Richard J

I haven't heard anything about the Tan model F-4E. Totally ignorant about that! I'm more of a short nosed Phantom guy, but I'll keep an eye open for that. It's a funny thing with F-4s, but there are quite a few kits that are most certainly "fat", and it's odd that it keeps happening. I was disappointed with the Tamiya not just because the rear fuselage has a similar problem (although not quite as bad) as the Z-M, but also because the intake shoulders are located too high, which leads to a slab sided fuselage and a spine that is too shallow. The Z-M has that same problem, and it jus

Chek, you're probably about right with regard to where the nose extension starts on the F-4E. That's around F.S. 80 on the McDonnell drawings, and is where the major changes start happening. The drawings show that the RF-4 is almost identical to the E on the topside of the nose, so I would expect the forward canopy/fuselage joint to be the same as the E, rather than the B/C/D/J. I got my hands on the Z-M F-4 today (again). Then gave it back! Wow, that's a real oddity. In my opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (where 1 is the worst F-4 kit ever made, and 10 is a scaled down version of the r

I think these two photographs show what's going on quite well. The aspect is slightly different, but that doesn't change the relative dimensions. I think that if the F-4E had that same flatspot on the fuselage at the 12 o'clock position as the short nosed F-4s, they'd be very similar. As it is, the F-4E fuselage is more consistently rounded, and therefore 3 or 4 inches of metal and plexiglass that are visible on the B/C/D/J/S aren't visible on the E/F/RF. These are not my photos by the way. Just posting for reference purposes. Richard J

I think the fact that so many kits have the same canopy parts for both the short nose and long nose F-4s is quite telling about kit accuracy. If the plexiglass bits are the same, then something else has to be wrong in order for them to fit properly. Nothing is perfect, but still, I kinda WANT one of the kit manufacturers to get it just right!

His depiction of the forward canopy is very good. Think about it... the nose of the F-4E is different than the F-4C (longer, no flattening on top just forward of the canopy), so how could the windscreen / quarter panels possibly look exactly the same? Well, actually, they are the same shaped parts, it's just that the F-4E nose covers up a little more of them than the F-4B/C/D/J nose does. That black bit on the F-4J photo that MoFo linked to - that's the bit (plus a little more) that the F-4E nose obscures.

Hi Jeffrey, Yeah, sorry about the ambiguity with the drawing references. Several sets of McDonnell drawings made their way around the web a while ago. The best quality ones that I have are either drawn by V L Morris (inboard profiles), or approved by "A Thomas" (Loft sheets). I totally understand your comments about converting drawings to CAD. I've been in the 3D modelling business for going on 25 years. I guess that's part of why I find this stuff a little frustrating. For all the things they got so right on the Z-M F-4, it's hard to believe that someone didn't take a

Thanks Scooby. It's not that I'm a total freak about accuracy (well, I probably am!), it's just that I think there should really be a GREAT F-4 kit out there by now. Several have come close, but so far there's always been something to let them down. A bit of a shame really. Here's another Phantom Photo. This one shows the angle of those little vents quite well, but also, note the curvature of the fuselage around the "NAVY" lettering. The F-4 fuselage is quite a bit more curvaceous than most of the kit manufacturers depict it. In actual fact, there are almost no flat bits on the sid

Hi JeffreyK, sorry for the late reply. I see your point about the tail end of the Academy, but I don't find it to be all that objectionable on a finished model. It just doesn't show up all that much in my opinion. The point I was making about the accuracy of the Academy fuselage is really just about the curves forward of the engine nozzles. Almost all F-4 kits get that area surprisingly wrong, most veering towards the Z-M problem. I'd say that the 1/32 Tamiya F-4 and the Z-M are the worst offenders, with both being very "chunky". Other kits have different kinds of problems in that same ar

While I'm a bit of a lurker, this subject is quite interesting to me, so I'll venture out from beneath my bridge to comment! The Academy mid/rear fuselage is, in my opinion, the most accurate of all. I suspect that they actually 3D scanned the real thing, because the shape is really very accurate. Most manufacturers don't reproduce the slightly bulged sides of the intake, instead making the sides a straight vertical line, which isn't correct. So shape wise I think Academy is best in that department, but of course there are other issues. Aside from the length of the canopies, the ce

Yep, that's right, it's just the outer half of the port side stab. I haven't seen any other details of this incident, but it's not good. The perspective makes it difficult to judge, but it LOOKS like the detached stab is closer to the camera than the aircraft.

I'm guessing the F-4J in this photo probably could have done with some kind of reinforcement there!

It seems to me that there was a lot of variation on the navy Phantoms stabilators. A shallow rectangular "notch" of white at the end of the torque box skin is apparent on a lot of aircraft, and it's not limited to any particular time frame that I can see. As regards to the triangular shaped reinforcer that was normally seen on later USAF aircraft, the following photos show something a bit more like that. Sort of…

I'm pretty sure I've got a photo of a post-Vietnam F-4B with the reinforcement plate. If memory serves, it's a VF-32 jet. I think. As Rex said, it's probably down to being a USAF replacement part, but the photo I'm thinking of was definitely taken after the Vietnam war.

Thanks Scott. It seems quite a few people haven't actually read that text yet. The only thing that got me wondering about which scale the presented model was in is that while the surface looks a little rough, the ejection handles were very cleanly done, which I guess just made it look a little bit like a larger model to me.

Are those photos of the 1/48 or 1/32 kit? I'm guessing 1/48. Looks pretty good from what I can see here. I'm a bit of a Phantom accuracy nut, so I'm sure this is going to provide quite a lot of entertainment!