Military Aviation Monthly

[Coors54]

I received the March edition of the magazine and after reading through it and re reading this thread I thought I would put pen to keyboard and I sent Neil the following email:

Dear Neil,

After buying Model Aircraft Monthly for several years every month from WH Smiths, my wife bought me a subscription for last year’s birthday. MAM has fitted my requirements perfectly - well researched historical and modelling articles with modellers in mind, focusing on the World War Two to early Seventies period . I took the re naming to Military Aircraft Monthly with equanimity as with you as editor I felt the magazine would continue to offer me what I wanted.

So I recently renewed my subscription but after receiving the March 2010 issue I’m not so sure this was such a good idea. I’ll list my reservations in magazine order: -

1) Paper quality, this has always been a bit disappointing for me, it feels thin and cheap and doesn’t seem to reproduce photographs well, particularly black and white ones. I’ll come to photographs later. I recently looked at a railway magazine, thick, quality feeling paper with large, clear colour and B & W photographs. The cover price was similar to MAM so it can be done.

2) Cover picture. Why use a warbird B-17? Were there no relevant colour pictures of period B-17’s available? Is this in order to have appeal for the spotter market? The cover is also crowded and a bit confusing.

3) Editorial – alarming news of the magazines shift to a “reference” work, seemingly encouraging us to now buy the sister magazine SAMI if we want models. A magazine I gave up on several years ago as merely a listing of whats new. If this is the case I’m not impressed.

4) Air Wars 7. Interesting article on a USAAF raid but it didn’t read or flow well for me and seemed cut down somewhat. The photographs are not reproduced in a large enough format to really pick out details which again is not helped by the paper quality. I realise Testors are the sponsors of this piece but space taken up by listing their paints seems a waste, could a separate re useable paint listing insert not be used? If you must list their products why not link them to the colour profiles?

5) Spark Varks. Again small pictures and a feeling of being a 3 page filler that told me nothing new on this aircraft. No drawings to show detail differences between models, no colour references for paint schemes, no interesting mission stories with personalities, nothing worth saving to refer to again. Scale Models magazine did a much better job some years ago.

6) Avro Anson. One of the few articles in the magazine worthy of the term reference and suitable for saving to refer to again. With the usual caveats about photograph size and quality this is what I want in a “reference magazine”. Followed up by a good build article on the type. Almost like old times.

7) Airfile Sea Harrier F/A2. A potted history of the type with some interesting photos but little in the way of captions to point out modelling interest ie the photo at the bottom of page 45 , why no comments about the colour and wear on the underwing tanks? The missile fit? Etc etc. Lightweight reading again. Who is this article aimed at? If you are a serious student of the SHAR you will have books on the type and expect more detail and information so I assume you are catering for the casual reader. How does this square with the aim of providing reference for the enthusiast?

8) Scaled Up. Again lots of small pictures that don’t show the detail required, with a small five paragraph section on modelling the SHAR that again seems aimed at the casual reader/modeller. The captioning of the pictures was better and more detailed here though.

9) Putting a Gloss on it. Well written and interesting article on a little known subject, maybe a bit “technical” and dry for some but more the sort of reference article to be aimed at. Again let down by small, muddy photos, ie page 56. This sort of article cries out for larger photographs to see the details.

10) NATO Tiger Meet. For me a total waste of space. If I want this sort of news article it is done with better quality photos either on the ‘Net or in current aviation news type magazines. Where is there anything that could be termed reference? No colour notes or references, just a space filling series of pretty pictures.

11) Vigilante profiles. Ho hum, this format flatters to deceive, it looks good but can you use the profiles to make a model? Not without more information on the other side of the aircraft, top surface marking positions etc. No colour references. No photograph of the subject aircraft. Ah, you need a reference book for that.

12) Stores Station. This is a good idea; stores information is not so easy to come by - so where are the dimensions, the colour references? A scale GA layout drawing would be useful. Modern weapons are easier to get information on via the web so a concentration on older weapons (up to the eighties?) might be more useful for reference.

The rest of the magazine is letters and book reviews. I appreciate the magazine is in transition and is trying to find its feet but at this point in time I’m not impressed with the change and if I hadn’t subscribed I would not have bought this issue and would seriously look at future issues before buying. This is a shame as I would pick up and buy the magazine in its previous guise without looking.

I presume it is easier to fill the page count with pictures of modern hardware than get well researched and illustrated articles on older types.

If MAM morphs into a version of the old Air Enthusiast Quarterly I will be a happy reader but this mish mash of sketchy newsy articles and a few more serious reference pieces with the threat of no modelling content does not work.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism, MAM has been my favourite modelling magazine for some years, it fitted my interests perfectly but the change of focus threatens to make it a jack of all trades and master of none.

Neil has replied, thanking me for my comments and that he would forward them to the powers that be.

All comments appreciated.

[pigsty]

I looked in the aircraft section. I didn't think to look in the military section, so I will next time. If it is there it would seem to suggest that this repositioning of the magazine may backfire. The publishers presumably think they want to attract people browsing amongst the aircraft titles. If MAM is nestling amongst the military modelling titles this is unlikely to happen. In my local Smiths the military titles are on a completely different set of shelves from the aircraft ones.

Each branch varies. Mine in Redhill puts the military, avaition and models all together, just off the floor. Handy, but it brings a whole new set of problems to my creaking knees. Croydon's are a bit more scattered but still low down, although the wider aisles and shallower shelves mean you can browse with your eyes and lift them out without having to crouch. Sometimes I wish they were up there with all the stroke mags - after all, it's just another form of perversion.

and to be fair to Neil Robinson - there's not an "apostrophe" or (bracket) to be seen in it

At a guess I'd say that was down to higher editing standards - which is a whole other kettle of red herrings.

[davidelvy]

Well, I looked at the military modelling section in the Llanelli branch of Smiths and there was no sign of MAM. As SAMI was on the shelf I must assume the branch has decided not to carry its sister publication. That rather stuffs the idea that the two magazines will complement each other. They will hardly do that if you cannot find them together. To be fair it is a small branch, so I would not expect the full range of modelling magazines - I haven't seem SAM there for ages. There are plenty of aviation titles, though. I'm in Swansea tomorrow, so I'll see what a "big city" branch has to offer.

[FalkeEins]

4) Air Wars 7. Interesting article on a USAAF raid but it didn’t read or flow well for me and seemed cut down somewhat.

..nice summation Dave. FWIW this 'Air Wars' feature was lifted wholesale from a monograph published (by Jan Zdiarsky) way back in 2003. Some of the personal accounts had been edited out. Picture quality was hopeless indeed.

Edited March 9, 2010 by FalkeEins

[mick b]

..nice summation Dave. FWIW this 'Air Wars' feature was lifted wholesale from a monograph published (by Jan Zdiarsky) way back in 2003. Some of the personal accounts had been edited out. Picture quality was hopeless indeed.

MAM has been guilty of re-hashing a number of articles, namely a series of builds by Randy Lutz that were from issues of SAMI from years ago. I too emailed Neil Robinson regarding this and he assured me it wouldnt happen again, but obviously it is, although to be fair I dont think Neil has total control on the content.

Mick

[Giorgio N]

Finally got my copy yesterday ! Have to say I noticed some changes, yet there is still enough for me to make me buy the magazine. Sure, the air battle article didn't include enough content of modelling interest, and the EF-111 article had pictures so small to be almost useless. I enjoied the SHAR in scotland pics though, and the Anson articles caught me even if the Annie isn't really on top of my modelling priorities. I have mixed feelings about the other SHAR article though, I believe most of it was of little relevance to the SHAR2. Replacing it with something more modelling oriented would have been nice.

All in all it wasn't a great issue as others in the past but it was a good enough issue. Im looking forward to the april issue.. especially the RNoAF Starfighters article !

[Dave T Brown]

I don't think I am letting the cat out of the bag so to speak, but I know Neil has handed his notice in with SAM Publications.

I am the Author of the Mosquito FB VI "Aviation Guide" published by SAM, as well as having written some articles for MAM and I for one would never go anywhere near SAM Publications again. I found the owner the most arrogant, self opinionated person it has ever been my mis fortune to be involved with. I personally feel that without Neil at the helm MAM will be a practically useless magazine.

I only hope he is snapped up by a publisher that appreciates his knowledge and editing style so that we can once again look forward to a quality modelling magazine not just a "kit bashing of the latest releases" magazine which seems to be the way they are all going.

[FalkeEins]

I know Neil has handed his notice in with SAM Publications.

wow, that is breaking news ! ..and certainly explains a lot.

[Matt Roberts]

Lets hope for the best there with Neil leaving. I started buying the magazine when he came on board. I wonder if it may return to an occasional purchase now versus a monthly one. The modeling articles - though sometimes not of the best quality versus the French mag or Tamiya were much more inspiring to me than the 'perfect' models often found elsewhere.

Most of the SAM magazines I have bought were when he was editor, I honestly don't think I have bought more then a couple since ($12 each here in the States vs $8.50 for MAM/SAMI doesn'y help either).

We'll see

Matt

[Coors54]

I was aware when I posted my copy of the letter that Neil had resigned but he had requested that information be kept confidential. Now it is out in the open I will say that I am not surprised. The magazine seemed to be heading off in a direction that suggested Neil was not steering it!

In my few dealings with SAM Publications I can confirm everything that Dave says.

Great shame but I am confident Neil will re emerge and be in a better place, with a magazine that appreciates what he is trying to achieve.

[Nick Millman]

Oh no - not good news. I'm sorry to hear this. Neil has weaved magic with every magazine he has edited.

[Dave Fleming]

Oh no - not good news. I'm sorry to hear this. Neil has weaved magic with every magazine he has edited.

I can only concur with what Nick says

[Coors54]

Just cancelled my MAM subscription. Cost me a fiver in "admin fees" but relieves me of having to take a shadow of itself magazine with limited appeal to me for the next 12 months. Now to decide what I should take in its place - suggestions?

[Biggles]

If its true then I'll not be renewing my sub to MAM - just buy the odd copy when an article interests me.

Will keep SAMI though (for now) as I like their more humourous stance.

However, wherever Neil pops up next - thats the mag I will be subscribing to next!

[Dave Batt]

I don't think I am letting the cat out of the bag so to speak, but I know Neil has handed his notice in with SAM Publications.

I am the Author of the Mosquito FB VI "Aviation Guide" published by SAM, as well as having written some articles for MAM and I for one would never go anywhere near SAM Publications again. I found the owner the most arrogant, self opinionated person it has ever been my mis fortune to be involved with. I personally feel that without Neil at the helm MAM will be a practically useless magazine.

I only hope he is snapped up by a publisher that appreciates his knowledge and editing style so that we can once again look forward to a quality modelling magazine not just a "kit bashing of the latest releases" magazine which seems to be the way they are all going.

Oh, b***s! That is a really unwanted piece of information. Mind you, I got the real impression that MAM was the unwanted relation in the SAM Publications family. I don't think the "Management" has got a good grip on the situation here.

Hope that we do indeed hear of Neil's continued presence in the field, and hope he's learned something from SAM Publications rather Heseltinian attitudes to paying contributors.

Regards

David Batt

[Edgar]

If (and we don't know, for sure) there's been any friction, remembering Neil's recent medical drama, stress will be the last thing he needs, so a pull-back could be a life-saver, for him. If he chooses to retire (much as I would hate to lose his talents,) then I'll be the first to wish him well; I can vouch for how much better one can feel, when the work-place is replaced by the armchair (provided that there's something to keep having a go at.)

Edgar

[Dave Batt]

If (and we don't know, for sure) there's been any friction, remembering Neil's recent medical drama, stress will be the last thing he needs, so a pull-back could be a life-saver, for him. If he chooses to retire (much as I would hate to lose his talents,) then I'll be the first to wish him well; I can vouch for how much better one can feel, when the work-place is replaced by the armchair (provided that there's something to keep having a go at.)

Edgar

Absolutely true. I should have thought that possibilty through first. I guess it's too easy to get self-interested when the other party's aren't in clear sight.

David

[Nick Millman]

Slightly off-topic but the current issue of MAM (April) has an interesting account of Soviet Airacobras written by Vladimir Kotelnikov. For years the online VVS pundits have pounced on anyone daring to suggest that Russian Airacobras were used as ground attack aircraft but the article makes it clear that they were. For example it mentions that the 216th Air Division's records for the period January to May 1943 show 187 aircraft claimed destroyed in the air but 200 on the ground, whilst the 9th Guards Air Regiment claimed 13 aircraft, 110 motor vehicles, 100 horses, 5 steam locomotives and many enemy troops. In September 1943 six pairs of Cobras destroyed 13 locomotives during the retreat from Mariupol.

Well worth a read. Brings to mind Brian Knight's box art on the old Revell 1960's kit.

[Dave Batt]

You know, I can see a method in the madness here. As the new focus Military Aviation Monthly finds its place in the 'full size aviation' sector, it will provide, each month, a focussed article on the modelling hobby. I'm very aware that an awful lot of full size aviation buffs simply have no idea at all what our hobby involves, and a significant number get quite interested when they find out that their memories of making kits as a child in the 'sixties are seriously out-of-date. 'Educating' a load more full size enthusiasts through the pages of MAM would not entirely be a bad thing, I would suggest. At the same time, the articles themselves will be written with an awareness of what the modeller wants, something that the likes of FlyPast and Aeroplane singularly fail to do, so MAM will continue to be very relevant to us modellers.

Just a thought.

David Batt

Edited March 28, 2010 by Dave Batt

[Nick Millman]

That could work, but at the moment MAM is to be found (in my local W H Smith anyway) in the military modelling section, amongst the wargames magazines.

But in any case that is how the original MAM was set out and it always struck me as neither fish nor fowl. I didn't rate it until Neil took it on. Decades ago primarily aviation magazines - like RAF Flying Review - had small modelling sections. SAMI & MAM may be jointly edited to compliment each other but it strikes me as an expensive way of securing the aim (for the subscriber) with twice as much chance of finding content that is of no interest. Neil's MAM succeeded by combining reference (and generally good reference) and relevant modelling inside one cover, somewhat like the old SAM, with the feel of concentrated information on unusual subjects rather than by showcased big models and soundbites.

A case in point is that the VVS Cobra article could have been considerably enhanced by a round-up of P-39 kits and a few step-by-step builds with some discussion of Soviet (and US export!) camouflage and markings. Instead there were a lot of jet walkarounds. To have had the Airacobra modelling aspect within SAMI (it was not) could be just plain irritating.

[Nigel Bunker]

Well I bought the latest copy of MAM yesterday and I regret it will probably be my last. I only took up buying the magazine when Neil Robinson took it over and the content changed to something I was interested in. Many years have passed, and now the magazine is back where it started - not the type of magazine I want to buy.

And the latest copy was tucked away with wargaming in my local WHS. The change of title and content may be it's suicide note.

[cmatthewbacon]

Well, I got a copy along with my SAMI (as a subscriber) presumably to try to persuade me to buy both, as complimentary to each other. I had a look though, but it didn't persuade me - I have zero interest in Soviet Airacobras, for example. Which got me thinking...

The thing about a _modelling_ magazine is that most build articles have something of interest to pick up on, even if the particular subject or scale is something you'd never build in a million years. I've lots count of the number of tips and techniques I've come across in a build and thought, "ah-hah! I'll give that a try on my next one...", and more generally, seeing how someone else tackles a build is always valuable and grows your own "experience". As someone once said "Only a fool learns from their own mistakes; I learn from other people's." There don't have to be any mistakes for a build to be one you can learn from...

But the same's not true for a _reference_ magazine. You either want to know the information or see the pictures or you don't. Maybe occasionally an article will catch your eye, and you'll discover something interesting that you didn't know about before. But generally, there's a lot more "page-flicking". I'm interested in aviation history, so I read most articles in a copy of "The Aeroplane", but the MAM ones are at a level of detail that I find is too much unless I'm actually going to USE them. I can't fault the range of subjects in the current issue, but if I need to know what a HARM missile looks like, I'll Google Image it...

As I've said before, I really like the way Wingmasters combines historical reference, photo walkarounds and model builds in the same magazine. I think SAMI and MAM are trying to do the same thing, but between two separate sets of covers - and that just doesn't work for me.

bestest,

M.

[Dave Fleming]

A case in point is that the VVS Cobra article could have been considerably enhanced by a round-up of P-39 kits and a few step-by-step builds with some discussion of Soviet (and US export!) camouflage and markings. Instead there were a lot of jet walkarounds. To have had the Airacobra modelling aspect within SAMI (it was not) could be just plain irritating.

I agree with most of what you said, but my copy of SAMI has a small article on modelling a VVS Airacobra

[Nick Millman]

" . . but my copy of SAMI has a small article on modelling a VVS Airacobra"

You're right - I missed that one. Not quite what I had in mind though but it does point out the problem of having the historical feature in one magazine and the modelling article tucked away in another!

[davidelvy]

My subscription has expired, so no MAM through the post. My local Smiths has stopped stocking it so no sale there.

Of course I can look on the SAM Publications website to get an idea of what is in there. No modelling content at all, it would seem. Tony O'Toole's Scimitar pictures might be interesting, but not enough to get me to shell out, I'm afraid.

Edited March 29, 2010 by davidelvy