Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chek

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)
  • Birthday 02/27/1952

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

5,301 profile views
  1. 1:32 Trumpeter Harrier GR.7

    You've turned out a superb Harrier, and even made the drab grey scheme interesting. Looking forward to seeing the daylight photos. The only improvement I could suggest would be a big GR3 in overall DG/DSG sitting next to it. I might have suggested a P1127, but that'll go with my AV-8B+, first and end of the line.
  2. 1:32 Trumpeter Harrier GR.7

    Heh - l like the scrape mark under the door! Just where a boot might clamber. And just generally getting decals to fit their respective apertures isn't always as easy as it should be. I'm dreading fitting all the No Step markings to those dorsal panels on my Sea Vixen when the time comes. Though I have to ask about your lo-intensity formation light lenses (hate that term 'slime lights'). My last attempt at killing that awful bright yellow most decals see fit to provide came out a dull mustardy sort of shade, but yours look like a kind of intensified Sky which looks far better, and hints much more at the luminous green shade they light up to.
  3. At least when using Chrome browser, there is an English language option at the top of the page. Unless the Union Flag icon confuses some.
  4. Academy 1/48 Hawker Hunter help needed

    The Academy kit did look good compared to the previous Lindberg I had, and the Aeroclub aftermarket set did address the worst problems with the cockpit, wheels and tail cone shape. But nobody addressed the very un-fighter like fat nose the Academy posseses, which you either can or can't overlook. I couldn't so my Sapphire engined conversion still awaits They say you can't trust CAD views, but the new Airfix 1/48 one is looking really good, even after bearing in mind all the cut-and shuts their ancient 1/72 one needed.
  5. 1:32 Trumpeter Harrier GR.7

    It's looking really good so far John. I particularly like the way the fine details such as the riveting are there if you look, but don't distract from the overall view. Incidentally, I've continued looking at many other (mostly GR1 and GR3) models of Harrier in arctic camo, and there's a lot of blackish dirty scuffing showing up on the areas you'd expect wear and tear and ground crew access and soot from the jet, but that brown staining at the top wing panel joint seems fairly unique to those Harriers.
  6. 1/48 F-4 Phantom best kits

    That would be weird Larry, although I've seen similar comments about the Tamiya 1/32nd kit too. What's especially weird is trying to marry the larger diameter Spey rear end with the comparatively slimline J79 intakes. You have to ask WTF?
  7. 1/48 F-4 Phantom best kits

    I'm more impressed by getting shapes correct, otherwise we can end up with the well detailed Hobbyboss or Trumpeter travesties they produce when their A design team is otherwise engaged. On the other hand, the new Airfix F-4K seems to have conquered the major Spey Phantom deficiencies and got the shapes well represented, probably because they LIDAR scanned it, but skimped on the details of what might otherwise have been a definitive kit. Maybe they have a secondary details file for a more detailed future 1/48 version somewhere down the road. My Tamiya F-4J has rested in its box for too many years until I can figure out the least destructive way to sort out its back end. Your photos help a lot in that regard Richard. I'm fervently hoping that the anticipated 1/32 scale Tan model F-4E, also supposedly to be LIDAR produced, will result in the definitive J79 fuselage, at least in that scale. But as you say, it's a shame the ZM is in the one step forward, two steps back ballpark for a great 1/48 kit. I enjoy kit bashing a kit into a more accurate version of itself - once. But it gets tedious when you want a few for different colour schemes etc..
  8. Airfix 1/72 FG.1 Phantom

    Hard to tell (it may be the photo angle) but be careful that the fuel dump mast under the rudder doesn't protrude beyond the brake chute end cap. To fit RN carrier lifts, the overall length had to be drastically reduced.
  9. 1/48 F-4 Phantom best kits

    ... the slightly flattened short nose naval-based types being there to improve vision over the nose for carrier landings. My initial assumption would have been the gun nose transformation began at the radome break (on a short nose) but it seems that with the revised windscreen fairing and the revised ACS intake/fuselage blending, the conversion actually begins at the panel line touched by the apex of the intake warning chevron on the photo below. Never noticed that before, after 40-odd years of studying Phantoms I'll need to take a look for similar angles on RF-4Bs, Cs and Es now.
  10. New Airfix 1/72 F-4 Phantom FG.1

    Sorry Gene, I wish I knew of one already. Though to be frank, the Fujimi vents themselves are a little anaemic, and while better than nothing, aren't at all accurate in width, shape or layout. There was a concerted effort on LSP a few years ago to contribute and collate enough data for producing a replacement conversion for the over priced Cutting Edge Spey Phantom, but it didn't proceed when Hong Kong Models announced their 1/32 scale kit. But I still have copies of the intake measurement photos. I'm not sure if Jeffrey at Hypersonic uses CAD or old fashioned skill and craftsmanship but If your suggestion for him to consider issuing a Hypersonic replacement appeals to him, he's welcome to the data I have. I also have an ex-43 Sqn. FG1 30 miles away which was being resprayed in FAA colours before Christmas, so obtaining any further info required wouldn't be too difficult.
  11. New Airfix 1/72 F-4 Phantom FG.1

    Depending on how critical you are of shapes, the Fujimi (and Hasegawa 1/48) don't have sufficient 'shoulder' to them. Together with the forward rake of the intake lip and the downturned bottom lip, the Spey Phantom intake looks to have a 'cranked down' look which for me is a major characteristic. Airfix get the shape much more correct, but let it down by skimping on the details (louvers on the top and bottom and bleed hole pattern on the secondary ramp). Also, the rear fuselage underside should be straight-through, being just a cover over the engines, as below: but for some reason Fujimi has them showing a nipped in tuck, which spoils the lines for me. The Airfix and Fujimi kits are compared below, but the area was one of the things Matchbox did well on their 1975 kit. Gene, I haven't had the opportunity to compare pods yet, but my impression of the Fujimi EMI pod was it was a bit delicate looking, and I was likely to replace it with the sturdier looking Matchbox one when I got round to doing a recce squadron aircraft (if I can find it). The Airfix RN three-tier, two inch 36 shot rocket pods look good as long as they don't suffer from short-shots, which happened on one of my Airfix 1/48 Sea Vixens. The RN rocket pods are quite different to the two-tier SNEB pods the RAF used (not just on Phantoms), which weren't suitable for carrier use.
  12. New Airfix 1/72 F-4 Phantom FG.1

    The inaccuracy claim relates to the FGR2 fin, which - like the RF-4C - incorporated an HF antenna, which wasn't on the Navy FG1 (nor the ILS antenna). The differences are shown here . While in the vicinity, the ram air intake at the base of the fin leading edge also has a slight flare to the lip. not seen on J79 engined Phantoms. Regarding the intakes, the 'splitter plate' and secondary ramp are wider and includes an extra bay at its aft open end (on the underside, 4 instead of 3 as in the USAF one in the previous post) and the suction hole pattern is different to J79 versions. The intake vents are also wider than the J79 versions, with the ones on the underside also having a central brace for the louvers. The upper vents, again unlike J79 versions, are braced at the edge. Regarding the kit generally it has many good new features which are welcome on a Phantom kit, but disappoints with the omission of what to many are important details (the intake vents, engine bay vent, pylon detail, missile detail. Wheels too, although resin wheels are usually necessary). It's doubly frustrating when those omissions heve been successfully included on previous kits. I was hoping for a better quality kit to the highest modern standards, especially as it's likely the last 1/72 scale Spey Phantom we'll see for another 25 years (by which time I may not be up to kit modeling). It would have been nice to have something to hang those half dozen or so stashed Modeldecals on with a minimum of fuss to keep occupied until the HKM big one is released.
  13. Help needed: painting F-4E Tail Setion

    The smokeless J79s were part of the F-4S upgrade, Bill. And certainly at least some of the Greek AUP and Turkish Terminator 2020 F-4Es look very clean around the jet pipe area, whereas Japanese ones don't.
  14. F-4J 155858

    There was over a two year gap between the first F-4S conversion (July '77), and the first slatted F-4S appearing (Nov '79), as the 'S' upgrade was about more than just the slatted wing. (Digital radar, comms upgrade, ECM, engine upgrade) The main indicator is the presence of the formation (slime) lights. If it has those, it's an 'S', even if it's still awaiting the wing slat kit being fitted. The anomaly is the ones that were supplied to the RAF in 1984 were 'nearly' F-4Ss, but due to some UK specific mods, continued to be designated as F-4J(UK)s.
  15. Also, and possibly only for the first few blocks of F-4Cs, the anti glare panel was olive green rather than black.