Scale Aircraft Modelling Sept 2018

[sprue]

Probably like a lot of modellers of my age who can remember the original Airfix magazines I'm becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of some of todays magazines. They seem to be regularly blighted with typo errors, text printed on coloured pages which make them difficult to read and photographs which are either miscaptioned or not captioned at all.

As for SAM Sept 2018 there's a nice piece about the Fairey Swordfish but unfortunately once again the artist doesn't know the difference between a WWII upper wing roundel and a modern version, as we all know the proportions between the red blue segments are quite different.

I must confess that as the date for subscription approaches I find myself wondering is it worth it?

 

Mike

[Red Dot]

After collecting these since day one, September 2018 will be my last.

 

I'm fed up with errors, text that is too small to easily read, a perceived arrogance of the editor in that all is well and tiny photos. I have a general feeling of not getting anything from the magazine any more.

 

Andy

Edited September 6, 2018 by Red Dot

[Dave Fleming]

22 hours ago, sprue said:

Probably like a lot of modellers of my age who can remember the original Airfix magazines I'm becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the quality of some of todays magazines. They seem to be regularly blighted with typo errors, text printed on coloured pages which make them difficult to read and photographs which are either miscaptioned or not captioned at all.

As for SAM Sept 2018 there's a nice piece about the Fairey Swordfish but unfortunately once again the artist doesn't know the difference between a WWII upper wing roundel and a modern version, as we all know the proportions between the red blue segments are quite different.

 

 

Print on coloured paper, especially white print is my bugbear, it can often be hard to read.

 

with the Swordfish I’d need to see photo evidence of that aircraft as there were exceptions due to repairing etc

[Tony Whittingham]

I agree, it seems to me there is insufficient proof reading. Photos mislabeled, typos galore and , IIRC, one review omitted (the previous months review was left in place under the new heading).

 

TW

[Jon Bryon]

The writing errors annoy the hell out of me. But comparing things to the past is, IMO, just looking back through rose-tinted glasses. I've been looking through old magazines from the 70s, 80s and 90s, and except for the standard of writing, everything else was universally worse back then, IMO.

 

Jon

[Plastic Hacker]

I did buy the 4 model magazines available in a large WH Smiths recently as I was needing some holiday reading material. The proof reading (or lack there of) mentioned in previous posts meant that 3 were very difficult to enjoy reading - given that some of the authors were apparently not using English as their first language I would have thought the magazine editor would have checked the basic grammar at least.

 

Too often I have read build articles where many paragraphs are devoted to techniques that are repeated ad nauseam in other articles and things like detailing the cockpit and u/c bays are covered with "detailed with scrap plasticard" or "from the spares box". Invariably when an author does explain exactly how they detailed an area I learn something new.

 

Personally, of the ones I bought, only Airfix Modelworld came closest to being a pleasing and informative read but still not enough to warrant a subscription.

 

Who remembers the newsprint quality paper the first Scale Aircraft Modellings were printed on...

[fatalbert]

I remember when the echelon hunters came out,Scale aircraft modelling ran a build article over a few months,the photos were so bad you couldn't make out any detail.I much prefer the modern print,but I sorely miss the aircraft of the month with all the profiles.    

[Des]

2 hours ago, Plastic Hacker said:

 ........ things like detailing the cockpit and u/c bays are covered with "detailed with scrap plasticard" or "from the spares box". 

 

Basically compare kit parts with references of the real thing and use pieces of scrap , sprue , card stock or otherwise abandoned parts to make ones best attempt to overcome any deficiencies and finish  it to ones own satisfaction and taste , more of an artistic approach for most rather than technical perfection down to the mm.      

 

Specify the exact sections of which spare part or sprue from which kit and someone will quickly register their contempt of print magazines because they do not have that exact material.

[tempestfan]

15 hours ago, fatalbert said:

I remember when the echelon hunters came out,Scale aircraft modelling ran a build article over a few months,the photos were so bad you couldn't make out any detail.I much prefer the modern print,but I sorely miss the aircraft of the month with all the profiles.    

Was that when they had a different printer for a very brief period (IIRC to save costs), including the Modern RNZAF issue ? They just didn't get it right, the black and white pics were more like blachk & black. But the situation - but it improved a lot afterwards when the printer was changed again.

[Mick4350]

This may cut me back to one a month.

 

What with Military Modelling magazine folding with it remains sold off recently and being lazy to your customers is disrespective.

 

And the Michael Nyman track on SBS Chill is ...

[bzn20]

Since they've had the use of Apple Mac Computers ,1990 ish the all colour pages being typed over in unreadable print . We are  clever because we are the new breed of Graphic Designer in the new graphic design age . We have computers now and got to use all the features . Move with the times . No use to me.

The worst offenders is Key publishing's Classic Airliner . If you have the BAC 1-11 special one or two pages in on a double page picture spread is a lorry with a Comet 1 fuse on it on the A34 between Newbury and Oxford . This is the Hunting 107 . It was never started , it just isn't . I checked Flight Global archives for roughly that year and... Amazingly Flight mag had the exact same picture from 1956 ish. It was a Comet 1 being trucked to Cardiff (IIRC) from Farnborough. You know what the press are like ,can't believe a word and we'll swallow anything . Typos I can just about cope with , you only have to see some of my waffle . Absolute lies to fill pages though and all for £7.95 . That's not on .

Annoyed from Hawaii *

 

*Don't believe a word of that either

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by bzn20

[Tony Whittingham]

I feel compelled to comment on the subject of typos. I do not think there is a single issue I have read lately that does not have at least one typo. I have seen innumerable “multi-roll” when what is meant is “multi-role”. Yesterday I opened a newly purchased magazine, only to find a Mirage captioned as  Phantom. Also, I happen to have a current monograph on the DH Mosquito, which would lead the reader with the impression that Merlin engines were cooled by something other than ethylene glycol. 

I don’t consider myself a nit picker, but I do take pride in providing accurate and useful information to the members of this group when I post. 

I expect nothing less coming the other way, especially when coming from publications who we expect to have some expertise in their chosen field.

 

Just my opinion, and does not represent that of upper management. 😊

 

TW

[fatalbert]

7 hours ago, tempestfan said:

Was that when they had a different printer for a very brief period (IIRC to save costs), including the Modern RNZAF issue ? They just didn't get it right, the black and white pics were more like blachk & black. But the situation - but it improved a lot afterwards when the printer was changed again.

I think your right,yes.

[Kevin Callahan]

I don't generally have any issues with hardcopy magazines (SAM, SAvMI, etc) except for one problem. With the changing demographics of the modelling world, they all seem determined to reduce to number of 1:72 kits to just about nothing. And given the MSRP of most mags, the cost-benefit ratio to a single scale modeller like myself hasn't made sense for years. Which is not to say that those of you of the 1:48 and 1:32 persuasion shouldn't be delighted - but my 1:72 soul is not warmed by photos of larger-scale models that I will never see on my workbench. So I opted out quite some time ago. Honestly, anything I need to find out about a kit I can discover with a quick online search. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Kevin Callahan

[Rob G]

As I've said on this august forum before, I'm down to one regular magazine, and that because it's local and (IMO) deserves my support; it's not bad, mind you, but I wouldn't bother with it if it was from overseas.

[goon]

The number of typos, spelling mistakes in most model magazines is appalling. There must be zero proof-reading or editing. I've seen several serious mistakes in the first paragraphs of the editorial itself on more than one occasion! 

 

I used to buy regularly but now restrict myself to buying three or four to take away on holiday and go through with a red marker with a pint or two. (I'm only (half) joking...) It's frustrating to sit down for what should be a relaxing read and be constantly tripping over errors (hangar / hanger), re-reading poorly constructed sentences, and encountering old cliches. (Cockpit = "office", ejection seat = "bang seat", etc)  

 

By contrast I regularly pick up Aeroplane and the reading 'experience' is totally different. Very, very few typos / spelling mistakes and excellent English composition, giving me what I want - a relaxing half an hour, both entertaining and informative. 

 

Gareth

[Tony Whittingham]

Did anyone in Canada ever get a copy of the September issue. They were conspicuously absent in my local bookstore.

 

TW

[AWFK10]

2 hours ago, goon said:

It's frustrating to sit down for what should be a relaxing read and be constantly tripping over errors (hangar / hanger),

Ordnance/ordinance is the one that particularly irritates me. To be fair, a poor grasp of English is by no means restricted to modelling magazines. Yesterday, I was reading an instruction issued by a government department in which the author had used "principal" throughout when he, or she, meant "principle". No doubt they relied on a spellchecker, and either nobody proof-read the document before it went out or it was signed off by someone who's equally ill-informed. 

[Stephen]

My bugbears are they're , their and there as well as your and you're. Auto correct has a lot to answer for.

[Ed Russell]

On 10/16/2018 at 9:57 PM, Rob G said:

because it's local and (IMO) deserves my support; it's not bad, mind you, but I wouldn't bother with it if it was from overseas.

At least that magazine has made a sustained effort against typos (used to be 3-5 per page now way <1) but they need to be vigilant! Tyops, tpyos, whatever are hard to eradicate completely.

Mind you, proof reading is a disappearing skill and therefore us proof readers are an expensive addition to a magazine's cost.

I can't imagine that there is much profit in owning, editing or contributing to a magazine. I wonder if the genre might follow scientific journals and introduce "page charges". just

imagine the angst that that would give rise to!

 

 

(just kidding).

[czechnavy]

Must admit the number of typos in commercial magazines always amazes me. 

 

On the other hand many 'amateur magazines' seem to avoid typos - the UK IPMS Magazine must have a couple of good proofreaders - I have just finished binge-reading a borrowed set of the last couple of year's issues and can't remember spotting one.  

 

Some of the 'amateur web magazines' are equally clear of typos - The Romsey Modeller comes to mind.

Edited October 20, 2018 by czechnavy

[Mick4350]

I bought the August edition of Scale Aircraft Modelling and tried to read the editorial by Gary Hatcher as it was so difficult because of the extremely small print in the little box. It seems that Mr Hatcher is ignoring the readers complaints and the continual stupid errors that constantly occurring are harming the magazines good reputation.

 

It is a shame that the readers are being let down with the poor management of the production team who are producing " Your No. 1 magazine " !

[Tony Whittingham]

The September issue has not shown up in my local bookstore yet. August arrived Oct 11, and that issue has it’s own problems, such as the tacking on of text from the Walrus review to the Curtiss Hawk 75 build. 😤

[Head in the clouds.]

Talking of SAM, today I visited WHSmith and found on the shelf a SAM British Classics magazine, within it is wholly the Scale Plans and Profiles section that is to be found in each monthly publication. Upon closer inspection I found the Wessex plans and Profile article which I already have but was not bothered about it as there were several others that I did not have. Off i toddled to pay and it came back at £11.99. Wow...pull up the horses, I thought I had double swiped over the scanner but no, it was indeed correct. So for nearly£12 you get a reprint of previous articles in a similar sized magazine for 2 !/2 time the price but for little or no extra work.

Not on your Nelly Mr SAM, I will not be buying at that price.

[Des]

2 hours ago, Head in the clouds. said:

So for nearly£12 you get a reprint of previous articles in a similar sized magazine for 2 !/2 time the price but for little or no extra work.

 

 

Actually it would involve buying six back copies at 4.99 each for a total of 29.94 (if they are all still in print) to get the six original articles if one did not already have them.

 

Their website makes no secret of the material having been printed in the monthly magazine before and explains the rationale behind the project  , have not seen the publication yet so no idea if that information is repeated there but a quick flick through I am sure would have revealed the similarities to regular readers.