Fujimi 1/72 British Phantom - Nose too short?

[tony.t]

23 minutes ago, iainpeden said:

While the information below proves my theory on different radome diameters wrong, it's an interesting read on how the radome developed. Look at the USN section becasue that's got some info on how the intakes and splitter plates went through development.

 

http://phantomphacts.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/the-radome-road-to-32-inch-radome.html

 

 

I find this fascinating. I know that the Grumman A-6 switched from black to white neoprene radome coatings in 1967 and am wondering if McDonnell F-4Js did this in parallel. The later Navy finishes seem to comprise paint rather than neoprene so I'm curious as to when and whether the FAA/RAF switched to possible paint finishes on its Phantom radomes, and the impact of the Jubilee sash and later greys used had on radar performance.

 

Tony

[Tailspin Turtle]

1 hour ago, Duncan B said:

I was told on my Phantom Airframe Q Course that the difference in the fleet was 1.5 inches between shortest and longest. Quite significant if true but irrelevant to modellers of any scale other than 1:1. Certainly the tolerances on the replacement doors that I fitted would have allow for that range.

 

Duncan B

Interesting. First, I would have thought it was nowhere near that much. Second, I don't know that the overall length was ever measured (weight and cg location were the numbers one cared about) except maybe doing assembly rigging the old fashioned way by measuring between points on the wing and fuselage. That would be in the maintenance manual. That number may be the end result of a game of telephone, with the opening statement being how long the Phantom was at Mach 2 versus at ambient temperature. For example, if it were a single bar of aluminum, cut to 660 inches long at 70° F in the factory at McDonnell, the bar would be 1/4" longer at 100°F on the ramp at Edwards on a nice day. It would get a lot hotter at Mach 2.

[Duncan B]

6 minutes ago, Tailspin Turtle said:

Interesting. First, I would have thought it was nowhere near that much. Second, I don't know that the overall length was ever measured (weight and cg location were the numbers one cared about) except maybe doing assembly rigging the old fashioned way by measuring between points on the wing and fuselage. That would be in the maintenance manual. That number may be the end result of a game of telephone, with the opening statement being how long the Phantom was at Mach 2 versus at ambient temperature. For example, if it were a single bar of aluminum, cut to 660 inches long at 70° F in the factory at McDonnell, the bar would be 1/4" longer at 100°F on the ramp at Edwards on a nice day. It would get a lot hotter at Mach 2.

I wonder how long/short the Aluminium bar was on a driech winter's day on the pan at Leuchars?  

I have no way of knowing if the information given to me was true or not but have never forgotten it (sadly, many other things have slipped from my memory). I do remember being surprised on hearing it at the time as I expected that each aircraft would have been identical. The fact that panels (doors) weren't interchangeable (and new ones were all oversized and unfinished), as they were on the other types I'd worked on, reinforced that 'fact' in my mind. I suspect that was the reason given to me for the oversized replacement panels too, but again, the source and truth are out of reach now (maybe they just wanted to shut off the constant stream of idiotic questions from the 19 year old me? By age 24 I'd stopped caring, sadly).

 

Duncan B

[canberra kid]

I don't know but perhaps James ( @71chally) will know if the frame numbers are as they would be in American TO's and referenced in inches? If so that will give a length of the forward fuselage. 

John   

[71chally]

That's certainly how I read it.

 

Tommy will know more about it, but from the info provided on his site and other references the fuselage stations (FS) are identified from their distance from the datum point.  So FS77 is 77inches aft from the datum.

The confusing thing for us relying on photos etc is where FS00 is located exactly as it isn't the tip of the nose. Going from Tommys' info, on the short nosed fighters (F-4B, J, K/M) it is 27.1 inches aft of the tip.  The datum is placed this way to allow for the different nose lengths used, while maintaining uniform station numbers across the type. 

I'm guessing that the F-4A nose started close to that datum though?

 

In short, as Tommy mentioned, add 27.1 inches to the FS number to get its distance from the tip of the radome.

 

 

Cracking scans again John, thanks.

Edited March 4, 2018 by 71chally

[Tailspin Turtle]

Those are the same Fuselage Stations for both the J79 and Spey forward fuselages. Note that 77 is preceded by CFS, the C standing for canted. Another interesting detail is that the bulkhead on which the pilots ejection seat is mounted is also canted, whereas the rear bulkhead of the aft cockpit is not, an artifact of the original structure layout for the F4H's predecessor, the single-seat AH. There was some detail strengthening for a stronger F-4K nose landing gear attach structure and catapult loads. The Spey inlet was different. But the basic structural layout of the forward fuselage was the same.

[Tailspin Turtle]

44 minutes ago, 71chally said:

I'm guessing that the F-4A nose started close to that datum though?

 

The tip of the F-4A nose was eight inches forward of FS 0.0, so it was also a negative number. The usual practice is to have FS 0 located somewhat forward of the tip of the first airplane's nose so you don't get into negative numbers. (It can get worse, though. For that, see Grumman's station numbering gouge for the F9F-4/5 fuselage stretch here: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/05/accurate-three-view-drawings.html) I've wondered whether the #1 F4H's nose was eight inches shorter than those that followed but not been able to prove it one way or another.

[DougC]

14 hours ago, Duncan B said:

I was told on my Phantom Airframe Q Course that the difference in the fleet was 1.5 inches between shortest and longest. Quite significant if true but irrelevant to modellers of any scale other than 1:1. Certainly the tolerances on the replacement doors that I fitted would have allow for that range. Door 6 and the rear most engine door spring to mind as ones that gave me particular problems and no-one I worked with ever managed to fit a replacement canopy at the first attempt (Tax payer's money, if only they knew!).

I agree that the difference would not be noticeable, especially on a 1/72 scale kit but my pedantic nature made me stir the discussion and point out that there is no absolute (and even if there was this is a lump of plastic made to represent the real thing that some people are getting all twisted up about). 

I never saw a real one with a giant thumb print across the fuselage though  .

 

Duncan B

13 hours ago, Duncan B said:

 

I can well believe that..... apparently some years later when the Tucano was introduced to RAF service, the shiney new airframes were being lined up for the first AOC's inspection of the type at Church Fenton. The SWO spent ages getting the lineys to move the third aircraft in the line forward a bit.... then the fifth aircraft back a bit, etc, just to get them lined up neatly. After many hours of this, someone got a measuring tape out & discovered there was a significant difference in length between the longest & shortest of the RAF's brand new trainers hand-built by Shorts of Belfast! I can't remember how much it was but certainly enough to be noticeable to the human eye when you lined them all up. You couldn't swap a canopy between airfarmes on the Tucano either.... progress, huh?

 

Sorry for the thread drift.... back on topic!

Edited March 5, 2018 by DougC

[Giorgio N]

15 hours ago, Duncan B said:

I was told on my Phantom Airframe Q Course that the difference in the fleet was 1.5 inches between shortest and longest. Quite significant if true but irrelevant to modellers of any scale other than 1:1. Certainly the tolerances on the replacement doors that I fitted would have allow for that range. Door 6 and the rear most engine door spring to mind as ones that gave me particular problems and no-one I worked with ever managed to fit a replacement canopy at the first attempt (Tax payer's money, if only they knew!).

I agree that the difference would not be noticeable, especially on a 1/72 scale kit but my pedantic nature made me stir the discussion and point out that there is no absolute (and even if there was this is a lump of plastic made to represent the real thing that some people are getting all twisted up about). 

I never saw a real one with a giant thumb print across the fuselage though  .

 

Duncan B

 

I remember the matter being mentioned here before, with some very wild numbers toted, including someone who mentioned up to 6 ft. between aircrafts... of course this would be impossible, and a 1.5 inch variation across the fleet, while a bit high to me, sounds more plausible. To put things into perspective, this is approximately 0.2% on the overall length.

 

42 minutes ago, DougC said:

I can well believe that..... apparently some years later when the Tucano was introduced to RAF service, the shiney new airframes were being lined up for the first AOC's inspection of the type at Church Fenton. The SWO spent ages getting the lineys to move the third aircraft in the line forward a bit.... then the fifth aircraft back a bit, etc, just to get them lined up neatly. After many hours of this, someone got a measuring tape out & discovered there was a significant difference in length between the longest & shortest of the RAF's brand new trainers hand-built by Shorts of Belfast! I can't remember how much it was but certainly enough to be noticeable to the human eye when you lined them all up. You couldn't swap a canopy between airfarmes on the Tucano either.... progress, huh?

 

Sorry for the thread drift.... back on topic!

 

Now this is something I find more difficult to believe... every object built by mankind is built to tolerances, these on an aircraft will sure give the result of variations in overall dimensions but the variations will always be in a fractions of percent. Being able to spot such small differences is practically impossible. This of course assuming Shorts built things properly.

 

Back on topic, I'm now very curious... I'll check what the hasegawa F-4J radome is like for completeness

Edited March 5, 2018 by Giorgio N

[Jazzie]

13 hours ago, Duncan B said:

I wonder how long/short the Aluminium bar was on a driech winter's day on the pan at Leuchars?  

I have no way of knowing if the information given to me was true or not but have never forgotten it (sadly, many other things have slipped from my memory). I do remember being surprised on hearing it at the time as I expected that each aircraft would have been identical. The fact that panels (doors) weren't interchangeable (and new ones were all oversized and unfinished), as they were on the other types I'd worked on, reinforced that 'fact' in my mind. I suspect that was the reason given to me for the oversized replacement panels too, but again, the source and truth are out of reach now (maybe they just wanted to shut off the constant stream of idiotic questions from the 19 year old me? By age 24 I'd stopped caring, sadly).

 

Duncan B

As a young light aircraft engineer, i picked up many nuggets of info that have stayed with me over the years. One of these things related to Leuchars Phantoms, from someone who worked on them, and is the very same info about each airframe being different enough that new skins had to be prepped for each airframe. This was easily related to the Cessnas i worked on as the 2 or 3 skin panels we kept in stock had only the bare minimum of pilot drill holes in them.

 

I always have a chuckle at the rivet counters when a kit is a mm or 2 out, as in reality, you would have to physically go out and measure the specific aircraft being modeled to ensure accuracy. 

 

Understandably, 1 in 10 Spitfires off the production line might need a bit of adjustment before release to service. Phantoms need an oversized panel reworked to fit and even the Typhoon has had issues when brought together! 

 

In this case, the Phantom that Fujimi measured might just have the wee "mistake" in it that nobody has noticed.

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Giorgio N]

2 minutes ago, Jazzie said:

As a young light aircraft engineer, i picked up many nuggets of info that have stayed with me over the years. One of these things related to Leuchars Phantoms, from someone who worked on them, and is the very same info about each airframe being different enough that new skins had to be prepped for each airframe. This was easily related to the Cessnas i worked on as the 2 or 3 skin panels we kept in stock had only the bare minimum of pilot drill holes in them.

 

I always have a chuckle at the rivet counters when a kit is a mm or 2 out, as in reality, you would have to physically go out and measure the specific aircraft being modeled to ensure accuracy. 

 

Understandably, 1 in 10 Spitfires off the production line might need a bit of adjustment before release to service. Phantoms need an oversized panel reworked to fit and even the Typhoon has had issues when brought together! 

 

In this case, the Phantom that Fujimi measured might just have the wee "mistake" in it that nobody has noticed.

Arabest,

Geoff.

 

The problem is not the mm or 2, the problem is on what length this mm or 2 are. A 1mm error over a 200mm long fuselage is something that maybe only a few very focused rivet counters will care about, afterall it's a variation of 0.5% on the nominal length. The same mm over a 20mm long radome is now a 5% difference, and this can be a different story, more so when the mm ends up changing the shape.

Yes, every Spitfire or Phantom is different, but they differ by small percentages. If we speak of Phantoms and take Duncan's figure of 1.5 inch across the whole fleet, it means that the overall length on a 1/72 Spey Phantom can vary by less than 0.5 mm. I've yet to meet any rivet counter who is bothered by this half mm

[Flankerman]

I have a vague memory of reading about Fujimi getting the tailplanes (stabilators?) wrong on their Phantom kits...

 

Apparently they took the span of the tailplanes from a plan view drawing - and missed the point that they were canted down - so their measurement was short.

 

They should have measured from a front view to get the correct span - or 'developed' (a tech drawing term) the drawing to compensate for the downward angle.

 

Or am I completely wrong? Anyone else have thoughts??

 

Ken

[Jazzie]

7 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

The problem is not the mm or 2, the problem is on what length this mm or 2 are. A 1mm error over a 200mm long fuselage is something that maybe only a few very focused rivet counters will care about, afterall it's a variation of 0.5% on the nominal length. The same mm over a 20mm long radome is now a 5% difference, and this can be a different story, more so when the mm ends up changing the shape.

Yes, every Spitfire or Phantom is different, but they differ by small percentages. If we speak of Phantoms and take Duncan's figure of 1.5 inch across the whole fleet, it means that the overall length on a 1/72 Spey Phantom can vary by less than 0.5 mm. I've yet to meet any rivet counter who is bothered by this half mm

The reason i chuckle is that the 1 or 2 mm brigade are the ones who shout the loudest. And its a personal hate of mine when anything is changed to percentages to make a point. 

 

You write of the mm in the radome, but we are supposed to be modelers and this is not an insurmountable issue, be that a cut n shut with a shim, a swipe of filler and file or just live with it as. I must have built 10 Fujimi Phantoms over the years with 5 more in the stash and having sat on the fence at Leuchars, i see no issue. 

 

Its funny that the Tucano thing has come up as we used to handle quite a few of them at Dundee. I have seen for myself how different they are, and its not tiny percentages between the long and short of it!

Arabest,

Geoff.

[Silverkite]

36 minutes ago, Flankerman said:

I have a vague memory of reading about Fujimi getting the tailplanes (stabilators?) wrong on their Phantom kits...

 

Apparently they took the span of the tailplanes from a plan view drawing - and missed the point that they were canted down - so their measurement was short.

 

They should have measured from a front view to get the correct span - or 'developed' (a tech drawing term) the drawing to compensate for the downward angle.

 

Or am I completely wrong? Anyone else have thoughts??

 

Ken

 

Compared to Hasegawa stabs they look a bit more short,but once you put them in place nobody will ever notice

 

Luigi

[Dave Fleming]

I doubt Fujimi measured an RAF Phantom - they would have worked from drawings and pictures.

[tony.t]

5 hours ago, Flankerman said:

I have a vague memory of reading about Fujimi getting the tailplanes (stabilators?) wrong on their Phantom kits...

 

Apparently they took the span of the tailplanes from a plan view drawing - and missed the point that they were canted down - so their measurement was short.

 

They should have measured from a front view to get the correct span - or 'developed' (a tech drawing term) the drawing to compensate for the downward angle.

 

Or am I completely wrong? Anyone else have thoughts??

 

Ken

 

That was the 1/48 Hasegawa F-4B/N and F-4J kits released in the Spring of 1983, thirty five years ago. 

The then fix was to use Monogram stabilators - the Monogram kits cost £4.50 each whereas the Hasegawa editions were about £10, at least in my LHS Nobby's Hobbies on Gloucester Road.

The very beginnings of Hasegawa's 1/48 range. 

 

Tony

[Giorgio N]

6 hours ago, Jazzie said:

The reason i chuckle is that the 1 or 2 mm brigade are the ones who shout the loudest. And its a personal hate of mine when anything is changed to percentages to make a point. 

 

You write of the mm in the radome, but we are supposed to be modelers and this is not an insurmountable issue, be that a cut n shut with a shim, a swipe of filler and file or just live with it as. I must have built 10 Fujimi Phantoms over the years with 5 more in the stash and having sat on the fence at Leuchars, i see no issue. 

 

Its funny that the Tucano thing has come up as we used to handle quite a few of them at Dundee. I have seen for myself how different they are, and its not tiny percentages between the long and short of it!

Arabest,

Geoff.

 

Don't know, to me it seems that the "looks like" modellers shout the loudest, but guess it's a matter of noticing more those whose opinion differ and less those who share the same opinion ..

Regarding the use of percentages I do this all the time, mainly because puts things into perspective. It also makes sense from an engineering point of view and as we're talking about making things, be them aircrafts or models of the same it is afterall a matter of engineering.

And speaking of engineering, if the Tucanos are so different that this can be immediately seen, then their manufacturer is not really doing things too well. I know of airliners that show variations in length within an inch, and an inch is hardly visible over 30 something m, clearly someone can work to tighter tolerances than others.

Not that issues worry me too much when it comes to building a model, I strongly believe in shapes more than in dimensions. A kit can be perfect to the micron in length but show suspect shapes and odd proportions, others may be slightly shorter or longer but still look very much like the real thing. Personally I've never noticed any problem with the Fujimi radome, while for example the Matchbox attempts were awful for the original mould and pretty bad for the updated mould (and there was no need to compare to plans here). But I'm still interested in finding out more, if only for curiosity

 

[Jabba]

On ‎04‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 7:22 PM, Duncan B said:

I was told on my Phantom Airframe Q Course that the difference in the fleet was 1.5 inches between shortest and longest. Quite significant if true but irrelevant to modellers of any scale other than 1:1. Certainly the tolerances on the replacement doors that I fitted would have allow for that range. Door 6 and the rear most engine door spring to mind as ones that gave me particular problems and no-one I worked with ever managed to fit a replacement canopy at the first attempt (Tax payer's money, if only they knew!).

I agree that the difference would not be noticeable, especially on a 1/72 scale kit but my pedantic nature made me stir the discussion and point out that there is no absolute (and even if there was this is a lump of plastic made to represent the real thing that some people are getting all twisted up about). 

I never saw a real one with a giant thumb print across the fuselage though  .

 

Duncan B

 

Although not doing a 'Q' course, I do remember when arriving at St Athan to work on Phantom majors being told that the aircraft did vary in length, but by how much I cannot remember. We also had a detail board about the aircraft that we were working on which included a Mc number for that particular aircraft. This may not seem important until it came to ordering parts out of the Vol 3 (aircraft parts catalogue). Certain parts were to be ordered as to the Mc No of the aircraft as it seems that British Phantoms were built in different batches, so depending on this you had to order a certain Part No/ Sect Reference Number as there were several to chose from for the part that you wanted. 

Yes I did hate to get a new panel to fit, because as you say they were oversize and with no holes in them, but it could also be fun.

[canberra kid]

James (@71chally) and @Tailspin Turtle These are the same drawings of the F.4H-1 with two diferant nose configurations.

John

 

[canberra kid]

More UK Phantom station numbers.

Insert other media

John

[canberra kid]

.......and some nice drawings just for the love of them!

John

 

[71chally]

1 hour ago, canberra kid said:

James (@71chally) and @Tailspin Turtle These are the same drawings of the F.4H-1 with two diferant nose configurations.

They look to be for a late development (upper - pre the larger radar and enlarged nose), and a production standard F4H-1 before being redesignated as F-4As or Bs.

However I don't know that much about non British Phantoms, so perhaps one for Tommy to clarify.

 

Superb extracts again, and I for one really appreciate the effort that you are going to to scan and post them here.

I don't know how you find this stuff John!

[Bonhoff]

Re: The nose.... just park it next to a Matchbox F4. 

 

No one will notice the Fujimi one then 

 

IanJ

Edited March 5, 2018 by Bonhoff

[Tailspin Turtle]

6 hours ago, 71chally said:

They look to be for a late development (upper - pre the larger radar and enlarged nose), and a production standard F4H-1 before being redesignated as F-4As or Bs.

However I don't know that much about non British Phantoms, so perhaps one for Tommy to clarify.

 

Superb extracts again, and I for one really appreciate the effort that you are going to to scan and post them here.

I don't know how you find this stuff John!

The upper illustration is for the first 18 F4Hs (up through 145317) with the smaller nose and the flush canopy, although a few of these were built or modified to have the big radome when required for specific tests, e.g. spin. (I don't know why the sheet doesn't list the earlier BuNos.) The lower illustration is for the subsequent J79-GE-2 powered F4Hs with the big radome and the raised canopy, BuNo 146817 through 148275, i.e. not the F-4B. The F-4As were formally F4H-1s, redesignated to F4H-1F when it was decided that the F4H-1s would be those that had the J79-GE-8. In 1962, the F4H-1Fs were re identified as F-4As and the F4H-1s as F-4Bs. Note that this break was between #47 and #48 and therefore not associated with the flush versus raised canopy. The most obvious difference between later F4H-1Fs (F-4A) and the F4H-1 (F-4B) was the inlet ramp. For illustrations and more, see http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2013/03/f4h-f-4-phantom-index.html

[canberra kid]

9 hours ago, 71chally said:

They look to be for a late development (upper - pre the larger radar and enlarged nose), and a production standard F4H-1 before being redesignated as F-4As or Bs.

However I don't know that much about non British Phantoms, so perhaps one for Tommy to clarify.

 

Superb extracts again, and I for one really appreciate the effort that you are going to to scan and post them here.

I don't know how you find this stuff John!

Thanks James, as an airframe the Phantom is a mystery to me. I hope what I've posted helps in some small way?  If not just enjoy and marvel at the extraordinary quality of the technical drawing skils!