Phantom FG1, XT864 151-VL, No. 767 NAS, Yeovilton, 1971

[Lord Riot]

After three days applying the decals, and a few fit issues around the intakes, she's finally complete! It's a great kit with loads of options but test fitting is a must, it's quite complicated in parts, though generally it was nice to make. The detail is amazing and those stencils and decals really bring it to life!

 

I chose the 767 Sqn option as something a bit different as most photos and models I've seen are 892, but I like the yellow bird and big codes on the fuselage sides.

 

I used spray cans because I'm rubbish at brush painting, and although I'm happy with the colours I'm wondering if the EDSG is just a tad too glossy? Not sure how much weathering to add. Overall though it's an impressive kit and a nice addition to my FAA shelf. 

 

All comments and suggestions for improvement more than welcome!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Lord Riot

[Mikey-1980]

Fantastic finish!!

 

I definitely need one for the stash

[F-32]

Very cool build, really like that

[djos]

Very , very nice.

If i may, i will suggest less gloss finish and minimal weathering maybe just like you already done. Only killing that gloss look will be great.

But anyway this looks very nice.

Best regards Djordje

[RMCS]

Niiiice 

[binbrook87]

Really nice indeed 👍 Good to see the 767 sqn marks for a change. I've got an old Fujimi one waiting to be built and you've inspired me to crack on with it 🙂Don't be afraid to try some satin or matt varnish out of a rattlecan though...it will transform it (don't forget to mask the canopy and jet pipe area though)

[Mark4700]

Phabulous Phantom. 

[Paulaero]

Very nice but why the comments to tone down the gloss, these were finished in high gloss polyurethane to protect the Airframe and as these were shore based they wouldn't have weathered as fast as those on the Ark.

 

Its a great finish which reflects an A/C at a certain time and place if it was a wrap round Tornado GR1 in Gloss then that would be different.  

[Graham Boak]

Two reasons to tone down the gloss: firstly because it does tone down in use, quite quickly, and secondly because a high gloss paint on a small model makes it look more unreal and toylike   Possibly because of differing effects of highlights.  Of course matt paints give you a finish that is too rough... who said modelling was easy?  We need glossy satin and matt satin paints.

 

Just to be picky, I don't think that the wrapround camo was ever gloss anyway.  The matt-er paints came in first by a nose, or at least at the same time.

[Paulaero]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Two reasons to tone down the gloss: firstly because it does tone down in use, quite quickly, and secondly because a high gloss paint on a small model makes it look more unreal and toylike   Possibly because of differing effects of highlights.  Of course matt paints give you a finish that is too rough... who said modelling was easy?  We need glossy satin and matt satin paints.

 

Just to be picky, I don't think that the wrapround camo was ever gloss anyway.  The matt-er paints came in first by a nose, or at least at the same time.

My point in 'your' opinion you clearly haven't understood my post there never was a gloss wrap round GR1 and that is my point, that would be clearly wrong.

 

But both RN and RAF F4's were delivered in High Gloss Polyurethane finish so to build a scale model of one in gloss is not incorrect and why does high gloss make something look toy like - its accurate.

 

I go back to my previous post around differing colours of grey and picking a time frame and modelling to a photo, I have just bought an excellent book around training an F4 crew and there is an excellent picture of the underside of an operational  grey F4- heavily weathered due to doing its job . There are also pictures of freshly serviced A/C that are immaculate which some 'modelers' would say it was wrong because it is not weathered. The same goes for panel lines and pre shading. I wouldn't fly an Aircraft if the panel lines were as wide and as deep as some emphasise them to be they are overscale the reality is on 1/72 panel lines would be invisible , as you can't get a sheet of paper between them on my A/C am  sure that Mr Fritag and ExFAAWAFU and the other seasoned flyers of the real thing would agree.      

 

Perhaps you could post some of your work to show us your interpretations of what's right.

[Graham Boak]

Perhaps had you said that your post referred to a model of a GR 1 then it would have been less ambiguous.

 

We may disagree on whether a high gloss finish makes a model look more toylike - but I think that it does and am not unique.  Yes, a freshly painted aircraft in a gloss finish will be an entirely legitimate subject for a model - I suspect that most models are finished that way rather than weathered to any significant extent.  Nonetheless, even a well-maintained aircraft will not have that same standard of high gloss after some time in an external environment.

 

I am in complete agreement with you on panel lines and pre-shading on models.  However, for some time I was responsible for signing off each individual Tornado for the acceptable aerodynamic standard of gaps and steps during final assembly.  (If it didn't, then additional work would be undertaken until it fell within the concessionary limits.)   Based on this experience, I suggest that sliding a piece of paper between panel gaps would rather depend upon the thickness of the paper and just which panel gap you tested it upon.  I can't say that I ever experimented with any.  I further suggest that the standard achieved on production (even with concessions) would have been very difficult to maintain in service for any length of time.   With the very best of intentions, aircraft bend, twist and get battered.

 

With modern stealth considerations, I am sure that the standard of steps and gaps have been tightened up considerably since then.

 

 

[Lord Riot]

So ... Phantom stays as it is, or a light touch of dirt wash!?

 

I guess it depends on which snapshot of time I want it to represent? Perhaps they were sometimes given a clean up for airshows or inspections? I'm assuming a shore-based one would generally be cleaner than a carrier-based Phantom.

 

I'll keep the gloss as it is, given it represents a relatively early example (1971), but perhaps I need a few stains under the fuselage and wheel bays?

[phildagreek]

Very smart! 

[Paulaero]

20 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Perhaps had you said that your post referred to a model of a GR 1 then it would have been less ambiguous.

 

We may disagree on whether a high gloss finish makes a model look more toylike - but I think that it does and am not unique.  Yes, a freshly painted aircraft in a gloss finish will be an entirely legitimate subject for a model - I suspect that most models are finished that way rather than weathered to any significant extent.  Nonetheless, even a well-maintained aircraft will not have that same standard of high gloss after some time in an external environment.

 

I am in complete agreement with you on panel lines and pre-shading on models.  However, for some time I was responsible for signing off each individual Tornado for the acceptable aerodynamic standard of gaps and steps during final assembly.  (If it didn't, then additional work would be undertaken until it fell within the concessionary limits.)   Based on this experience, I suggest that sliding a piece of paper between panel gaps would rather depend upon the thickness of the paper and just which panel gap you tested it upon.  I can't say that I ever experimented with any.  I further suggest that the standard achieved on production (even with concessions) would have been very difficult to maintain in service for any length of time.   With the very best of intentions, aircraft bend, twist and get battered.

 

With modern stealth considerations, I am sure that the standard of steps and gaps have been tightened up considerably since then.

 

 

 From my first quote you refer to " if it was a wrap round Tornado GR1 in Gloss" 

[Paulaero]

17 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

So ... Phantom stays as it is, or a light touch of dirt wash!?

 

I guess it depends on which snapshot of time I want it to represent? Perhaps they were sometimes given a clean up for airshows or inspections? I'm assuming a shore-based one would generally be cleaner than a carrier-based Phantom.

 

I'll keep the gloss as it is, given it represents a relatively early example (1971), but perhaps I need a few stains under the fuselage and wheel bays?

 

 

Perhaps do  a very gloss one on a reflective base, I've seen some fantastic pics of reflections on wet base  after a rain storm ??  Gives me an Idea for that clear resin I have

 

Try some very thinned Tamiya smoke, I use it as a detail wash on most things really good at 'popping' out the raised mouldings ……….

Edited November 8, 2019 by Paulaero
Spelling

[fids]

Brilliant

 

I had a right flashback there, I just thought "Flightdeck" as as soon as I saw the tail 🙂

[Lord Riot]

I vaguely remember that! A rather crude plastic Phantom on a wire you had to somehow guide onto a short piece of carrier?

 

I actually had a metal Dinky Phantom with the yellow bird too, come to think of it. Showing my age now! Though to be fair the only Phantoms by then were RAF ones.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Lord Riot