Mavas 1

Issue 74 september 2012

mavas 2

Cover image“Supersonic High Flyer” byCris Stone, depicts theclosing stages of what wasa testing interception profilefor a pilot of an EnglishElectric Lightning. Thepainting was recentlycompleted as a commissionfor the front cover of aforthcoming second volumeof two books entitled “TheLightning Boys – True Talesfrom pilots of the EnglishElectric Lightning” byRichard Pike.

Editorial

If any member has an objection to the Society holdingMembership records on a computer and using the informa-tion for society purposes deemed suitable by the Commit-tee, eg; the production and distribution of a membershiplist, please notify the Editor

Rear Cover Image“Eagles Over the Alps”.By Chris Stone

This has been a busy three months with anexcellent June followed by an indifferent July,but August proved interesting ending. If youcannot attend meetings we hope the magazinewill put some faces to names.

This issue looks at the work of the digital artistand some of the work involved and Peter Nieldlooks at how digital art fits in theoverall art scene.

Printed documents have always been popularas a permanent ready to use media.Unfortunately printing costs, especially incolour,limit the size of our magazine.Electronic media has the glorious freedom touse full colour, costs no extra to distributeand, in this issue, has an extra six pages, withsome articles extended, and some extramaterial not found in the print version. If youfollow link to the Spitfire and P47C on YouTube, try it full screen and don’t getsidetracked.

Happy and successful painting.

Dave

mavas 3

The Lightning Boys - Chris Stone writes about thepaintings and the aircraft

4

Meet Jean Shevelan 10

June Meeting -The Jim MacKendrick Trophy 12

July Meeting - Sketching in the Museum 18

Peter Nield takes a highly polished look at CGI, Photos andTraditional Art

20

Wiek Luijken Replies. 23

Joep Peters shows the detail modelling can involve 25

Book Review by Roger Markman 28

August Meeting - Alternative Work 30

Newsround 32

Diary Dates - keep up to date 33

Contents

mavas 4

The first volume of “The Lightning Boys – True Tales from pilotsof the English Electric Lightning” by Richard Pike, was launchedin July 2011 at the Duxford Flying Legends Air Show. It has sincebecome an aviation history best seller, and is currently availablefrom Amazon or directly from Grub Street Publishing. On the coverof that book a Lightning Mk 3 is shown at the point of pulling 3Gimmediately the ‘wheels were in the well’ for what was termed a‘Reheat Rotation‘ take-off. This was not only an exhilaratingexperience for the pilot, but was an impressive air show displaysequence, particularly when performed by several aircraft rollingclose behind each other in a three second interval stream take-off.With thrust from the twin Rolls Royce engines in ‘after-burner’virtually equaling the weight of the aircraft, the Lightning was ableto snap into a vertical climb from take-off. It is these powerfulattributes of the aircraft that the publisher of “The Lightning Boys”most wanted illustrating on both front covers.

Chris Stone Air Cdre (Retd)Chris Stone Air Cdre (Retd)

mavas 5

“Reheat Rotation”.

mavas 6

Paintings can tell their own story, but a little narrativegives added insight. This brief overview is for thoseinterested in what went on inside a Lightning cockpit

during an interception.

The Lightning was the last all British-built (Lancashire!) fighteraircraft, and was specifically designed for single pilot operation.Being capable of flying at more than twice the speed of sound, andoperating at heights of 60,000 feet and above when it enteredservice with the RAF in 1960, it could be truly said then that thiswas an aircraft introduced way ahead of its time. Nonetheless, evenwith all the power, speed and agility of the Lightning, its pilots hadto work hard to master a wide range of interception profiles. Incurrent generation fighters, such techniques have been madevirtually automatic through advances in computerised radar,avionics, and weapon systems. But, in the Sixties and Seventiesthere was no such luxury in the Lightning as an on-board computer,or a second crew member to direct the interception.

It was always welcome to the Lightning pilot, therefore, if he couldoperate under “Close Control”. This was a procedure wherebyinstructions were broadcast to the interceptor by a fighter controllerfrom a Ground Control Interception (GCI) station. Sitting in frontof his large Plan Position Indicator (PPI) radar display, the fightercontroller would work out the ideal attack geometry, and vector thefighter expeditiously to a firing position. But such communicationscould not always be relied upon during hostilities when there werehigh expectations of radio and electronic jamming. Thus, a systemknown as “Loose Control”, in which the Lightning pilot had to workout all the attack parameters for himself, was regularly practisedfor such eventualities; and doing this on dark and dirty nights hadits moments.

Lightnings were armed with either two ‘Firestreak’, or two ‘Redtop’missiles. The ‘Firestreak’ was a heat seeking weapon, but reliableacquisition depended on a distinct heat source being detected such

mavas 7

as the hot gasses from an engine exhaust. It was thus restrictedto a stern shot. The ‘Redtop’, was also a heat seeker, but onewith a much more sensitive infrared sensor enabling it to acquireover a wider range of engagement angles. ‘Redtop’ could, forinstance, home in on the metal skin of a target that had beenheated by air friction; in which case it could even be fired fromthe front hemisphere. Obviously, a head on attack offered a goodopportunity of stopping a fast moving attacker before it reachedthe point releasing a weapon. A rear hemisphere attack againsta supersonic target, if expertly executed could be equallyeffective; but it essentially required the interceptor to fly aperfectly displaced interception profile in order to turn in behindthe target at the ideal missile firing range of about one and a halfmiles in the shortest possible time. Failing this, a long and fuelcostly stern chase could result.

A great deal, therefore, depended on an early detection of thetarget and accurate interpretation of its flight direction. The pickup range of the (AI-23) radar in the Lightning, however, dependingon target size, was only about 20 to 25 miles; and a furthercomplication arose from the fact that the radar presentation inthe cockpit was not conducive to easy determination of targetheading. Understandably, the Lightning did not have a PPI typeof display as in GCI stations that provided an all round azimuthpicture; nor did it have an A-Scope that painted radar returns ina wedge shape with the point of the wedge representing thefighter position. Instead, the Lightning had a small B-Scope displayof the search area in front of the aircraft with an expandedbaseline along the bottom of the scope that represented thefighter’s nose. This gave the pilot no option but to mentallycalculate the target’s exact path of movement by assessing thechanging azimuth of the blip as it closed range from 20 miles onthe radar-scope. Using this method, the pilot had to assess if thetarget was on a 180° displaced heading; flying a crossing angleeither in front, or behind him; or on a collision course. Havingdetermined target track, the ideal path towards a rear hemisphere

mavas 8

attack was for the fighter to maneuver on to a 180° opposed heading,and at the same time achieve that aforementioned perfectdisplacement distance. A collision course would be evident from atarget’s return on the radar-scope remaining at a constant azimuth,and this could be easily coverted to a front hemisphere attack if soarmed. However, in either case, working out the interception profile was ademanding task, particularly against a supersonic attacker comingin above 60,000 feet, and where combined closing speeds upwardsof Mach 3 left precious little time to get things right. In generalterms, the fighter would be set up on an initial heading towards thethreat, and at the tropopause (around 32,000 to 36,000 feet). Thiswas the ideal altitude for acceleration from subsonic to a highsupersonic speed essential for the zoom energy required to take outthe height differential of the target in the final stages of the attack.

Maximum visual concentration was obviously required with the pilot’shead-down in the radar-scope during the interception. There was arudimentary horizon bar in the B-Scope to keep the pilot aware offlying attitude, but attention to flight and engine instruments –especially fuel guages with full reheats engaged - could not beignored. And, if flying controls and throttles were not enough forthe pilot to manipulate, there was also the all important radar handcontroller to be managed. This was a small stick, positioned on theleft hand side of the cockpit just aft of the twin engine throttles,that incorporated an array of built in buttons, knobs, switches andtriggers. These performed a multitude of operations includingadjustment of scanner elevation, search modes, range scales, targetacquisition and lock etc - all essential to successfully flying theinterception profile to missile launch range.

Calls of “Fox One”, “Fox Two” or “Splash” – variations of announcing‘missile away’ and ‘target kill’ - were expressed in great relief.Time then to head back to Base to re-arm: better still to the Barand a beer!

mavas 9

What the lightning pilot had to contend with,Photo courtesy of the Lightning Preservation Society.

http://www.lightnings.org.uk/

Well worth looking at - or going to visit them at Bruntingthorpe.

For those readers with an interest in mental arithmetic, thisexample of a simple 180° intercept (it gets more complicated withvarying target tracks) was the basis for all interceptioncalculations: Using the rule of thumb that one degree in sixtymiles equals one mile, then thirty degrees at twenty miles rangeequals ten miles displacement - say left - of the nose (thirtymultiplied by twenty and then divided by sixty). If the target is ona 180° heading, it will then be at forty degrees to the left at fifteenmiles range – and maintaining the displacement in which thefighter can easily turn in behind. If the initial contact was at ninedegrees left at twenty miles, however, and moving to twelvedegrees left at fifteen miles, the displacement would only be threemiles. This would not be enough to turn in behind, so the fighterwould turn hard right to obtain maximum displacement.

Mavas 10

“Now children, let`s draw a picture”. Words I used to hate. How did youdraw a picture? “This is how you …….. and you watched whilst someone showedyou how to shape letters, mix ingredients, knit, sew, dig the ground, sow seeds– but drawing? Given a crayon and a piece of paper, where did you start?

Some twenty years on whilst on holiday in Cornwall watching an artist work.He took time to show me how he made the sea look real and then gave me apiece of canvas, a brush and some paint. By the end of the afternoon I couldpaint a sea! If I painted it was the sea. Move on another twenty years. In painand some three years with my right arm in a sling, feeling miserable. Physiohad by now started to get me to use my left hand, even the bank accepted mynew signature. Practice makes perfect they say. Try drawing now to give morecontrol. Those words again!

This time it was a colourful magazine on the rack with two pencils stuckon. Joe (my husband) got it and adrawing book. Now what? An article inthe magazine showed me how to usethe pencils, well pastel pencils, draw-ing, blending, have a go. What to draw?Sat in the garden with flowers allaround try them, on to the plants,trees, walls and finally the scenery. Notbad. Eventually my sling could be re-moved and now I had to learn to use myright hand once again so I tried thepastel pencils.

Jean, a stalwart memberwho travels from the wildsof north Lancashire to ourmeetings, shares her slowand bewildered journey toaviation art.

Jean Shevelan

Mavas 11

Confidence came and for practice Istarted to make “first night cards” for ourtheatre productions. “Noises Off” – lovelythunderstorms – pictures of dark skies withlightning flashes. What about the new guywho`s mad on aeroplanes? Where`s a pic-ture of a plane? A 747 that`ll do. Er, it don`tlook right. Oh well, where`s the black?Opening night cards distributed, “oh look a747”. Not bad for a silhouette. Next show,“Wind in the Willows”. Lovely chocolate boxpictures of weeping willows, er aeroplane?Joe had got me a book of aeroplanes, so heregoes. Sunset on the Somerset Levels, anaeroplane silhouette. Opening night – ohlook, a Badger. Yes an aeroplane called aBadger.

Some weeks later we took a friend tolook round the Haworth Art Gallery in Ac-crington. Joe showed me an exhibition ofaeroplane pictures – MAvAS. Connectionsmade and we came to a meeting and thedemonstration that night was Silhouettes!

I`ve been here ever since. Members havebeen patient with this novice artist. Mostimportant SHOWING me how it`s done.Meanwhile showing me friendship, supportwhen Joe died and encouraging my simpleefforts.

Oh, and the parachuting cat? The firstparachute drop was done in Lancashire whenthree kittens were dropped from a hot airballoon. Sometime after finding this out I waswatching my friend Cypher lying on his back,feet in the air and he gave me the idea of aparachuting cat. I`ve never forgotten thelook on the Curator`s face at Rawtenstallwhen she unwrapped the picture. Well, shehad asked for pictures connected with the area! The recognition of silhouettes?Dead easy for an ex-member of the Royal Observer Corps.

mavas 12

The Jim MacKendrick Trophy

The meeting in the ConferenceRoom was attended by 13members plus Bob Pick, Treasurerof the Society of Friends, who hadkindly agreed to judge the JimMacKendrick Trophy competition.The subject this year was‘American Aircraft’, chosen inmemory of our late member, JoeDeMarco. 18 works were enteredby 13 of our artists.

mavas 13

The Jim MacKendrick Trophy

5thJune

Bob`s selected winner was ‘Clipper onthe Step’, an oil painting by Peter Nield.(Above left) Also commended were‘Lindbergh`s Last Lap’ by David Bates(below left) and ‘From Hunter toHunted’ by David Taylor. (above

The meeting in the ConferenceRoom was attended by 13members plus Bob Pick, Treasurerof the Society of Friends, who hadkindly agreed to judge the JimMacKendrick Trophy competition.The subject this year was‘American Aircraft’, chosen inmemory of our late member, JoeDeMarco. 18 works were entered

mavas 14

K. J. Stancombe - Boeing Stearman

Above D. Bates - Martin China Clipper

Below left to right - R. Sargeant - FU-7 Cutlass Sky , XB-51 Desert Testing, R. Sargeant - P-39 Airacobra Jungle , R. Sargeant - B-25 Tokyo Bound

C. G. Taylor - Mariner on the Step

mavas 15

P. W. Grove - Five Minutes at Midway

Below left to right - R. Sargeant - FU-7 Cutlass Sky , XB-51 Desert Testing, R. Sargeant - P-39 Airacobra Jungle , R. Sargeant - B-25 Tokyo Bound

C. G. Taylor - Mariner on the Step

mavas 16

P. Rose - Harvard First Solo Flight

D .Bates - Martin XB-51

T. Jones - Wings of the Morning

W. Hague - Sea Fury R. S. Jackson - C-54 Berlin Airlift

mavas 17

Editor’s choiceC. Jones - B-17 Little Jo

P. Rose - Harvard First Solo Flight

D .Bates - Martin XB-51

R. S. Jackson - C-54 Berlin Airlift

W. Leeming - B-26 Marauder

This was followed by a useful andentertaining appraisal of the new

works by Roger Markman.

Mavas 18

3rd July

Sketching

The meeting in theConference Room on 3rd Julywas attended by 15 membersplus Wayne Leeming`s 8 yearold son, Alex.

Len Sakowicz chaired the eventwhich was “Sketching in Airand Space Hall”. After a 1 hoursession, members returned tothe Conference Room with atotal of 17 sketches.

Joint winners, judged by consensus,were Len Sakowicz and KeithStancombe who both sketched theJapanese Ohka. However, it wasagreed that Keith should receive theprize of a box of oil paints.

Mavas 19

Joint winners, judged by consensus,were Len Sakowicz and KeithStancombe who both sketched theJapanese Ohka. However, it wasagreed that Keith should receive theprize of a box of oil paints.

It would appear some members did more talking than sketching.Perhaps we need a techniques of sketching workshop…Ed.

The presentation was followed by anappraisal of the sketches by Roger Markmanand, notably, Alex Leeming was commendedfor his sketch of the E.E. P1A.

mavas 20

Peter Nield takes a highly polished lookat CGI, Photos and Traditional Art

The relative merits of computer generated images (CGI),photography and traditional art continue to be discussed in theart world. Likewise, their respective position in the world ofexhibitions is a lively topic.

Personally, I am a great admirer of digital artists and theirwork. Their abilities in harnessing all the electronic tools attheir disposal are formidable. I don`t think anyone can disputethat the artistic effects they can produce would challenge theskills of even the greatest traditional artists. See “Desert Spits”above. This wonderful example of CGI is the work of artist WiekLuijken. Check his website at www.luijken.com.

Photography has been around for a long time in variousforms, including digital, and it is unquestionably a versatile andsatisfying medium that requires specialised equipment and con-siderable expertise to achieve the best results.

mavas 21

Peter Nield takes a highly polished lookat CGI, Photos and Traditional Art

"How`s this for brilliant art without using bristles!"

There is no doubt that computer generated imaging is now a highlydeveloped art form in its own right and is used to great effect in staticimages for books and the movie industry. One can argue that the worldof film making will never be the same again.

The two media, CGI and photography, share similar characteristics,at least in terms of the final product. There is an initial artistic inputin both cases, but much more so with digital art. The photographerbrings together composition and lighting in an existing scene whereasthe digital artist is required to carry out considerable research andartistically create the scene. That is not to denigrate the art ofphotography. The common ground is that the end product for both is aprint, but what of the originals? If there is such a thing as a CGI original,it can only be a bunch of whirling electrons. It has no substance and,hence, no size. The original in photography is the negative but, inaddition to being too small to be of any practical use, the negativetones render it meaningless. Even with reversal film, the originalpositive transparency is too small in itself to serve any useful purposebeyond being the source of a much larger print or projected image.

mavas 22

The only way these two media can come to life is by producingprints but, by definition, a print can never be described as an original.Some suggest that a digital or photographic original can be created bymaking a single print to some arbitrary size and then destroying thecomputer file or negative. This can be done, of course, but in bothcases the so-called original will always be a second generation item.So where does this leave CGI and photography in relation to hands ontraditional art?

The only true original in art is piece of work that has been createddirectly by the hand of the artist, such as a painting, a sculpture, awood carving, etc. A true original carries with it the human presenceof the artist and it is the lack of this particular feature that places CGIand photography at a disadvantage in comparison with traditional artforms. This is difficult to describe but is easily demonstrated bystanding in front of an original painting and experiencing the uncannysensation of being in the exact space where the artist stood and beingable to reach out and touch the actual paint he or she applied. That isnot to say that CGI and photography lack soul, but you just don`t getthose spooky feelings when standing in front of a photograph or CGIprint. At least, that is my experience.

To my mind, photography is a highly skilled art form in its own rightbut it has so little in common with traditional art that it should beexhibited only in photographic exhibitions. On the other hand, CGI,having considerably more creative input regarding the scene, has agreater affinity with traditional art and can reasonably be justified asa fellow medium. Therefore, for the time being at least, I see no reasonwhy both CGI and traditional art should not be exhibited alongside eachother so long as the medium is declared.

One thing is certain, the world has moved on and CGI is here tostay and its success, certainly in the commercial world, has beenachieved mainly at the expense of traditional art. I am sure thattraditional art societies – like MAvAS - will continue but I feel that theywill need to accept and welcome CGI artists into their ranks if they areto prosper. Possibly we are in the middle of an artistic revolution andit won`t be long before CGI, photography and traditional art haveevolved into three very distinct groups. Maybe that has happenedalready in some parts of the world. Who knows, we might eventuallyend up with a fourth group involving holographic art!

mavas 23

I've read your article with interest, it's definitely a discussion point thathas come up again and again on ehangar.com If you don't mind I'd want to write a few words of additionalinformation:People often regard digital as work without soul or effort, sometimes evencompare it to taking screenshots from a game. I think that is highly unfairif you look at the work of the top digital aviation artists. Creating a CG artwork often takes weeks, this is after you spentmonths making the 3d model of the aircraft in question yourself. This notonly requires a good eye for composition, action, lighting and materials.You also need to be an expert at 3d model making and painting (digitally),otherwise the work will be substandard. The artist not only needs to beartistic but also very capable on the technical side. Mastering the 3dsoftware will takes many years (I started this in the late eighties, earlynineties and have been an professional 3d artist/director/art directorfull-time since '95). As a digital artist you still put as much of yourself in to the work asyou would do with traditional painting. You do just as much research, youtry just as much (if not more) to find the right composition and you're justas passionate about the subject. The big difference is indeed only in themedium. I've also attached a few examples of one of my other images (seeover) to show how much work goes in to creating the backgrounds forinstance. As you can see from that process it is quite different fromPhotography and much much closer to traditional art in this case. But yes,a lot of digital artist do not go through so much work to get to their endresult. And yes, some self proclaimed digital "artists" do no more thancreate a screenshot from a game. Which in my opinion isn't art and canbe spotted a mile away. The only thing there is find a right angle, whichdoes make it very similar to photography but is in a whole different league.

Wiek LuijkenReplies

Mavas 24

Working out the layout in 3d spaceusing multiple copies of the basemodel.

Rough of the sky colours

Rough ground colours

More detail in the ground

More work on ground and leadaircraft in place

Copies of base model painted in thecolours of other members of the Jasta

Final aircraftpainted and inplace finaltweeks tobackgroundand lighting

Mavas 25

painted and in

Link to student room dog fight

Joep Peters is a young freelance 3d generalist/3dmodeller.His models overleaf show the detail that is possible, and anotherbranch of the art - animation.

Visit him at www.j-peters.com/

mavas 26

The model has a fully detailedcockpit as well as workingundercarriage, flaps, elevatorsetc.

Joep even had to research thelettering on the instruments.

The fuel drums even have theLuftwaffe id. stamped on them

Link to P-47c video

mavas 27

These are the aircraft inthe dogfight

Joep even had to research thelettering on the instruments.

The fuel drums even have theLuftwaffe id. stamped on them

mavas 28

Given that the Lancaster is such a staple of aviation art, you willrevel in both these books, as I did. Both authors write in abrilliant clear, simple style, interspersing the historical narrativewith actual accounts of those who were there at the time,including German airmen and civilians!

Casting a long shadow over both accounts is the all-pervadingfigure of Arthur Harris, AOCinC of Bomber Command.Charismatic and inspiring, he possessed tremendous qualities ofleadership and organisation. He was, however, blind to the needfor open-minded discussion and change. To the end, he was anarea-bombing disciple of Trenchard.

Has a Long Distant Read From Here toBerlin and All Points in Between

mavas 29

The merits and shortcomings of the three “heavies” arediscussed in both books. It is amazing to learn exactly thedegree of contempt Harris had for both the Stirling andHalifax. The arguments put forward by the Air Ministry for thecontinued manufacture and use of the two lesser bombers isbeyond belief!

The human cost is just staggering, fifty five thousand deadaircrew! The bomber offensive was indeed an aerial Battle ofthe Somme and thereby a supreme irony; Harris was hoping toavoid another re run of World War One by the use of air pow-er!

The McInstrey book is fascinating in terms of all the otherassociated stories about the Lancaster, such as the Rose turretand the whole fiasco of .303 guns versus .5s. Harris fought alosing battle for .5s throughout the war. The Dambusters storyis here as well. My favourite is the American consideration ofthe Lancaster as the plane to carry the atomic bombs!

I urge EVERYONE to read both books back-to-back starting withMax Hastings’. You will be transported to another time andanother place! After finishing both (a BIG read as they areeach five hundred pages long) you will find that your thoughtswill return again and again for days, to what you have read.

mavas 30

C.Taylor

K.Stancombe

J.D.Williams

D.F.Steeden

AlternativeWork

Lack of space and only a few members’work recorded makes this selectionunrepresentative of the meeting

7th

AUGUST

mavas 31

P.S.Carter

S.Ridgway R.S.Jackson

R.Rumbold

This meeting in the Conference Room was devoted to“Alternative Art”. A total of 14 members attended and some30 pieces of artwork were brought along for scrutiny. Therange of subjects in various media was considerable, coveringanything from still life and brick walls through to portraitureand seascapes. Roger Markman, who is rapidly evolving intoour resident ‘Appraiser’, carried out his usual excellent critto the enjoyment – and benefit – of all concerned. Apologiesfrom the member who usually records the scene for posterityhe forgot his camera so all images on this occasion were takenusing a mobile phone camera kindly loaned by David Steeden.

Lack of space and only a few members’work recorded makes this selectionunrepresentative of the meeting

mavas 32

GAvA

NEWS ROUND

In the last issue the illustration of the SE5b in RogerMarkman;s article was not clearly attributed. Artist KevinClarkson not only gave permission to use the illustration butprovided a high resolution photograph. Kevin has someexcellent paintings on his website which can be found at

http://www.kevinclarkson.co.uk

Oops

Not news by now, but worth reminding members thatthe Guild of Aviation Artists’ website is a vast treasuryof aviation styles and subjects as their Aviation Paintingsof the Year Exhibitions are archived.While not encouraging copying the paintings, except forones own education, a trawl through the archives cantrigger a new slant on that painting that has been on thetip of ones artistic tongue (the one used to point onesbrush?) for too long.Watercolours do not have to be pale to be interesting,aircraft do not have to face the front, photo-realism isnot compulsory (even if one can achieve it).These and many other insights can be found at acomputer near you.

http://www.gava.org.uk

mavas 33

Diary DatesMeetings are held from 7-00pm to 9-30pm in the Conference Room inthe Air and Space Hall at the Museum of Science & Industry inManchester on the first Tuesday in the month unless otherwise stated.

Sat/Sun 8th/9th September

Exhibition at Southport Air ShowDetails from Exhibition Officer – Steve Ridgway

Contact no. 0161-285-0461Entries to be fitted with hooks and string and Society label

Tuesday 2nd October

Avro Trophy CompetitionSubject – “Pioneering Flights”

Adjudicator – Mr. Len Whalley of Avro Heritage Centre atWoodford

Tuesday 6th November

“Propeller Theory for Aviation Artists”An illustrated talk by Colin Taylor

Saturday 10th NovemberWorkshop – 10-00am to 4-00pm

A Demonstration in Acrylics by Mr. Carl Jacobs

Tuesday 4th December

“Market Place”Annual Xmas Meeting

No specific subject – general get togetherBring in items for sale, swap etc – 10% on sales to MAvAS.

Hopefully, there will be a few mince pies etc.

mavas 34

Edi

tor:

Dav

e B

ates

Tel

: 016

1-28

4-34

67 E

mai

l: da

vid-

bate

s@nt

lwor

ld.c

om S

ocie

ty w

ebsi

te: w

ww

.mav

as.c

o.uk

“Eag

les O

ver t

he A

lps”

.