Airfix 1/72 Phantom FG.1 in Stock at Hornby

[Gene K]

On 1/23/2018 at 4:45 PM, Rabbit Leader said:

Just realised your the same Patrick Martin who penned the Double Ugly Phantom books.

 

Thanks for that heads up, Rabbit Leader. Nice honor to have him participating!!

 

Gene K

(Owner of all of his outstanding Phantom books)

 

[Britman]

14 hours ago, Scimitar said:

A point I had forgotten about until Dennis' pictures appeared was that the underwing serials changed positions hence in some shots with the wings folded there doesn't appear to be one. I don't know the timescale for this change or that of the complete removal.

I found this one on the net  of a very early 43 Squadron FG1 before the advent of Squadron tail markings

What a smart hansom beast that is. Nice shiny finish with roundels and squadron markings the one can see!

[Duncan B]

Where was that picture of the nice new shiny XV583 and XT874 taken? It doesn't look like Leuchars to me, could it be Aldergrove?

 

Duncan B

[Jazzie]

2 hours ago, Duncan B said:

Where was that picture of the nice new shiny XV583 and XT874 taken? It doesn't look like Leuchars to me, could it be Aldergrove?

 

Duncan B

I thought it was Leuchars at first look but i was mostly only an Airshow visitor. I would say the 2 pictured are parked at the west end of what i think was the old 43 line with the rear most hangar being the one that held vehicles for most of the shows i was at.

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Adrian W65]

1 hour ago, Jazzie said:

I thought it was Leuchars at first look but i was mostly only an Airshow visitor. I would say the 2 pictured are parked at the west end of what i think was the old 43 line with the rear most hangar being the one that held vehicles for most of the shows i was at.

Arabest,

Geoff.

My first post, been visiting for a while.

 

It took me a while but now i can see that it is Leuchars.

What looks like one long hangar is actually 2 hangars with the gap obscured by the aircraft.

The far hangar is ASF and the nearer one is what became Tornado ASF. 

 

Duncan, i worked in that hangar with you. I came up with the bunch from Coningsby in 

about Nov87. We made a new team or maybe two, can't quite remember. CT Mac McDonald

for a while then Dick Trewern and Jules Turner. I remember John Brandie, Jack McRoberts,

Trev Trangmar to name a few. Nat Fisher, John Pimlot, Ifan Davies, Pigpen .....

 

all the best

Adrian Wright

[sloegin57]

On 24 January 2018 at 8:24 PM, Scimitar said:

A point I had forgotten about until Dennis' pictures appeared was that the underwing serials changed positions hence in some shots with the wings folded there doesn't appear to be one. I don't know the timescale for this change or that of the complete removal.

I found this one on the net  of a very early 43 Squadron FG1 before the advent of Squadron tail markings

They started moving the serials under the wing inboard around '74/'75 when the problems with the outer wings started being detected and outer wing changes began  Not all aircraft had them moved.  Even as late as '83 when I left the Service, there were still a few around.  Removing them all together only started when the grey scheme came in.  The Xtradecal sheet states that one of 892's had the serial under wing painted out - not so.

 

Dennis 

[alhenderson]

9 hours ago, Adrian W65 said:

My first post, been visiting for a while.

 

It took me a while but now i can see that it is Leuchars.

What looks like one long hangar is actually 2 hangars with the gap obscured by the aircraft.

The far hangar is ASF and the nearer one is what became Tornado ASF. 

 

Duncan, i worked in that hangar with you. I came up with the bunch from Coningsby in 

about Nov87. We made a new team or maybe two, can't quite remember. CT Mac McDonald

for a while then Dick Trewern and Jules Turner. I remember John Brandie, Jack McRoberts,

Trev Trangmar to name a few. Nat Fisher, John Pimlot, Ifan Davies, Pigpen .....

 

all the best

Adrian Wright

I was a spotter at Leuchars for many years and I started this post with the comment that I was 99% certain that that was not Leuchars.  Then I thought I'd have a quick look on Google maps and I see what you mean.  Looks like they are parked facing South on what was the 228 OCU line when I saw Phantoms there (43 and 111 had moved to HASs by then).  You live and learn!

 

Al.

[Duncan B]

20 minutes ago, alhenderson said:

I was a spotter at Leuchars for many years and I started this post with the comment that I was 99% certain that that was not Leuchars.  Then I thought I'd have a quick look on Google maps and I see what you mean.  Looks like they are parked facing South on what was the 228 OCU line when I saw Phantoms there (43 and 111 had moved to HASs by then).  You live and learn!

 

Al.

I’m still struggling to see it. Have even looked at overhead views of the airfield. The angle of the hangars is the thing that’s putting me off. I can only think the hangar doors visible under the nose are what was the ASF hangar with 43 hangar visible under the tail (they are the only 2 hangars that are parallel). That would put ‘Ark Royal’ right behind the photographer but it still doesn’t really do it for me. If it was parked in front of any other hangar doors the angle of the next hangars wouldn’t allow you to see the other doors square on. 

 

Duncan B

[sloegin57]

15 minutes ago, Duncan B said:

I’m still struggling to see it. Have even looked at overhead views of the airfield. The angle of the hangars is the thing that’s putting me off. I can only think the hangar doors visible under the nose are what was the ASF hangar with 43 hangar visible under the tail (they are the only 2 hangars that are parallel). That would put ‘Ark Royal’ right behind the photographer but it still doesn’t really do it for me. If it was parked in front of any other hangar doors the angle of the next hangars wouldn’t allow you to see the other doors square on. 

 

Duncan B

As far as I can figure out and remember, they were parked on the last two slots of 43's line.  The buildings in the background were painted green when you and I were there.

The 'X's' marks the spots :-

 

Dennis

(who has tramped those pans many a time with clip board and a red bag with two cameras in) 

[alhenderson]

13 minutes ago, sloegin57 said:

As far as I can figure out and remember, they were parked on the last two slots of 43's line.  The buildings in the background were painted green when you and I were there.

The 'X's' marks the spots :-

 

Dennis

(who has tramped those pans many a time with clip board and a red bag with two cameras in) 

Spot on (literally).  That angle is a an unusual one, as my initial thought was "there aren't two hangars next to each other like that at Leuchars".  

 

Al.

[Murph]

I'm underwhelmed with the TERs in the kit.  I know the Royal Navy TERs were sturdier than their U.S. equivalents, but for modeling purposes did the TERs used by the RN look any different from those used by the USN?  I haven't had any luck on google or in the books I own finding any close-ups of the Royal Navy Phantom TERs.

 

Regards,

Murph

[Duncan B]

9 hours ago, sloegin57 said:

As far as I can figure out and remember, they were parked on the last two slots of 43's line.  The buildings in the background were painted green when you and I were there.

The 'X's' marks the spots :-

 

Dennis

(who has tramped those pans many a time with clip board and a red bag with two cameras in) 

Gotcha, my mind's eye had it taken from diagonally across the way with the photographer's back to Muir Rd with Ark Royal sort of behind and to his right. Those two angles are the only views that would provide a shot of 2 sets of hangar doors parallel to each other right enough. It never crossed my mind that he'd be standing with his back to the runway though!

 

Duncan B

[Duncan B]

1 hour ago, Murph said:

I'm underwhelmed with the TERs in the kit.  I know the Royal Navy TERs were sturdier than their U.S. equivalents, but for modeling purposes did the TERs used by the RN look any different from those used by the USN?  I haven't had any luck on google or in the books I own finding any close-ups of the Royal Navy Phantom TERs.

 

Regards,

Murph

I'm not an armourer but from what I remember from previous questions along these lines I don't think they were all that different (certainly in 1/72 scale). I think the wiring at the back end was different or missing from the UK ones, hopefully a 'Plumber' will be along shortly to sort us out.

 

Duncan B

[canberra kid]

3 minutes ago, Duncan B said:

I'm not an armourer but from what I remember from previous questions along these lines I don't think they were all that different (certainly in 1/72 scale). I think the wiring at the back end was different or missing from the UK ones, hopefully a 'Plumber' will be along shortly to sort us out.

 

Duncan B

What's a TER?

 

John

[Duncan B]

Just now, canberra kid said:

What's a TER?

 

John

Triple Ejector Rack, for hanging things that go bang from (might have been called something else in the RAF, as I said I wasn't an Armourer).

 

Duncan B

[PhantomBigStu]

2 minutes ago, canberra kid said:

What's a TER?

 

John

Not John but it’s a triple ejection rack, the bomb mount for three bombs

[canberra kid]

Thanks chaps! 

John

[canberra kid]

Some more pylon/weapons action

This is the American version 

John

[huvut76g7gbbui7]

Regarding the TERs

Interesting load here  (sudden thought that this already posted if so..sorry.

I was going to ask if the RAF FG1s had the telescope thingy fitted in the port side middle window but I answered my own question when I found this

[iainpeden]

A couple of thoughts/points.

The pylons in the kit lack any detail and are cast in such a way, with a tab fitting for the TER, that they can’t be used unloaded.

I seem to remember that the sidewinder double pylon fitted with the TER, allowing the carriage of sidewinders with rocket pods/bombs was originally a modification developed on one of the USN carriers during The 1960s while on station during the Vietnam war.

With some of the fit issues becoming apparent due to issues with the intake trunking I hope somebody will cast some resin intake blanks so the trunking can be left out - put me down for 10 sets!

[Dave Fleming]

Having had a couple of weeks to fondle the parts, I must admit me feelings are a bit 'meh'. OK, it's an RN/RAF Phantom, but it doesn't come over as a 2018 kit. Airfix have done a lot better in many areas in recent years. It's not the stellar improvement over the Fujimi kit I'd hoped for.

[Blackfordhibby]

8 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

Having had a couple of weeks to fondle the parts, I must admit me feelings are a bit 'meh'. OK, it's an RN/RAF Phantom, but it doesn't come over as a 2018 kit. Airfix have done a lot better in many areas in recent years. It's not the stellar improvement over the Fujimi kit I'd hoped for.

Dave

What like is the cockpit tub and instrument panels etc. Is there any side wall details?

 

Peter

[Dave Fleming]

58 minutes ago, Blackfordhibby said:

Dave

What like is the cockpit tub and instrument panels etc. Is there any side wall details?

 

Peter

 

It's OK, they do the details as decals and there's a decal for the panel of circuit breakers on the starboard rear (Cirrectly dpeict the rear as only having a side console on the port - trying to recall if the FG1 and FGR2 were different in that). There is alos a little side detail moulded onto the fuselage. The cockpit is one of the better areas.

[Phone Phixer]

4 hours ago, Duncan B said:

I'm not an armourer but from what I remember from previous questions along these lines I don't think they were all that different (certainly in 1/72 scale). I think the wiring at the back end was different or missing from the UK ones, hopefully a 'Plumber' will be along shortly to sort us out.

 

Duncan B

An armourer has entered the room!

In 1/72 modelling terms, there is no difference.

The British version was known as a CBTE, Carrier Bomb Triple Ejector. The angle between the 3 bomb racks (ERU's) was more on the CBTE to cater for the increased diameter of British 1,000lb bombs. There were a few small differences for the different fuzing systems aswell.

The CBTE was bolted to a multiple weapons adapter, as shown in the diagrams in Johns post #443. The MWA was then bolted to the pylon. In the case of the inboard pylons, it was the same location for the Lau 7a Sidewinder launchers. Hence, with the use of longer attachment bolts, you could have the combo of MWA/CBTE and Lau 7a's.

The FAA seemed to use this fit, the RAF not so much, if at all.

As a result of all this bolting of stuff together, normal weapon release was from the bomb racks in the CBTE. In the brown underpants moments when everything needed jettisoning rapidly, the pylons et all were dropped off courtesy of an explosive bolt that held the pylon to the wing.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Rob.

 

The armourer has left the room (uh- huh, thank you very much) (why is there no Elvis emoticon)

[71chally]

14 hours ago, Phone Phixer said:

In the brown underpants moments when everything needed jettisoning rapidly, the pylons et all were dropped off courtesy of an explosive bolt that held the pylon to the wing.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Rob.

Always amazes me that essentially 3000 Ib and more can be supported by one explosive bolt!