Category: The Plastic Addiction

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.