Steven-434888

Hi folks. Not kits right now I'm sorry to say but VMS varnish in matt, semi-matt and gloss flavours. I've tried pretty much everything from other manufacturers but this VMS gear is seeing everything else staying put on the paint shelves. It's a bit idiosyncratic and goes straight into the airbrush undiluted, which is particularly weird as it's like syrup that'll make you think 'that'll never get through a 0.4 nozzle'...but it does (about 25-30psi) . The matt to date has dried dead flat with the all important attribute of no white specks and flecks appearing via micro-clumping of the matting agent. As an aside, when that's happened with other brands a light touch of Johnson's Klear kills the specks and a light overspray of the matt restores happiness to the bunker. The VMS gloss needs to be put on as a 'bomb coat' that stops short of running and then put aside and not touched, looked at or even thought of for 24 hours. The net result has always been the most decal friendly surface I've ever tango'd with. Really marvellous stuff but as I say, specific in its needs. As for new acquisitions - da boss has told me I can play with a 1/32 Kotare mid-production Spitfire Mk.I when they fly in from down under. Happy days Steve

Hi Dominic. Thanks for that. I've no idea where the F-35b will 'sit' in terms of the modelling experience. I hope it's all you want it to be when it's ready for the flight line. Pretty sure Airfix are aware of that "...eagerness..." you mention, particularly as their management team are responsible for generating it in the first place... laughing Me? I'm always totally Zen about new releases winding up in my modelling bunker... TTFN Pinocchio

Hi Tim. Thanks for that. The irony is I still haven't modelled a GINA with Nick's Red Devil! I'll put that right in 1/24, sooner rather than later. Take it easy. TTFN Steve

Cheers for that. It's a physically small thing for sure but a useful illustration that, even with the IPMS article by Doris Reeves, these things can become lost to view. TTFN Steve

Hi folks. Sometimes modelling takes an unexpected turn. Can't see a link icon, so I guess it's a case of cutting and pasting the address below into a new browser: https://sunkmanitutankaobwaci.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/nicolsons-red-devil/ TTFN Steve

Hi Dominic. The F-35b is in the latest issue (February cover date) along with the other Airfix releases for 2023, in a special news article I understand. AMW can’t say a lot about it at the minute because no test-shot is currently available, so comment on the detail levels is understandably not possible. As soon as a test-shot is received (due soon I believe), it’ll be previewed and then built in full, as usual. TTFN Steve

Hi Gavin. Chris Clifford extends his kind thanks for your polite and well reasoned reply. Both Chris and Stu are always happy to receive any feedback and suggestions about the style, content and direction of AMW. Chris Clifford (Editor at large) can be reached at: chris.clifford@keypublishing.com Stu Fone (AMW Editor) can be reached at: stuart.fone@keypublishing.com Chris said he's keen to understand your thoughts more, so please do drop Chris a line to let him know. That invitation applies equally to all by the way, so have your say. I'm grateful to you for raising the thread. slightly_smiling_face TTFN Steve

Hi Gavin. Chris Clifford, AMW's 'Editor at large' has replied to your question and other aspects raised in the thread: “I’d like to address several points here. Regarding gradings in AMW, we have to take an average because we can’t account for everyone’s individual skill levels… that’s impossible. What we do is make a measured stab at what we think it is, taking into account the materials included (PE, resin and the like). The Infinity Helldiver offers PE and paint masks in the box, so we are duty bound to highlight them. Sadly, the wrong grading was afforded to the Helldiver, which should have been Intermediate at least due to the challenging fit and presence of kit-supplied aftermarket. In terms of the type of modeller AMW is aimed at, we cater for all… as evidenced by the presence of aftermarket, but also basic from-the-box builds. All new Airfix toolings are built in the latter way on their first showing, and then we tend to use aftermarket on their reissue so the coverage doesn’t repeat itself. We have many out-of-the box builds, as well as the semi-regular Back to Basics features, which have covered brush painting and plenty of other beginner skills. Any accusation that AMW does not cater for the average modeller is, frankly, incorrect. We also do highlight any problems with a kit in its building, whether it’s Airfix or any other brand. Lastly, AMW covers as many different brands as it can, besides Airfix. The original Airfix magazine from the 1960s onwards always did this and we are simply carrying on with that ethos.” TTFN Steve

Hi Gavin. Thanks for that. It's an interesting query and one that really needs quite a lot more explicit clarity in order to define 'basic' in a way that's more quantifiable. It would help if you (and others) bullet point the precise characteristics of 'basic' please - 'out of the box' has been mentioned but that can mean a huge difference in complexity when you contrast the current 1/32 Revell P-51D with a 1/32 Wingnut Wings Stahltaube for instance (I've done both for the mag). I'm interested to know if 'basic' here is in any way and to any degree being directed at the quality of finishing? Do you think that's a factor? Either way, it's necessary to get more meat on the bone as I'm sincerely interested to know. My m/o, whatever I get to build in AMW, is always to point in the direction of Occam's Razor - that the simplest solution is invariably the best. In my mind, I want everyone who reads a piece I've contributed to think 'I can do that'. I'm what would be called in footballing parlance a 'mid-table obscurity' modeller; neither the best out there or the worst but occupying a middle space. In tandem with that, it's apposite to highlight that when good to excellent modelling goes on show you'll find one of two responses to it. The first goes hand in hand with the cliche 'well, that's it - I might as well take up knitting'. Sometimes that's a joke, other times not. The second reaction (which is always mine) is the opposite when I see modelling that leaves me in the dust - it's aspirational and inspirational and shows me what's possible with the right techniques and approaches. It gives me something to aim at and try and evolve into. Whether I succeed or not doesn't actually matter - I just enjoy trying. Viewpoint is important in anything. Take it easy. TTFN Steve

Hi Scott. Lovely stuff! Do you do any magazine work? If not, then might you consider auditioning with Airfix Model World? I'm not offering you a slot (I have no authority on that front) but if you're interested just email the editor stuart.fone@keypublishing.com I'm a contributor on AMW myself and just thought I'd chuck it out there. Much looking forward to forthcoming 'cat updates. TTFN Steve

Hi. As Ratch has mentioned, this was part of a You Tube 'Sprue Talk' episode this year. It seems when Airfix looked at this, it was apparent that only a small percentage of purchasers included pilots in their builds. In tandem with that, Chris Parker-Joy (who designed the 1/24 IXc) advised that the CAD they employ is not suited to 'organic shapes'. Profit margins on new kits are cut-throat and need to be tightly managed to keep manufacturers solvent. Every aspect is quantified and measured to reduce overheads and tooling costs to the lowest possible level. I couldn't possibly say how many builds of kits that had pilots in the box I've seen on multiple forums that were completed without them - truck loads. That doesn't invalidate your preference to include a figure though but simply means that in today's circumstances hopefully the aftermarket crew will make suitable additions available. In terms of the cost of the kit, it's exceptional value for money - there's a ton of modelling in the box and it was Airfix's aim all along to keep the retail price sub-£100. Some sellers are already discounting it seems, increasing that 'bang for the buck' aspect. Wish you well with yours! TTFN Steve

Hi Ratch. Thanks for that. There's a caveat that goes hand in hand with tackling review builds in AMW, which is to make every effort not to misdirect or mislead the reader, hence my post on Britmodeller and mention of the two decal errors here. There are a few areas on the kit that need attention to keep fit tight - the cockpit firewall needing thinning on the engine side to properly sit in its channels, the ailerons received a late CAD change and the mating surfaces need quite spirited thinning to properly sit in the aileron bays (otherwise they're too thick and will 'step' above and below the wing), the port coolant pipe to the glycol tank won't locate as directed in the build guide sequencing (I have a 'no cut' solution that solves it), the port engine panel frame is about 60% thicker than the starboard one, which hinders the frame sitting neatly behind the prop plate as it's otherwise designed to (it fouls the front bend of the feed pipe) and the positioning of the glycol tank, relative to the feed pipes is critical for everything attached to it to line up as intended. Take it easy - looking forward to seeing what scheme you choose! TTFN Steve

Hi Ratch. No, the quartet of builds seen on 'Workbench' and SMW 2022 are entirely credit to Paramjit, who did a marvellous job on each. I did the French option in AMW, one that'll no doubt crop up quite often! Spot the error in placement of the red decal on the pilot's door - it should be at the top...doh! Old age is a terrible thing. I think if the decal placement drawing had included the lock / release bar I'd have spotted the orientation but either way, still my mistake. If you happen to see my AMW build please ignore the incorrect use of the 'Muscat' decal - I asked for clarification on it in the last days of the build but regrettably didn't receive a response and was obliged to gamble (wrongly as it happened) but no worries. Are you deploying the flaps and exposing the engine on yours? TTFN Steve

Hi Steve. Dale addressed the question of pilots in kits in a prior edition of 'Sprue Talk' on You Tube earlier this year I believe. The essential message, as I heard it, was two-fold. In the first instance, tooling pilots isn't straightforward and is something of a challenge for the designer. Not insurmountable of course but time consuming and an extra production cost, to set against profitability. In tandem with that, having looked into the frequency with which pilots were included in builds they determined that the rate was low and so it seems that this'll have to be something the aftermarket folks will hopefully backfill. TTFN Steve