Category: History time

New Year, New Stuff

Howdy, all! I trust you all had a safe, healthy, and happy holiday.

We’re looking forward to the New Year. With a New Year comes new promise, new adventures, and new things to get done.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Speaking of getting things done, I am on the closing stretch on the trio of Vermont ANG F-16C’s. The paint is done, the decals are on, and I’ve begin final assembly. I still need to do the bases, and the in-flight model will take a little more work than normal since I have configured the landing gear to be shown in-transit. It should be a cool display…

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

On the “New Toy” front, I finally pulled the trigger and bought a Silhouette Cameo 4 at the beginning of December. I should have some time soon to get the beast set up and running. The intended purpose of the machine is to cut paint masks and stencils, but it can do so much more–creating styrene parts (one reason I opted for the Cameo over the Portrait), making vinyl stickers for displays, etc. Stay tuned…

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Speaking of New Stuff, here’s something I’ve been meaning to share for a while. Once the F-16’s are done, I’ll be starting a new project, and I thought it would be fun if I shared how I plan my projects. Not all of them go into this depth of research, but this should give you an idea how I do things (note, this is how I do things—your mileage may vary). Without further fanfare, here’s the dope…

Subject: A-10A, S/N 73-1669, C/N A10-0006
Time/Date: 8 June 1978
Place: Edwards AFB

The project will be to replicate the ejection of then-MAJ Francis C. “Rusty” Gideon, Jr. from the sixth preproduction A-10A when a gun propellant test caused a double engine flameout after a secondary gun gas ignition event robbed them of oxygen.

I want to show the airplane in flight, the canopy jettisoned, and the seat just starting to come out of the cockpit. So, that means that I won’t have to worry about detailing the landing gear wells or the cockpit.

So, where would you start?

I usually begin with the subject and drill down into the data. The basics usually result in the brief summation I started with above—What, Where, and When, and what configuration I want to display.

Next, I start to drill down into the available references. What are the particulars of the subject? Is this something I can do with an existing kit or kits, or will I need to do some scratchbuilding? If it can be done from a kit, which kit best fills the need? What modifications do I need to make to show it in the configuration I want to display? What about additional details? What do I need to know about the colors and markings?

Let’s look at these one at a time. We’ll start with the particulars…

First, you should note that several well-traveled internet sites refer to the preproduction A-10A’s (serial numbers 73-1663 through 73-1669) as a YA-10’s. This is incorrect—there were only two YA-10’s built, 71-1369 and 71-1370. These were the two airplanes that were in the “fly-off” for the A-X contract against the Northrop (note spelling—there’s no “u” in that word!) YA-9’s. These two also participated in the later “fly-off’ between the A-7 and the A-10. The two YA-10’s were quite a bit different from both the preproduction and production A-10A’s.

Here are the key things to consider:

• Ejection Seat: The A-10 was originally built with the Douglas 1E9 ESCAPAC ejection seat. Incidentally, events such as this one hastened the conversion from ESCAPAC to ACES II across the A-10 fleet.
  

• Leading edge slats, Ventral Strakes, and Trailing Edge Fairing: The YA-10’s had some issues with wing buffeting at high angles of attack (AoA, or “alpha”), particularly when the gun was fired. To combat this, leading edge slats were installed on the inboard section of the wings between the fuselage and landing gear sponsons, ventral strakes were added to the fuselage where the wing joined the fuselage, and a wing-to-fuselage fairing at the trailing edge junction. All the preproduction airplanes were so fitted.
  

• Flap guides: The original design for the YA-10 allowed the flaps to extend 40 degrees. The flap travel was later limited to 30 degrees on the preproduction ships, and finally limited to a maximum of 20 degrees on the production aircraft. The flap guides—those rails on the underside of the wings at the ends of the flaps—were altered accordingly. 73-1669, being a preproduction aircraft, was limited to 30 degrees.
  

• Gun: The YA-10’s were initially fitted with an M61 20mm Vulcan cannon because the GAU-8/A Avenger was still being developed. All the preproduction airframes had the Avenger from the outset, with the perforated sleeve at the muzzle end. The aft facing scoops covering the gun gas purge slots and fan were not present on the preproduction airplanes.
  

• Chaff/Flare dispensers: Chaff and flare dispensers were not initially fitted to the preproduction or early production airframes (think early DM or MB A-10’s in the various camouflage schemes before Euro I was standardized), they used pods instead. The production aircraft were fitted with streamlined boxes under the wingtip turndowns and the underside of the aft end of the landing gear sponsons. 73-1669 did not have the dispensers at the time of the incident.

The first thing most modelers consider are “which kit?” and “what scale?” Seems logical, right? In order to do this, let’s look at the data. We know we want to build a preproduction A-10A. Are there any kits out there that fill this bill?

The answer is yes: Monogram and Hasegawa in 1/72nd scale, and Tamiya and Revell in 1/48th scale.

They’re all older kits. Monogram’s dates back to 1977, as does Tamiya’s kit. Revell’s kit originated in 1979, and was later “retired” in favor of Monogram’s plastic (circa 1986) when Revell and Monogram merged. The easy way to tell them apart is to look at the box top—if the box top shows a photograph of a built-up model, it is the original Revell plastic. If it shows box art, it is Monogram plastic.

Hasegawa’s is the youngest of the quartet, arriving in 1982.

The pros and cons: In 1/72nd scale, Monogram’s kit is nicely done except for the engine nacelles—they’re egg-shaped. You can fix them, graft nacelles from another kit onto the Monogram fuselage, or built it as is and be happy. The pilot figure in Monogram’s kit is superb. While we’re speaking of such things, it appears that Gideon was wearing the blaze orange CWU-1/P or K-2B flight suit, as opposed to the sage green standard issue suits of the day.

The initial issue of Hasegawa’s 1/72nd scale kit did not feature the chaff and flare boxes under the wingtips and sponsons, but all subsequent reissues had them. Removing them is a rather easy task, so don’t sweat it. Hasegawa kits issued in 2014 or later have started to add the additional bits (or modified parts) to depict the LASTE and more modern configurations, so these are more bits you will have to delete.

In 1/48th scale, both Tamiya and Revell’s kits are great kits for their time. The nose of the landing gear sponsons on the Tamiya kit are a little square. Also, in subsequent reissues, Tamiya added the chaff and flare dispensers, so if you get a later issue of the kit you’ll need to remove these.

The engine fans on the Revell kit sit too close to the inlet and the compressor blades turn the wrong way. I would think that any of the available resin fan sets would be a good start—they probably won’t be an exact fit, so you’ll have to exercise your modeling skills. Frankly, I wouldn’t worry about it…

If you don’t like “ancient plastic”, you certainly could backdate any of the currently available kits—any production A-10 kit can be backdated to preproduction configuration, if you want to do the work. Depending on the kit, you may need to remove the LASTE humps and bumps, use an ESCAPAC seat, and delete the scoops over the gun purge slots, delete the modern antenna fits, and installing the earlier pattern bits.

If you work in 1/32nd scale, you have one choice: Trumpeter’s 2001-vintage kit, and it will need to be backdated.

Now, let’s look at some photos. The entire ejection sequence was caught on film by the chase aircraft, so we can determine a lot from stills taken from the recordings. As with all A-10’s, the aileron trim tabs were deflected a bit (both the fixed and adjustable tabs), so a little cutting and repositioning will be in order. Also, the flaps seem to be extended to some extent, so again, you’ll need to break out the razor saw and cut the flaps loose. Unfortunately, I know of no aftermarket flap sets for the A-10 in any scale. I’ll be happy to be proven wrong on this point.

As mentioned earlier, there is really no need to go hog wild on detailing the cockpit or gear wells. So save those photoetched and resin doo-dads for a project where they will be seen.

Ordnance, too, is no concern, as the airplane wasn’t carrying any. The wing pylons on Stations 1 through 4 and 8 through 11 were fitted, but I have yet to see a good photo of the underside of the fuselage, so I’ll assume the pylons were fitted to Stations 5, 6, and 7 as well. The PAVE PENNY pylon was not installed, the photos and videos clearly show this.

Colors and markings are interesting. This was one of the early experimental paint schemes that featured a black undercoat with varying numbers of coats of white paint on top. As the white paint eroded, it resulted in a mottled gray finish. The rudders and wingtips were red.

When it comes to decals, there are a few options. In 1/48th scale, the Tamiya kit features the basic markings for 73-1669, but the camouflage color notes are vague. Microscale (the OLD Microscale) offered sheet 48-69 back in the day that featured 73-1669 and most of the other preproduction airframes.

In 1/72nd scale, Microscale’s sheet 72-313 will take care of you. You’re on your own in 1/32nd scale…

As far as goes a good guide to the interesting minefield that is early A-10A camouflage, I can’t recommend a better reference than Dana Bell’s Colors and Markings of the A-10 Warthog (C&M Vol. 24) from the folks at Detail and Scale (ISBN 0890242247). A real good photo of 1669 appears on page 7, showing how the scheme looked before the white was allowed to erode, exposing more of the black undercoat.

Likewise, Dana’s A-10 Warthog In Detail and Scale (D&S Vol. 19, ISBN 0816850305) is a good source for information.

The last consideration that needs to be made concerns the display itself. How will the airplane be suspended “in flight”? For the VTANG F-16C, I plan to use a length of acrylic rod inserted into the tailpipe of the jet and plugged into a hole in a display base. Given the airplane was depicted just taking off, this was an easy choice. But the A-10 was at 2,000 feet AGL when MAJ Gideon pulled the handles, so the acrylic rod plugged into the base might not work. I’m still in the “thinking” phase on this one.

That’s where I am on the project to date. I don’t plan to start this project until the VTANG F-16’s are complete, but I thought it would be interesting if I shared some of my methods with you.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

That’s all I have at the moment. Take care of yourselves, and be good to one another. As always, I bid you Peace.

Howdy, all…

So, which is it?  Are we artists?  Craftsmen?  Neither?  Both?

Anybody who has skimmed the various online forums has seen this argument before.  A model is featured, and viewers proclaim it as “fine art”.  Others reply that modeling isn’t an art, it is craft.  Who is correct?  Is either correct?  Or is neither one correct?

Let’s see what the dictionary has to say…

Merriam-Webster has several entries for “Art”, but the one that best fits our question is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.  Also: works so produced.”

As for “Craft”, there are likewise several entries, but the one that interests us is “An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or artistic skill.”

Boy, that was helpful, wasn’t it.  Let’s see what that great repository for all Internet knowledge, Wikipedia, has to add…

“Art is a diverse range of human activities involving the creation of visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), which express the creator's imagination, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.”

“A craft or trade is a pastime or a profession that requires particular skills and knowledge of skilled work. In a historical sense, particularly the Middle Ages and earlier, the term is usually applied to people occupied in small-scale production of goods, or their maintenance, for example by tinkers. The traditional term craftsman is nowadays often replaced by artisan and by craftsperson.”

Hmm.  Let’s look further…

In the entry for “Art”, Wikipedia goes on the say this:  “Though there is no generally agreed definition of what constitutes art, and ideas have changed over time, general descriptions typically include an idea of imaginative or technical skill stemming from human agency and creation. The nature of art and related concepts, such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.”

Now we seem to be making headway.

What does the Great and Powerful Wiki say about “Craft”?  “Handicraft is the "traditional" main sector of the crafts, it is a type of work where useful and decorative devices are made completely by hand or by using only simple tools. Usually the term is applied to traditional means of making goods. The individual artisanship of the items is a paramount criterion; such items often have cultural and/or religious significance. Items made by mass production or machines are not handicraft goods. Handicraft goods are made with craft production processes.” 

In case you were wondering and didn’t want to click on the link, Craft production, as defined by Wikipedia, is “manufacturing by hand, with or without the aid of tools. The term ‘craft production’ describes manufacturing techniques that are used in handicraft hobbies and that were the common methods of manufacture – as in the production of pottery – in the pre-industrialized world.”

Hmm…where does *that* leave us?

Perhaps now it is time to use those guidelines and apply them to what we do.  But first, what *do* we do when we build a scale model?  I mean, all it entails is sticking plastic (and sometimes metal and resin and maybe wood) bits together, right?

Right.

As I like to point out in Model Building 101, building models is both.  Preparing and sticking the bits together is no different than building furniture—we remove parts from the runners, clean up the molding flaws, and stick them together.  A woodworker rough cuts their boards and smooths them so they are straight and square (you’ll see it referred to as “S6S”, square on six sides), then cuts them to size and assembles them.  During assembly, all joints are made to be tight, and the piece is measured again and again to ensure it is straight, square, and plumb.  If there are visible joints, they are dressed to eliminate or disguise them.  These steps are handicraft and craft production methods.

We engage in our handicraft using those same craft production methods.  Along the line, we make allowances for the artisanship of the finished model by dealing with flaws—inherent molding flaws, construction flaws, and finish flaws.  We ensure the core of our models—armor and ship hulls, aircraft fuselages, wheeled vehicle chassis—are straight, square, and plumb. These skills are more or less part and parcel of building a model for a skilled model builder.  That is the “craft” of building a model.

Where the art comes into play is with the finishing steps.  Woodworkers sometimes use carved or specially cut and/or finished trim pieces to embellish the piece they are building, and then apply a smooth finish that is complementary to the construction material—sometimes employing a clear finish to highlight the grain and figure of wood, other times using pigmented paint simply as an aesthetic step to make the piece attractive. 

Scale modelers engage in art when they apply the finish to their models, too.  We apply paint to more realistically match the colors of the actual item, or to change the color of the material the model is molded from.  From there, some modelers use various techniques to add wear and tear to the model, and/or adds the markings seen on the original that places it at a certain place and time.  The trick here is to fool the viewers’ eyes into believing that the model they are looking at is an exact copy, in miniature, of the item used as reference (and inspiration) for the process of building the model.

So, we are both “artists” and “craftsman” in my book.

But at the end of the day, does it really matter what we call ourselves?  I am fond of saying this about our hobby—there are as many ways to enjoy it as there are people enjoying it.

You do you.  The Late Al Superczynski, a long time denizen of the rec.models.scale Usenet group, contributor to “Internet Modeler’, and a fine modeler, used to say “Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and above all, have fun."  He was absolutely right. 

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****
I received a few messages on my last post concerning Robert McNamara.

First, I fully realize that there was a *lot* more to the story than what I wrote.  Entire volumes have been written about TFX alone.  This is a blog, not a fully-funded research and reference site, and my posts are aimed at people who didn’t know about these subjects before and those who would take what is there are do some legwork on their own to get the whole story.  That’s the danger with some internet articles—they don’t tell the whole story, or they can be misleading or outright incorrect.

Speaking of being misleading, it was also brought to my attention that I may have been a little unfair to the Navy’s TFX variant, the F-111B.  Perhaps I was.  So, in an attempt to atone…

The issues the Navy had with TFX were said to be that the airplane was too big and too heavy to operate off the decks of the carriers.  But if you read the accounts made during the F-111B’s early sea trials, it doesn’t seem to be the case.  Without trying to re-write what has already been written, I’m going to direct you to Tommy Thomason’s excellent blog, “Tailhook Topics” and his entries on the F-111B, starting with this one:  http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2009/03/f-111b-carrier-trials.html . 

As for the “too big and too heavy”, here’s Tommy’s piece that compares the F-111B and its eventual replacement, the F-14A:  http://thanlont.blogspot.com/2011/01/f-111b-versus-f-14a-one-more-time.html.

So, it appears that the airplane was capable of the job.  Tommy points out two pertinent points in the second link, however—first, the Hughes radar and missile system development was a few years behind the development of the aircraft, so had the F-111B had gone into full production it would have been initially without the AN/AWG-9 and the Phoenix missiles.  It was another case of desire outstripping technology—similar issues plagued the Convair F-102, a supersonic interceptor that couldn’t break Mach 1.0 in its original form.  It took application of newly formulated aerodynamic data and a redesign of the fuselage to make it barely supersonic.  All the while, the fire control system development was fraught with issues, and these issues led to not only the Convair F-106, but also the McDonnell F-101B interceptor version of the Voodoo.

The second point Tommy makes is that the Navy was wise to unburden itself from TFX, since the airplane they would have received (like the airplane the USAF *did* receive) was compromised by trying to accommodate both the Fleet Air Defense and low-level supersonic interdiction missions with the same airplane—it just so happened that the airplane performed the Air Force’s mission better.  That should have surprised nobody, since TFX started as a USAF project that was being adapted to also fit the Navy’s mission.

While there were deficiencies with the Tomcat as well, there were other facets of the F-14A program that made it a better fit for the Navy.  Plus, it was supported by the Navy’s mid-level commanders, unlike TFX.  In short, TFX suffered in the Navy due to the NIH (Not Invented Here) theory—the Navy had previously held full dominion on the design and production of their weapons systems, and TFX took that away because it was a system dictated to the Navy by the Pentagon and managed by the USAF.

And yeah, I’m sure I probably missed a few items.  Again, if you want to know more, go dig.  The information is out there…

And if you have an interest in the
F-111B (or any other Naval Aviation subject, for that matter) and have not read Tommy’s blog, you really should.  In addition to “Tailhook Topics” there is a sister blog, “U.S. Navy Aircraft History”.  Check them both out, won’t you?

*****     *****     *****     *****     *****

As of right now, the South Carolina Scale Model Mega Show will go forward on the weekend of 18/19 June (Friday the 18^th is a set-up day, the show happens on Saturday).  Last week, we added the title of “2021 IPMS/USA Region 12 Regional Convention” to the show, and we’re looking forward to that.

Our contest format this year will be unlike anything IPMS or AMPS has seen on a regular basis.  We decided to move our show to more of a social event and exhibition.  We’ve combined what we think are the best aspects of the Military Miniatures Society of Illinois (MMSI) show and the AMPS scoring system.  Entrants will pay a small fee that will allow them to display as many models as will fit in a ~30 inch square space.  They can designate one of their models for judges’ evaluation and scoring, and they can select their skill level at the same time.  Two teams of two judges will evaluate and score the model, and the score earned will be used to determine if the model earns a medal.  Better still, the score sheet and written judges’ feedback will be returned to the entrant to be used to aid them in becoming a better modeler.  Medalists will be eligible for Class awards (best aircraft, etc.) and Best of Show award.  There will be several Special Awards available, too.  The best part of this format is that there will be chairs behind the displays so that the entrant can sit and talk with folks who are admiring their models, share techniques, and enjoy themselves.  We’re hoping it is a more relaxed environment where modelers can gather and admire models.  After all, that should be what the hobby is about—models not medals.   

If you’re in the area, come on by and spend some time with us.

Thanks for reading.  Until next time, be good to one another, stay safe and healthy, and as always, I bid you Peace.  

This article is part of a series of articles I've been working on lately.  Again, the Technical Writer in me lives for this sort of thing, so it gets a bit, well, technical… 

This article was previously published in the October 2020 issue of the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash.  Incidentally, you may view our club's newsletters on our website.

**********************************************

“Never forget that, at the most, the teacher can give you fifteen percent of the art. The rest you have to get for yourself through practice and hard work. I can show you the path but I cannot walk it for you.” — Kung Fu Master Tan Soh Tin

The Short Form Scale Modeler’s Guide to the F-4 Phantom II

I’ve embarked on several F-4 projects lately.  When I started talking about my plans with some folks, I got a lot of questions about the F-4 in general.  Every question I answered spawned three more questions.  Since there have been dozens (literally!) of volumes written about the F-4, this short guide will serve only to point you in the right direction for your F-4 project.  You are encouraged to use this as a stepping stone for your own research.  And, as always, if you see something in error, leave a comment.  I'm not so proud to admit I make mistakes…

Origins

The McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II (initially the McDonnell XF4H-1) was originally designed as the XAH-1, a single seat attack fighter for the U.S. Navy.  A development of their earlier F3H Demon, the McDonnell Aircraft Company started with an enlarged twin-engine aircraft based on the F3H Demon—Wright J65’s or General Electric J79’s were the proposed powerplants.  At the time, the Navy passed—they had the F9F Cougar and F8U Cutlass fighters, and were starting to use the Douglas A4D Skyhawk in the ground attack role. 

McDonnell redesigned the airplane to be a supersonic fleet defense interceptor.  They chose the J79 afterburning turbojet engines to propel the aircraft.  A second crew member was added, McDonnell correctly surmising that the extra crew member would help shoulder some of the information load that came with modern military aviation.  The Navy ordered two prototypes on 25 July 1955, and the first flight of the XF4H-1 was on 27 May 1958. 

Initially, the type was to be named “Satan” or “Mithras”, keeping with the company’s penchant for using the names of supernatural apparitions for their airplanes (previous examples being the XF-85 Goblin, FH Phantom, F2H Banshee, and F3H Demon).  The proposed names were passed over in favor of “Phantom II”.  When the type initially entered USAF service as the F-110A, it was named “Spectre”, but the name was short-lived.  In 1962, the type was designated F-4 Phantom II under the Tri-Service Designation system.  The USAF’s F-110A became the F-4C after the initial XF4H-1 and F4H-1F’s became F-4A and the later F4H-1’s became the F-4B.

5,195 examples were produced, including 138 license-built aircraft in Japan.  They were used by Australia (24 new F-4E’s on lease while problems with the F-111C were being ironed out), Egypt (ex-USAF F-4E), Germany (new F-4F and RF-4E), Greece (new and ex-USAF F-4E and new RF-4E), Iran (new F-4D, F-4E, and RF-4E), Israel (new and ex-USAF F-4E and new RF-4E), Japan (new F-4EJ, including 138 built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and new RF-4E), South Korea (ex-USAF F-4D and new and ex-USAF F-4E), Spain (ex-USAF F-4C and RF-4C), Turkey (new and ex-USAF F-4E and new RF-4E), and the United Kingdom (new F-4K/FG.1, F-4M/FGR.2, and ex-USN/USMC F-4J).

The last St. Louis-built F-4 (an F-4E bound for South Korea) rolled out of McDonnell’s plant in 1979; the last ever Phantom II built (an F-4EJ) came off the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries production line in 1981.  Some are still in limited use today.  How’s that for longevity?

The Phantom Phamily

F-4A:               A retroactive post-1962 designation for the XF4H-1/F4H-1F prototypes.

F-4B:               Initial production model for the USN/USMC, formerly the F4H-1.

F-4C:               Minimum change F-4B for the USAF with 11.5” wide main gear and bulged wing.

F-4D:               F-4C with improved air-to-ground capability.

F-4E:               Added internal M61A1 Vulcan cannon in an elongated nose for the USAF.

F-4EJ:             Lightweight F-4E with simpler avionics for the Japanese Air Self Defense Force.

F-4EJ Kai:      Updated F-4EJ with new avionics and structural upgrades.

F-4F:               Lightweight F-4E for Germany with slatted wings.  No AIM-7 Sparrow capability.

F-4F ICE:        Updated F-4F with AIM-120 AMRAAM capability.

F-4G (USN):   Converted F-4B with datalink carrier autolanding system. 

F-4G (USAF): F-4E modified for the SEAD (“Wild Weasel”) mission (“Wild Weasel V”).

F-4J:               “Navalized” F-4C with the wider wheels/tires and updated avionics.

F-4K:               RR Spey-powered F-4J built for the Royal Navy, designated FG.1.

F-4M:              RR Spey-powered F-4J built for the Royal Air Force, designated FGR.2.

F-4N:               Updated F-4B’s with new avionics and structural changes.

F-4S:               Updated F-4J with new avionics and a slatted wing similar that of the F-4E.

RF-4B:            “Navalized” RF-4C for the USMC.  Most retained thin wheels/wing of the F-4B.

RF-4C:            Reconnaissance version of the F-4C for the USAF.

RF-4E:            Export RF-4 variant; hard-wing F-4E with RF-4C nose.

RF-4EJ Kai:   JASDF recon versions, two distinct aircraft configurations.  See notes. 

THE CHART OF PHANTOM PHEATURES

The major visible distinguishing features of the Phantom subtypes are the main landing gear, the wing, the stabilators, the afterburners, the nose, and aerial refueling method.

Main Landing Gear:  The F-4B, N, and RF-4B used a 7.7” wide main landing gear wheel and tire.  All other F-4 subtypes used an 11.5” wide main wheel and tire, necessitating the addition of a bulge in the inboard wing over and under the main landing gear wells and on the doors.  The F-4B/N and RF-4B wing was known as thin wing airplanes, the rest were called thick- or bulged wing airplanes.  The nose gear struts were different between the ship-based (F-4B/N, RF-4B, F-4J/S, and the FG.1) and land-based versions.  The U.S. ship-based versions could extend 20 inches for launch, while the FG.1 strut could extend 40 inches.

Wing:  Initially, the wing had leading and trailing edge flaps, and was called the “Hard” wing.  Beginning with the Block 48 F-4E’s, the leading edge flaps were deleted and leading edge slats replaced them.  Earlier surviving F-4E’s were retrofitted.  A similar (but not identical!) slatted wing was installed on the F-4S, a conversion of the F-4J.

Stabilators:  The first production stabilators had a solid, cambered leading edge.  The stabilators later received a cambered leading edge with aerodynamic slots that increased pitch authority in the low-speed regimes.  Initially installed on the F-4J as part of an approach speed lift improvement program, the slotted stabilator was used on all further shipboard versions as well as some of the land-based Phantoms.    

Afterburners:  The F-4B/N, RF-4B, RF-4C, and F-4C/D used short exhaust nozzles (J79-GE-8 and -15 engines).  All other J79 powered F-4’s used a longer exhaust (J79-GE-10 and -17).  The British Phantoms (FG.1 and FGR.2) used the Rolls Royce Spey (RB.168 Mk.202) turbofan engine, and had a larger exhaust nozzle that was smooth on the outside.

Nose: The F-4B/N, F-4C/D, F-4J/S, and the British Phantoms had a short nose housing a radar unit.  The F-4B/N and F-4C/D had a fairing for an infrared sensor under the nose.  This fairing was deleted on the F-4J/S and British versions.

The F-4E/EJ/F had an elongated radar nose with an under slung General Electric M61A1 Vulcan rotary 20mm cannon and 640 rounds of ammunition.  There was a gun gas purge scoop in front of the windscreen that was open on the ground and whenever the gun was fired.  The USAF F-4G had the gun removed and a sensor fairing installed where the gun’s muzzle was located as part of the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD, or “Wild Weasel”) avionics package. 

The reconnaissance variants had an elongated nose full of cameras and other equipment.  There were two common designs for the recon nose—an earlier, flat bottomed angular nose and later, a curved bottom nose.  Consult photographs of the airplane you are interested in to determine which was fitted to that airplane. 

The environmental control system inlets on the long nose and reconnaissance airplanes were different from those on the short nose F-4’s, the earlier ones being smaller and more symmetrical. 

Aerial refueling method:  The USAF versions and their derivatives had a high-speed flying boom refueling receptacle on the spine; all others had a Probe and Drogue aerial refueling system with a retractable refueling probe on the right hand side of the forward fuselage.

Type (Initial Operator)	MLG	Wing	Stab	Exhaust	Nose	Refuel
XF4H-1/F-4A (USN)1	7.7”	Hard	Unslotted1	Short	Short1	Probe
F-4B (USN/USMC)	7.7”	Hard	Unslotted2	Short	Short, IR	Probe
RF-4B (USMC)	7.7”3	Hard	Slotted	Short	Recon	Probe
F-4C (USAF)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Short	Short, IR4	Boom
RF-4C (USAF)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Short	Recon5	Boom
F-4D (USAF)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Short	Short, IR4	Boom
F-4E (USAF)	11.5”	Hard6	Slotted7	Long	Long	Boom8
F-4EJ (JASDF)9	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Long	None9
F-4EJ Kai* (JASDF)10	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Long	None
RF-4E (Luftwaffe)	11.5”	Hard11	Slotted	Long	Recon	Boom
RF-4EJ Kai* (JASDF)12	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Long	Boom
F-4F (Luftwaffe)13	11.5”	Slatted	Unslotted	Long	Long	None13
F-4G* (USN)14	7.7”	Slatted	Unslotted	Short	Short, IR	Probe
F-4G* (USAF)14	11.5”	Slatted	Slotted	Long	Long	Boom
F-4J (USN/USMC)	11.5”	Hard15	Slotted	Long16	Short16	Probe
F-4J(UK)* (RAF)17	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Long	Short	Probe
F-4K (RN) (as FG.1)18	11.5”	Hard	Slotted	Spey	Short19	Probe
F-4M (RAF) (as FGR.2)	11.5”	Hard	Unslotted	Spey	Short19	Probe
F-4N* (USN/USMC)20	7.7”	Hard	Slotted	Short	Short, IR	Probe
F-4S* (USN/USMC)21	11.5”	Slatted	Slotted	Long	Short	Probe

* = Conversion, no new airframes built

Keyed Notes:

1. The XF4H-1 aircraft had different inlets, intake ramps, stabilators, and noses than the production variants.  Additionally, the early airframes had a flatter canopy profile.
2. Some F-4B’s would be retrofitted with the slotted stabilator late in their service life.
3. The last 10 production RF-4B’s had the wider 11.5” main landing gear and thick wing.  The last three had the rounded reconnaissance nose.
4. The IR sensor was not fitted to the F-4C or F-4D, but the empty fairing remained.
5. Consult photographs to determine which nose was fitted to a particular airplane. 
6. The F-4E received slatted wings with a thicker lower wing skin from Block 48.  Earlier surviving F-4E’s (except the Thunderbirds aircraft) were retrofitted with the slatted wing and a lower wing skin stiffener called a “belly strap”.
7. In 1972, F-4E stabilators had an arrowhead-shaped doubler installed mid-span.  Later, all surviving USAF F-4’s received this modification.  Photos exist of USN F-4’s with these, but it was the exception rather than the norm.
8. Some Israeli F-4E’s had a locally fabricated refueling probe fitted.
9. The F-4EJ was a lightweight version of the F-4E with simpler avionics and no aerial refueling equipment built for the Japan Air Self Defense Force.  All but 2 of the 140 were built in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
10. The F-4EJ Kai was an updated F-4EJ, with structural modifications and new avionics.  The biggest visual cue is a series of external stiffeners on the radome. 
11. The RF-4E is basically a hard-wing, slotted stabilator F-4E fitted with an RF-4C nose.  The last two production blocks of the RF-4E for Greece and Turkey had the slatted wing. 
12. There are two distinct aircraft called RF-4EJ Kai.  The first is an upgraded RF-4E; the latter is an F-4EJ (non-Kai) modified to carry reconnaissance pods.
13. The F-4F was a lightweight version of the F-4E built for the West German Luftwaffe.  It lacked aerial refueling and AIM-7 Sparrow capability.  The ICE (Increased Combat Effectivity) program in 1989 upgraded 110 of these aircraft with AIM-120 capability and other improvements including high-speed boom aerial refueling.
14. The original F-4G’s were USN F-4B’s equipped with experimental automatic carrier landing systems.  Once the test period was over, they were converted back to F-4B’s, although some of the equipment remained installed.  The later USAF aircraft designated F-4G were converted F-4E’s optimized for the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD), or "Wild Weasel", mission under Program WILD WEASEL V.
15. The F-4J had the inboard flap deleted as part of the approach speed lift improvement program that also added the slotted stabilators.  This also added a feature where the ailerons were drooped 16.5° when the landing gear and flaps were extended.
16.  The first F-4J’s were delivered without radar—ballast was installed instead.  They also had the J79-GE-8 engines featuring the shorter exhaust nozzles. The airplanes went to the Blue Angels and would retain the -8 engines for their service life.
17. The F-4J(UK) airplanes were 15 ex-USN/USMC F-4J’s bought by the Royal Air Force in 1984.  These were taken through the same SLEP that converted F-4J’s to F-4S’s with the exception of the slatted wing.  American avionics were removed and British avionics were installed.
18. The FG.1 had a double-extendable nose strut for takeoffs from the shorter decks of the British carrier HMS Ark Royal.  Along with that, a stabilator trim indication quadrant was painted on the left side of the tail for the deck crew to tell if the takeoff trim was set correctly.  As these airplanes transferred to the RAF, this was generally removed, but the double-extendable nose strut remained.
19. The F-4K and F-4M (FG.1 and FGR.2) were aircraft based on the U.S. Navy’s F-4J but built with Rolls Royce Spey afterburning turbofan engines.  As a result, the inlets were wider, the aft fuselage was wider and deeper, and the exhausts were different.  Many would have the belly strap installed at some point in their service life. 
20. The F-4N was an updated F-4B with the aerodynamic approach speed lift improvements of the F-4J and updated avionics.  The inboard leading edge flap was deactivated and locked closed.
21. The F-4S was an upgraded F-4J with updated avionics, a slatted wing and a belly strap similar to that of the early F-4E’s was installed, and other minor changes such as low intensity formation (“slime”) lights.  The outboard slats were not identical to the USAF versions.

Additional Notes, Ephemera, Useless Trivia, and Other Geek Stuff

The ship-based Phantoms (F-4B/N, F-4J/S, RF-4B, and the FG.1/FGR.2) did not have flight controls in the rear cockpit.  There was a pedestal with a radar controller joystick located where a control stick would be.  The right side of the cockpit was a vertical panel—there was no console on the left side of the rear cockpit of the ship-based Phantoms because that area is where the refueling probe well is located.  The console on the left side was abbreviated compared to the land-based F-4’s, too.

Some F-4C’s (in the 1966-1967 time frame) did not have the IR fairing under the radome, these “dorkless” radomes were installed while the original radomes were being modified with the AN/APR-25 RHAW system antennas on the empty IR fairing.  Check your references!

Late in their service lives, the USN/USMC F-4’s received an AN/ALQ-126 Defensive ECM system featuring antenna fairings on the inlet shoulders, under the inlets and under the wings (the B/N inlet fairing cable guides were about twice the length of those on the F-4J/S).  The shoulder fairings remained on the F-4J(UK) but were empty.

Ship-based versions had catapult bridle hooks installed in shallow depressions under the forward fuselage at the wing leading edge.  The land-based versions did not, and a flat panel covered the area.  The F-4J(UK) had the hooks removed but the depressions remained. 

The ship-based airplanes received up-rated main landing gear struts installed.  In the case of the USN/USMC aircraft, the main struts had a long-stroke oleo; the British struts were capable of landing at higher gross weights.  A rounded rectangular clearance blister was installed on top of the wing over the pivot points as a result.  USAF airplanes (and their derivatives) did not have this small blister.

Block 48 and newer F-4E’s were TISEO (Target Instrument System, Electro-Optical) capable.  The Northrop AN/ASX-1 TISEO consisted of a cylindrical fairing on the inboard left wing root that housed a camera used to visually acquire and track targets.  The image was displayed on the WSO’s radar display.  TISEO could also be retrofitted to earlier aircraft. 

There were several styles of gun muzzle fairing for the F-4E that were developed over the years.  The initial muzzle fairing was a short fairing that caused gun gas ingestion problems for the engines.  A longer unit, called MIDAS 4, was the definitive muzzle fairing and became standard with the Block 48 airplanes.

Late in life, some F-4E’s, F-4G’s, and RF-4C’s received the ARN-101 digital avionics modification.  The visual indication was a trapezoidal antenna on the spine of the airplane and a lot of static wicks sprouting from various parts of the airframe.

There was a difference in inboard wing pylons.  The ship-board variants (as well as early F-4C’s, RF-4B’s, and most RF-4C’s) used LAU-17/A’s with adapters; USAF used a MAU-12 rack in the weapons pylon.  You can tell one from another easily—the LAU-17/A has a straight leading edge while the MAU-12 pylon has a curved leading edge.  Either could be fitted with a pair of Aero 3A Sidewinder rail adapters on the sides of the launcher/pylon. 

There were several types of 370-gallon underwing tanks made by McDonnell, Sargent Fletcher, and Royal Jet.  The Sargent Fletcher was the prevalent type used—it can be identified by the single flange on the left side of the tank at the five o’clock position (when viewed from the front).

Royal Jet’s 600-gallon centerline tank could be distinguished by the angled sway brackets aft and the nose-down attitude when fitted.  Later, the USAF (but not the USN/USMC) would adapt the 600-gallon tank used by the F-15 for use on the F-4 centerline station.  It had a single sway bracket aft and was mounted level.  It also caused less of a drag penalty.

Other variants you might see mentioned in your travels:

EF-4B and EF-4J:  ECM aircraft used for training.

EF-4C and EF-4D:  Early SEAD fits under Program WILD WEASEL IV.

F-4 “Agile Eagle”:  Testbeds to explore the use of maneuvering slats for the F-15; the information gained led to the slatted wing modifications for the F-4.

F-4E(S):  Three Israeli hard-wing F-4E’s with an elongated nose housing a General Dynamics HIAC-1 LOROP (LOng Range Oblique Photography) camera with a 66-inch focal length lens for high-speed, high altitude reconnaissance.  Offshoot of the PEACE JACK program.

F-4(FBW)/F-4 PACT/F-4 CCV:  The YRF-4C reconfigured for (variously) fly-by-wire and canard controlled vehicle testing.

DF-4J:  Drone controller aircraft.

F-4X: Highly modified with new inlets, water injection (pre-compression cooling or PCC) conformal tanks, and elongated nose housing the HIAC-1.  Remarkable because the HIAC-1 had previously only been flown aboard USAF RB-57D’s and in bulky centerline pods on RF-4C’s.  Part of the PEACE JACK program.

Super Phantom:  Proposed Boeing-led upgrade to replace the J79’s with PW1120 afterburning turbofans, under-fuselage conformal fuel tank, and new avionics.  Some of these changes were also projected to be used by the Kurnass 2000 program in Israel, but were not.

Kurnass 2000:  Israel modified some of their F-4E’s with new avionics and capability to use the Rafael Popeye (aka the AGM-142) standoff missile.  Some of this same technology would be used to update some of the Turkish F-4E’s as well.

QF-4B/QRF-4C/QF-4E/QF-4G/QF-4N/QF-4S:  Aircraft converted to remotely piloted target drones.

The PEACE JACK, F-4X, and Super Phantom programs were designed to increase the altitude and speed performance of the F-4, and were cancelled because they would either draw sales away from new aircraft (primarily the McAir F-15 and F/A-18) or allow other nations to have reconnaissance capabilities approaching that of the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.

So, what about kits?

Choosing the “best” model kit of any subject is a minefield.  As with all things related to plastic models, one’s opinion of  the “best” kit of any subject can be highly subjective due to several factors, not the least being price, ease of assembly, and the level and fidelity of detail included.  Because of that, I’ll attempt only to tell you about the kits.  What you see is either a collection of what I’ve collected via as many reviews of a particular kit that I can find or personal experience.  I’ll let you decide which one is the “best” for your personal needs…

For more information on release dates, timelines, and re-boxings, the best resource to use is Scalemates.

1/32 Scale

Tamiya’s lineup of large-scale Phantoms is good, but not totally great.  Starting in 1995 with an F-4C/D, they have also made the F-4J and a hard-wing F-4E.  They represented several maintenance panels as raised panels, and these stand a little bit too proud of the surface, so a touch of sanding is warranted if this bothers you.  The exhausts are also a touch too small, so you might want to secure replacements.  The gun-nose kits include both muzzle fairings.

Starting in 1995, Revell also made new-tool kits of the RF-4E, F-4F, RF-4C, F-4E, and an F-4G.  The newer Revell kits are almost as good as the Tamiya kits–almost.  Revell’s F-4E/F nose is a bit skinny and too pointy (you’ll see this claim again), the nose strut is anemic, and the cockpit detail is not as good as that of the Tamiya kit.  Revell’s long nose versions include a slatted wing.

There is a big difference in price, too—Revell’s kits initially retailed for $30 while Tamiya’s MSRP was around $100.  Only you can decide if the extra dough spent is worth it.

If you want a thin-wing Phantom in 1/32 scale, there have been a few aftermarket conversions available from Real Model, GT Resin, and Cutting Edge.

Revell had kits of the F-4J and F-4E (also released as an RF-4E, F-4F, and RF-4B) in the 1970’s and are best left to the collectors and nostalgia folks.   

1/48 scale

The most recent kits of the F-4 are the Zoukei-Mura kits initially released in 2016.  There’s been some grousing online about an incorrect contour in the aft fuselage at the exhausts, and they aren’t cheap ($75 a pop from most retailers).  But they have been deemed superb kits by all who have built them, and they do represent the state-of-the-art in injection molding.  They’ve done the F-4C/D and F-4J/S so far, and their new F-4E kits are just starting to hit the streets, and early word says the aft fuselage on the F-4E has been corrected.  Z-M has indicated that they want to complete the series, so stay tuned.

Hasegawa’s 1/48 scale Phantom Phamily started hitting the hobby shop shelves in 1982, at the exorbitant (for the time—I remember hearing the wailing and crying!) price of $20 American.  Initially, the kits featured raised panel lines, but through the years, the earlier raised panel line kits (save for the F-4B/N and F-4C/D) have been revised to feature recessed panel lines.  The biggest drawbacks are fiddly fit around the intakes (a common ailment of all Phantom kits) and the lack of underwing stores included in the kits.  You’ll want to dip into your spares box or purchase aftermarket weapons sets.  So far, they are the only manufacturer to produce the entire F-4 series in this scale–Hasegawa offers all of the subtypes, including the slatted-wing F-4E/F and the Spey-powered FG.1 and FGR.2.  . 

Academy’s short-nose (F-4B/N, F-4C/D, and F-4J so far) kits that were released in 2012 aren’t bad—in fact, some folks like them over the Z-M and Hasegawa kits.  A few reviews say the nose and tail near the stabilators have minor shape problems and that the canopy center bridge is too wide, but it certainly looks like a Phantom when completed.  The ECS scoops have shape issues, too; fortunately there are aftermarket fixes for this.  The shape around the aft fuselage at the engine exhausts is deemed to be better than that of the Z-M kit.  Starting in 2014, Eduard re-released the Academy F-4B, F-4C, F-4J, and F-4N plastic in their Limited Edition series with resin (“Brassin”) and etched detail parts with decals designed by Furball Aero Design and printed by Cartograph.

In 1979, Monogram issued an F-4C/D kit, followed in 1981 by a “Black Bunny” F-4J of VX-4.  They have the dreaded “raised panel line” affliction that so many modelers consider deal-breakers, the USAF kits are closer to an F-4C than to an F-4D, and the cockpit isn’t quite correct for the Navy F-4J, but all in all, they were good value for the dollar.  Monogram’s take on the intakes is quite different than the other manufacturers, and it is either the best thing since bottled beer or the worst thing since New Coke, depending on personal circumstances.  The cockpit detailing in these kits is typical Monogram—the instrument panels and consoles feature relief molded details, and the seats feature all the straps and face curtain handles.  In a word, they are superb.  Many a modeler has “borrowed” a Monogram cockpit to detail other kits…

ESCI made 1/48 scale kits as F-4B/J, F-4E/F, and F-4C/D that came out 1980.  While not as detailed as the Monogram kits from about the same time, they can be made into super models without a lot of work, although there are some problems.  For instance, the F-4B/J kit only has the thick wing and slotted stabilators, most likely because the decal options included the striking color scheme for “Vandy 76”, Bureau Number 153088, the VX-4 Bicentennial airplane, which was a conglomeration of an F-4J airframe, an F-4B nose, and—something ESCI missed completely—experimental fixed leading edge maneuvering slats on the wing.  The F-4E/F lacks the slatted wing (meaning you can’t build an F-4F from the kit).  Like their smaller F-4E, this one was the best until Hasegawa’s materialized a few years later—shape-wise, it was better than the Fujimi and Revell kits that preceded it.  The F-4C/D kits were a nice alternative to the Monogram kits—they were only a few bucks more and had recessed panel details.  The cockpits are rather simple, but they are passable under a closed canopy and sitting on a shelf or in a display case.  Italeri has reissued some of them, too, and you’ll see them at shows for cheap.

In addition to these kits, there are a few others in 1/48 scale:

Testors kitted the RF-4C/E and F-4E/F/G in 1980.  Their RF-4C/E didn’t have the forward Sparrow well fairings, the F-4G had some cockpit issues, and overall the detailing generally wasn’t very good.  Italeri reissues these kits from time to time.  The one thing the long nose kit had going for it is the inclusion of the slatted wing, and back in the day this was the only way to get a Photo Phantom.

Aurora (no surprise) was one of the first to market with a kit of the then-F4H-1 in 1961—it is typically Aurora, and best left to the collectors. 

As mentioned in the ESCI commentary, Fujimi (in 1971, also released under the Bachmann/Fujimi and AHM/Fujimi labels) and Revell (1977) each had an F-4E (Revell’s being a slatted wing airplane), but the Revell kit had shape issues (skinny, pointy nose, canopy looks squashed) and the Fujimi kit was closer to 1/50 scale. 

Perhaps the most ambitious kit I can recall of the Phantom was made initially in 1965 by Marusan, and it was later released by UPC, Fuji, Sunny, and, finally, Entex Industries.  It too was in 1/50 scale, and included full interior details (including the engines and fuselage fuel cells), but these were not optional parts—you had to use them or re-engineer a lot of the kit.  The box advertised that you could build it as a B, C, or E version—but regardless of what the box said, it wasn’t accurate for any of them.  Even if you accept the off scale, the quality of the kit was lacking (that’s being kind—“crude” is more like it), as there were knockout pin marks and short shots galore.  I received one of the Entex Industries issues as a Christmas present in the late 1970’s.  It was so full of bad parts that I wound up cannibalizing whatever I could from the kit over the years, eventually tossing the remnants in the garbage when the family moved in 1989.  The only thing that kit had going for it was the illustration on the box: “Old Nick 201” from VF-111.  What kid could resist a shark-mouthed F-4?

1/72 scale

Right now (October 2020), the best F-4 families of Phantom kits in this scale remain the Hasegawa and Fujimi kits.  Hasegawa does them all except the Spey-engined FG.1 and FGR.2.  Fujimi does them all, including the Spey Phantoms.  I mention this simply because some folks like continuity, and different manufacturers do things, well, differently.  If you want uniformity in your collection, these are the kits to use.

Hasegawa’s new tool F-4 kits, which debuted in 1990, have a better cockpit than Fujimi, but neither manufacturer is stellar in that regard—the Hasegawa tub fits a lot better, which is what puts them in the top slot for me (their RF-4B and RF-4C also have more detail to the camera bays).  The seats are basic, so you can either detail them yourself with strips of paper or tape and some wire.  Likewise, all the consoles and instrument panels are represented by decals.

Fujimi’s kits came on the scene in 1984, and the biggest complaint was the ill-fitting cockpit tubs, an issue partially corrected in later issues.  The first issues only included a multi-part open canopy; later issues had only a one-piece closed canopy.  At some point, both canopies were included in some kits.  The control sticks are too long, and the instrument panels sit too far forward.  The same comments about Hasegawa’s cockpit detailing also apply to the Fujimi kits.

Academy released their 1/72 scale F-4J in 2015 in their MCP (Multi-Colored Plastic) line.  They are a hybrid between a press fit and a glue kit—indeed; they suggest you secure the parts with glue.  Honestly, the cockpit tubs are more detailed than either Hasegawa’s or Fujimi’s!  Whether they extend the line or not remains to be seen. 

Monogram shrunk down their 1/48 scale F-4C/D and F-4J kits to 1/72 scale and issued them beginning in 1985.  The same comments I made for their 1/48 scale kits apply here, too.  At one point, they were reissued by Accurate Miniatures.

In 1982, ESCI produced a 1/72 scale line of F-4’s, including an F-4C/J, F-4E/F, F-4S, and an RF-4C/RF-4E kit.  Like their bigger brothers, the F-4C/J is neither/nor, but an attractive model can be built from it—the cockpit is more USAF than USN, and the kit offers the slotted stabilators that were not used on the F-4C or F-4D.  The F-4E was “it” in this scale before the advent of the Hasegawa and Fujimi kits.  If you’re more interested in color schemes than in absolute nut/bolt/rivet accuracy, these might just be the ticket.  Like their larger brethren, they are still generally available in a variety of boxes, most recently Italeri.

Starting in 1997, Revell AG/Revell GmbH (aka “Revell of Germany”) produced a series of long-nose Phantoms, including the RF-4E.  Some of the comments I’ve read state that the nose is too skinny/pointy, just like most of Revell’s—past and present–Phantoms.  The few I’ve seen built seem to bear that out.

Airfix recently (2017 and 2019) released two Spey Phantom kits, an FG.1 and an FGR.2.  While nice, they have some curious omissions.  But they have a more accurate shape than Fujimi’s, and the aftermarket has catered to those who want to fix the goofs that Airfix made.

FineMolds has announced a new tool kit of the F-4EJ and F-4EJ Kai that looks inviting, and should be useable (with a little work) as a hard-wing F-4E, as well.  Perhaps they will also make a slatted wing kit, and eventually follow Z-M’s lead and give us a state-of-the art series of Phantoms in 1/72 scale.  Hey, a guy can dream…

There are others out there in 1/72 scale, but they really aren’t worth the time and effort: 

In 1965, both Revell and Airfix offered 1/72 scale kits, and neither is very good, even looking at them as products of their time.  They have been released as pretty much every variant, with very few changes being made to the actual plastic.

Matchbox did a Spey Phantom kit (as an F-4K/M) in 1975, and to their credit it wasn’t simply a re-boxed F-4J with roundels (as were the Revell, Airfix, and early Hasegawa kits), it actually represented a Spey-powered airplane.  But it was typical Matchbox—heavy panel lines and soft details.  From a shape/proportion standpoint, they were better than the Fujimi kits, but the practice bleeding you’d need to do to bring the rest of the kit up to Fujimi specs isn’t worth the effort, especially with the new Airfix kits available.

Testors followed their 1/48 scale Phantoms with similar versions in 1/72 scale in 1981, and the comments I made about the 1/48 scale kits also apply to the smaller kits.

Hasegawa had older kits of both short and long nose F-4 kits in the early 1970’s, and the F-4E was by far the better of the two.  The short-nose kits had some serious shape issues around the inlets, cockpits, and radome, so back in the day the best way to get a short nose F-4 was to mate the nose from a Revell or Airfix kit to a Hasegawa long nose fuselage and wing, and add the appropriate details parts (exhaust nozzles, pylons, etc.) and decals.  Interestingly, the older Hasegawa kits (particularly the F-4E) have been reissued up until 2010 or so, so you really need to check your scorecard before you purchase a Hasegawa 1/72 F-4.

References?  You want references?

Here are some of the better references on the F-4 (again, judged either by experience or peer review):

The Detail and Scale series, Volume 1 (F-4C/D), Volume 7 (F-4E/G), Volume 12 (USN F-4’s), and Volume 43 (Updated F-4C/D) are decent references to use for the American F-4 variants, but they are, with the exception of Volume 43, a bit dated.  They include a Modeler’s Section with kit reviews as well as nicely done 3-view drawings.

For the USAF variants, there is The Modern Phantom Guide: The F-4 Phantom Exposed by Jake Melampy.  It is currently out of print.

Daco Publications has the Uncovering the US Navy Q/F-4B/J/N/S Phantoms book, and if you’re building a Navy F-4 and need a reference, well, this is it.

Another good reference is Aerospace Publishing’s McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies.  A lot of text, a comprehensive listing of Phantom operators through the years, and, in the variants section, there are small drawings that illustrate the differences between the various subtypes of the F-4.  Initially published in 1992, a later revision was published in 2002.

Finally, there is the six-volume (and counting?) Phantom series from Double Ugly!, an associate of AIRdocs Publishing.  They’re available from Shop of Phantoms or on Amazon.

Online, there are a few sources, too.  For USN/USMC Phantoms, there are few better than Tommy Thomason’s Tailspin Topics site.  For a lot of miscellaneous data from a former Phantom Phixer, there is The Phantom Phacts site.  The Box Art Den, up until recently, had a fantastic Reference Gallery, featuring many old, obscure, and out of print reference books.  They've taken it down for various reasons, and the site managers are discussing how and if they will eventually re-establish it.  I do hope they find a way to at least restore some of it…

Incidentally, if you haven’t yet checked out Scalemates and The Box Art Den sites, you owe it to yourselves to do so.  Both sites are treasure troves of information on models, model box art, and references.

As you start to dive into all things Phantom, you’ll start to realize just how great an airplane it was.  Designed as a fleet defense interceptor, it performed that mission, the ground attack, and electronic warfare roles equally as well.  The fact that most NATO allies flew the F-4 in some guise or another at some point in time indicates the type’s usefulness. 

As I said in the opening of this article, what you have just read represents a grain of sand on the beach as far as the F-4 is concerned.  There’s a whole world of more technical information out there—go discover it!

*******************************

Thanks for reading.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

Howdy, all!

Here's a model I completed not too long ago.  It got started during one of the Saturday build days at the hobby shop before they moved across town, and had been sitting in a state of suspended animation until I got it back in work towards the end of our Project RIPCORD diorama.  This article previously appeared in the September 2020 issue of the IPMS/Mid-Carolina Newsflash.

***************************************************  
The Israeli Defense Force Air Force had employed the Dassault Mirage IIICJ to good effect during their 1967 war with the surrounding nations.  Due to wartime losses and attrition, the Israelis needed to add aircraft to their inventory not only to fill the gaps caused by the lost airplanes, but to also upgrade their fleet.  The Mirage III was a great air-to-air interceptor, but couldn’t do much in the way of ground attack.  Also, its short range made keeping an airborne combat air patrol aloft a challenge.

Enter the Mirage 5.

In the mid-1960’s, the IDF/AF began working with Dassault to develop a new fighter suitable for their needs.  The IDF decided that the Cyrano radar in the Mirage III was good, but not needed, as most combat in the region was withing visual range.  Also, the IDF asked for more fuel to increase the aircraft’s endurance.  So, Dassault started with a Mirage IIIE (a strike version of the Mirage III with additional avionics and fuel in an extended fuselage behind the cockpit), relocated the avionics behind the pilot to a new extended nose, and deleted the radar.  The new aircraft was called the Mirage 5, and the IDF placed an order for 50 of them in 1966.

In 1967, the French government, in a bit of a snit (de Gaulle wasn’t happy that the Israelis started what we call the Six Day War over his objections), enacted an arms embargo against all arms destined for Israel—including the new Mirage 5’s, which were built and ready for delivery in 1968.

At the same time, the French began selling arms to the various Arab forces in the region.  Never one to play favorites, de Gaulle believed all money coming into the country was “good” money.

Here’s where the story gets cloudy, depending on whom you listen to or what you believe.

The common tale among “those in the know” (and the story Israel tells to this day) is that the Israelis tried several times to “reallocate” the airplanes (the Israeli government asked for them to be re-positioned to Corsica so they could continue to train with the airplanes), but the French saw the ploy and took action to stop the effort.  Eventually, the French kept the airplanes, called them Mirage 5F’s, and integrated them into their Armée de l'Air (AdA).  They were said to have kept the Israeli money, to boot.  Because of this, Israel resorted to industrial espionage, obtained the plans for the airplane, and set up shop with Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) to build the airplanes.  The rest, as they say, is history…or is it?

As Paul Harvey would say, here’s “the rest of the story”…

The real story isn’t quite so wrapped up in intrigue.  The French actually refunded the money Israel paid for the Mirage 5’s in 1972.  The airplanes were indeed kept and introduced into French service.

But that’s where the truth in the original story ends, if you believe the other stories. 

In 1968, Rockwell International (probably at the request of the U.S. State Department) approached Dassault with an order for Mirage 5’s for Israel.  The French agreed, but to camouflage the effort, the airplane components supplied to this order were instructed to be those built by subcontractors (Aerospatiale made fuselages, Reims-Cessna built the wings, and SABCA, a Belgian subsidiary of Dassault, built the ATAR 9C engines), crated, and shipped to Israel in crates aboard USAF C-141’s.  The crates were delivered to IAI, and the airplanes were reassembled by Rockwell technicians masquerading as IAI employees.  Israeli avionics were fitted. 

How do we know this?  Gene Salvay, a Rockwell engineer, was there.  He was there assisting the Israelis in fitting the General Electric J79 engine into the Mirage airframe, and became one of the lead engineers to assist in the development of the IAI Kfir.  But that's another story for another time.

Some point to the oft-shown photo from Nesher 01 in the IDF/AF Museum that shows “Mirage 5J” and names of the subcontractors on the various components “clearly only apply to that one single example, and that the others were entirely IAI products.”  But all of Israel’s Neshers were later sold to Argentina, and the parts all had French part numbers and data plates—why would IAI spoof these or use Dassault part numbers on parts supposedly made in Israel?

As an aside, if you’re a fan of the Mirage III/V/IAI Kfir/Atlas Cheetah series, a lot of Kfir and Cheetah components were likewise built in France.

The truth is out there…

In 1/48^th scale, the Mirage 5 was previously represented by kits from ESCI, later re-boxed by Italeri.  Typical ESCI kits, they weren’t too bad for their day.  The type got a big boost when Kinetic Models produced their Mirage IIIE/Mirage 5 kit (Kinetic kit 48052).  Wingman Models, a German group, helped the cause when they bought bagged shots of the Kinetic plastic, added Isra Cast resin, Isra Decals markings, photoetch, and Master Brass parts and sold it as a limited run, full meal deal Super Kit (WMK48013).  It is this last kit we’ll discuss…

First, I will say this—if you have not developed your basic modeling skills, this kit might be difficult to build.  This is certainly not a Tamiya quality model kit, but it is nicely molded and the shapes are pretty much spot-on.  It is certainly a kit that needs you to employ those Model Building 101 skills that I cover in my seminar of the same name.  You will spend a lot of time sanding, fitting, filing, fitting, fettling, and fitting before you even open the glue bottle.  Trust me.  Just trust me…

The kit is full of options.  You can build the Nesher or the Argentinian Dagger/Finger/Mara from the kit—there are resin noses for the Nesher and Dagger/Finger, and the plastic nose is good for the Mara (Argentinean Mirage 5 acquired from Peru).  There is a neat resin cockpit, instrument panel, choice of ejection seats (Martin-Baker Mk.  4 or Mk. 6), and a bit of under wing things (missile rails, Rafael Shafrir 2 missiles), and decals galore—you can pretty do any Nesher you fancy, as the sheet gives you numbers in several styles and the two styles of orange/black ID triangles applied to the Nesher if your airplane carried them.  Oddly, the kit provides two resin 1300 liter under wing ferry tanks, but does not provide the supersonic 500 liter under wing tanks and the 800 liter centerline tank that the Nesher usually sported.  Never fear—if you find you really need them, Wingman offers resin wing tanks in their “FixIT!” line (WMF48014).

I started by test fitting the wings.  No surprise, there was a nice step where the halves came together.  The bottom of the wing is inset into the top, and this step will be a royal bear to remove after assembly—maintaining the proper shape and contour will not be easy.  (And since this was one of those hobby shop build days, I didn't get photos.  You'll just have to trust me…)

You will need to sand the inside of both upper and lower wing halves as well as some of the inner structure to make them fit flush.  There will be a seam to fill on the underside of the wing no matter what you do; just do your best to get everything lined up flush across the outer surface.  I installed the speed brakes in the closed position—not many photos show them open on the ground without a hydraulic mule and someone in the cockpit, although a Mirage fixer has said they do tend to droop.  No matter, I glued mine in the closed position.  You will have to fit, sand, and fit again—this will be the main lesson from this kit.  The wells are beveled, as are the brake panels—but the bevels are different angles!  The brake panels tend to stand proud of the surface if you don’t do some of that test fit-sand-fit again stuff.  However, take a close look at what’s happening—the bevel on the brake panels themselves are what holds the part proud of the wing, so rather than sanding the edges of the brakes, increase the angle of the bevel on their underside.  The former will cause them to be too small, the latter will do a Goldilocks on them—they’ll be “Just Right”…

Likewise, the large aft center section panel needs to be fit and can be added, along with the proper inserts on either side of it.  Hold off on adding the trailing edge control surfaces until the wing is installed on the model.  It may help to add some Evergreen tabs inside the lower wing to help align the insert, too.

Begin the fuselage by cleaning up all the inlet trunk parts.  Kinetic give you inlet trunks all the way back to the engine compressor facing—99% of this is invisible, but you will want to hit the trunks with white paint.  Test fit, sand, and test fit again until the inlet assembly fits into the fuselage, but don’t secure it at this time.

Now, turn your attention to making sure the fuselage halves fit together.  You got it—fit, sand, fit again, repeat until it fits.

Next up: the cockpit.  Remove the parts from the pour stubs.  Be careful—the cockpit tub floor is thin; you don’t want to break through!  I did, but the small area will be hidden under the seat.  Likewise, clean up the nose gear well.  The well will be attached to the underside of the tub, just so you know…and it will need to be fit and sanded in order to properly fit inside the fuselage halves.

As you can see, I indeed cut a hole in the cockpit floor while removing the cockpit from the pour block.  You can also see the resin glareshield in place.

You will need to remove the molded-in plastic glareshield.  I used a combination of saws, files, and a rotary tool.  Try not to remove too much.  Test fit the windscreen to help guide you on the amount you need to remove.  The windscreen will tend to hide some gaps around the edges, but you still want to be careful and not remove too much plastic. 

As you assemble the cockpit tub to the nose gear well, test fit the lot into the fuselage.  I found that the waste side of each could take some sanding to make it fit.  I tacked the tub and well together with a single drop of CA while I did the test fit.  Make sure you fit the lower nose panel at this time, too—if the cockpit is marginally too wide, it can throw the nose off!  Once you are satisfied that it all goes together, secure the tub/well to one half of the fuselage with CA or epoxy.

Assemble the tailpipe.  You can install it at this point.  This is probably the simplest assembly in the kit-a resin tube and a plastic flame holder.  Leave the exhaust nozzle off until the model is finished.

Okay, now the fun begins.  Position the inlet trunk in one fuselage half.  Now, you’ll need to do some sleight of hand to get the other fuselage half into position—it isn’t difficult, but pay attention to where the inlets line up on the outside of the fuselage.  Test fit, adjust, and test fit again until the lot comes together without having to force the issue—I found I had to trim a little bit from the tabs on the inlet trunk assembly at the top as well as trim and sand the sides of the tub/well assembly to get the fuselage to close.  I tacked the fuselage halves with CA and, once I was satisfied with how they were positioned, applied Tamiya Extra Thin to the seam—this “double whammy” locks the fuselage halves in the proper alignment with the CA and welds the seam with the liquid cement.  I added the top fuselage insert at this time after carefully fitting it in place—the fit was less than exact, so get the fit as close as you can and expect to do some sanding/filling/scribing later.  The same goes with the dorsal fin extension, by the way…

You can address the fuselage seams now or wait until the wing is installed.  I decided to wait and tackle all the seams at the same time.  With that established, offer up the wing to the fuselage and check the fit.  I had to install a couple of spreaders in the fuselage to make the wing root seam tight—I chopped lengths off of the kit sprue and cut them to length so they were a push-fit into the fuselage and spread them just a slight bit.  Test fit the wing again, and if the fit is tight, reduce the length of the spreaders until it is a sliding fit—not too tight, not too loose…you know, just another Goldilocks situation.

I had to open up one of the slots on the fuselage wing root face that is supposed to interlock with the tabs molded on the root end of the upper wing.  You will also find out that you’ll need to be thorough in removing the parting lines from the aft section of the lower wing that meets up with the aft fuselage.  You know the drill by now—test fit, adjust fit, repeat as necessary.  Once the wing fits, time for cement—I used a few small tacks of CA, then applied Tamiya Extra Thin along the rest of the seams and allowed it to dry overnight.

The upper inlet parts are next.  Test the fit and trim as needed.  Then offer them up, one at a time, and cement only the aft end.  Let the cement dry completely, then cement the top edge and let that dry.  The final step is to maneuver the inlet into place where it meets the wing, then cement and let dry.  Done in this manner, you shouldn’t have too many fit issues.  I did find where the upper half meets the lower half wasn’t as precise as it could be, but we’ll take care of that when we fill and sand the seams.  I also had some gaps between the upper inlets and the splitter on the trunks; I simply filled these with white glue after everything was assembled.

Once all the cement is dry, let’s look after the seams and gaps.  The fuselage seam isn’t too bad—if you did your fitting correctly, the only thing you should need are a few swipes with sandpaper.  The insert on the upper fuselage aft of the cockpit, however, will need some filler.  I used to use all varieties of putty, but these days I use CA almost exclusively.   I have a length of .015” brass wire shoved into the eraser end of a pencil, and I use this to apply small amounts of thin or medium CA to any gaps and seams.  Work small areas at a time.  Apply the CA, let it cure, then sand.  If the defect is small, I use thin CA; any more than about 1mm gets medium CA.  The ONLY time I use an accelerator is when I have a wide gap that opens into a hollow space—the accelerator arrests the travel of the first application of CA so that you won’t wind up filling the hollow space behind the gap.  Otherwise, I let the CA cure naturally.  The important thing to remember about using CA is to sand it as soon as it is hard enough to sand.  Don’t layer on tons of CA and let it sit overnight—CA gets harder as it cures, and becomes a real bear to sand.   Speaking of sanding, I am not prissy—I started with 220 grit sanding film (3M makes some dandy sanding films and sponges) and worked the bulk of the filler down.  Then I switched to 400 grit Tri-M-Ite wet/dry sandpaper (wet) and removed the 220 grit scratches.  I then used 600 grit wet/dry to further smooth and remove the heavy scratches.  The final polishing was done with a Scotchbrite pad (Squadron markets them as “Finishing Pads” if you can’t find gray Scotchbrite pads at Lowe’s or The Home Depot).  Examine the surface for scratches—if there are any deep scratches; repeat the 400/600/Scotchbrite processes until the surface is smooth.  It you really want to go off the deep end, you can polish the plastic to a mirror shine with a nail buffer—but since we’re using paint (as opposed to an NMF), all you really need is a smooth surface without heavy scratches.

Note the gaps that were filled with CA.  Also note the aggressive sanding—with gaps like this, start with 320 grit!

Now, I can tell you this—you WILL lose some of the panel line detailing.  You can handle it one of three ways: 

•  Ignore it.  Under a coat of paint, it isn’t that noticeable.
• Restore it with a scribing tool—I use a sewing needle chucked into a knife handle and my JLC razor saw.  It isn’t too difficult, just work slowly and carefully.  One tip is to flow some Extra Thin into the restored lines to “soften” them—this helps to blend your work into what Kinetic molded.
• After the paint and decals are on, draw them on with a pencil.

With the wing installed and all the seams addressed and panel detail replaced, you can assemble the control surfaces.  Take care here—the holes are larger than the pins on the hinge fairings, so they tend to float a bit both on the wing and on the control surface.  I tried to get everything assembled with a consistent gap, but had to resort to adding a few .015” shims to several of the surfaces to eliminate a “gap-toothed” look and maintain somewhat even gaps between them. 

Note that the trailing edge doesn’t need to be precisely aligned, i.e., the control surfaces don’t need to describe a straight line—the flaperons and elevons moved independently of each other, and could deflect either direction.  You have the option to depict them in the lowered position, but 99% of the photos I looked at of Mirages and Neshers on the ground showed them in the neutral position, so that’s how I built the model.

The resin nose needs to be test fit carefully—resin can shrink unevenly while curing, so make sure it fits before you commit the glue.  I found that mine fit best if I left it to sit high on top and flush around the rest of the perimeter.  I later sanded the top to match the fuselage contour.

The nose in place and the junction sanded smooth

Mask the canopy and windscreen inside and out.  Paint the frames black (I used Vallejo Panzer Gray Surface Primer in the cockpit—it is a nice scale black).  Trust me on this—you should always paint the inside and out of the cockpit glazing if you intend to pose it open—it looks more realistic.

The time to attach the windscreen has arrived.  As you might suspect, test fitting is a must.  I found that I needed to add a .010” shim under the sides to get it to sit relatively flush up front.  Remove the masking from the inside of the windscreen (I left it on during the test fitting to keep from damaging it), then use CA to attach the windscreen along the sides.  Sand the sides flush, then work your way to the front.  I had to add some filler—another reason to paint the frames first, otherwise the filler shows through the clear parts, a colorful reminder to be more careful next time.  For this, I used Perfect Plastic Putty, primarily because I could apply it and smooth it with a wet finger.  I got it roughly shaped, let it dry, and then gave it a light sanding to do the final shaping.

After that, it was all downhill.  I made one last check to make sure all of the items were in position—I left off the clear lenses, antennas, pitot, exhaust, and ordnance, but all the rest of the doo-dads were installed at this point.  A wipe down with a lint-free paper towel moistened with Isopropyl Alcohol, and the model was ready for paint.

I’ve been playing around with the “black basing” technique lately.  Accordingly, the model was primed using Vallejo’s Panzer Grey Surface Primer.  I allowed this to sit for a few days to fully and completely cure (24 hours is usually sufficient).  Then I applied the camouflage using the appropriate Vallejo Model Air colors.  I carefully applied the colors so they were more concentrated in the centers of individual panels and less so on panel lines and structural landmarks—by doing so, the black “peeks through” and creates a shadow effect.  If the shadow looks too harsh, simply apply another thin—the key to this technique is to build color in thin layers—coat of paint.   As a final step, I will thin the paint into a tint and then mist an even coat over the whole area to “homogenize” the finish.  I repeated this process with each color.  After all four colors were applied; I gave the model a close inspection to see if I needed to make any corrections.  I had to touch a few things up, and then left the paint to cure.

The fuselage, primed and ready for color

With the paint fully cured, it was time for decals.  Now, there is a small (but very vocal) faction of modelers who insist that you do not require a clear coat under decals.  And while this is indeed true, if you plan on doing any sort of weathering you really should use a clear coat.  I use Future, or whatever they’re calling the product named Future these days (at last count, it is going by “Pledge Revive It Multisurface Floor Finish”)– although I am led to understand the Alclad Aqua Gloss is a great product, too.

The key to using Future as a gloss is to apply it and allow it to fully cure—this takes anywhere between 24 and 36 hours.  Once it is fully cured, you can apply your decals.  The first thing to pay attention to is the water you use—if you know, or even suspect, that your water has a high mineral content, simply use distilled water. 

With modern decals, the easiest way to proceed is to apply one decal, no setting solutions or solvents, and let It sit, face-up, for an hour to see how it behaves.  Modern decal adhesives do a good job of pulling the film down into panel lines, but sometimes you will need to employ a solvent—I start with Solvaset, diluted a bit with distilled water.  If that won’t do it, I’ll reduce the amount of water until I’m using it full-strength—usually, that isn’t necessary with modern decals, but older decals might require repeated applications of full-strength Solvaset.  I divide my decals into four sessions—top, bottom, left, and right, and I will support the model so the decals in question can sit face-up while they do their thing—let gravity help when you can, right?

Another important, yet often overlooked, aspect of decals is this: after they’ve dried overnight, you need to gently remove the residual adhesive from the surface of the model.  If you don’t, you run the risk of having brown spots appear after a few years.  Using a lint-free towel (a microfiber towel is good) and some warm distilled water, carefully clean the model—look at the model after you dampen it, the spots of decal residue will appear as spots on a washed dish.  Gentle scrubbing will remove it.  Allow the model to dry…

Decals on, residue removed, and clear coat applied, ready for weathering.

Now, if you are not going to do any additional “weathering”, apply a clear satin or flat coat.  If, however, you’re planning on a panel line wash, apply a coat of clear gloss over the decals.  You can use a satin finish; however, understand that the washing process will stain the paint.  A glossy surface limits the staining and gives you a bit more control.

I added an oil wash.  I will be the first to tell you that I’m not 100% happy with it, and this is partially due to the colors I used.  My tones leaned towards the red end of the color wheel, and it is a touch too red for my liking.  Now, I left well enough alone, but if you find yourself in a similar predicament, the fix is to overlay the original wash with one more to your liking.  Oils are very forgiving that way—sure, whatever you add will mix with what is already down, but you can always mix oils to accommodate the colors already on the model.  You don’t need to rush; they will stay workable for at least six hours, probably longer if you use odorless turpentine.  If, on the other hand, you use something like Naphtha, they will dry quicker.  I’ve never used anything but odorless thinners, so I have never had to worry about it.

Once the wash does dry, you can apply a clear flat or semi-gloss finish.  Unmask the clear bits, and proceed with final assembly…

Oil wash applied.  Ready for final clear matte or sating and final assembly.

The details were added—the landing gear was installed along with the doors.  The exhaust nozzle was painted in various shades of black and Vallejo Metal Color paints to depict the typical scorched metal colors found on these items.  It was added to the model.

The various antennas were painted and added.  The Angle of Attack sensor, one of those turned brass goodies, was installed.  I used the tip of a new #11 blade to locate the hole, and then drilled the hole with a #76 drill.  A small dab of Canopy Glue secured the AOA sensor in place.  The pitot probe was also installed at this time in the same manner.  I used Vallejo Metal Color to paint the probes after they were installed.

The resin missiles and pylon adapters were painted and installed.  Nothing difficult about this step, although you might want to add some brass wire pins to obtain a more secure bond.  I did not, but hindsight may call my bluff on that one…

Last to go on were the seat and the canopy.  I painted the seat following the color photos included in the instruction sheet, added the photoetch details, and detail painted the lot.  The canopy was cleaned up, the interior frame painted with Vallejo Panzer Gray primer, and the photoetch mirrors were added with Canopy Glue.  I added a rod to the hinge tab of the canopy as a positive means of attachment, and the canopy was installed.

Once everything was added to the model, I made a final inspection and touched up any paint glitches and shiny glue spots. 

I have yet to fashion a base for the model.  I know what I want to do, and I am still planning what the final display will be.  Eventually, I want this to be part of an “Israeli Deltas” display, featuring two Mirage III Shahaks (1967 bare metal and 1973 camouflage), the Nesher, and three Kfirs—a C1, C2, and C7.  Six airplanes—you figure out what the base *might* look like… 

But the model itself is complete.  It took some work, but the modeling skills required are all basics—parts clean-up, test fitting, alignment, and careful construction.

**************************************************
Speaking of the RIPCORD diorama, the FSB RIPCORD Veteran's Association has posted the article from the AMPS Boresight to their website.  I know I've teased with tidbits and photos, so you may as well see the story behind the diorama, too.  Click through it–it runs for about 55 pages on their site. 

Thanks for reading.  Please be safe and stay healthy in this time of COVID.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.

Howdy, all!

Last time we talked about Fujimi kits, and I promised you a rundown of the Sea King model I built not too long ago.  Well. here she be…

Building Fujimi’s 1/72 scale SH-3

In the 1950’s, the Soviet Union began fielding a larger and more potent force of submarines, both to conduct offensive strikes and to deal with enemy shipping.  In response, the Department of Defense—specifically, the U.S. Navy—began developing weapons to counter the threat. 

Among the equipment in development, Sikorsky began investigating the use of turboshaft engines on helicopters to replace the obsolescent piston engines then in use with the fleet.  The helicopter they designed, the Sea King, would serve the Navy until 2006.

Designed around a sealed amphibious hull and twin General Electric T58 turboshaft engines, the Sea King combined the missions of submarine hunting and submarine killing—previously, antisubmarine helicopters were either hunters or killers.  Initially designated HSS-2 (H=Helicopter, S=Antisubmarine, S= Sikorsky, 2=second subtype), it would be re-designated SH-3 in 1961.  Although the SH-3 had nothing in common with the HSS-1 Seabat—itself a variant of the S-58/H-34 family—other than the manufacturer, in the day, funding for an existing design was easier to obtain than for a clean-sheet design.  If they wanted to stick to the HSS nomenclature, it would have more accurately been HS2S-1…

The design would be stretched into the U.S. Air Force’s HH-3E with a rear loading ramp, and eventually Sikorsky would take the basic SH-3 design, stretch it, widen it, and introduce the CH/HH-53 series.  While not physically related, the family lineage is apparent.

Over the years, it was upgraded to the SH-3D, SH-3H, and SH-3G variants.  A civilian variant, the S-61, was produced and initially used to ferry passengers from downtown Ney Your City and Los Angeles to their respecting international airports, where the passengers could catch their flights—it saved time and trouble dealing with traffic.  S-61’s have also been used in aerial firefighting.

Fujimi’s 1/72 scale Sea King kits date back to 1981, and are quite nice, even now.  The kit was available in several boxings, depicting U.S. Navy SH-3’s, Japanese HSS-2B’s, and British Sea Kings (HAR.3 and Sea King Mk. 41).  Revell Germany also issued the kit as a Sea King Mk.41 (not to be mistaken for Revell’s own new-tool Sea King Mk.41 that appeared in 1998), and the kit also appeared in a Testors box.  Currently, Italeri has it in a box commemorating the Apollo 11 recovery featuring “Old 66”.  Options included in the box allow you to build it as an early or late Sea King—the short and long sponsons and stabilizers are included, along with a few different interior options.  This model was built from one of the JMSDF issues of the kit, a kit I picked up second-hand.  By the condition of the decals (and, as I would discover, the brittleness of the plastic), it probably lived most of its life in an unconditioned space.  The decals didn’t matter, but I would face several issues relating to the condition of the plastic all throughout the project.

Fujimi’s venerable Sea King kit dates to 1981, but is still pretty good for its age.

Initially, I was going to build one of the CH-3B’s that the United States Air Force used to service the Texas Tower radar platforms, and I began the project with that in mind.  I was going to delete the ASW gear in the cabin, so I installed the plugs for the SONAR well.  The more I started digging, the more I realized that I had a lot more information to gather for a CH-3B, and rather than let this kit languish, I decided to reverse course. 

I still wanted an early Engine Gray (aka Seaplane Gray, FS36081) aircraft.  I started digging in my decal stash, and located two sheets that had that as an option:  Microscale 72-391 and Cutting Edge Decals CED72008.  I opted for the latter, since it had a colorful ship for HS-5 “Night Dippers” off the USS Lake Champlain (CVS-39).  As it turns out, I would also use the Microscale sheet for the data—the Fujimi decals were worthless in that regard (remember, it was the JMSDF issue with appropriate Japanese data), and Cutting Edge does not provide it.

 

   Left: CED72008, supplies main scheme           Right: Microscale 72-391, supplies data

I took a look at what I had done to that point.  Removing the plug from the cabin floor was easy—the SONAR enclosure would hide any ugliness.  But the fuselage plug was another issue—when I attempted to remove it (I applied some Tamiya Extra Thin to weaken the earlier bond), part of the fuselage came out with it.  I was fully prepared to make the required repairs, but my wife (who also happens to be the Sea King Subject Matter Expert over on the Tailhook Topics website) offered me her Sea King spares box for anything I may need.  So, I selected a pair of fuselage halves that would work for me.  The port side came from a Sea King Mk. 41 issue, and is molded in green.  The starboard side was from one of the USN SH-3 issues, and was molded in white.  Parts from the original kit are almost an ivory color.  So, in the pictures you will notice that the model looks like Lou Antonio’s “Lokai” character from the “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” episode of “Star Trek”—there’s the reason why.  I also would use sponson stub pylon parts and landing gear from her spares, since the originals were brittle and I managed to break them during construction.

I stuck pretty much to an out of the box build, but several items couldn’t be left alone: the cabin interior was flat and featureless (a quick look inside of a Sea King reveals structural members that are quite visible) other than the optional window cut lines and some ejector pin marks, the main landing gear wells opened up into the interiors of the sponsons, and I wanted to fold the main rotor to save on display space.

I revisited my earlier cabin work and added the ASW consoles and seats, as well as the “broom closet” and SONAR housing.  I left the aft web seat out for now.  In the cockpit, I added a second collective (the kit only has one), and assembled the rest per the instructions.

Now comes the fun.  I filled the window cut lines with a mixture of CA (super glue) and microballoons and sanded them flush once cured.  There are quite a few ejection pin marks and sink marks inside the cabin, too, and these also got addressed.  The good thing about the CA/microballoons mixture is that it cures fast but does not get as hard as straight CA—it sands and fathers easily.

Next, I took a pencil, and using the rivet lines on the exterior of the fuselage, I drew corresponding lines inside.  Using various sizes of Evergreen strip stock, I added the indications of frames and stringers inside the left half—the right side cannot be seen, so I didn’t waste the effort, time, or materials.  Simply cut the strip stock to length, and cement it in place with Tamiya Extra Thin.  You’ll need to hold the stock in place for a few minutes while the cement grabs.

I also fashioned a cabin overhead from Evergreen sheet.  I used the overhead from one of the new Airfix kits to cut a pattern from an index card.  I test fit the pattern and adjusted it until the fit was to my liking.  I transferred the pattern shape to some .015” sheet, cut the pattern out, and did some final fettling to get it “just right”.  I installed some .040” square stock as gluing tabs for the overhead.

Window cut lines filled and structure added—that’s the Airfix overhead I used as a template in the foreground

The widows were cleaned and installed at this time.  I used CA—sparingly—and allowed it to wick into the seam.  Done carefully, the windows will be installed securely and the seam between the window and fuselage should be sealed.  If you want the flush look, add more CA to the outside seam and then sand and polish the windows back to clarity.  Once that was done, I masked the windows and painted the interior areas FS36321 Dark Gull Gray.  The seat cushions were painted orange, and I added paper seat belts to all of the seats, and used a greenish tan shade for the web seat.  The interior was then added to the fuselage halves, and the fuselage was assembled (don't forget to un-mask the insides of the windows!).  The fit was quite good, I only needed to add some CA into the seam on the bottom.  A quick sanding, making sure to keep the keel sharp, and that was that.

The interior “pan” painted.  I didn’t go into a great deal of detail, since 99% of this won’t be seen.

The insides of the fuselage—note that I only added structure where you could see it

The engine inlet face needed to be fitted carefully—there isn’t a lot to positively locate it, so work carefully.  I still wound up with some gaps, and rather than use CA as filler, I used Vallejo putty.  It is workable with a wet brush, so I applied the putty and smoothed it out.  After it dried, a quick touch with sandpaper feathered in any errant edges.

The engine inlet face installed.

The early issues of this kit have an issue with the cockpit windows—the lower horizontal frames are far too wide.  My kit had the later corrected version, but forewarned is forearmed and all that.  I first cleaned up a rather large scratch with Micro Mesh pads and Novus Polish, and then gave the canopy a dip in Future.  Once the Future cured (overnight), I masked and sprayed the inside of the “greenhouse” windows—in the case of early Sea Kings, they were actually blue.  I used Tamiya’s Clear Blue for this.  Another curing period and the canopy panes were masked with Tamiya Tape, trimmed with a brand new #11 blade.  I masked my canopy before I installed it, but you can do it whenever suits your mood.

I used Pacer’s Formula 560 Canopy Glue to secure the canopy.  I had to use small tacks of CA in a few spots, since the top of the fuselage tended to bow more than the top of the canopy—gentle pressure on the fuselage, a tack of CA to lock it into position, and then some Canopy Glue to fill the small gaps, and you’re done. 

With most of the fuselage together, I dealt with the sponsons.  The halves were cleaned up, and then I sized a bit of Evergreen sheet to form the sides of the gear wells.  I installed it right over the sockets for the struts, and once the sides of the well were secure, I drilled matching holes.  I cut a bit of sheet to act as the well’s roof, and secured it to one side.  The sponsons were assembled—don’t forget to install the struts!–and the roof was attached to the other side wall to close it up.  I then sized bits of sheet to close off the fore and aft ends of the wells.  A bit of sanding to make the sides of the well flush with the bottom of the sponson, and we could check that off the list.

All you need is Evergreen and time.  Tell me, which looks better?

When you install the sponsons, do a test first to make sure the support strut will fit okay.  Note that there is a normal gap between the sponson’s stub wing and the fuselage on the actual aircraft, so don’t fill it.  You should, however clean up the fit of the struts where they meet the fairings.

You can see the gap that needs to be filled where the strut meets the fairing.

The horizontal stabilizer was added, and the gap was filled.  The basic carcass is now complete.

The tail rotor was cleaned up of flash, and the hub detail added.  I also cleaned up the main rotor parts, assembled and cleaned up the dipping SONAR unit, rescue hoist, pitot masts, main wheels, and the fuel dump.  Early Sea Kings didn’t have the ice shield or rotor cap, so those went to the spares box.  I ascertained that this helicopter had the split pitot probes—earlier aircraft had them both located on the right side in a vertically staggered arrangement.  I left them off for painting; however, since there would be some tight work needed around the engine doghouse, they would have been in the way had I installed them now.  I should have left the fuel dump off, too—I wound up breaking it several times.

Everything got a coat of Vallejo’s Panzer Gray Surface Primer.  It gives a uniform base of subsequent colors, and acts as a very nice scale black.  I masked the lower canopy frames that would remain black (the chin windows and lower windscreen frames) and the flame pads near the engine exhausts.  Next, I used Vallejo White Surface Primer on the nose and tail band area—fluorescent and Day-Glo paints don’t do well unless there is a white backing for them.  The areas were masked off in preparation for the main color.  I looked and looked, and swore I had a bottle of 36081—but all I had was the Testor Acryl modern Engine Gray.  I also needed the red-orange paint, so I placed a supplies order.  As usual, Sprue Brothers Models was quick to ship…

Primed and ready.

The Seaplane Gray went on without a hitch.  I unmasked the white areas and back-masked them for the red-orange.  Yes, I could have shot the red-orange on before the gray, but as it was I had two layers of paint—I wasn’t going to chance that the tape would lift any of the paint.  The red-orange is from Lifecolour, and I gotta say this—that was some really nice paint!  It only needed minimal thinning and it laid down very nicely.

We now have a gray and white model. 

      Red on the fuselage, Gull Gray on the blades.

The tail rotor tips were masked, and the white was sprayed on the tips.  When dry, the white areas were masked and the red added.  It was unmasked and set aside for later.

Tail rotor, ready to go.

The main rotors’ undersides were masked, and the tops given a coat of FS36440 Light Gull Gray (I used some of the last of my Acryl paint on this).  The yellow bands and tips were masked and painted.  Once they were dry, I assembled the blades to the rotor head.

The main rotor assembled in the unstowed position.

“But wait a minute—you were going to fold the rotor, right?”  Patience pays here.  It is easier to assemble the main rotor, and then cut four of the five blades off.  Using my JLC razor saw, I cut the blades from the hub just outside the main rotor head collars—this is a wee bit longer than the lap joint on the blades reaches, so I trued everything up with a sanding block.  Keep track of which blade goes where, too—I merely set them on my bench in the order they were removed around the head.

Four of the five blades cut from the head.

To replace the material lost in the cutting, I added pads of .010” Evergreen sheet stock to both the blades and the rotor head.  Now, comes the fun.  The rigid blade is #1, therefore I needed to fold the #2 and #5 blades aft.  I added a small section of Evergreen angle stock, sanded it until it was thinner and matched the angles I needed—I didn’t measure the angles, I merely eyeballed things until they looked like the reference photos I was using.  I used CA here, since it grabs fast and I can lock it if I need to with some accelerator.  Once they were secure, I filled the angle a bit with more CA, and sanded everything smooth.

Added the styrene pad, angle stock, and…done.  Now, one more of these…

For the #3 and #4 blades, they not only fold back, but also down and lie almost flat to the fuselage.   Again, I added angle stock and placed it to orient the blades where they needed to be.  Again, I assembled everything with CA to get a solid bond.  If you look closely, it won’t make sense, but it is the appearance that counts here.  I was satisfied with the look of the rotor, and that’s what matters.

Now, were folded.

I took care of the rotor while the decals went on the rest of the model.  As I said earlier, I used the Cutting Edge markings and the Microscale data.  Everything went on easily, although I did make a goof—I’ll let you guys and gals have a look and see if you can tell.  I’m not sayin’ a word…I can live with it.  Good thing, too—fixing it would require a ton of work (and another set of decals!) that I’d rather not do…

I apply decals over a model that’s had a clear gloss applied.  I use Future, thinned 50-50 with Isopropyl Alcohol, for this task.  You can apply it straight if you wish, I find that the alcohol yields a thinner coat and a smooth but not too shiny finish.

 

Decal time.  I do one side at a time, and let gravity help pull them tight.

By the bye, there is a small (but very vocal) faction of modelers online who claim you don’t need it, that as long as the paint is smooth, you’re good to go.  And largely, this is true—decals only need a smooth surface to adhere to without silvering.  But if you weather with washes, you will find that the untreated paint will stain differently than the paint protected by the decal film—the work-around(s):  Remove all the clear film from your decals OR paint on all your markings OR apply a clear gloss.  I’ve been doing the Microscale System for so long that it is ingrained in the way I build models, and it works, so I’ll stick to it.  If your mileage varies, that’s cool—far be it to me to tell you how to build your models.  The decals settled down nicely, for the most part, but around some of the rivets they needed some help—a bit of Solvaset did the trick.  Once dry, the model was wiped down with a moist (with distilled water–I use distilled water for all phases of the decal application) microfiber towel—this removes the excess decal glue and solvent residue and prevents these areas from turning brown months or years later.

Another coat of Future, again cut 50-50 with Isopropyl Alcohol, was applied.  I allowed it to dry, and then stripped off the masking from the clear parts.  A few licks of paint to color details—the antennas (Panzer Gray primer), the tips of the pitot tubes and landing lights (Molotov chrome marker—next time, I’ll use MV lenses for the landing lights), the engine inlet bullets (Vallejo Mediterranean Blue and White mixed to match the blue of the checkerboard decals), and the inlet rings (Panzer Gray primer) were brush painted in the relevant colors.  As the last paint operations, I masked off the wheel wells and painted them white, made a mask for the two oval antennas on the forward belly and painted them with Desert Tan Surface Primer, and masked the stainless panels around the exhausts and painted them Vallejo Metal Color Dark Aluminum.

Ready for final assembly.

A close shot of the front end.  You can see a lot in the photo—the exhausts and inlets are painted, the pitot masts are installed, the engine spinners are painted, and the position light on the sponson is complete.

I had sanded the tail beacon off during construction.  I made a new one from a drop of Canopy Glue.  I also removed the lower beacon (I sanded off of the chin fairing), and replaced it in the same manner.  I cut the molded position lights on the sponsons off, and small dabs of Canopy Glue replaced them.  When the glue drops were dry, the lights were painted in the relevant colors using Tamiya Clear Red and Clear Green.  A clear position light was added to the aft end of the tail.

The remaining parts were installed with Canopy Glue.  The benefit of using Canopy Glue is that the bond breaks before the part does, so if the model gets bumped, you can easily repair anything that pops loose.  Any shiny glue spots were addressed with either Future or Matt Varnish, as the situation warranted.

The main rotor still needed work.  As it was, the tips of the blades stuck straight out.  I used a small section of .040” square stock to raise the forward edge of the rotor head—this dropped the blades to where they looked like the reference photos I used.  As a final detail, I made the rotor tie-downs from paper and thread.  I slid the bags over the ends of the rotors and secured the “ropes” to the tail wheel as shown in photos.  This will put some tension on the blades and get them to curve down a bit.  There was no “one” way these were secured—look at your photos and build what you see.

A little stock to get the right “sit” on the rotor head, then some paper and thread will tie down the main rotor.

All models need a base—it is literally a frame for your model.  Simple bases for aircraft models are easy—they are usually a flat base covered with either turf, pavement, or, in the case of ships, a deck (either wood or steel).  I had a craft-store plaque lying around that I inherited from someone who simply left them at the hobby shop as freebies.  It wasn’t in the greatest shape—it had scratches and dings on it.  I sanded it as smooth as I could, filled the dings and divots, and gave it a few coats of Matt Black using a craft acrylic.  Once the paint was dry, I shot on a few coats of Future—I have an older bottle that was turning yellow, and I had added some food coloring to create a tint. 

I created the deck using a piece of mat board I bought as part of a package of off-cuts from the crafts store.  I measured the base, cut the mat board to size, and then used a pencil and a straightedge to simulate the deck planks.  I had a good photo of the Champ’s deck, and I followed it as closely as I could—Essex-class carrier decks were planks set side to side.  About every eight planks, there was a steel frame with tie-down cleats.  In the case of my base, I didn’t bother with the cleats, since the deck was so dark.  Once the planks were embossed, I painted the mat board with Vallejo Tire Black.  Once dry, I masked and painted the stripes and helipad location.  A coat of matt clear finished the job.

A simple base sets your model off.  This took about an hour and used common materials found in craft shops.

I glued small squares of felt to the corners of the bottom of the plaque, and attached the deck to the top side, all with Tacky Glue.  I whipped up a quick placard in PowerPoint and printed it on card stock, trimmed it to size, and attached it to the deck with Spray Mount.

The final step was to attach the helicopter to the deck with a few dabs of Canopy Glue.  With that, another model is ready for the display cabinet.

A dab or two of glue, a placard, and we’re done.

From the top.  The folded rotor adds some visual interest and saves on display space.

So there you have it.  All told, this took maybe 10 nights of work, about three hours per night–give or take.  You can plow a lot more work into one of these kits–detailing the cockpit, detailing the rotor heads, adding small details to the exterior–but I only added what I considered the bare minimum required to make it look good on the shelf. 

I'm happy with the end result, but not satisfied–the model is quite attractive, sure, but as the "father" of the finished model, I cannot help cringe when I see my boo-boos.  In the end, it gives me an excuse to build another…and another.  By doing, you learn.  By practicing, you become a master.  Isn't that what it is all about?

Thanks for stopping by.  Be good to one another, and, as always, I bid you Peace.