Scale Aircraft Modelling

[Nigel Bunker]

Well I picked up my copy today and I fear it has hit an all time low.

No 'Aircraft in Profile' for the first time in 32 years.

The content consists mainy of "Compact Build Reviews", which to my mind are not reviews but quick ( and largely uncritical) builds.

Apparently Revell (of Germany), Trumpeter, Hasegawa, Academy, Airfix and Tamiya are available from Hannants/SBX or Hannants - now I would have thought that Revell (of Germany), Trumpeter, Hasegawa, Academy, Airfix or Tamiya distributors would be a better description, and do justice to the hobby shops across the country who stock these brands for us modellers.

Book reviews are split into "what they say" and "what we say" - the first appears to be lifted from the dust jackets and the latter says very little due to the short space allowed. The idea of a book review is for a non-partisan view of what the book is like, not to reiterate publishers blurb. Personally, I like the style of reviews in the Aeroplane, which are far better done.

Well if I was marking this magazine , it would be marked 'D - see me'.

Rant over.

Edited August 27, 2010 by Nigel Bunker

[vandy1]

I used to enjoy this magazine but there are so many errors. I used to work on a mag and I know it cant be perfect, but the amount of Typo's, wrong scales added and so on make it hard to read.

Plus all the kits seem to be availalbe from the one well known source, plus there is a conflict of personal interests too.....

Just my personal opinion.

Cheers.

DSJ.

[Max Headroom]

Do you think that the new Airfix mag will worry them?

Trevor

[atdb27]

I have been a loyal follower of this publication.

But even I (sadly) now think the title has lost it's touch.

There are other titles who do give some more critical views/reviews/builds etc.

With cut backs aplenty on the horizon me thinks this title may have to go!

Adrian

[AnonymousAA74]

I've been given a couple of these recently, and despite the snazzy layout, it's a lightweight in comparison with MAI and SAMI. I can usually finish with SAM after about 10 mins and not bother to return to it, unlike the other mags which I return to from time to time. WTF is a 'compact build review'? Money best spent elsewhere I think, and it's just as well I never paid for my copies.

[thx6667]

A pass from me as well, alas.

I have to say, for as much as some of the old guard thought Robbo took the magazine away from what Alan Hall created, Robbo actually refined it and bought it more up to date.

The basic SAM template is very sound, it just needed better presentation.

[Dave Fleming]

WTF is a 'compact build review'?

A phrase I cannot abide! Why not just call it a 'Review' and the longer articles a 'Feature'? Build gets on my nerves enough without adding something to it!!

Gotta say, I've stopped buying it, it doesn't 'do it' for me any more. Yet according to Regis and Jay, circulation has never been higher, so some people must like it.

Actually, there's not a magazine that I truely say suits me anymore - MAM before Neil left was what I wanted form a modelling mag. Model Aircraft World is probably the closest these days.

[Seahawk]

Gotta say, I've stopped buying it, it doesn't 'do it' for me any more.

Actually, there's not a magazine that I truely say suits me anymore - MAM before Neil left was what I wanted form a modelling mag.

Check and check! Now that the MAM/SAMI relationship is more nakedly "models in one, reference material in the other", I've more or less stopped buying both. Overall, the proliferation of magazines means that, instead of buying 3 automatically each month, I buy 6 on a very occasional basis, only when there's something that piques my interest. Over the last year Aeroplane Monthly is prob the mag I've bought most often.

Mind you, the decline in my magazine buying could be down to the quality and interest of the material on this site.

[TheModeller]

Yet according to Regis and Jay, circulation has never been higher, so some people must like it.

Yes Dave, but there are some people that like watching Jeremy Kyle...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you want to see how a modelling magazine should done take a look at Military Modelling. Not perfect, nothing ever is, but I can safely say I can read it and not feel patronised by the editorial or lulled into catatonia by another 'awesome build'...

[AnonymousFO98]

Pretty much what has already been said and have also stopped getting it earlier this year.

The book review quoting the dust jacket is hardly a review, but more like regurgitating the blurb.

Which leaves less space for "What we say."

What I say is not repeatable here.

But what we say, the publishers and editor don't give a monkey's about as circulation has never been better.

When is the Airfix mag due out please?

[Dave Fleming]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you want to see how a modelling magazine should done take a look at Military Modelling. Not perfect, nothing ever is, but I can safely say I can read it and not feel patronised by the editorial or lulled into catatonia by another 'awesome build'...

I've always said 'Model Rail' is the template our side of the hobby should look at (although it doesn't seem to be as good as it was a few years ago)

I didn't consiously stop buying SAM, I just picked one up a few months back, had a look through and thought 'there's nothing for me'. Same thing has happend the last few months.

Edited August 28, 2010 by Dave Fleming

[vandy1]

I've always said 'Model Rail' is the template our side of the hobby should look at (although it doesn't seem to be as good as it was a few years ago)

I was Technical editor on this publication for 4.5 years. I left in 2005

Cheers

DSJ

[ChocksAway]

It's journalism on the cheap - and repeated in a similar style in the majority of magazines across all interests.

[Seahawk]

Yes Dave, but there are some people that like watching Jeremy Kyle...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you want to see how a modelling magazine should done take a look at Military Modelling. Not perfect, nothing ever is, but I can safely say I can read it and not feel patronised by the editorial or lulled into catatonia by another 'awesome build'...

And with the occasional treat of an article by Steven Zaloga, a man who knows (or researches) his subjects thoroughly, provides excellent supporting reference material and produces very nice models. That's the sort of article I look for in a magazine: something that leaves me better informed and/or more inspired than before I'd read it.

[Dave Fleming]

I've always said 'Model Rail' is the template our side of the hobby should look at (although it doesn't seem to be as good as it was a few years ago)

I was Technical editor on this publication for 4.5 years. I left in 2005

Cheers

DSJ

I'm not going to say 'that's when it started to go down hill........' but I always enjoy your articles Darren. The irony is that I'm not even a railway modeller (I do some subcontracting for my father in law) but I bought and kept every issue. Lots of very useful technique articles!!

Edited August 28, 2010 by Dave Fleming

[FalkeEins]

Well I picked up my copy today and I fear it has hit an all time low.

..I don't agree...plenty of great builds of all the new kits making the news -what's wrong with that? As for the AiP feature I think the super detailed F1U feature provided far more 'useful' reference than the usual sort of four or five page 'Profile' treatment that other publications seem to specialise in (like MAM) and which frankly are a waste of space and newsprint. Four pages of text and some dodgy artwork - whats the point ?

I do think Jay missed a trick with this issue though - it could easily have been a Luftwaffe 'Special' - talking of which were is John Vasco's Bf 110 piece - or have I missed it...?

and MAMI still haven't covered the Airfix Emil months after its release

Edited August 28, 2010 by FalkeEins

[Test Graham]

I think you've missed the point: MAM doesn't do modelling any more and hasn't for some months. It is also printed on rotten paper, which doesn't do credit to whatever good articles/photos/artwork it has.

I feel that none of the aircraft modelling magazines out now are regularly worth buying, for none manage to integrate the hobby with the history in anything like a satisfactory manner. Lots of photos of made-up models do absolutely nothing for me, and an editorial policy to avoid any genuine comment or criticism means the reviews are totally useless.

[FalkeEins]

I think you've missed the point: MAM doesn't do modelling any more and hasn't for some months. It is also printed on rotten paper, which doesn't do credit to whatever good articles/photos/artwork it has.

..my point was that you can't do a worthwhile 'profile' piece on, say, the Fw 190 or the B-24, (to pick a couple of recent MAM 'features') in four or five pages of text and side views..agree with your other points to a certain extent - but those of us who've bought some of the big new Eduard kits, for example, probably welcomed the step-by-step build articles that SAM have done for them. We've covered review policy before - you can hardy slate Aerospacemaster Publishing (or anyone else) when they send you a copy of their latest £60 Meisterwerk - all you can do is describe it and show it..so in terms of actually getting a look at the product they are not entirely without value

Edited August 28, 2010 by FalkeEins

[Test Graham]

..my point was that you can't do a worthwhile 'profile' piece on, say, the Fw 190 or the B-24, (to pick a couple of recent MAM 'features') in four or five pages of text and side views..

I entirely agree with that - with the important qualification that not everyone has been modelling for over fifty years, or is a died-in-the-wool Luftwaffe/8thAAF enthusiast. The magazines do have to provide introductory-level articles alongside the esoteric. However, it is a habit which is not and never has been restricted to SAM.

[marty_hopkirk]

..I don't agree...plenty of great builds of all the new kits making the news -what's wrong with that?

Here, here.

I have never been a subscriber or religiously bought any of the modelling mags, rather choosing on a case-by-case basis based on content and have no allegiance. But, in the last year or so I have bought more issues of SAM than I have in the last 20 years or so. I just think it might be a case of all change is considered bad.

Marty...

[AnonymousFO98]

Rather think that change is okay as a principle, but in SAM's case the diminished content and quality were not so good.

[TheModeller]

I just think it might be a case of all change is considered bad.

Good changes are considered good.

Changes to lower, or even bend, the bar so the publication is a clone of its competitors simply in order to ensure circulation are not good

Its not really that difficult a concept to grasp, dumb it down and it'll sell to more people, just ask the producers of X-Factor!

And so goes the only worthwhile model aircraft magazine published in the UK, not closed, or put out to pasture, or renamed and relaunched, but neutered and warmed-over until its just another manufacturers mouthpiece. C'est la vie!

[Nigel Bunker]

I think the super detailed F1U feature provided far more 'useful' reference than the usual sort of four or five page 'Profile' treatment that other publications seem to specialise in (like MAM) and which frankly are a waste of space and newsprint. Four pages of text and some dodgy artwork - whats the point ?

my point was that you can't do a worthwhile 'profile' piece on, say, the Fw 190 or the B-24

Well I have my copies of SAM in binders and indexed on the PC largely because of Aircraft in Profile. In the Alan Hall days, this was the meat of the magazine, 8-10 pages of text followed by 8-10 pages of the excellent Mike Keep's artwork. They provide a quick and easy source of colour schemes for kits, covering a broad range of subjects, most of which I have no other reference for. I am just completing an Airfix Sunderland and the old SAM provided details for a fully camouflaged example, which I wanted in preference to the white fuselaged examples. Yes, I know I could have bought "Warpaint" or the Osprey book on the Sunderland, but there seems something perverse in spending more on the reference material than on the kit - after all, I am hardly likely to build a shelf full of Sunderlands.

I just cannot see myself referring back in 20 years to the current issue of SAM.

SAM thesedays seems to appeal to the assemblers of kits (those who buy the kit, resin accessories and aftermarket decals) rather than the modellers (who take a kit and improve it using raw materials such as Mike Grant does in SAMI).

Hooray - I have become a Grumpy Old Man, but I am in good company.

Edited August 29, 2010 by Nigel Bunker

[stever219]

My subscription to SAM lapsed when Mr Laverty took over, fortuitously.

I had been a subscriber for several years and had had the magazine on order at my local ewsagents since "day 1" of SAM, up to the point when I took out the subscription, but sadly no omore. As others have said it has become a series of abbreviated "in (lack of?)detail" articles, SFTB-with-resin/etch builds and very uncritical reviews.

One reason I used to buy the magazine was to find out what errors (if any) there were in any given kit and how best (or easiest) to correct them, or even if it waas worth doing so. What I don't particularly want or need in a review is to read what pre-and post-shading (yeuch) the "reviewer" has used: by all means tell me which paints have been used, especially if the chosen colour scheme is a "special" or unusaual one, but paint techniques are perhaps better suited to a "how to" article?

Another reason I used to buy the magazine was for the conversion article: just now I'd like something on the conversion potential for Airfix's new Bf110 for instance, but these sadly now seem to be a thing of the past. I never was very good with balsa, dope and talcum powder, but it never stopped me enjoying the artilces. (Sorry guys: I just can;t get excited about yet another Israeli F-16 conversion.)

Sadly a high proportion of the magazines nowadays seem to be following the same formula, loads of advertising and dreading to tell it how it is. Things (over critical reviews) have been taken almost to the other extreme on sone other modelling sites ("Let's pillory the latest Airfix/Trumpeter/Hobbyboss kit because we can, and it's not Hasegawa or Tamiya"), but there must be a happy medium somewhere (hereperhaps:)).

Model Aviation World seems to be the best of the bunch at present, but as has already been said on this thread the bar seems to be getting lower reecently.

Just my two pen'orth,

Steve

[kitbasher2009]

I've been following this thread with interest, and in my capacity as a recently (and officially) 'grumpified' old man I tend to agree with pretty much all that's gone before. SAM is sadly a pale shadow of itself and it's been a while since I last bought a copy.

MAM in the Neil Robinson era was excellent, and became my first choice of modelling magazine. Since dropping the modelling aspect it has become a rather nebulous chimera that is easily missed amongst the aviation magazines. Sad really because there are some good articles to be had in MAM.

SAMI has always been a bit of a lightweight 'homage' to 'Golden Era' SAM, moreso recently given the SAMI/MAM split discussed above. As a potential - sometimes actual - customer, I can't help but feel that both titles could be best sustained by merging them - 'Son of SAM(I)' anyone?

Not an original idea I know, but it would represent an optimum mix of reviews, previews, builds and references. It would hopefully be broad in scope, detailed and authoritative - and given the number of subjects out there could run for quite some time yet. Most importantly it would not be percieved as a bit of a rip off, as the SAMI/MAM combo may appear to some as being. SAMI + MAM = £7.90 per month; I'd be prepared to pay £5 for a single, combined SAMI/MAM if it meant there'd be a distinctive, good quality (and good value) 200-page modelling monthly on the shelves. And I've checked - SAMI is just about 200 pages per issue.

Also the magazine malaise isn't just limited to modelling magazines. I've taken 'Air International' for about 30 years, but have become so dismayed by the magazine's decline in appeal I've given it up. Yes, it is well-printed, contains some fantastic glossy pics, but compared to the past the articles are somewhat superficial, seem to be too heavily based upon press releases and interviews, and there's no longer the mix between news, current types, history, etc, that characterised the magazine until recent years. At one time I thought it stood head and shoulders above all other aviation publications in terms of content, quality, quantity and value for money.

Finally, like another contributor to this thread, I think only Aeroplane Monthly has continued to maintain its character and standards in recent years. perhaps that confirms my official 'grumpy' status!

Rant over.