Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG1

[Laurent]

37 minutes ago, T7 Models said:

And suggesting that the kit is wrong because of an artwork issue is just plain daft.

Not if the CAD model is used to do the artwork (painting instructions). Take the Hobby Boss Su-17M4: the windscreen and canopy parts have the same shape problems as the ones that could be seen in the drawings in the painting & decaling sheet.

 

Same thing with the KH Su-17M3/M4. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Laurent

[Denford]

Does anyone KNOW FOR SURE that the pictures of the sprues are of the final production version or an just an early rendering.

There were sprues for the P-51 at Telford - yes 9 months ago - and the designer told me that there was still a lot of work to do on them, yet at a casual glance the seemed quite OK.

[Robert]

I am going to bypass the RN and go straight to the RAF !

[Paul J]

There appear to be optional wing tips including the folded ones. And a fin without the fin top RWR.  Also I like that the underwing serial placements show both types of application inboardof the outer wing tip and over it.  I found in my slides RAF ones with both types.

[Dave Fleming]

5 hours ago, Denford said:

Does anyone KNOW FOR SURE that the pictures of the sprues are of the final production version or an just an early rendering.

There were sprues for the P-51 at Telford - yes 9 months ago - and the designer told me that there was still a lot of work to do on them, yet at a casual glance the seemed quite OK.

To quote the article

 

This important stage of the development process will allow the Airfix designers to assess the validity of the tooling block and give them the opportunity to see how the components actually go together from the modeller's perspective. They can then compile a review folder, making any necessary alterations or amendments before the model proceeds any further – a really significant stage in the production of any new model tooling and a time of great excitement for the Airfix team. Here are the Phantom FG.1 test frame images for your delectation: 

 

They have fixed things before (Martlet for one) so it's possible if the fin tip is wrong, it could be fixed.

[VMA131Marine]

8 hours ago, AntPhillips said:

 

Sure does look like the radar dish on the clear sprue, it looks good lots of options, but there's one thing that doesn't look right and that's the rear tip of the non-RWR fin, it seems to taper down too much, not just on the plastic but in the artworks as well.

 

It might be me but if not I hope its correctable.

The fin tip looks pretty good compared to this image:

 

 

It certainly should not be a straight line as the Airfix profile art shows. You can see in the article that Airfix 3D scanned an airframe with the RWR tip so there is no excuse for them to get it wrong.

Edited July 21, 2017 by VMA131Marine

[Darby]

6 minutes ago, VMA131Marine said:

The fin tip looks pretty good compared to this image:

 

 

It certainly should not be a straight line as the Airfix profile art shows. You can see in the article that Airfix 3D scanned an airframe with the RWR tip so there is no excuse for them to get it wrong.

Many are the personal filing/sanding options available so nothing insurmountable or worth worrying about. Nice picture by the way. The only scheme worthy of an anglicised F4.

[Dave Fleming]

They are talking about the non RWR fin

[sloegin57]

13 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

They are talking about the non RWR fin

 

They most certainly are Dave, the upper surface of the pre-PWR fin has a bit too much curvature and the trailing edge of the tip looks a bit lean compared with one made by McDD. :-

 

 

Dennis

 

PS On the other hand, I think that this reflects the true shape of the tip better :-

 

 

DR

 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by sloegin57

[PLC1966]

The 92 Sqn jet in the top right is a FGR2 while the tail represented in the drawing represents a FG1, would that account for any difference as was maybe hinted at earlier in the thread ?

[sloegin57]

22 minutes ago, PLC1966 said:

The 92 Sqn jet in the top right is a FGR2 while the tail represented in the drawing represents a FG1, would that account for any difference as was maybe hinted at earlier in the thread ?

 

There were panel line differences between the 1 and the 2 that have been discussed before but the external aerodynamic shape was the same.  :-

 

 

                                                                                              FG.1 (Airfix)                                                FGR.2 (McDD)                                              Fg.1 (McDD)

It only changed radically when the PWR was introduced

 

Dennis

Edited July 21, 2017 by sloegin57

[Dave Fleming]

Looking at the test shot photos, the non-RWR fin has the FG1 panel lines and the RWR one has the FGR2 ones. The ILS Antenna will have to come off the RWR one for an RN aircraft as well. More wailing and gnashing of teeth no doubt.......

 

 

Not keen on the separate flaps, leading edge slats and air brakes. More bits to line up when fitting them closed.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Dave Fleming

[Girvan67]

It looks like the radome is not separate from the main fuselage part.  On the original CAD they had the nose folded with the radome exposed. Are we going to have to get the saw out for this option and if we want a non folded option what will the seam on the radome look like.

 

not trying to be negative. I am looking forward to this as one of my few buys through the year

Edited July 22, 2017 by Girvan67
Typo

[Geoff_B]

7 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

Looking at the test shot photos, the non-RWR fin has the FG1 panel lines and the RWR one has the FGR2 ones. The ILS Antenna will have to come off the RWR one for an RN aircraft as well. More wailing and gnashing of teeth no doubt.......

 

 

Not keen on the separate flaps, leading edge slats and air brakes. More bits to line up when fitting them closed.

 

But in this case they are necessary as they were dropped for catapult launches so in this case its a brownie points if you want to display the aircraft ready to be shot off the deck of Ark Royal or Eagle.

 

It will depend on how they then fit together when assembled up, but perhaps alternative upper wing sections with the flaps and slats up might be a wiser option. especially as they have done 3 sets of outer wing panels (folded, unfolded, unfolded dropped slats)

 

[Geoff_B]

10 minutes ago, Girvan67 said:

It looks like the radome is not separate from the main fuselage part.  On the original CAD they had the nose folded with the radome exposed. Are we going to have to get the saw out for this option and if we want a non folded option what will the seam on the radome look like.

 

not trying to be negative. I am looking forward to this as one of my few buys through the year

We can't see the interior layout of the sprues but hopefully there is a recessed grove to make cutting off the Radome easy. 

 

It does make sense to do it this way as the majority will be built unfolded, only those displaying the Phantom on an Ark Royal deck lift or hanger would fold the nose cone, but to do it as an optional part would mean the fwd fuselage would need a bulkhead there, allow for the radar details and allow for the Radome to be fitted flush which would compromise the detail for the sake of structural integrity. 

 

Anyway I like what I see, there may be a few niggle to address, but its features look great for modelling a Roya Navy Phantom FG1, standard , parked, Cat launch and folded for deck lift. The only thing missing appear to be the pilot and navigator as it can't really be hot to trot with no aircrew !

[stever219]

1 hour ago, Geoff_B said:

It does make sense to do it this way as the majority will be built unfolded, only those displaying the Phantom on an Ark Royal deck lift or hanger would fold the nose cone, but to do it as an optional part would mean the fwd fuselage would need a bulkhead there, allow for the radar details and allow for the Radome to be fitted flush which would compromise the detail for the sake of structural integrity. 

 

RAF servicing diorama, radomes open?  Also someone might want to try depicting the demise of 111 Squadron's XV589  where the radome unlocked and swung open due to corrosion of the latches while the jet was coming in to land.  There's at least one photo "out there" showing the open radomes and both canopies, bang seats and occupants gone.

 

How hard are we going to have to bang on Airfix's door to get them to scale this up to 1/48th?

Edited July 22, 2017 by stever219
Correct serial number located.

[Max Headroom]

35 minutes ago, stever219 said:

Also someone might want to try depicting the demise of 111 Squadron's XV589  where the radome unlocked and swung open due to corrosion of the latches while the jet was coming in to land.  There's at least one photo "out there" showing the open radomes and both canopies, bang seats and occupants gone.

My Google-fu is working this morning!

 

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/project/Biographies/Joint-Crash-Details/1980_June-03-Phantom_Open_Radome/Radome_Open.htm

 

Trevor

 

[71chally]

Looks damned fine to me,  I prefer the separate flaps & slats etc, Airfix fit of parts for theses sorts of things closed up are really good now.

To me that is the strong advantage over the Fujimi kits.

 

The non RWR fin top does appear too rounded (at the moment) in ths sprue and drawings shots, looks easy enough to shave off the hump and reprofile though.

Looks like @Tailspin Turtle was ahead of us again with this, http://phantomphacts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/differences-between-phantom-fg1-and-fgr2.html

However it looks better on the CAD to me, http://www.72news.eu/2016/11/airfix-mcdonnell-douglas-fg1-phantom-ii.html

 

Love the touches such as the separate under wing strengthening plates, and the folded outer wings option with a section of the inboard wing attached, just shows the huge attention to detail that Airfix have shown with this kit.

Edited July 22, 2017 by 71chally

[Denford]

9 hours ago, stever219 said:

 

RAF servicing diorama, radomes open?  Also someone might want to try depicting the demise of 111 Squadron's XV589  where the radome unlocked and swung open due to corrosion of the latches while the jet was coming in to land.  There's at least one photo "out there" showing the open radomes and both canopies, bang seats and occupants gone.

 

How hard are we going to have to bang on Airfix's door to get them to scale this up to 1/48th?

Only when they've got proven sales figures to justify it, then perhaps another 2 years to tool.....

[tony.t]

Looks very nice indeed. 

 

Like the design of the wing with its choice of components, the optional canopy parts that allow a clean finish and the slick radome that may be removed and posed open on the figure-of-eight bulkheads. 

 

Am assuming the instruments will be supplied as decals (perfect for this scale) or the flat surfaces may be adorned with AM pre-painted etch. 

 

The amount of stencil data is slightly mad for a 1/72 kit, especially if you envisage building 2-3 of them, but at least it's all there - wow! 

 

As this is the only new tool FG.1 I'm likely to see in this lifetime, a pair of red boxes would be a most welcomed addition this autumn. 

 

Tony 

[Hook]

On 21-7-2017 at 9:56 PM, Paul J said:

There appear to be optional wing tips including the folded ones.

 

I think I see three sets of wingtips - folded, unfolded and unfolded with flaps down.

 

Looking pretty good, I must say.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[AntPhillips]

Apologies if I stirred up a little bit of a hornets nest with this one, I'm in no way an Airfix basher, I've already got one on pre-order even though its not my preferred scale and I also have a shelving rack full of red boxes (and much older pre-Hornby ones too), but if I see something that looks wrong and it's early enough that it can be corrected before the moulds are finalised then I feel it needs to be brought up, we know a few of the Airfix guys frequent BM so its as good a place as any to highlight it. 

 

Happy modelling

Ant

[Killingholme]

The Phantom is just awesome aircraft, in any flavour- and the FAA version is definitely going to sneak it's way in to the stash somehow despite it not really being my period/scale/air arm.

 

There's lot's of talk of nose legs and flaps/slats/ airbrakes here. I always find kit instructions rarely tell you which dangly-bits would indeed dangle at any one time. Can someone talk me through this for various common modelling display scenarios?

 

1) stowed configuration (i.e. wings folded, FOD covers on)

2) being spotted on deck

3) take off config- (the Carrier display at FAA Museum made my 6 year old nephew go INSANE with excitement).

4) landing config

 

Will

[tony.t]

19 hours ago, Killingholme said:

The Phantom is just awesome aircraft, in any flavour- and the FAA version is definitely going to sneak it's way in to the stash somehow despite it not really being my period/scale/air arm.

 

There's lot's of talk of nose legs and flaps/slats/ airbrakes here. I always find kit instructions rarely tell you which dangly-bits would indeed dangle at any one time. Can someone talk me through this for various common modelling display scenarios?

 

1) stowed configuration (i.e. wings folded, FOD covers on)

2) being spotted on deck

3) take off config- (the Carrier display at FAA Museum made my 6 year old nephew go INSANE with excitement).

4) landing config

 

Will

 

1-3 are possible, 4 is not as the landing gear oleos are compressed, but 5 - airborne with wheels up - is also an option.

 

The only thing I don't care for is the chunky-looking ILS antennae on the RWR style fin, which will need to be removed for an Ark subject. Would be better if these were provided as separate parts but, hey ho, a sharp knife + some sanding and polishing should fix it. 

 

The glazing between the canopies is depicted a bit higher than it should be in the drawings, but I'm sure the parts are fine.

 

Tony

[Denford]

22 minutes ago, tony.t said:

 

1-3 are possible, 4 is not as the landing gear oleos are compressed, but 5 - airborne with wheels up - is also an option.

 

The only thing I don't care for is the chunky-looking ILS antennae on the RWR style fin, which will need to be removed for an Ark subject. Would be better if these were provided as separate parts but, hey ho, a sharp knife + some sanding and polishing should fix it. 

 

The glazing between the canopies is depicted a bit higher than it should be in the drawings, but I'm sure the parts are fine.

 

Tony

The FAA Museum Phantom was LIDAR'd so I'd expect the glazing between the canopies to be correct and the drawings wrong....