Landing Craft October What Size?

What size is the Mini Landing Craft in the October Model Boats? The article doesn't give an overall length but then there is the plan...........

I have been asking for better scales to be included on plans to help digital readers and Lindsey has agreed to do this from the next plan to be prepared.
As a result of this interest I have had a look at Glynn Guests Mini Landing Craft in the October Model Boats. I know that the original model was 14in because details were published here (14in length in post 2):

RC Groups see post 1 to 4

Glynn does give some dimensions on the plan such as the propshaft length which is 5in. Sure enough if I scale that the overall length of the model is 14in.
Unfortunately the plan provided to digital readers when printed on the A4 of the magazine gives a model of around 9-10in.

Is the same true for print readers? If built to the print plan what would be the actual length of the model?

If the same 9-10in then surely some sort of warning would have been appropriate to help the less experienced and roll on the better (or indeed any) scales printed on plans.

Edited By Chris E on 13/09/2023 12:18:10

Yes, the size in the print edition is exactly the same as printed out from the digital version. Maybe the plan was originally intended as a full size pull out and shrunk to fit the centre spread in the magazines as a 'mini plan'.

It is fairly obvious from the prop and shaft sizes quoted, but I agree it could have been made more obvious for the benefit of the beginner.

Colin

You are more forgiving than I am.

An article with no overall length given and a plan where you have to scale it by using the propshaft length sounds like a real mess to me.

As I said roll on good quality scales being printed on all plans.

Whilst not wanting to criticise anyone who is going to the trouble of providing plans in these times I have to agree with Chris here. Not having the overall length on the drawings or even in the title is a serious omission, especially for a build aimed at beginners. This is such a basic requirement.

The magazine is almost worse here as you can't use the plan without enlarging it (unless you are happy with the size) as unless the builder can scan and enlarge it themselves then I doubt many will bother.

Chris

Edited By Chris Fellows on 13/09/2023 16:53:34

I do appreciate the points you are making. It is certainly an oversight on somebody's part! Sometimes these things just slip through when people are in a hurry, in this case the plan may have been repurposed and the article not closely scrutinised to check what changes needed to be made.

In my Bilsdale article I went to great lengths to explain how the image in the print edition and its counterpart in the digital edition could be enlarged at various scales and the consequences of doing so. I thought I had made everything clear but, with serveral people involved, things still went off the rails a bit initially and had to be corrected which was a bit frustrating.

Colin

Hi Chris F

I have PM'd you

Regards Ray

Perhaps I should add that I am not blaming Glynn for this problem. I guess that the responsibility lies elsewhere just as it did with Bilsdale.

Hi All,

I think the production team do a great job putting the magazine together, as they have very little knowledge of the subject

Paul F would have been all over it like a rash as he was a fine modeller, still sadly missed

Regards Ray

Does it really matter, just build it the size you want it to be

Does it really matter, just build it the size you want it to be

Yes, quite, but it is aimed at beginners who probably expect to be able to cut out the bits from the pages in the magazine rather than have them enlarged first..

Colin