was clean and neat and looked good. I can't pretend that I have these guys in my mind when I do my articles, but they are there in the background adding roundness I'm sure. Well, to be more honest, I hope! cheers Jonners