rickmb

I am building the Grand Phoenix kit and I can tell you the PE fences are a pain. I ended up using them as a template for sheet plastic. I would have spent a few bucks on resin ones. I have another GP kit and a HB kit so I am interested.

No, they are not the same tanks. The tanks for the A-4 are also used on A-7's and A-6's. The F-18 tanks are unique. Rick

Come on Ben, get moving on it then. How about converting the J to an E to speed up a new E? Rick

There isn't a pylon. It connects directly to the centerline shackle. There is a rear connection point for the swing away brace. Sorry, I don't have a picture handy. Technically the tank is not a F-15 tank as the fuel pipes and tank lugs are different. Actually the original centerline didn't have a pylon either it was simply a streamlined cover around the tanks lugs. Rick

There was a HUD very early on but was eliminated due to ghosting issues. There is an article about it on the Internet if you search for "F-14 HUD". I do have a book that shows it in an illustration from a tech manual but no pictures. It certainly is an obscure fact. Rick

I'll chime in occasionally, especially on F-4s, F-15s, and F-16s. There's a couple of folks on here that have F-16s pretty much nailed so there isn't much else I could add. I've contemplated doing a master for the upper fuselage in resin but I'm not sure if it would go far enough to cure the ills of the Academy kit. Rick

Here is a shot five different kits. Fromt left to right: Hasegawa F-15C, Monogram F-15A, Revell F-15E, Academy F-15K, Academy F-15C Now for some thoughts. The Monogram kit is the only one that really nails the shape. True, the F-15A is slightly different at the rear of the speed brake. But the shape is correct and the fact that there isn't a speed brake well is correctly portrayed. The Revell is a close second. The spine of the brake and the area immediately behind the speed brake is a little too rounded. It should be a little more "pinched" and more subtle. The Hasegawa kits is a littl

Something to note is that the Paragon slats are deployed. Phantoms park with everything up. I can tell you from personal experience that working under one with everything down can be painful! To my eye they still don't quite capture that blunt leading edge of the real thing. Rick

Darren, The slats appear to look more like the ones on the F-4E/G than the ones on the S. The S slats have a bit more camber than the E slats which results in the leading edge having more "droop". This is more noticeable on the inboard slat. I do have some pics I took of the S on static display on the Midway I would be glad to share. Rick

Lots of things hanging down and sticking out of the bottom of a Phantom to reach out and "bite" you. The worst I saw was a friend of mine split open his head on a lowered flap. 8 or so stitches. Except for maintenance, the flaps were always up. Its very difficult to load the rear AIM-7s with the flaps down. BTW, if flaps are down, slats are extended. Rick

Hmmm...let me pull out my kits....Yup, raised panel lines. Are you thinking of their 1/72 scale kits? Rick

Don't waste your money. I bought one and the cockpit panels are pretty much worthless. Undefined detail and out of scale parts are prevalent throughout. The best cockpit in 1/72 is the one in the Monogram F-4C/D kit. Rick

I have pics of 336th F-4Es from when I was stationed there back in the late 80s if you are interested. I took a whole series of cockpit and airframe pics. The Revell kit really fell down on the cockpit, it is totally off in proportions and accuracy. Email me directly at rickmb(at)aol.com Rick

Wings are standard Hill II. I think I have a decal sheet with this scheme in 1/72 from way back. This scheme was tried on the Ds and Es at Bergstrom and was tried on the RFs too I believe. Rick

Hi Ben, I'm pretty sure they were painted 34079 or something close. Actually 14079 worn down to 24079 would be closer to the mark. Gloss paints tend to be more intense and "look" darker than flats. There was some shade variation too. Rick