F4K prototype

[Head in the clouds.]

Hi folks.

Now I know there are a lot of Phantom fans out so if I may I would like to pick your brains.

I am currently modelling a Fujimi 1/72  F4K and plan on doing the first prototype, XT595 on her first flight using the RAM decal sheet. This is where my  query lies; on the port and starboard sides it shows the large "No1 F4K" on the RAM decal sheet, however, during my research I came across this page;  http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/f-4k-first-flight-markings.html.

Here is a picture of XT595 with a smaller "No1 F4K" this is a separate option on the RAM decal sheet, After reading the text that accompanies these images it is my understanding that on the first flight of XT595 she had the large lettering on the Starboard side and the smaller lettering on the nose on the Port side, so in essence two different sizes of logo on her first flight.

Is this correct and is my understanding of the article correct?

Thanks for anyone whom can put me out of my misery.

 

Gary 

[71chally]

That's how I understand it, and Tommy would know better than anyone, he ( as Tailspin Turtle) posts on here so hopefully he will see your inquiry.

[Head in the clouds.]

Thanks 71chally, that is good to know,no pressure on the build either then! Reminds of the moment in Top Gun when Maverick and Goose hear Viper over the radio in an air to air engagement

Gary.

[modelldoc]

The first Revell issue for a Royal Navy Phantom in the seventith show the McDonnell sign on the plane.

 

 

modelldoc

[Head in the clouds.]

9 hours ago, modelldoc said:

The first Revell issue for a Royal Navy Phantom in the seventith show the McDonnell sign on the plane.

 

Thanks modeldoc, that is yet another iteration of the early F4K, how did you find the Revell kit as a build against the Fujimi offering?

Gary

.

[Hook]

1 hour ago, Head in the clouds. said:

 

Thanks modeldoc, that is yet another iteration of the early F4K, how did you find the Revell kit as a build against the Fujimi offering?

Gary

.

 

Since the Revell is more or less a Sixties tooling of an F-4B out of the box: go Fujimi all the way. 

 

Cheers,

 

Andre 

 

 

[modelldoc]

I got the kit as a teenager, and builkd it new as a memory few years ago. Sometimes you can find it on ebay.

 

This is the kit:

 

https://www.scalemates.com/kits/147782-revell-h-129-phantom-f-4k

 

modelldoc

[roym]

Can I add to this topic with another question.  As they (F-4K no 1 and F-4M no 1) were built in the US and were sorta prototypes, were they painted in FS equivalent  shades or proper BS EDSG/White & Dk Green/Grey/LAG? This has been bugging me for years.

[Head in the clouds.]

2 hours ago, roym said:

Can I add to this topic with another question.  As they (F-4K no 1 and F-4M no 1) were built in the US and were sorta prototypes, were they painted in FS equivalent  shades or proper BS EDSG/White & Dk Green/Grey/LAG? This has been bugging me for years.

 

It has been bugging a lot of people for a long time and I for one cannot give a definitive answer but for my build I am going for BS EDSG/White otherwise if I do not make a unilateral decision it will never get built.

[Antti_K]

Hello All,

 

there is few good quality photographs of XT595 on Patrick Martin's book "British Phantoms". One of the photos is dated "August 1966" and shows the smaller white "No.1 F-4K MCDONNELL" text on the port side of the nose. There is no red "McDonnell" text on the fuselage spine.

 

Two more photos only say "during early testing" and they show the port side with large white "No.1 F-4K" behind the British Roundel and a red text with white outline "MCDONNELL" on the side of the fuselage spine.

 

I have (somewhere) a photo showing a line-up of brand new British Phantoms in their original paint. As you may have noticed the original blue gray on Royal Navy planes looked lighter than British EDSG. In the photo the colour looks exactly the same on both variants. That made me think that same blue gray was originally used for both F-4Ks and F-4Ms.

 

Best Regards,

Antti

[Head in the clouds.]

22 minutes ago, Antti_K said:

there is few good quality photographs of XT595 on Patrick Martin's book "British Phantoms". One of the photos is dated "August 1966" and shows the smaller white "No.1 F-4K MCDONNELL" text on the port side of the nose. There is no red "McDonnell" text on the fuselage spine.

 

Two more photos only say "during early testing" and they show the port side with large white "No.1 F-4K" behind the British Roundel and a red text with white outline "MCDONNELL" on the side of the fuselage spine.

 

Thanks Antti, that is helpful but I am trying to pin it down to the first flight which is proving hard. What I really need to find is photographs showing both sides on that one given day, not much of a long shot then !

 

Thanks

Gary

[Antti_K]

I know Gary, I know... been there myself. The Internet packed with photos and information makes you wonder: "is there somewhere the photo(s) I need...".

 

I have further books about British Phantoms. I will check if I can find more information.

 

Best Regards,

Antti

[Antti_K]

Warpaint series No. 31"Phantom" has a photo of XT595 (Port side). The caption says: "First flight of ... was made at the St. Louis plant of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation on 27 June 1966". In this photo the Phantom has only Roundels, serials painted on wings and fuselage and white "ROYAL NAVY" on the fuselage. No pylons were carried.

 

In the book "Phantom - a legend in it's own time" (Francis K. Mason) there are two photos. The bigger one (Port side) shows a phantom with Roundels, under wing serials, white "ROYAL NAVY" on fuselage and white number 3097 painted on just under the fin cap but no serial on fuselage. An interesting detail is a long blade aerial under the port intake. This photo was taken above St. Louis. XT595 was transferred to Edwards AFB on 21 July 1966 for further testing. The plane carries inner pylons. There is no pitot tube on the nose.

 

The other (also Port side) shows XT595 taking off from Lambert Field (St. Louis) with most of the details as above but with the white "No. 1 F-4K MCDONNELL" on the nose. At this point there is no red "MCDONNELL" text on the fuselage spine. Also the white number from the fin is removed.

 

Peter R. Foster's book "RAF Phantom" shows XT595 with all the colourful markings, long pitot tube and Sparrow missiles. The photo caption says: "Here we see the first British Phantom on it's first flight".

 

The same photo that is in the Warpaint book appears also in Peter Caygill's book "Phantom from the cockpit".

 

Considering all this info it seems possible that XT595 didn't carry any special markings on her first flight.

 

Best Regards,

Antti

 

 

 

 

 

[71chally]

I would go with what Tommy says in his 'XT595 first flight' blog, ie the large McDonnell special markings on the stb'd side, with the small markings on the port side nose.

He says "This (the stb'd special marking) was subsequently painted over", and you can see where the paint was applied over the markings just showing the Royal Navy roundels and serials.

 

He was there, and it's his version that I would believe when creating the YF-4K on it's first flight

 

[Hook]

14 hours ago, Head in the clouds. said:

 

It has been bugging a lot of people for a long time and I for one cannot give a definitive answer but for my build I am going for BS EDSG/White otherwise if I do not make a unilateral decision it will never get built.

 

I believe one of my Double Ugly UK Phantom books has some info on this - let me check back home tonight.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Head in the clouds.]

Than you Antti, Hook and 71 chally, you are putting in sterling work. I am leaning towards 71chally because that can be dated by a man who was there but I am not discounting any other suggestion because I know my memory of my younger days is very blurred, and it is nothing to do with drink or poor eyesight, just the passage of time.

Research, research research, it only digs up more questions!

Gary.

[71chally]

Very true Gary, and I see Tommy mentions that in his blog.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

I was there, having just hired in after college graduation. However, the only thing I can say for certain is that at first flight it had the "No. 1 F-4K" with "McDonnell" underneath it on the left side of the nose, nothing on the fuselage on that side (I have a photo of Joe Dobronski taxiing back in after aborting his first attempt at first flight for some reason). I'm pretty sure that no markings were added to the left side after that and in fact the markings on the nose were removed fairly early on. However, I can't be certain that the big fuselage markings on the right side were there at first flight (it wasn't there on the first taxi test on the ramp but I think we FODed an engine in the process so there was a delay between then and first flight) but it seems likely. For one thing, in the picture I have of the right side commemorating the first flight, Joe is in the front seat (yellow helmet) with Bud Murray (the F-4K project pilot) in the back seat (white helmet) and I'm pretty sure that Bud moved to the front seat for subsequent flights (test pilots got a bonus for a first flight and Joe was the chief test pilot so he made the assignments).

[Tailspin Turtle]

On 5/8/2017 at 9:34 AM, roym said:

Can I add to this topic with another question.  As they (F-4K no 1 and F-4M no 1) were built in the US and were sorta prototypes, were they painted in FS equivalent  shades or proper BS EDSG/White & Dk Green/Grey/LAG? This has been bugging me for years.

For the F-4K, see http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2015/11/f-4k-paint-and-color-drawing.html

[71chally]

Brilliant info, so it was Dark Sea Grey rather than the standard Extra Dark Sea Grey.

[Head in the clouds.]

Hello Tommy.

Thank you for that very elusive information, I shall go with your memories for my build with small markings on the left and large on the right, nose and fusalage respectively. The colour scheme link has also cemented my choice of colour, I do find it very hard to determine colour from photographs as the reasons can be many and varied but that is one instance I can blame my eyes

Kind regards

Gary

[At Sea]

I always thought that the early US painted Phantom FG.1 looked more DSG than EDSG and comparing photos of the camouflaged early FGR.2 with pictures of the early FG.1 shows almost no difference in colour between the greys on them in my eyes.

The service aircraft were repainted in EDSG and are noticeably bluer.

 

XT596 at Yeovilton is still in her original paint I think...  Unfortunately the carrier display is so dark it is hard to see the actual colour.

[At Sea]

XT596 a little washed out by flash, but look at the port wing tank which is ex RAF and is DSG over LAG.

 

[At Sea]

XT596.

Compared with a Buccaneer.

 

Different lighting on the Sea Harrier but the EDSG is a lot bluer than the Buccaneer or XT596.

 

Now I know museums are not paragons of originality, and that paint fades and lighting does stuff.

BUT all three above pictures were taken by me on the same day with the same camera.  

[Head in the clouds.]

Who said the camera never lies....what a little fibber! It just goes to show how subjective photos are to decide paint colour. The only way would I assume be to know the mixing ratios of the colours of the original paint.

 

Gary