Tamiya 1/32 F-4J problems

[rs2man]

Last night I started work on a Tamiya 1/32 F-4J & so far I can't say that I'm greatly impressed with the fit of parts or quality of moulding  .  The separate rear fuselage underside section looks like it'll need several shims to close gaps at the front & has a really prominent mould join down the middle , the panel which fits into the front of the spine (I assume it is where the IFR receptacle goes on the USAF version) needed a plasticard shim under it to get it flush , the IFR probe well needs shimming as well & when I cleaned up a mould seam on the spine I found there were several areas of sinkage along the panel line . Knowing Tamiya's reputation I really expected better .  Has anyone else had similar problems or have I got a rogue kit ?

 

John Green

Nantwich , Cheshire

[JohnT]

John

interesting post.  No answers I am afraid as I have 2 in the stash in storage while we move/ build a new house.  I'd be very interested in the responses though.  Not Tamiya sounding and I dont recall reading anything like this before so maybe a rouge mould press?  The other thing that crosses my mind is that its quite an old kit now but not sure if that will have any real bearing on matters.  I wish I could have pulled mine out for a peak to check !

So watching with interest meantime 

 

John

 

[tweeky]

its an old kit now 

[bentwaters81tfw]

Does it use the same main fuselage section as the F-4C/D? If so, you will need to sand off all the BDR bumps. Tamiya measured a BDR airframe and faithfully reproduced the repair patches. I think there may be one or two on the wings as well.

[rs2man]

11 minutes ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Does it use the same main fuselage section as the F-4C/D? If so, you will need to sand off all the BDR bumps. Tamiya measured a BDR airframe and faithfully reproduced the repair patches. I think there may be one or two on the wings as well.

Yes it does .  It also shares the ridiculous dihedral of the outer wing panels

[JohnT]

There is a list of corrections and fixes over on a review on Large Scale Planes written by Thierry Laurent & Ben Brown.  Let me know if you cant access it and I can send you a link by PM

[rs2man]

37 minutes ago, JohnT said:

There is a list of corrections and fixes over on a review on Large Scale Planes written by Thierry Laurent & Ben Brown.  Let me know if you cant access it and I can send you a link by PM

Thanks for that John .  Took a bit of finding , but I got there in the end

[Antti_K]

Hello John,

 

among others, those are exactly the problems I had with my example. That rear/under fuselage piece is particularly bad. The detailing is wrong, it is too narrow and the slots for the thermo couple wires are out of shape.

 

That LSP list is a good starting point but you have to do many more corrections to get an "accurate" F-4J. One major problem is the pilot's cockpit. It is a cross between F-4B, F-4C, F-4D, F-4E and F-4J. Pilot's instrument panel is too narrow. I noticed this when I tried to use Air Scale's instrument decals: those for 1/32 scale were far too big. Even the 1/48 scale ones were a tight fit.

 

All in all: this is a big model and it surely deserves proper detailing, something Tamiya missed in the first place.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[David Mooney]

Could someone post a link to said alterations to the kit as I cant find it 🙂

[JohnT]

6 minutes ago, David Mooney said:

Could someone post a link to said alterations to the kit as I cant find it 🙂

Link here

 

https://www.largescaleplanes.com/articles/article.php?aid=2737

 

(I assume its ok to post links like this  hopefully)

[NorthBayKid]

1 hour ago, Antti_K said:

All in all: this is a big model and it surely deserves proper detailing, something Tamiya missed in the first place.

It just shows how far the state of the art and our expectations have evolved in 25 years.

[Ben Brown]

I found when I built the F-4E that cutting the stabilator apart so they can be installed individually, it makes it a lot easier to clean up the aft fuselage seams and paint everything back there. You lose the pivoting function but it’s just a gimmick anyway.

 

There are tons of aftermarket parts available that can correct most of the kit’s ills. It just depends on how much time and money you want to throw at the model. My E had so much resin that I was thankful for the metal landing gear!
 

Ben

[JohnT]

52 minutes ago, NorthBayKid said:

It just shows how far the state of the art and our expectations have evolved in 25 years.

Ain't that the truth with bells, whistles and flashy lights !  Its instructive to Google reviews and read what was said when the kit first came out and how it was perceived back then along with the Tamiya 1/32 F-14 and F-15.  The "wunderkit" of the nineties often sits in the shadow of the latest offering that has all the benefits of modern moulding and suchlike.  Mind you that still does not prevent the manufacturer from sometimes getting it horribly wrong even today.  Perhaps with less excuse today.  Still as the others have said already there is a shed load of AM stuff to correct the issues for the F-4 .  

[tony.t]

It's still the best F-4 out there in any scale, with the correct canopy profile.

 

Don't worry excessively about completely shaving off all the raised panels (not many are BDR patches, they're mostly what was there but uplifted for some bizarre reason), but do shorten the avionics cooling scoops behind the radome and replace the undersize jetcans with something like GT Resin examples. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a European distributor for GT stuff but Sprue Bros stock them if you can afford buying in $ and having them airmailed to the land-of-UK.

Eduard pre-painted etch — and there's a new cockpit set just recently released for the J — solves the interior decor.

 

Yes, it's a 24 yr-old tooling and isn't shake-the-box. But is quite magnificent and there are heaps of decals out there to choose from.

 

Tony 

[Antti_K]

Hello all,

 

I'm not convinced that this is the best Phantom in any scale. It is the best "starting point" for a naval Phantom in 1/32 scale. The Zoukei-Mura 1/48 scale offering looks very good. And yes, it has issues in the rear fuselage but so has Tamiya kit as well being too "box like"; the rear fuselage contours are much smoother in the real thing. And there isn't enough plastic to sand the rear fuselage into correct shape. Also the fuselage is too shallow around the "Turkey Feathers"; you notice this at once when you attach jet pipes with correct diameter in place (take those from the old Revell kit). Another problem lies around the MLG bays. The area should be flat as F-4J has deeper bays than F-4B. Much Plasticard and Milliput required.

 

Tony is right about the canopies. They look right in the Tamiya kit. Some corrections and detailing has still to be made. And their fit is very bad if you choose the present your model with closed canopies like I did.

 

My project is nearing completion (after three years of work) but it is at hold at the moment due to disaster with Humbrol paints which caused a LOT of headache. Now in new paint she waits for decals and weathering.

 

Cheers,

Antti

[71chally]

In general, how does this kit stack up against the Revell 32nd Phantoms?

That's probably a fairer comparison.

[NorthBayKid]

2 hours ago, Antti_K said:

I'm not convinced that this is the best Phantom in any scale. 

There is absolutely no question that it was ever the best Phantom kit in any scale. From the moment I opened the box for the first time in the early 1990s, it has had some significant problems.

[NorthBayKid]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

In general, how does this kit stack up against the Revell 32nd Phantoms?

That's probably a fairer comparison.

Which Revell Phantom? The ancient 1/32 F-4J is a cartoon. The later F-4E/RF-4 is much better but has its own problems, which are legion.

[71chally]

The F-4F and G I was thinking of, but I really don't know their lineage.

[tony.t]

1 hour ago, NorthBayKid said:

There is absolutely no question that it was ever the best Phantom kit in any scale. From the moment I opened the box for the first time in the early 1990s, it has had some significant problems.

I'll concede that the 1/48 Hasegawa RF-4C/E may be equal, on the basis that both that and the 1/32 Tamiya "need" replacement inlets with proper ducting — and I can live with the slightly skinny spine on the 'gawa recce editions.

 

I expect the accolade may pass to the 1/48 Z-M F-4E/EJ with its corrected rear fuselage, when these emerge, despite the slightly flawed canopy profile -- does not bow out in the middle in plan view, and Tamiya have got this right. 

 

Remember, errors get amplified in 1/32 so shortcomings are much more obvious. I hope Z-M fix all the shape issues before doing the 1/32 F-4s.

 

The later edition 1/32 Revell kits have got an awful canopy profile and that's a deal breaker for many including me.

 

Tony

[NorthBayKid]

As noted, the 1990s Revell F-4E/F/RF-4E have a squashed canopy that is really not fixable without robbing canopy parts from a Tamiya kit (an expensive proposition).  And that's not all their problems.

 

I keep hoping against hope that Tamiya might someday see fit to retool 1/32 Phantoms (C/D, E/EJ, J/S) in 1/32 to match the quality of their magnificent 1/32 F4U Corsair and Mosquito kits.  

I can dream, can't I?

[rs2man]

Thanks to everyone for the very helpful comments . 

[Antti_K]

And let's hope that the coming HK-Models' British Phantom in 1/32 will be up to current day Tamiya standards.

 

 

[rs2man]

Just now, Antti_K said:

And let's hope that the coming HK-Models' British Phantom in 1/32 will be up to current day Tamiya standards.

 

 

I would have been happy if the Tamiya kit was up to Tamiya's usual 1990s standards , which it clearly is not 😞 

[JohnT]

4 hours ago, Antti_K said:

And let's hope that the coming HK-Models' British Phantom in 1/32 will be up to current day Tamiya standards.

 

 

Not wanting to hijack the thread or listen to rumour but I did hear that this project was on HK’s back burner at present. Not sure if that can be confirmed by anyone who knows for sure.