Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Jonny

SAM November2019

Recommended Posts

Nice to see ‘The Editor’ (as described) has really taken the bull by the horns.  In this edition he’s started building a representation of a Dambuster Lancaster using the HK Models 1/32 Lancaster kit.

 

I must say he’s done a beautiful job on the cockpit ... including  ‘The solid bracket for the radar gear was replaced with brass rod”. (the  brass rod really does look nice, actually) and to be fair he’s made some very good improvements and additions to the cockpit such as the ‘landing gear actuation lever was a little basic so I cut off the top and made a new mechanism and cover“ and ‘The controls for the motor that spins the upkeep were added’.  Next month we can look forward to ‘Completing the Cockpit and the bomb-aimer’s position’.  I’m wondering if he’ll install the bomb strike camera or scratch a better one and possibly scratch either a Mk. 14 or a SABS bombsight.   No, that’s rude.  Mustn’t judge.

 

Could someone as well as me explain to The Editor that 617 Squadron’s type 464 Provisioning Lancasters used for the Dams raid did not provide radar for the Navigator?  I admit I’m being rude suggesting we might see a bomb strike camera / Mk. 14 or SABS bomb sight being installed in tge bomb aimer’s compartment but I do expect an editor of a magazine called Scale Aircraft Modelling to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of aircraft he’s modelling for the magazine.  As it is I don’t think I shall be renewing my subscription when my current one ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gawd, open season on SAM again is it?  I still buy them & enjoy them, I guess i"m just a simple soul without enough knowledge to count rivets & easily pleased. :(

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jonny's point is that the article takes a 'rivet counting' approach but ironically without reference to what was actually installed in the aircraft. The author is demonstrating his modelling skills by adding detail to a representation of something that didn't exist in the real aeroplane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no one else on this site is guilty of adding spurious detail from time to time? 

 

Sorry Johnny, I haven't read the article, but I  think you're just piling on for the sake of piling on.  Having written a few reviews myself, you just do not have the time to do deep research AND get the model built in a timely fashion whilst its still topical.  I/m guessing this was the case here.

 

Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you may know I was rather critical of a certain editor a few years back, and I will stand by those comments about that time. However, one thing did strike me and that was the notion of the armchair critic who finds it easy to mock but is unwilling to assist; and by that I mean in all walks of the hobby, not just print magazines.

So in an effort to atone and secure my place in Plastic Kit Heaven, I have over the last few years released my own decals and now I've started writing articles for magazines, which some of you may have seen. So here is my take on what's what, and I'd be interested to hear from other members who also write articles as to how much they concur or diverge.

The first thing you have to realise is that magazines are not put together by huge teams. Editors will expect contributors to provide their own text and photos with captions, and at about 500 words per page when one allows for some pictures too, it is amazing how soon one runs out of words for say an average 2500 word piece, if one is trying to give a decent balance between detail, interest and readability. I think I re-write my articles 3 or 4 times before I get them down to this. The notion that writers will pad out articles to get payment for an extra page might have happened (we are all human  and capable of venality if so inclined) but for me, if I'm asked to write 2500 words then thats what I aim for. If I'm asked for 5000 I can be more detailed and describe things in depth. My last article was 2545 words, and I think I spent 3 hours getting down to that from 2600. Believe me, at this level every word matters!  I write in Google Docs which will spell check and context check if you want it to too. I would encourage any contributor to spell check and context check. Spell checking and context checking can be tricky with technical language. Mention RLM colours or FS numbers and see what happens. Contrary to what you might think there is not some huge resource of proof readers and spell checkers on hand to do this for you at the magazine. You are an adult. Have some pride in your work and submit something that is spell checked. Editors will proof read and rewrite if required, but they do miss things as you lot are quick to point out!. If the number of people that some of you think worked on these publications actually did exist, we'd all be paying about £40 a copy to cover the salaries!

If you think it's easy, try writing an article for yourself. Make it 2500 words and try not to repeat the phrase "then I assembled", or "I glued x to y" more than 5 times too! In between building the model pause at regular intervals to take several shots of each construction phase. Shots must be properly lit, on a consistent background and with decent depth of field.  Now do this while not building a model that you would normally make and keep the text interesting. Hell keep the build interesting too. You have three weeks to do this. You aren't allowed to give up, shelf of doom things or just decide you can be a week late because you cant be bottomed. Your three weeks will include research on the kit subject so you can be familiar with what you are making. You might miss details that a real expert would spot, but then they have spent many years fathoming the intricacies of their pet love. If you are fully 'genned up' on the Avro Lancaster for example, get yourself to a similar standard on the Mig 17 so you can state with certainty which Zavod the C variant with the 5% larger airbrakes came from; model that on the kit, and paint it in a scheme that is as accurate as you can make it. Three weeks.

I assure you it is not easy. I find that writing articles and building for such is a completely different ball game to building for one's own pleasure.

Now consider the editor who must compile the humble offerings of his contributors, select images and generate his own content too. My experience is that the average working day for these guys is a lot more than eight hours. Probably more like 12, with up to 18 as deadlines draw near. It is a job. They do it to the best of their abilities, and they are not paid a fortune either. An old saying states never to turn a hobby into a career lest it become neither. Well these guys do, and they do it well. You get a typo, yes – that is annoying. Does it detract from the article? Most probably not. Will it annoy the editor they have missed it? Yes. It will and it does. But it does happen. If you think they are just slack, or can't be bothered, or are incompetent, or are too busy fondling lots of "freebies" then you are wrong. Utterly wrong. You do them a great disservice to think that. 

So, dear reader. The next time you find the spelling a little off in an article, email the editor to let him know. Be polite and proactive, and you will most likely get a reply apologising and promising to try harder! If you think the standard of writing is not very good- then why not have a go yourself? Editors are always looking for new contributors. Surely it's better to add something creative and positive to the hobby than just sit there and mumble over your keyboard? Ultimately your money is required to keep magazines going, and we still live in a free country where purchase is at your discretion, so the ultimate criticism you can level is to not buy of course.

We all grumble, we all like to moan and whinge. It's human to do so. But perhaps cut editors a bit of slack from time to time. They are human too.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very true Jon, and I agree with much of what you say, having been involved long ago in editing a publication - not a modelling magazine I hasted to say.

 

In this case though Jonny's point seems to me to be that the editor is writing an article of his own, and is adding  - well made - detail which did not  exist in that aircraft. That is a different error, and something of an 'oops'. Especially since some of the public presume (hope?) an editor's ideas are more reliable than the average.  By all means add such spurious detail if it makes the end result more pleasing, but say so. 'What if' models are often more fun.

 

It seems like a waste of considerable modelling talent. Of course since this is apparently part of a series of articles on the build, perhaps Jonny could drop the editor a note so he can mention his 'deliberate mistake' later !  We all make them... 

Edited by John B (Sc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John B (Sc) said:

All very true Jon, and I agree with much of what you say, having been involved long ago in editing a publication - not a modelling magazine I hasted to say.

 

In this case though Jonny's point seems to me to be that the editor is writing an article of his own, and is adding  - well made - detail which did not  exist in that aircraft. That is a different error, and something of an 'oops'. Especially since some of the public presume (hope?) an editor's ideas are more reliable than the average.  By all means add such spurious detail if it makes the end result more pleasing, but say so. 'What if' models are often more fun.

 

It seems like a waste of considerable modelling talent. Of course since this is apparently part of a series of articles on the build, perhaps Jonny could drop the editor a note so he can mention his 'deliberate mistake' later !  We all make them... 

Hi John, I appreciate what Jonny was saying, but could one not simply just email the editor and tell him in a polite informative way?  I know him, he's a decent sort.  It seems sometimes being sarky on here is perhaps more important, especially when there's a bandwagon to jump on...

ah  whatever. Its bits of plastic. Far more important things to worry about in this country and world at present.

cheers

Jonners 

Edited by Jon Kunac-Tabinor
forgot to sign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So surely  the answer is to write to SAM pointing out the error in a helpful manner. Its all about sharing knowledge and modeling magazines, often via their readership are a source of correcting long standing "truths". No one is beyond error so, why not help. Personsonally, I have started buying SAM again after a long hiatus. There is modeling in it again after years of look how well I can paint! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BushBrit66 said:

So surely  the answer is to write to SAM pointing out the error in a helpful manner. Its all about sharing knowledge and modeling magazines, often via their readership are a source of correcting long standing "truths". No one is beyond error so, why not help. Personsonally, I have started buying SAM again after a long hiatus. There is modeling in it again after years of look how well I can paint! 

Exactly- correct in a helpful way, so the modelling world shares.  

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

...

 

 If you think the standard of writing is not very good- then why not have a go yourself? Editors are always looking for new contributors. Surely it's better to add something creative and positive to the hobby than just sit there and mumble over your keyboard? Ultimately your money is required to keep magazines going, and we still live in a free country where purchase is at your discretion, so the ultimate criticism you can level is to not buy of course.

...
 

Well written as always Jon. I appreciate your articles even when the subject matter is of no interest to me; you know how to write and that makes a huge difference. I personally like the improved standard of model-making under the new editorship, but Gary Hatcher also really knew how to write and I miss his editorial flair and use of the English language. Every editor has their idiosyncrasies - Neil Robinson with his love of italics and "scare quotes" and Spencer Pollard with his fond use of gerunds - and I expect a lot of the grumbling is just the inevitable resistance to change. I do try and contribute myself, by writing fairly comprehensive articles, but since (for my own pleasure) I want it publicly visible on my own website, sadly that's of little use to the magazines...

 

Cheers

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jon Bryon said:

and I expect a lot of the grumbling is just the inevitable resistance to change

Hi Jon, thanks for those kind words.
I do try and make my ramblings interesting!  I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head with your perspicacious insight above.
Im off to see your website now - it's while since I visited, so I expect to be kept busy for a while. Your stuff always has the gleam of class.

Cheers

Jonners
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BushBrit66 said:

There is modeling in it again after years of look how well I can paint! 

I thought it had resisted the faddish painting rituals quite well since the Canadian diversion a few years ago until very recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Des said:

I thought it had resisted the faddish painting rituals quite well since the Canadian diversion a few years ago until very recently.

What sort of faddish stuff do you mean? I'm always intrigued as to how things come across.

Cheers

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

What sort of faddish stuff do you mean? I'm always intrigued as to how things come across.

Cheers

Jonners

 

I suspect this is two sides of the same polar-opposite whinging:

 

1) There are no tutorials or information on how to do anything. I am disgusted and will not be renewing my subscription.

 

2) There are tutorials or information on how to do something new and popular. I am disgusted and will not be renewing my subscription..

 

You can't win here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon

 

It was Steve Di Nucci, a member of IPMS Avon (my local branch) and long time SAM contributor who said something a few years ago that  me realise why the mags did nothing for me after 20 plus years of really enjoying them. No one builds anymore. He was right. The old Jim Howard or Terry Marriot articles built kits, pointed out faults quirks, inaccuracies and improvements and how to tackle them and resulted in inspirational models. From there we somehow got to10 pics of a beautifully weathered model, with one line saying it went together OK and this is my 50 stage painting process. No probs with the latter except it was the same process as last month. I buy mags to be informed inspired or warned about a given product and to admire the resulting model. Chris seems to be getting back to that. If you don't want to add all the stuff he does fine. You can mix and match. A new process for finishing is only part of the story. 

Edited by BushBrit66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BushBrit66 said:

Jon

 

It was Steve Di Nucci, a member of IPMS Avon (my local branch) and long time SAM contributor who said something a few years ago that  me realise why the mags did nothing for me after 20 plus years of really enjoying them. No one builds anymore. He was right. The old Jim Howard or Terry Marriot articles built kits, pointed out faults quirks, inaccuracies and improvements and how to tackle them and resulted in inspirational models. From there we somehow got to10 pics of a beautifully weathered model, with one line saying it went together OK and this is my 50 stage painting process. No probs with the latter except it was the same process as last month. I buy mags to be informed inspired or warned about a given product and to admire the resulting model. Chris seems to be getting back to that. If you don't want to add all the stuff he does fine. You can mix and match. A new process for finishing is only part of the story. 

I was dismissive of your first comment, but now you've clarified it, I agree with a lot of the above.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BushBrit66 said:

Jon

 

It was Steve Di Nucci, a member of IPMS Avon (my local branch) and long time SAM contributor who said something a few years ago that  me realise why the mags did nothing for me after 20 plus years of really enjoying them. No one builds anymore. He was right. The old Jim Howard or Terry Marriot articles built kits, pointed out faults quirks, inaccuracies and improvements and how to tackle them and resulted in inspirational models. From there we somehow got to10 pics of a beautifully weathered model, with one line saying it went together OK and this is my 50 stage painting process. No probs with the latter except it was the same process as last month. I buy mags to be informed inspired or warned about a given product and to admire the resulting model. Chris seems to be getting back to that. If you don't want to add all the stuff he does fine. You can mix and match. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it happens I *did’ Email SAM’s editor pointing out that so far as I know, the Type 464 Provisioning, I.e. the Dambusting, Lancaster's didn’t carry radar.

 

He responded to the effect that his references (he didn’t say what they are) stated that radar was carried.


To my knowledge, the only navigation aids carried was Gee ... one navigator reported it was ‘jammed something chronic’ close to the Dutch / German border.  Gee wasn’t radar.

 

If anyone has evidence that radar was carried on the Dams raid I’d appreciate being told it was, and what it was..

 

Jonny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

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


Oh yes, Terrence Marriot ... I vividly remember his articles including photos of *very*  detailed cockpits and reading “detail was added simply using scrap” or similar making me wonder just how the heck he did it!
 

I was sorry when he seemed to slip out of sight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jonny said:


Oh yes, Terrence Marriot ... I vividly remember his articles including photos of *very*  detailed cockpits and reading “detail was added simply using scrap” or similar making me wonder just how the h3ck hedid it!
 

I was sorry when he seemed to slip out of sight


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Terrences partner died tragically young and she was a modeller also. I assume he is still around and we'll I hope?

His models were of a style that some loved or hated. He detailed, often using effect rather that strict accuracy leading to the odd howler. I remember a Finnish Buffalo that was based on the Tamiya kit, completely un converted and therefore the wrong sub type. He did not own an, airbrush and up close it was workmanlike. However, the presentation and"everyman" techniques he applied were great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

What sort of faddish stuff do you mean? I'm always intrigued as to how things come across.
 

To take the November issue (and not your I-16 which is a very good example of modelling) but faddish in the sense like other publications out there a lot of space taken up by the painting process - a double page spread of 16 stages in applying Bf-109 camouflage each with the paint tin used , several views showing the nuances of natural metal on the J-29A which to my eyes at least were lost on their journey to the printed page , double page spread on how to apply SEA Camouflage to an F-4.

 

14 hours ago, Jonny said:

To my knowledge, the only navigation aids carried was Gee ... one navigator reported it was ‘jammed something chronic’ close to the Dutch / German border.  Gee wasn’t radar.

 

If anyone has evidence that radar was carried on the Dams raid I’d appreciate being told it was, and what it was..

 

The Gee box is there to the other side of Navigators position and your comment is accurate ,  some crews did do Gee checks crossing the North Sea but working on a line of sight principle once over Holland and before being jammed they had to 'pop up' and risk radar detection to get a fix.

 

By Summer 1943 H2S began to be used in widespread squadron service across Bomber Command , the scanner assembly used the fixing point for the short-lived ventral gun turret so always possible that standard squadron aircraft completed in March that year might have some elements of the equipment such as the cable runs installed but probably not the display and control boxes which if carried would have to be maintained and were exposed to unnecessary damage.      The Type 464 did not carry the H2S scanner and was generally stripped of all non-essential equipment so hard to see why they would leave the otherwise useless black boxes in place at the cost of another couple of gallons of fuel.     One of Harris' objections to the Dams Raid was that any aircraft which survived would be of limited operational use afterwards and as far as I can see the Type 464s that remained in service after the Operation Chastise never had the scanner retro-fitted.     There was also the security aspect of needlessly carrying sensitive equipment on a raid where there a higher chance than usual  of an aircraft being shot down , it was already known that the Germans had salvaged parts of at least one H2S set from one of its earlier raids while it was in limited service so why risk giving them more for no reason.

 

But maybe this was not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Des said:

To take the November issue (and not your I-16 which is a very good example of modelling) but faddish in the sense like other publications out there a lot of space taken up by the painting process - a double page spread of 16 stages in applying Bf-109 camouflage each with the paint tin used , several views showing the nuances of natural metal on the J-29A which to my eyes at least were lost on their journey to the printed page , double page spread on how to apply SEA Camouflage to an F-4.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/10/2019 at 21:06, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

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!

 

+ for Jim Howard's work. I have the pages of his build for the Cooper Details Westland Whirlwind safely filed in the kit box. 

 

Can I also add a vote for FSM in the 80s and 90s? Great builds by the likes of Paul Budzik, and also how-tos for shelving, airbrush booths, resin casting, painting , seam filling etc. And the adverts for products available across the Atlantic (don't forget this was pre-Internet) just were the stuff of fantasy!

 

Simpler, happy times

 

SD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 10:57 PM, BushBrit66 said:

I think Terrences partner died tragically young and she was a modeller also. I assume he is still around and we'll I hope?

Terry used to be a member of the same modelling club as myself until he decided to leave the modelling scene a few years ago, we're still not sure why. He is still alive. and as you say it was his partner who tragically died young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...