iainpeden

Your record keeping matches your photos - great.

I'd question whether the two photos are of the same aircraft because the one on its wheels appears to have some darker paint framing where the front turret meets the fuselage and the other doesn't. But what a fascinating subject.

I assume you lived in a tent on the flightline - stunning as usual but have you one of the A-37 in the background?

Phantom ADC gray Colour unique zap Sunshine What's not to like? Hang on 40776 - was that the C that ended up at Fairford (UK) as a BDR airframe?? Need to dig through some photos from 1985/1987.

Has anybody got a heads up on potential after market decal sheets for the multitude of special schemes worn over the years?

@Old Viper Tester Hi Keith, great to see you are back posting such wonderful photos. Your ears should be burning tomorrow evening; I'm doing a talk to the local aviation society about my visit the NMUSAF (that title doesn't work does it!) and your hospitality and advice not to visit while the marathon was being run will be mentioned. All the best Iain

Moving on from @Bandsaw Steve idea. You make up and paint one half of the fuselage, and about an inch of the wing (filling in the gap) and mark it up in one scheme. You do the other half in a different scheme. Get a suitable picture frame and mount one above the other. Looks very effective, saves space and multiplies the colour schemes you can display.

Michael In English we have a phrase "To open a can of worms" - which means something which leads to lots of discussion and disagreement - I I think you might have just opened that can! Some (random) thoughts from me: Over the years a/c camouflage fashions seem to have changed fairly regularly, and for the first 70 years or so was based on the terrain the a/c was planned to be flying over most of the time. The USAF European 1 scheme (lizard) developed from the SEA scheme. However don't assume that the colours used in the Euro 1 scheme were constant. The Phantoms used the original two greens - the A-10s (for example) used different greens to the Phantoms. There was also the issue of how the paint was applied - for example the SJ-F-4Es at an Alconbury show in the mid 1980s looked like they had a very matt charcoal gray whereas the SP F-4E looked like it had a satin gray close to RAF Dark Sea Grey. The Germans did lots of scheme experiments - both F-4F and RF-4Es started in a mid grey/green/silver scheme and evolved.; The Fs more than the RFs. Look at the schemes the Greek Phantoms have worn over time; SEA, then Blue, then Hill Gray and now the Aegean blue/grey scheme. To attempt to answer your last question. I'd suggest its air forces finding the best solution for their own situation - unfortunately that solutions now seems to be a universal grey. All the best Iain PS Don't forget that as a/c go through servicing and repaint in their own countries, the paint standards will be the national ones. FS for the USA BS for the UK RAL for Germany etc That's why exact colour matches for modelling can be tricky.

Fascinating as ever; is that an Israeli F-16 in picture 3?

Dick - you have done the kit proud. I hadn't heard the story about the underside markings; maybe its somebody confusing paint applied to check cracking (which looked like a capital F) with a zap. Being pedantic she's an FG.1 as the RN didn't use the FGR.2. If you find out more about the underside markings let us know. Iain

@Paul J Belgian F-16s, Finnish F-18s, Indian Mirage 5s and Saudi Typhoons (at Coningsby).Plenty of photos on Fighter Control.

Following @Chrisj2003 comment about Don Logan's book a quick search revealed its available but at £125 a bit much for me! I then had a google for Kansas Jayhawks Phantoms and came across a great site with hundreds of Phantom photos. Problem is I cant find it on the iPad but not the PC and the url points simply to angelfire.com which I cant copy for others to check out. Its got lots of pictures of F-4s - including the Jayhawks with a red tail band, the smaller version of the serial number on the fin and full colour ADC gray markings. If anyone can find it it would help us all out. Thanks Edit -- this might work: https://www.angelfire/com/dc/jinxx1/Phantoms/ANGF4C_D.html This is the url that comes up on an iPad search and works but wont on the PC. Hmmm

ADC Gray Phantoms (This list may not be complete and all mistakes are totally my own!) I always thought the ADC Gray Phantoms in the colourful markings were some of the most attractive and have managed to model most of the schemes over the years. So which units used the Toom in FS16473? Sources are : C&M Vol. 12 (USAF Mig Kill Markings) F-4 Phantom Air National Guard Phantom Guardians – Daniel Soulaine C&M Vol.3 F-4 C Post Vietnam ’74-‘84 It looks like most of the ADC gray a/c were Cs with some Ds in the ANG. USAF 57th FIS – (Iceland's Own Airforce 😉) The Es wore the gray scheme with those lovely black checkerboards. In addition F-4C 63-7589 served with the 57th then the 319th TFTS ADCW at Tyndall, the 171st FIS Michigan and 111th FIS Texas Air National Guard a/c in gray Texas 111th FIS, Oregon 114th TFTS, Oregon 123rd FIS, Kansas (Jayhawks) 127th TFS and 177th TFTS shared a/c and I have photos of SEA overall, ADC gray, Hill gray and Lizard (Euro) New York 136th FIS (F-4C, with rainbow rudder, F-4D with ZZ on the tail band) Michigan 171st FIS (C and D with full colour yellow/black checkerboards) North Dakota 178th FIS (D only?) Minnesota 179th TFS ( D only?) California 194th FIS Hawaii 199th FIS All additions/corrections welcome

@alt-92 remark that Minnesota was the only unavailable ANG unit got me thinking, Minnesota were available in both Microscale and the Hasegawa D sheet. Hasegawa also gave us Arkansas. However - and here's the challenge - I think only Georgia, Vermont and Illinois (all of which are fairly simple, short-lived schemes) are missing. Prove me wrong and I'm always happy to be corrected - and its back to the washing up before the boss starts moaning!

The Minnesota ANG markings were available on a Microscale sheet - I'm looking at an Esci kit adorned with them as I type! We need to get @Diego involved in this conversation to give us a heads up on the F-4 ANG decals promised on their website. (A not so subtle hint!)

@Wez Its worth looking at some of the Caracal and Hi-Decal sheets as they have markings which can be applied to the ADC gray a/c. There's also a sheet for the 57th FIS F-4Es which can be adapted to the gray C they had - that's by Eurodecal. Its a great shame that the old micro/super scale sheets have gone out of print as you could do most of the ANG units. Failing that, if there is something specific let me know and I'll go through the spares box.

More Phantom phacts – you can never get enough. First of all I was very interested in @Diego information about Iran wanting F-4Gs; IIRC the USAF got 116, all modified from existing (originally hard wing) Es – would they have been modified from Iranian stocks, USAF stock or even potential new build? The Es that the Iranians got were as follows – according to WAPJ Spirit in the Skies. Block 46-47 69-7711 to 69-7742 Block 51-56 71-1094 to 71-1779 Block 57-59 73-1519 to 73-1554 Block 63 75-0222 to 75-0257 Then you get to the RF-4Es 69-7590 to 69-7595 72-0266 to 72-0269 74-1725 to 74-1736 78-0751 to 78-0754 78-0788 Then you get to the 11 which were not delivered and were stored at St Louis at “Iranian Stores”. Apparently the serials were 78-0854 and then 78-0855 to 78-0864. Some reports say they were basically complete, others simply components so if anybody can shed a light on that I’d be grateful. Secondly the serials of that last 11 are after the RF-4Es delivered to Turkey and Greece (as new builds). Those were the only RFs to have slatted wings so I wonder – did those last 11 Iranian RFs have the slatted (soft) wing or the original hard wing?

@spruecutter96 None of those stories would surprise me. However, you're lucky that the formerly resident rattle snake in the Cosford F-111 didn't get you - apparently it gave someone a real shock when they opened a panel after the a/c had returned from DM to Cosford.

I never phail to be amazed at the Phantom related questions which get asked = and then rapidly answered!😉

For a while the MB one was the only game in town Frog had gone bust, the Hasegawa rebox (or was it the other way round) wasn't in the shops and the alternative was to get an F-4J and wrap plasticard around the jet pipes to make a Spey (This is a long{long} time ago). The kit was a bit strange - deep panel lines (makes the Airfix ones look subtle), a canopy that looked like it had been sat on, blunt radome and small triangular fins where the intake at the fin base is. However it was on a par with the Airfix one available at the time and I built a few and used some early Modeldecal sheets.

I know the project has been busy preparing the airframe for transportation, and a repaint is probably years away, but maybe a gentle reminder about paint matching for @tc2324 wouldn't hurt.😀

@Gisbod You probably know this but only three of the F-4Js were repainted in the correct BS colours - obviously ZE360 being one of them. A while ago somebody posted from the BPAG restoration of a part of ZE360 which had not been repainted and was still in the original blue (except it wasn't blue really but that's another conundrum)

While its exciting for us hoi polloi to sit in a military a/c - over the years I have managed to get into a number of (in-service) ones (Turkish F-4E, USAF F-4G, F-4D, F-4 FGR.2, Buccaneer at Laarbruch, VC-10K1) I have real reservations about people have fairly unrestricted access to museum exhibits. At Duxford, visitors with access to the Spitfire now have to wear overshoes and the Lancaster and Vulcan experiences are closely supervised and controlled by staff. (Believe it or not things have gone missing over the years.) We're also always on the lookout for people eating and drinking in the hangars to stop them - vermin love crumbs, sugar and bits of Hurricane! Having spoken to a Hendon volunteer fairly recently he told me they have had problems with people spilling drinks in the Phantom and leaving it full of crisp crumbs. If these are to last "for ever" (the aim of the NMUSAF is for people 200 years in the future to view the a/c) they need to be looked after and that means not letting sticky little fingers all over them.

@David Hadland - My apologies about the Italeri rebox - @Hook is 100% right about it being an FG.1 - I can only plead a senior moment.

@David Hadland Having made 40 or so Fujimi UK Phantoms and 3 Airfix ones here's my input. There were four initial Fujimi boxings. Essentially the F-4K (rounded fin top, FG.1) and the F-4 FG.1 (square fin top FG.1) - Both used by the RN and RAF (43 squadron.). Following on the F-4M (rounded fin top FGR.2) and the F-4 FGR.2 (square top fin.) - only used by the RAF. Basic differences - the K/FG.1 had the slotted stabilator, an extendable nosewheel leg and catapult hooks, the M/FGR.2 didn't. The advantages of the Airfix kit over the Fujimi one are two fold; an excellent decal sheet and full depth intakes. The disadvantages. Excessively deep panel lines (honestly deeper than the 1:1 original), missing very obvious grills, very strange boxes on the inner side of the lower wing which need to be chopped off to get a decent fit, a 3 way join of the fin to fuselage which is very easy to screw up. (There are more!) There is also excessive spare plastic - for example 3 pairs of outer wing panels when you only need one pair. I'd also say the general detailing of the Fujimi kit is better - for example on the inner pylons. Note. The Italeri rebox is the FGR.2 variant of the Fujimi kit - to turn it into an FG.1 ignore the non-extendable nose leg and add the stabilator slots with 30 seconds with a sharp knife and straight edge. (that's unless you are very pedantic!) Consequently the 111 squadron markings are not absolutely applicable (however ........... 😀)Ignore that information I got it wrong - 180 degrees wrong!) (Thanks Hook) Note. The RN F-4s were fitted with the RWR fairing on top of the fin but NEVER had the ILS blade aerial fit either side of the fin.