Fujimi 1/72 British Phantom - Nose too short?

[Black Knight]

This has drifted too far off the topic and has wandered into personal attacks

This will attract Mike and the Mods who'll give the same warning and might even lock this thread

[71chally]

I have to agree with Dave Fleming.  

I'm not fanatical about accuracy, and whether something is 100% accurate or not doesn't prevent me from selecting and building kits. 

However, it is worth well intentioned discussion here, after all it is a modelling forum.

 

I do like to learn where potential inaccuracies may occur with a kit, I might be able to correct it, or I will just build it as it is, but I will learn something on the way.

 

Fujimi Phantoms my perspective. 

I love em, they feel right, they build nice, great quality plastic and surface finish, and they 'look right'.  Probably my favourite kit, even if the aircraft itself isn't my absolute favourite.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by 71chally

[junglierating]

4 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Thanks to Iain for actually measuring the difference between the two kits, thus producing useful information rather than unhelpful eyeballing and the usual whinging from those who don't think models should resemble their subjects.  The measurements say the same depth but a 4% difference in length.  That's the difference, if over the whole model, between 1/72th and 1/75th.  Not joking, if you can't detect that difference then your eyesight needs investigating.

 

However, as far as modelling is concerned, this is a 40thou piece of card glued between the fuselage and the radome, and the fuselage lines faired in.  This is not difficult.

Blimey mate it was a joke the emojoi kinda indicated that and I did say its a fun hobby so each to his own certainly not meant to be unhelpful but that's your POV. As others have said all kits have foibles and if you are happy with it fine and if you are not well that's fine too.  

[Julien]

24 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

This has drifted too far off the topic and has wandered into personal attacks

This will attract Mike and the Mods who'll give the same warning and might even lock this thread

Quite. We have had a few reports on this thread. Please can we get it back on topic or it will be locked down. If a thread has no interest to anyone you are under no obligation to comment. Certainly unwarrented comments and personal insults have no place here.

 

In addition the use of abbreviations to bypass the swearword filter is in no way acceptable.

 

Julien

[iainpeden]

I suppose this might be off the original purpose of this post however I recall reading that the diameter of the F-4D was a little bigger than on the F-4C due to the radar dish on the former being bigger. Given the Fujimi kit was probably based on drawings and tape measures, certainly not laser technology, I wonder if that had some impact on the kit measurements.

[Procopius]

2 minutes ago, iainpeden said:

I suppose this might be off the original purpose of this post however I recall reading that the diameter of the F-4D was a little bigger than on the F-4C due to the radar dish on the former being bigger. Given the Fujimi kit was probably based on drawings and tape measures, certainly not laser technology, I wonder if that had some impact on the kit measurements.

I believe the British Phantoms are derived from the F-4J, however.

[Dave Fleming]

1 hour ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

Danger! - data and drawings follow...

 

For a pretty good drawing of the forward fuselage, see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2018/03/f-4-phantom-forward-fuselage.html. Note that it is based on lines drawings (literally in the case of the illustration) for the J79-powered Phantoms which have been carefully adjusted as to height and length and with the exception of the inlet will be identical in basic shape to the Spey-powered ones. The rectangle is provided to check that your hard copy of the illustration or image on the computer screen is 1/72 in both height and length.

 

For those with micrometers, the tip of the nose is at F.S -27.1 and the front of the nose wheel well, at F.S. 77. For those of you challenged by negative fuselage stations, that's a total of 104.1 inches. The aft tip of the braking-parachute door is at F.S. 664, which means the overall length from the tip of the nose to the end of the fuselage, not counting the fuel vent, is 691.1 inches.

 

I look forward to hearing the results of evaluations from those who do so.

 

Will have a look when I get home, the radome and nose area should be identical in shape

[janneman36]

1 minute ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

Will have a look when I get home, the radome and nose area should be identical in shape

Nice to know, at least to me!

It  makes me  curious  as i never noticed the difference...

 

Cheers, Jan

 

[iainpeden]

46 minutes ago, Procopius said:

I believe the British Phantoms are derived from the F-4J, however.

You’re right but the C was derived from the B (originally F-110) and it makes sense that a more capable and larger radar would have found its way from the D into the J. I could of course be totally mistaken and be talking total rubbish. ( off to do a bit of research about F-4 radar when I could be wasting time actually finishing a couple)

[Lord Riot]

Based purely on the first photo at the start of this thread, to me the nose on the real one looks a bit longer and sleeker than the model. 

 

Given the cost of 1/48 RAF Phantoms on eBay this isn't something I need to worry about.

[Dave Fleming]

4 minutes ago, Lord Riot said:

Based purely on the first photo at the start of this thread, to me the nose on the real one looks a bit longer and sleeker than the model. 

 

Given the cost of 1/48 RAF Phantoms on eBay this isn't something I need to worry about.

 

I think it's longer and also deeper at the fuselage end. Not compared the 1/48th

[Tailspin Turtle]

4 hours ago, iainpeden said:

I suppose this might be off the original purpose of this post however I recall reading that the diameter of the F-4D was a little bigger than on the F-4C due to the radar dish on the former being bigger. Given the Fujimi kit was probably based on drawings and tape measures, certainly not laser technology, I wonder if that had some impact on the kit measurements.

As far as I know, all the basic radomes after the early F-4As are identical, give or take an IR pod.

[Adam Maas]

47 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

As far as I know, all the basic radomes after the early F-4As are identical, give or take an IR pod.

Especially the C/D, as there is photographic evidence of the two units being swapped in the field.

 

[Duncan B]

  As I'm sure you are aware none of the Phantoms in the fleet (I'm talking UK aircraft as per original topic here) were exactly the same length which is why all panels (door in McDD parlance), canopies etc that had to be replaced were supplied as over sized blanks and had to be cut down to size with all fittings and fastening holes measured and drilled out from comparison to the particular airframe needing the replacement. You could not swap one panel from one aircraft onto another as they just wouldn't match up.

So which particular aircraft are we using as the base line for comparison if we want to be 100% accurate? There's one for the pedants!

 

Duncan B

 

[Dave Fleming]

Radome should be the same length/width though

[Duncan B]

Just now, Dave Fleming said:

Radome should be the same length/width though

Yes indeed, probably the only airframe panel that was interchangeable although I never did that so could be wrong (and wouldn't bet on it either).

I was playing 'catch up' in the Thread and so my response is in reference to the earlier comments about overall accuracy. My model making skills aren't of a standard that 1mm on a kit is of concern so long as the end result looks the part. I would be able to pick out the old Airfix F-4 kit on a table full of Phantoms but I'm sure the Fujimi and new Airfix kits side by side on a table would look perfectly fine to 99% of modellers (the other 1% are probably not the kind of people I'd want to be discussing anything with anyway as life is way too short!).

 

Duncan B

[iainpeden]

48 minutes ago, Duncan B said:

  As I'm sure you are aware none of the Phantoms in the fleet (I'm talking UK aircraft as per original topic here) were exactly the same length which is why all panels (door in McDD parlance), canopies etc that had to be replaced were supplied as over sized blanks and had to be cut down to size with all fittings and fastening holes measured and drilled out from comparison to the particular airframe needing the replacement. You could not swap one panel from one aircraft onto another as they just wouldn't match up.

So which particular aircraft are we using as the base line for comparison if we want to be 100% accurate? There's one for the pedants!

 

Duncan B

 

Which explains why the Airfix kit is such a mess, they measured an a/c that didn't match the original drawings!

 

7 hours ago, Adam Maas said:

Especially the C/D, as there is photographic evidence of the two units being swapped in the field.

 

I did admit I could have been talking rubbish!

 

Back to decorating the dining room and getting an accurate match on matt white on matt white without missing bits.

[Duncan B]

6 minutes ago, iainpeden said:

Which explains why the Airfix kit is such a mess, they measured an a/c that didn't match the original drawings!

 

 

 

Back to decorating the dining room and getting an accurate match on matt white on matt white without missing bits.

I haven't got the Airfix kit but with the exception of the obvious missed details and ex-Matchbox Mad trencher's handiwork it's not really a mess is it, all the photos I've seen look 'ok' to me? I will get round to buying one once they start appearing at discounted prices.

 

Good luck with your decorating, what is the FS number of that paint by the way?

 

Duncan B

[71chally]

3 minutes ago, Duncan B said:

Good luck with your decorating, what is the FS number of that paint by the way?

If it's anything like my decorating, it's a FFS number!

 

I will spend a few minutes with Tommy's scale drawing later, but I'm not very good with image re-sizing.

 

Just getting back to an earlier Q?  Are there any really good scale drawings for the British Phantoms?

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by 71chally

[Britman]

11 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

Based purely on the first photo at the start of this thread, to me the nose on the real one looks a bit longer and sleeker than the model. 

 

Given the cost of 1/48 RAF Phantoms on eBay this isn't something I need to worry about.

So the real thing is all wrong!

[Tailspin Turtle]

8 hours ago, Duncan B said:

  As I'm sure you are aware none of the Phantoms in the fleet (I'm talking UK aircraft as per original topic here) were exactly the same length which is why all panels (door in McDD parlance), canopies etc that had to be replaced were supplied as over sized blanks and had to be cut down to size with all fittings and fastening holes measured and drilled out from comparison to the particular airframe needing the replacement. You could not swap one panel from one aircraft onto another as they just wouldn't match up.

So which particular aircraft are we using as the base line for comparison if we want to be 100% accurate? There's one for the pedants!

 

Duncan B

 

Good point, but the difference in overall length is not likely to be significantly affected. The fuselage was build in three chunks, not counting the radome and the braking-parachute door, and I'm sure that the front and rear frames of each were tool-located, as were some other critical points like the engine mounts, landing gear attach points, stabilator pivot point, and other important frames like the ones just fore and aft of the wing torque box. I would be very surprised if the fabrication of the radome itself did not provide for a tool-located aft frame and the shape was certainly controlled to minimize distortion of the radar return. That said, while I'm pretty sure that Phantom's were all the same length (at a given ambient temperature), it might be a slightly different number than derived from the fuselage station data but unlikely to be measurable in 1/72 scale. Ditto for the individual panels.

[71chally]

22 hours ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

...the tip of the nose is at F.S -27.1 and the front of the nose wheel well, at F.S. 77. For those of you challenged by negative fuselage stations, that's a total of 104.1 inches. The aft tip of the braking-parachute door is at F.S. 664, which means the overall length from the tip of the nose to the end of the fuselage, not counting the fuel vent, is 691.1 inches.

 

I look forward to hearing the results of evaluations from those who do so.

At the risk of being labelled a 'rivet counter' I had a go at comparisons. Apart from feeding the family and teaching two young girls 'art', I've had naff all else to do!

I've taken line projections from the kit, used proportional dividers and two steel rules to establish the measurements.

I used this site for the conversion from actual inches to 1:72 scale millimeters, http://www.scalemodelersworld.com/online-scale-converter-tool.html

 

FS77 is the main vertical line at the forward edge of the nosewheel bay and sits 104.1" aft of the radome tip, that is 36.69 mm in 72nd scale

On the kit this is very easy to measure as it is the break point for the lower forward fuselage/nosegear bay, it sits 37mm aft of the radome tip

The kit radome is 25mm long (to the rear line radome to fuselage mating line), and 15mm deep at the same point.  I used projected lines to get this measurement as the radome is angled down a little.

At FS77 it the fuselage is also 15mm deep.

From radome tip to the aft edge of the parachute door the kit is 241.5mm, including the tail light and fuel dump adds almost another 1mm

The real aircraft is 691.1" or 57' 7" which equates to 243.8mm, so the kit appears to be short somewhere by about 2mm.

 

Initially I thought that FS249.65 (the intakes join point on the kit) was represented 4mm too far forward, but I think the kit represents another panel line ahead of it and possibly ignores the fwd fuselage/cockpit join.

 

 

Tommy's site has provided some great illustrations, especially for the station numbers.

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by 71chally

[iainpeden]

While the information below proves my theory on different radome diameters wrong, it's an interesting read on how the radome developed. Look at the USN section becasue that's got some info on how the intakes and splitter plates went through development.

 

http://phantomphacts.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-radome-road-to-32-inch-radome.html

 

 

[Duncan B]

1 hour ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

Good point, but the difference in overall length is not likely to be significantly affected. The fuselage was build in three chunks, not counting the radome and the braking-parachute door, and I'm sure that the front and rear frames of each were tool-located, as were some other critical points like the engine mounts, landing gear attach points, stabilator pivot point, and other important frames like the ones just fore and aft of the wing torque box. I would be very surprised if the fabrication of the radome itself did not provide for a tool-located aft frame and the shape was certainly controlled to minimize distortion of the radar return. That said, while I'm pretty sure that Phantom's were all the same length (at a given ambient temperature), it might be a slightly different number than derived from the fuselage station data but unlikely to be measurable in 1/72 scale. Ditto for the individual panels.

I was told on my Phantom Airframe Q Course that the difference in the fleet was 1.5 inches between shortest and longest. Quite significant if true but irrelevant to modellers of any scale other than 1:1. Certainly the tolerances on the replacement doors that I fitted would have allow for that range. Door 6 and the rear most engine door spring to mind as ones that gave me particular problems and no-one I worked with ever managed to fit a replacement canopy at the first attempt (Tax payer's money, if only they knew!).

I agree that the difference would not be noticeable, especially on a 1/72 scale kit but my pedantic nature made me stir the discussion and point out that there is no absolute (and even if there was this is a lump of plastic made to represent the real thing that some people are getting all twisted up about). 

I never saw a real one with a giant thumb print across the fuselage though  .

 

Duncan B

[Tailspin Turtle]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

FS77 is the main vertical line at the forward edge of the nosewheel bay and sits 104.1" aft of the radome tip, that is 36.69 mm in 72nd scale

On the kit this is very easy to measure as it is the break point for the lower forward fuselage/nosegear bay, it sits 37mm aft of the radome tip

The kit radome is 25mm long (to the rear line radome to fuselage mating line), and 15mm deep at the same point.  I used projected lines to get this measurement as the radome is angled down a little.

At FS77 it the fuselage is also 15mm deep.

 

 

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to measure that. Strictly speaking, the frame at FS 77 wasn't exactly vertical for some reason. It was canted slightly forward (less than the radome) but intersected WL 0 at FS 77.