This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here:

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

  • Announcements

    • Mike

      Ongoing DDoS Attack causing Forum Slowness   26/04/17

      In case you have missed the announcement, the reason that the forum has been slow at times since the minor version update the other day is due to a Denial of Service attack, brute force attack on our email, and judging by the lag with our FTP response, that too.  If you're feeling like you're experiencing a glitch in the Matrix, you're not wrong.  This is the same MO as the attack in September 2016 that occurred when we transitioned to the new version 4 of the software.  We're currently working with US and UK cyber-crime departments, who specialise in this sort of thing, and we're hopeful that we'll be able to track them down this time by using the accumulated evidence already held.    We are pretty certain that it's a continuation of the same attack last year, only at a reduced intensity to deter people from using the site "because it's terribly slow", rather than taking it down completely, and we're also sure of the motivations of those responsible.  Spite.   Please bear with us in the interim, and wish us luck in dealing with these.... "people".

Patrick Martin

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

126 Excellent

1 Follower

About Patrick Martin

  • Rank
    New Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Military aircraft - anything without 'strings'

Recent Profile Visitors

609 profile views
  1. I do. I gave 40 CDs out at the 2015 Teleford for free and not one person emailed me after. PM
  2. Try Aviation News V3 #12 - RAF article also Air Enthusiast #57 Flying Review 1958 02 PM
  3. I have a slide of this aircraft taken in 1973 - with this pattern exactly but on the right starboard side. The left side shows the pattern to be like your Turkish example. PM
  4. Try these..... Short Shetland Putnam ident Short Shetland Aviation News 19 03 article Short Shetland Air Reserve Gazette 194801 photo Short Shetland I Flying Review 196206 letter drawing Short Shetland Air Pictorial 196707 letter Short Shetland Aeroplane Monthly 197409 photos Short Shetland Aeroplane Monthly 197803 article Short Shetland Air Pictorial 199603 ident Pat Martin
  5. So how many life times is it going to take to build them all - I have four life times planned of building......
  6. So my wife saw the Airfix Quick Build VW Camper Van and it was acquired..... An hour and a half of building attempts later, and after many colourful metaphors later it just did not fit. The problem seems to be the two black benches are just too wide. Anyone one else tried this? PM
  7. This photo was taken by the late Terry Waddington. Patrick Martin
  8. In defense of Revell - well Revell Germany anyway.... they have done all sorts of really nice kits, even in the rotor world and lots of that. Its the older pre Revell (Germany) and reboxing that is the crap stuff. Look at the nice Thunderbolts, Fw190, F-4, Typhoon, etc, not to mention the larger Fw200, BV222 etc.- great stuff!!! But where the do fail as noted above is in the 'cheap way out' of reboxing the really older 'somebody else's stuff' to the point I do not trust a Revell box anymore. Every time I see their boxes its 'hmmm I wonder who's kit they are boxing now - pass'. Imagine if they came out with a 'cat's meow' Starfighter today - most people would think its a rip-off of an older kit. PM
  9. Its a different cat - A-4M had a J52-P-408 engine with 11,200 lb.s.t., enlarged three-inch wider cockpit, different canopy, squared-off fin tip, self starter, and could use a ribbon drag chute. Had lots of internal differences and laser spot tracker, whilst the avionics hump was maintained. Note all E/F are not the same either - they evolved, engines, refuelling probes etc. Many had the bigger intakes with the bigger engine needing more air (hard to spot but if you had the two aircraft in front of you - you can see a difference). BUT do not be fooled by a batch of A-4F that received many of the abilities of the A-4M - including the square fin cap. These were only used by few line squadrons (USN & USMC) - near the end of fleet use. Then they went on the aggressor style role with VFC units - as they were hotter than the rest of USN stock. They still had the old style glass works - thus easy to tell them apart. The Brazilian Skyhawk are ex Kuwait - Thus A-4KU end of the line like A-4M and A-4N. Pat Martin
  10. It was basically built as a sparrow missile holder - something the G could not do. A cheap solution as they already had tooling from G production. Point interceptor - not really a fighter but the time it entered service. PM
  11. Nice different subject, colourful - great stuff. PM
  12. I would really like to see if you found any new photos with a nuke shape on a CF-104!


    Patrick Martin

    Langley BC

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Patrick Martin

      Patrick Martin

      I found only one besides loading pictures.  Odd that do many white BDUs were dropped flying from Baden etc - but no photos, again except a couple at Cold Lake.  Send me a reg email address and I can show you a couple.

      Pat Martin

    3. Trenton guy

      Trenton guy




      Thanks, Bill

    4. Trenton guy

      Trenton guy




      Thanks, Bill

  13. Remember when you go to a museum and look at an object, your eyes are making an impression in your mind of what you see. It is of reflected light - colour, or black and white. Same when you look at a printed sheet - magazine, book etc. - reflected light and all these steps can be seen in different conditions. Condition of subject comes to play - sun (angle etc), weather, dust, where on the planet you are viewing, altitude, I could go on .... Trust a repainted real subject after 50 years? The moment you take a photo (a camera's interpretation) then scan (scanners interpretation) and then display the result in print (yet another interpretation) and then viewed by eyes (yet yet another interpretation). By this point it is a copy of a copy of a copy that is being viewed. BUT if you project a result on a screen (after at least one interpretation and maybe photoshop alteration or two) - then it is projected light - entirely different kettle of fish. Nothing replaces holding up your painted result to an original painted aircraft (don't get me started on scale colour here). The bottom line will always be - does it look right to the viewer. How many UK modellers think, this or that, colour used on roundels are wrong on decals? And yes they are - why you ask. Because everything is an interpretation of an interp........... Pat Martin