WV908

Just noticed the Heritage F-15E in 1/48 too. Very nice! I was hoping for a 1/32 Tornado F2 or F3 this year, but I think we may have to wait a few until they've gone through the various inevitable GR and IDS boxings. I would be interested in a GR.1 boxing if they gave us some early Cottesmore schemes or (more likely) Gulf War aircraft that haven't been done in 1/32 before - Amoured Charmer for one would be brilliant. Cheers, WV908

A new 1/48 F-35B! Perfect! I knew there was a reason I never picked up the KH kit. Cheers, WV908

The 1/48 Sabre IV has just been added to it too Cheers, WV908

Similar to Hornby in that this year's range seems a bit conservative regarding re-releases but still a good number of new toolings. What is evident and surprising is the comparison of the ranges in terms of size. Airfix looks like a bit dropped off in this regard, and I'm sorry but there is not one single new tool in that range with 'Joe Public' scale 'wow factor' at all. The Mossie and Vampire are duplications of current projects / available kits and I don't see the Chippie selling well to the general public at all. This isn't a 'nothing for me' post as I'll pick up t

Thanks for the encouraging comments everyone. I'm hoping to have another go at it in the new year Cheers, WV908

Hi @tomprobert None so far sadly, bar the fuselage ribbing. I hit a brick wall concerning my scratchbuilding skills when it came to the cockpit interior. I tried a few different ways of doing things and ended up binning them. I kept the 2nd yolk I made, but I'm still really not happy with it. Cheers, WV908

As am I with you all haha - it's a massive learning curve with any subject and the Phantom just takes it to another level. I've looked again at the burners since getting home and it's not quite as simple as I planned, but I know it will work, with some finess applied. I have wrapped a strip of 40 thou around the tightest radius on the burners and it just conforms, but not comfortably, so I've ordered some 10 and 20 thou which will work much happier than the 40. Whilst I wait for that to arrive I have another new arrival to keep me occupied...

Discussion continues here;

6? Ouch. I'll have to give that another look. For now I'll say at least 2mm then haha and will have to observe more closely where the panel lines are. I need to bear in mind that I had neither the nose or tail cones fitted so was using purely the fuselage itself. Interestingly both the set and rake of the vertical stabs seems to be wrong - too shallow on both accounts. @Cees Broere Thanks for clearing that up regarding the burners. I'm going to have a look at mine tonight and make some paper templates before cutting the cladding. Luckily the way that these have been des

Thanks @Antti_K Those are brilliant and confirm that I've scaled the drawings correctly and have my measurements correct. Now I'm over the doom and gloom with the burners and can fix them, I want to make a few points regarding the drawings and the two kits, without providing definite dimensions at this point as I need to find my calipers. So. Point one. The Tamiya kit is too short. By *drumroll* 2mm. It loses these at fuselage stations 46.68 and 515. The first is right at the rear of the radome so can be shimmed or replaced with the flightpath item. The second is smack

@Anthony in NZ Now I've got my head around it, we can still use the burners we have (yippee!) As you can see, the burners have a slight lip at the end, with the pronounced, hard edge on the outside, but nothing on the inside. Looking at photos of Speys I have determined that this lip exists both inside and outside on the real thing, meaning there is a natural step inside. Next thing is the geometry inside these cans is way off - on the real burner there is a curve, which butts up to the petal rollers, humps and rolls outwards to meet the st

Hi Anthony, Not really keen on sinking more money into this but I'll sit on the project for now and see what happens with your developments. I'm about this --- far from just selling both Phantoms because I'm fed up of them. I've had a look at cladding the burners in 40 thou strip which solves the outside diameter instantly. The problem is re-profiling the inside and getting it to look right as it will visibly curve outwards from the petals. Cheers, WV908

@Anthony in NZ Bad news I'm afraid. Those 3D printed burner cans are way, way too small. I've checked multiple drawings to ensure I'm right and they are 3-4m too small in diameter across the board. They should be 34mm at the fuselage and 30mm at the end of the burner. These are 30mm at the fuselage and 27mm at the end of the burner. I'm so gutted by this. It's a 3D designed and printed item. It's sloppy and it's killed my enthusiasm for the project completely. Edit: To add insult to injury the interior and exterior contours of the burners are wrong too.

I've gone ahead and printed the plans from this link that was supplied in my thread; http://soyuyo.main.jp/f4/f4e-1.html I've only printed the Spey Phantom drawings, but I'll compare them to the Tamiya 'J' this evening. Although you've already done significant work, hopefully I can provide a benchmark for you from these drawings to give you reference points for checking the outer dimensions. Cheers, WV908

@Anthony in NZNZ No worries - From links given to me and comments from others, it would appear that the height of the intake at it's opening does not change, but rather the shoulders are broader and flatter on top, giving that appearance of a taller intake. There is a gradual increase in height leading to an apex at the rear of the canopy, beyond which you are in the area of the Speys and the work you've already done. Looking at what is cut out and replaced the conversion actually looks equally achievable from both the Revell and Tamiya fuselages, with the exception of intak