Fujimi 1/72 British Phantom - Nose too short?

[Dave Fleming]

My friend Drewe Manton and I were discussing the new Airfix Phantom and the Fujimi predeccessor and he expressed the view that he'd always thought the nose on the Fujimi was a bit stubby. I had always harboured a similar thought, but as no-one had ever mentioned that (Plenty about the underfuselage line) I'd assumed it was just my eye.

 

However, looking at matching photos, I think he's right, and the nose is too short and thin. Model from Modeling Madness, aircraft pic from ebay

 

csm205-McDonnell-Douglas-Phantom-FG1-9x6 by David Fleming, on Flickr

 

Thoughts?

Edited March 2, 2018 by Dave Fleming
Spelling

[iainpeden]

From the photos you use I see what you mean; however the demarcation line on the front fuselage of the model is higher than it should be and could be playing tricks on the eye.

I have the Fujimi and Airfix ones currently under construction and therefore to hand. Using a mm ruler up against both models I got these measurement: Fujimi - tip of nose to back of radome =24mm and back of radome to front of windscreen =7mm. Airfix - tip of nose to back of radome =25mm and back of radome to front of windscreen =7mm. Not much difference and probably down to the method of measuring; however, side by side the Airfix one looks just a little longer and slightly less deep than the Fujimi one.

 

Just to add a little to the conversation, looking at both head on and having painted the back of the Fulimi one black, I can't really tell which has intake trunking and which doesn't.

[Duncan B]

One thing I have notice when painting/masking the Fujimi kits is that if you mask the side of the intake correctly with regards to the leading edge you can't get the demarkation to line up correctly with regards to the Air/equipment conditioning intakes on the nose. I am not sure if the wings are set too high or the intakes on the nose are in the wrong place but something appears to be ever so slightly out of whack.

If you look at the original photos posted (I know the modeller has mucked up the front fuselage LAG demarkation however) you can see that the LAG demarkation line between the leading edge should clear the top of the intakes (on the real thing) but on the kit it will be across the intake if masked in line with the leading edge (I hope that makes sense?).

 

Duncan B

[iainpeden]

But! If you look at the rear vertical edge of the Light Aircraft Grey it looks shorter than the front vertical edge. Also looks as if the top edge kinks to run above the air conditioning duct on that a/c.

[FalkeEins]

just finished one ; " short and thin" ...you mean 'short and fat' ?..when you put it like that, it certainly looks to be (both pics are my own..)

 

 

[stevehnz]

No, I'm not going to sell my Fujimi Phantoms off cheap now this egregious fault has been identified.  Well within my  TLAR tolerances.

Steve.

[stevehnz]

9 hours ago, iainpeden said:

But! If you look at the rear vertical edge of the Light Aircraft Grey it looks shorter than the front vertical edge. Also looks as if the top edge kinks to run above the air conditioning duct on that a/c.

I'm taking by this Ian you're referring to the real aircraft rather than the model. After copying the photo Dave has put up & blowing it up, I can see nothing in the Fujimi kit that wouldn't be possible to mask & paint exactly as in the real one, at least to within very acceptable tolerances. It may be a matter of perspective that is throwing you a red herring here Dave but to my eye anyway the gentle sag in the demarcation of the real aircraft would fit comfortably on the Fujimi kit.

Steve.

[71chally]

I'm struggling to see an issue, I have the plastic and photos in front of me and I can't see an obvious difference.

...and if I need to look that hard to see an issue, then it doesn't bother me!

 

Nice shots of the 43 Sqn and the POCU FG.1s at St Athan - you both win points for that!

 

 

Are there any really good and trustworthy 72nd Phantom FG.1/FGR.2 plans out there?

[LotusArenco]

13 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

However, looking at matching photos....

Thoughts?

 

I’d be extremely wary about matching photos of models, to photos of real aircraft found on the internet.

By the time these images have been shot, scanned, photoshopped, cropped, stretched, foreshortened, shrunk, enhanced, turned into ‘ones and zeros’ and back into a visible image, who knows what’s what.

 

Mart

[junglierating]

Here we go the fans of the rivets are out.........we couldnt even get 50 for a real aircraft the other day....still the hobby /pastime is meant to be fun so i will just shut up and watch the party....did think the first phot was a bit stretched though.

[Britman]

It looks the part for me!

[chris57]

35 minutes ago, junglierating said:

Here we go the fans of the rivets are out.........we couldnt even get 50 for a real aircraft the other day....still the hobby /pastime is meant to be fun so i will just shut up and watch the party....did think the first phot was a bit stretched though.

Got to agree, when I saw this thread last night I thought the rivet counters have emerged already, not enough in their lives to think about!!. Still on the bright side think of all those cheap Fujimi Phantoms coming out of stashes.

[Seahawk]

It took some time for the truth to emerge that the noses of the Hasegawa Tornado and Sea Harrier were too short (IMHO very noticeably) but emerge it did after a while.  Phantoms are Not My Subject but I find it hard to believe that this alleged shortcoming (pun intended) is coming to light only now.

[DougC]

This is one of those "things I've always thought about the holy grail that is the Fujimi Phantom but been too afraid to mention"..... until now, so I'm glad someone else has finally brought it up.

 

If you compare the look of the finished Fujimi model to the real aircraft (not a photo or plans), it looks too short & a bit "beaky". The Airfix nose seems to capture the length, girth, bulbous-look (oo er missus) & slight droop of the real thing much better. I know that a demarcation line, different colours (black, grey, etc) can fool us due to optical illusions but IMHO, it's a definite thing on the Fujimi kit. And for me, it's not a rivet-counting issue - it's something which fails to capture an essential part of the Phantom's loveable ugliness!

 

So, what's the solution? I for one, won't be taking out a second mortgage to cross-kit a Fujairfix hybrid...... so how about one of the after market companies producing a resin replacement?

[rayprit]

I for one, will be hanging onto my Fujimi Phantoms..........I can see nothing wrong with it.  The only people who will find issue with it are the rivet counters that carry a pair of calipers around with them and a magnifying glass ...........and for them to pass comment means they need to get close to it and need my permission to pick it up to measure or count the rivets, which they will never get.

 

A thing worthy of note, is you can pick up a Fujimi Phantom for about the same price as an Airfix Phantom, I know, I bought another Fujimi last week for £25........now, if you add the updated resin splitter plate to the cost of the Airfix Phantom which Ali is producing, your Airfix kit costs increase to well within the price range of Fujimi Phantoms advertised currently on Ebay.

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Thanks to Iain for actually measuring the difference between the two kits, thus producing useful information rather than unhelpful eyeballing and the usual whinging from those who don't think models should resemble their subjects.  The measurements say the same depth but a 4% difference in length.  That's the difference, if over the whole model, between 1/72th and 1/75th.  Not joking, if you can't detect that difference then your eyesight needs investigating.

 

However, as far as modelling is concerned, this is a 40thou piece of card glued between the fuselage and the radome, and the fuselage lines faired in.  This is not difficult.

[Duncan B]

13 hours ago, stevehnz said:

No, I'm not going to sell my Fujimi Phantoms off cheap now this egregious fault has been identified.  Well within my  TLAR tolerances.

Steve.

I'm perfectly happy with the Fujimi Phantoms too, it's just something that I've noticed when painting my ones.

 

Duncan B

[PLC1966]

Never noticed that, the real jet nose looks slightly more elegant than the model version.  Never thought I would say that word, elegant, when related to a Toom.

 

HOWEVER....

 

By the time I have dragged my Fujimi kit out of the stash, cut it off the sprue, sanded it, glued it, sanded it, filled it, sanded it, painted it, sanded it, repainted it, moaned about it, sanded it....it will end up with a nose like a Starfighter anyway.

[usetherudders]

If people want to get rid of their Fujmi Phantoms as the nose is short by a millimetre I'll be happy to take them of your hands for £10 a pop lol

 

 

[sniperUK]

So these Airfix are the more accurate shape then ? 

 

IMG_4722 by Tony Osborne, on Flickr

 

So these Airfix are the more accurate then ? 

 

IMG_4722 by Tony Osborne, on Flickr

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by sniperUK

[iainpeden]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Thanks to Iain for actually measuring the difference between the two kits, thus producing useful information rather than unhelpful eyeballing and the usual whinging from those who don't think models should resemble their subjects.  The measurements say the same depth but a 4% difference in length.  That's the difference, if over the whole model, between 1/72th and 1/75th.  Not joking, if you can't detect that difference then your eyesight needs investigating.

 

However, as far as modelling is concerned, this is a 40thou piece of card glued between the fuselage and the radome, and the fuselage lines faired in.  This is not difficult.

First of all thanks to Graham who's got more faith in my measuring than I have.

Doug, just to prove so much is in the eye of the beholder, I have both kits finished in front of me and the Fujimi one looks more bulbous with the underside of the radome rising to the underside of the fuselage (in front of the nose gear) being more pronounced. I have also parked 3 different Fujimi F-4s nose to nose with the Airfix one; in each case the tip of the nose is about 2mm lower.

[iainpeden]

Just now, sniperUK said:

So these Airfix are the more accurate then ? 

 

IMG_4722 by Tony Osborne, on Flickr

 

So these Airfix are the more accurate then ? 

 

IMG_4722 by Tony Osborne, on Flickr

 

In the radome - possibly but in a significant number of other areas definitely not.

 

(note to self: write out 1000 times "I must not become a rivet counter!")

[71chally]

I'm still struggling to see how the nose on the kit is more bulbous than the original, notice in that first pic of a real Phantom just how bulbous the radome area is before it flattens out at the nose leg area.

 

Re comparing the length etc, aren't we assuming that the Airfix one is correct in this regard?

 

I have to disagree with Graham, noticing  a 1mm length error in a 31mm kit with only pictures, memories, or being lucky enough to have a preserved aircraft in front of you is not easy - not for me at least and I have been staring at Phantoms for gawd knows how long!

 

[Dave Fleming]

I have both the Fujimi and Airfix kits at home - on the basis that the Airfix was LIDAR scanned, then at least the base dimensions will be accurate. Unfortunately I am stuck in the South of England at the moment due to the weather. I'll see if I can compare the two.

 

I have several Fujimi kits in my stash so this is more than just academic interest

[Tailspin Turtle]

Danger! - data and drawings follow...

 

For a pretty good drawing of the forward fuselage, see http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2018/03/f-4-phantom-forward-fuselage.html. Note that it is based on lines drawings (literally in the case of the illustration) for the J79-powered Phantoms which have been carefully adjusted as to height and length and with the exception of the inlet will be identical in basic shape to the Spey-powered ones. The rectangle is provided to check that your hard copy of the illustration or image on the computer screen is 1/72 in both height and length.

 

For those with micrometers, the tip of the nose is at F.S -27.1 and the front of the nose wheel well, at F.S. 77. For those of you challenged by negative fuselage stations, that's a total of 104.1 inches. The aft tip of the braking-parachute door is at F.S. 664, which means the overall length from the tip of the nose to the end of the fuselage, not counting the fuel vent, is 691.1 inches.

 

I look forward to hearing the results of evaluations from those who do so.