iainpeden

XV470 had a major beginning 24/10/85 (job number A990/85) (St Athan) and returned to 228OCU on the 22/11/85. Would that be long enough to fit the strap? There's no mention of time at BAe though on the AM Form 78 - I assume that would be Brough? PS I wonder if @canberraman has any drawings which refer to the reinforcement strap?

@Jabba Short answer - no idea! Long answer. A number of years ago I wanted some information on XV470 and got in touch with the RAF Museum at Hendon; they were good enough to send me a copy of the AM Form 78, which listed her movements between squadrons and servicing dates. Although it doesn't put in detail the various modifications and repairs (although on 22/5/85 she did get cat.3 damage from a bird strike) it does give the various job codes - so match the job code to the reinforcement strap modification and you might get an answer. For example 31/08/77 saw XV470 at St Athan for a job coded A330 and not allocated to 92 squadron until November '77. She was next at St Athan in November 82 for job A/708/82 and allocated to 19 squadron in June '83; both a long time out of front line service and a possible time at the right facility for a big job like the reinforcement. I'm not sure that this facility is still provided by the museum but I intend to go down fairly soon to get the forms for the 15 F-4Js we got to try to work out when each batch was delivered and consequently which version of the blue scheme each one wore.

Great to see the best 1/72 J-79 Phantoms are being re-released but, if that colour (color) rendition is accurate there'll be some questions over the accuracy of the blue and the red.

@Antoine, lovely work which inspires me to get m Hasegawa kit our of the stash. I also like the stand - is it homemade or commercially available?

@Stratto, the Esci kits are excellent, the Esci decals are old and have a tendency to disintegrate if anywhere near water. Its possible to use them if you apply copious amounts of decal film but better to aim for newer decals. That said, I did have some Modeldecals break up recently - but I guess the last of those were printed 20 years go.

Totally agree; I think its something to do with the particular curves of the a/c. Think back to the dark green on the F.2As in RAFG - the same green used on the Phantoms and Harriers but looked totally different. I did a model test - brand new tin of Humbrol Dark Green on a 1/72 Phantom (with Dark sea Grey camo) and an F.2A - same tin but the shade looks totally different.

Check out Hannants website for Xtradecal or Modeldecal sheets which should give you the 43 squadron markings.

The 1:1 scale version was designed to land wheels up so it should be a breeze!

@Phantome many thanks for that contribution; your USAF camo contribution is excellent and useful and alongside the link to the previous Britmodeller thread about this subject is important information for us Phantom Phanatics. I just wonder if @Old Viper Tester has anything to add in his extensive collection of photos - especially the F-111, A-7 and F-105s. The paint must have "gone off" very quick (and uniformly) as that E has a lot of very clear markings and stencilling over the "dodgy green" : maybe the USAF had a diversity policy to hire a lot of colour (color?) blind paint sprayers.

Alone, unarmed and unafraid! I think, but am happy to be proved wrong, that while some USAF RF-4Cs were photographed with Sidewinder rails they were not actually wired for the missiles and it was only a trial. I think some of the Israeli RF-4Es carried Sidewinders into combat. As to the pylons - RF-4B/C the straight edge pylon, RF-4E had the rounded edge. But as ever with Phantoms, you can usually find an exception to the rule and I'm looking at a picture of an RF-4C (SEA camo) based at Edwards with a Pave Tack pod, using the standard USAF rounded pylons. (WAPJ - Phantom, Spirit in the Sky)

@Beard looking at @alt-92 photo above you will see that the sides of the cockpit are open. I usually just box it all in with some plasticard and then, just forward of the rear instrument panel, add a box to give the impression of something there. Be a bit careful with the seats because they can sit a bit high for the canopy to close - as ever dry fit before gluing.

I'm just completing 1/72 F-4 number 201 (Italeri F-4S as it happens) and, at a guess, have made about 100 Esci F-4s in the various iterations; C/J, E/F, RF-4C/E, and D/S. As BigStu says its a great kit - especially as the moulds are c.40 years old and seem to have held up very well as the Italeri produced ones I have built have had flash only in the front wheel well. So, my thoughts - and what you take on board will depend on how much of a perfectionist you are. The cockpit is minimal and at the least needs boxing in and some careful painting. The front part of the lower fuselage which includes the front wheel well, below the cockpit can take a bit of filling and sanding to get a smooth fit. There can be a small gap between part of the rim of the radome and the fuselage to fill. The intakes needs careful fitting and are 99.999% certain to need some filling and sanding at the fuselage joint. Front u/c door is, I think for a J not a C/D Check the slats and triangular plate on the tailplanes to make sure you get the right combo, The front of the right wing to fuselage joint can leave a gap to fill. The panels filling the photo flash ejectors will need a smear of filling. fuel pipe at the back end is horribly easy to break off - as are the pitot tubes on the fin. Overall it's a very satisfying kit that looks just right. (for anyone reading this and intending to use the original Esci decals - don't as they break up as soon as there's a cloud in the sky.)

I think some aircraft, not necessarily Phantoms, had chaff stuffed into the airbrakes before dedicated chaff/flare dispensers were fitted; obviously a one use only.

Most Phantom Phanatics are aware of the LN a/c in the 1970s which emerged with light/medium green patches over parts of the tan camo. This was also seen on a/c across the USAF (inc. PACAF) and a variety of types. My understanding is that this was down to either some badly formulated paint or the mislabelling of paint tins. I'm trying to give somebody on a different forum definitive proof that this was not a trial to change the camouflage scheme; which to me is blatantly obvious because its done in patches not a complete replacement of even a section of tan. @Rhino and others - can you help with information.

In the early days of 23 squadron's deployment to the Falklands in 1982 after the war I think they used the RHAG system for every landing on the temporary runway; it helped that the Phantom was designed to land on carriers and therefore the structure was strong enough to cope. I suspect most of the land designed fighter would only se the hook as a last resort in an emergency - maybe not a single use item but probably not to be used in every landing. I was at Waddington when the Phantoms were deployed there as Coningsby was having a new runway. A 56 squadron a/c popped the chute about 10 feet up - good job the Toom was designed to slam down on a carrier deck!