iainpeden

Gene, my point is that those options could have been included without doubling up on some parts. For example, why have separate folded and unfolded outer wing panels when it could have been planned just to use one. Anyway we live in free countries and can agree to disagree.

They didn't - just used aftermarket stuff on the display model - see the related thread in "ready for inspection". The General did a good job on this for the Airfix Mag.

Two sets of underwings (with/without straps), deployed and undeployed slats on the front of the wing, folded and unfolded outer wing panels, strips on the right hand side of the fuel tanks and the inner pylons are not worth the plastic used they are so inaccurate. Smarter design would have reduced the plastic used and probably made a better kit. (Oh - and an extra fin and unneceessary ILS aerials) Admittedly the Esci and Hasegawa kits tend to leave a good few bits unused but they were designed well before single use plastic became the number one enemy.

Ted Bayliss (F4SIG) and I spent sometime inspecting the model on the Airfix stand and it's a great build. However, we both thought it a bit disingenuous of Airfix to display it without referring to the significant amount of after market parts - it certainly wasn't "out of the box". With the exception of the detailed intakes I still think the Fujimi series puts Airfix into a cocked hat on this one. I also had a chat to the rep about the amount of wasted plastic in this Phantom kit, an area he said they were looking to address in future kits.

A modeller after my own heart - if it looks right and I have enjoyed making it, I'm happy.

First thought is that if you want an accurate Phantom don't look at the old Airfix one. It's a long time since I built one (being an Esci fan) but I seem to remember the following: The first moulding - which must be 50 years ago - had parts and markings for a USN Phantom - I think VF-74 and possibly was intended to just be a B. A few years later it was re-released in the UK (USA may be different) with parts and decals which meant you were able to do 5 variants - all hard wing. I remember 2 USAF variants - C/D, a USN variant of VF-74 (J?) and an Israeli E. It is a very basic kit by todays standards - no small windows between the cockpits, very basic cockpit, totally inaccurate wheel well detail, no slats on the tailplanes, the hull area between the jep pipes is very angular. That said , for a while it was the only game in town, my dad and I discovered microscale decals and was buying them by the boxful (24 in a box). Do it up as a glossy desktop display model with black painted canopies it could stil look good - but you won't win any competitions.

Buy Airfix shares NOW.

Let's hope it doesn't clash with the special announcement by Airfix.

I think VF-111 didn't use the J - only B and N. VF-74 or VF-114 would look good.

Anybody notice the Airfix LIDAR gear about?

That's real modelling.

Your Phantom looks so good because it is not over weathered with every panel line over emphasised. The foot it must be away from the camera lens matches how it would look in real life from 48 feet.

The very first Jags also had red, white and blue roundals and fin flash, and possibly a semi-gloss finish, before the intro of the low-viz red/blue markings. If you search out instruction sheets from the Modeldecal series they give excellent references - and concentrate mainly on British subjects.

People tend to preshade - which is painting the panel lines (usually with black) - before spraying top coats and/or using washes (either expensive specialist stuff or mucky white spirit) and using capillarity action for it to seep around the joints. But be careful because there's an awful lot of models which don't look realistic because they are too weathered.

Answer could be because the current scheme is so darn boring - couple of roundals and a white 3 digit set on the tail.