Jump to content

Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG1


Rob P

Recommended Posts

I just read something about a subtle difference in vertical tails between the FG.1 and the FGR.2 -not the tip, rather the leading edge- on another popular modelling forum. I had no idea about this difference but it appears FG.1 tails were based on the F-4B through E, the FGR.2 on the RF-4C. As an illustration I've included a screen shot from a couple of Airdoc drawings of the F-4F (left, apparently corresponds to the FG.1) and RF-4E (right, FGR.2), but can't find clear drawings of actual British ones. Note the panel lines near the leading edge.

 

30892809712_f7e66b5d92_z.jpg

 

No idea how accurate this info is - (it is, see below). Also - perhaps it is common knowledge but it's news for me and I thought I knew the differences between versions from heart! Oh and if true then Airfix apparently missed this but it's a minor thing so nothing the matter really...

 

Jay

 

EDIT:

 

Bingo:

06-tail.JPG

Edited by Mountain goat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, there are differences in the vertical tail panels between the FG.1 and FGR.2. This is due to the FGR.2 having HF radio equipment installed with the aerial in the fin. The best illustrations of the differences can be seen here; they also show the different panels on the rear fuselage and the higher position of the FGR.2 tail hook servicing window; something I hadn't noticed in 30 years of looking at these magnificent beasties!:

 

http://phantomphacts.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/RAF

 

There are some good photos of these areas somewhere. I thought they might be in the LSP thread on the HKM Spey Phantom but I couldn't see them there. If I find them I'll post a link.

 

HTH,

 

Jonathan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, hairystick said:

A superb choice of subject matter indeed.

I can only speculate that the CAD work involved means that adjustments to different scale/s is relatively straightforward and the biggest PiTA becomes tooling and mould manufacture.

 

Seeing this in 1:48 would be very nice indeed.

 

If you have a look at the Workbench blog on the Airfix site, they talk about this for the Defiant - effectively, although you can use the basic shapes and dimensions, you realy have to start form scratch designing a kit to enable moulding tolerances etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasnt gonna add anything to this, but seen as its now "unbuildable".

 

Thing is, i looked back through this thread and found a video from Airphix that shows the kit coming together. Fingers crossed the vertical stab is a separate part as shown in that video and will come on a type speciphic sprue.

 

However, im sure someone will come along and put this amateur back in his place! Either that or Airphix will leave me with egg on my face, or a bit of filler to spread on a panel line or 2!

Arabest,

Geoff. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

So there is no change in shape, just a few less panel lines?

 

Yes

50 minutes ago, Jazzie said:

Wasnt gonna add anything to this, but seen as its now "unbuildable".

 

 

- as I wrote earlier:

'Airfix apparently missed this but it's a minor thing so nothing the matter really...'

I was just fascinated by the FGR fin being based on the RF-4. Thought it was interesting. I learnt something I didn't know previously... I personally couldn't care less about whether or not panel lines are in the kit. I sent an email just as a friendly way of sharing info.

 

(I read that line as implicit criticism but could be totally wrong, in which case: sorry)

Edited by Mountain goat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jazzie said:

Either that or Airphix will leave me with egg on my face, or a bit of filler to spread on a panel line or 2!

 

 

Don't you mean "egg on my phace, or a bit of philler"? :D  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mountain goat said:

 Interesting thing that the FGR fin is based in the RF-4's. I suppose the 'R' in 'FGR' makes even more sense now.

 

 

I think you may be adding 2 + 2 and coming up with the answer of 4.54609 there  !!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

So there is no change in shape, just a few less panel lines?

Correct, I would be happy to leave as it is in this scale (as I've done on my Fujimis), but should be dead easy to rescribe if fussy. 

The excellent illustrations in Jonathans' link are a perfect guide.

 

Out of interest where is station 077, is that the bulkhead aft of the cockpit section?

 

The R in FGR.2 reflected the reconnaissance role that the RAF specifically required for their Phantoms.

There was a McDD proposal to sell a dedicated RF variant to the RAF, but they went with the pod idea, which was also originally fielded by McDD.

Edited by 71chally
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2016 at 3:59 PM, Dave Fleming said:

 

If you have a look at the Workbench blog on the Airfix site, they talk about this for the Defiant - effectively, although you can use the basic shapes and dimensions, you realy have to start form scratch designing a kit to enable moulding tolerances etc

I'll go and have a look at that article now.

 

Being a CAD user, the object is built/drawn in 1:1 scale. How that is then "output" into a desired scale is reasonably straight forward.

I wonder if they have drawn the kit in 1:72, which would seem rather odd if true.

 

It'd be interesting to know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/11/2016 at 8:17 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

 

 

:hmmm:  Over in the group builds section there is some discussion about having short-notice Buddy Builds.  Maybe this could be a technology demonstrator. 

 

Sounds like a good idea, the relatively limited scope would make it an ideal test-bed

 

3 minutes ago, 71chally said:

I've never seen the Airfix 1:48 Gnat, is that a straight upscale?

I know their 72 Lightning is significantly different than the 48 version.

 

The 2 airfix Lightnings have nothing to do with each other as the 1/48 kit was designed before the advent of CAD designed moulds. The Gnat would sure be a better comparison as both kit would have come from the same people.

In general though Dave has already nailed the matter: the CAD design of the subject is one thing, the CAD design used to actually make the mould is another thing. The former can be the same for any scale but then there's the need to produce designs for the moulds. Not that this is a big problem, Trumpeter has been doing kits in all 3 main scales that are based on the same CADs, for example the F-105. Would be interesting to know if the designs were meant to be common from the start though

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

The 2 airfix Lightnings have nothing to do with each other as the 1/48 kit was designed before the advent of CAD designed moulds. The Gnat would sure be a better comparison as both kit would have come from the same people.

I appreciate that they were pre CAD, but some older kits seem directly related and possibly scaled off each other, the Tamiya F-84 springs to mind and the Airfix Canberras, though I get that they were all same era to their other scales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2016 at 1:14 PM, Dave Fleming said:

That's the difference between CAD output and designing a kit for production. CAD is easy to scale, but they have to do things like mould clearance, thickness of plastic, level of detail etc etc

It is interesting to read that they are not starting with a 1:1 scale in "model space" but are starting out by drawing to a reduced size...  "As the base model will have been designed to a specific scale".

That has to be one of the oddest approaches to using CAD design.

 

Yes, the adjustments to accommodate wall thickness and detail of parts according to scales used, etc, will always be needed, but the initial approach could make things significantly easier by using a different process. I'm now wondering if there has been a culture in the company which has been carried over from the age of pencil drawing techniques?

 

If you look at any design of an involved creation (aircraft, building, machinery, ship, etc) the CAD model space is 1:1 so that all different professions can build their requirements into the frame of the object. Looking at the designs of the Boeing 777 you can see everything in-place and can work out conflictions of objects before anyone goes near cutting metal for real.

 

Since I used to teach CAD, this is an interesting study piece in how the technology is used by a particular company.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But as another CAD user I would say it's equally valid that they are correct in building a 1/1 CAD model of their product , which just happens to be a scale model. 

If they built the CAD model full size they would have to scale up the production tolerances by 72 times in this case, which may be much harder to organise, particularly as the outsourced production facility may have no interest or experience in the product being a scale model.

Cheers 

Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...