Academy F-4B details... Or where they keep going wrong!

[Incaroad]

@ dehowie,

I doubt the small percentage of people that read this thread and don't buy this kit due to the problems we are finding will make a dent in total numbers sold. Don't worry about more Phantom II's being produced, Academy will produce all the versions that the basic kit will adapt too. Next up will likely be a decal change to an "N" then onto a "C" "D," and so on and so forth... Just a guess at how it will go.

The nicest thing about this kit is; the overall outline of it is very accurate as I've helped to illustrate (the nose issue from the beginning for one). The details are where there are corrections to be made if one chooses to make the corrections. That is what I'm pointing out and I'm sure that 99.9% of the modeling population could care less if some of the things I'm pointing out are there, but .1% might find what is being found helpful.

I do appreciate your point of view though and hope that what is found to be wrong on this kit doesn't alter your buying one. Depending on how it cuts up, I may use the Academy kit to make a VX-5 F4H-1 with the S shaped intake instead of using the Hasegawa "J" kit that is suggested in the Cutting Edge conversion. More to come on that later.

Take a look at the photo below; Academy lines are red, and as the lines were measured and should be are black. I didn't highlight the Academy Slat attachment point in red they are still white. Oh, look at how well the pieces to the tail-end mate up! That is outstanding machine work and will likely prove to assemble very nicely.

Where the Academy stab starts going strange is inside the accurate outside shape. We've already discussed the attachment points of the slat so we won't rehash. Here are some issues that are pretty important for some, others maybe not so much.

1. The heat-resistant natural metal area is not far enough down the stabilizer.

2. Where the actual center section is doesn't match up to the pivot.

3. If you put the center section, from the measurements I took, where it should be, it's still not centered in the pivot area but it is closer.

This part of the Phantom II has been discussed at length many times before and how important it is to get right. From the natural metal colors used (light to dark, dark to light) too their size and actual locations. The Academy kit has, without a doubt the most accurate stabilizer OUTLINE of all the kits. I thought the Monogram part was the best, and it was, until the Academy kit was introduced; however The Monogram stabilizer outline is not accurate for a slotted stab; fill the slot and it would be accurate for a non-slotted stab.

What to do, what to do.

How I'm going to correct this, more to come later.

Cheers

Larry McCarley

21045

Edited January 5, 2013 by Incaroad

[randypandy831]

it looks like AN f-4 so im happy.

there's no 100% accurate kit but close. if i can't see the inaccuracies then im totally fine.

[Incaroad]

This is an interesting detail for the stabilizer.

Wonder what it's actual function is (stiffens the end maybe) and how they came to the conclusion it was needed.

Not that anyone would notice them on a 1/48th scale model but I think I will add them to the stabilizer just to see if anyone notices them.

Cheers once again

Larry McCarley

21045

[Gene K]

Now, I keep running through my mind, how am I going to fix the slotted stabilator.

Shouldn't take one of the enterprising resin companies/individuals too long to cash in - there's plenty of great info in this thread from Larry to get them started!

Gene K

[Darren Roberts]

That stab reinforcement thingamabobby (yes, I used thingamabobby!) is quite unique. Hopefully someone will be able to say exactly what its purpose was. Thanks for the pictures.

[Gene K]

Wonder what it's actual function is (stiffens the end maybe) and how they came to the conclusion it was needed.

It's a vortex generator and reinforcement.

As an aside, when the F-4E came into USAF service with the slotted stab (around 1966), there were stabs drug on the runway - the airplane rotated quicker than previous models because the stab was more effective with the inverted airfoil and slots ... and pilots didn't initially anticipate that. The airplane could be flown off the runway (as in leading a formation takeoff), or the stick could be held back full and rotated forward as the nose rose, stabilizing at 10 degrees pitch until the airplane flew itself off. In either case, the E model required a mental adjustment to keep the stab off the runway - the tattle tale strips on the underside of the stab absorbed scraping the stab itself.

Gene K

Edited January 5, 2013 by Gene K

[PlasticWeapons]

I think the Hasegawa British Phantoms have that detail, Larry. When I get home I can take a photo of the kit parts.

[Gene K]

Some possible good news as regards making the intakes seamless:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=259089&view=findpost&p=2457153

Gene K

[Incaroad]

When the F-4E came into USAF service with the slotted stab (around 1966), there were stabs drug on the runway - the airplane rotated quicker than previous models because the stab was more effective with the inverted airfoil and slots ... and pilots didn't initially anticipate that. The airplane could be flown off the runway (as in leading a formation takeoff), or the stick could be held back full and rotated forward as the nose rose, stabilizing at 10 degrees pitch until the airplane flew itself off. In either case, the E model required a mental adjustment to keep the stab off the runway - the tattle tale strips on the underside of the stab absorbed scraping the stab itself.

Gene K

Well there ya go! So would you feel the scrape or is there a warning light that tells you that you just "dragged your stabilizer, so put your nose down a little bit?"

Learn more about this aircraft everyday!

Thank you for the information.

Cheers

Larry McCarley

21045

[Incaroad]

I think the Hasegawa British Phantoms have that detail, Larry. When I get home I can take a photo of the kit parts.

Sounds great Ryan, looking forward to see that!

Cheers

Larry McCarley

21045

[seawinder]

Slotted stabs were retrofitted to the B so you have to check the year of the markings you will use whether you use them or not. And you didn't mention the big gaps around the exhaust which is very difficult to fix if they are the same diameter as aftermarket (meaning the fault lies in the fuselage) to me is a Major issue. Nor did you mention the environmental air intake issue. What year did the Hasegawa B kit hit the market? Even though it has old tool technology details, at least it still holds with correct shape. Hasegawa has retooled their J with recessed panel lines, too bad they didn't also redo their B. I would consider rescribing their B wings and use the J fuselage before I got rid of them. At least it wouldn't have these typical Academy shape and detail issues. Believe me, I wish it had no issues like these discussed in this thread.

Does the Academy kit provide both slotted and unslotted stabs, or just the former?

[Incaroad]

Does the Academy kit provide both slotted and unslotted stabs, or just the former?

Both are included in the kit.

Cheers

Larry McCarley

21045

[jynski]

[Gene K]

So would you feel the scrape or is there a warning light that tells you that you just "dragged your stabilizer,

No light or cockpit indication as it happened very quickly and not violently ... but the crew chiefs did give their indications after engine shut down. The different models all had their own flying idiosyncrasies.

I think you should offer your "stab material" to some of the AfterMarket folks to get them started ASAP.

Gene K

[PlasticWeapons]

Uh huh.

[sweier]

This is interesting to me. First off, I'm not trying to knock what you said. I'm really curious and would like some clarification. You said you weren't a dedicated Phantom enthusiast, but that since reading this thread, you won't spend the money on the kit because you wouldn't be satisfied just building it. You also said that Phantoms don't enthuse you enough to make the changes. If Phantoms aren't your passion, than why would the errors bother you so much that you wouldn't build this kit? It's an absolutely beautiful model that turns into a fine representation of a Phantom. Also, not being a Phantom enthusiast, if you hadn't read this thread, would you have even known the mistakes in the kit? And not knowing, would you have purchased it and enjoyed the build? Again, I'm not trying to call you out or be contrary. I'm trying to understand a seeming contradiction. I could fully understand if you were passionate about the Phantom, but it seems that you're not. Thanks for any clarification you can give.

Easy. I like to feel my models look *right*, even when I don't know every detail. There's now a long list of screw ups. If I built it, and shelved it, I'd be forever wishing I'd fixed the issues which (as I'm not fanatical about Phantoms) I wouldn't have the drive to do. Forewarned, I won't start.

There are dozens of kits I'd rather build under that condition. Some may even be worse, but I don't know that yet!

Shane

[dehowie]

I agree Darren and think the original poster looks extremely knowledgable on the Phantom in fact far more than myself.

However maybe a slightly less malicious title and tone in the posts would make it appear more helpful than simply bashing.

I enjoy posts pointing out errors and fixes.

It works and helps everyone.

With this title and the result above people clearly saying they will not buy it is simply an indicator of the malicious tone of the post.

It may not be his intent but it is the result..

[jynski]

Uh huh.

I like that.

[RockRiver]

Same B.S that was started on Z-5. Every kit that comes out is a piece of crap, according to the experts. As some one said above. it makes into a fine representation of an f-4. it is not an identical 1:1. stuff happens. most modellers are not going to worry about the stabs, or the 5 degree off refueling probe. If that is the case, don't buy it! a model is a representation, it's pretty darn close or it's not even close. Everything has flaws.

If you don't want it or can't live with it, send it to me. I think the academy f-4 is the best kit out there as is the AFV with it's "strange" shape someone complained about. I read these forums to see what problems were encountered with the building and the fit. i could give a rats backside if the refuleing probe is slightly in the wrong place. If it's not in a contest, who's going to know? Oh , the one building it. Fine, if your that much a purest, then i don't think modeling is a good hobby for you.

Just MY opinion!

I do not mind minor flaws with a kit that are barely noticable at all, but some things on the Academy F-4 just will look strange if not adressed - so the IFR door is not just slightly in the wrong place but would not be able to clear the intake ramp during opening. That is noticable. As are the 'slim' a/c intakes or the stabilator's demarcation line between natural metal and the painted area. This could look strange on a finished model.

Academy's solution to the intake trunking is disappointing too - and very noticable. (Though easier to correct because there is some trunking at least, not just a wall as the Hase kits have.

The Academy F-4 isn't bad, it's rather that I expected them to do a little better than this.

[Richard J]

@ dehowie,

I doubt the small percentage of people that read this thread and don't buy this kit due to the problems we are finding will make a dent in total numbers sold. Don't worry about more Phantom II's being produced, Academy will produce all the versions that the basic kit will adapt too. Next up will likely be a decal change to an "N" then onto a "C" "D," and so on and so forth... Just a guess at how it will go.

The nicest thing about this kit is; the overall outline of it is very accurate as I've helped to illustrate (the nose issue from the beginning for one). The details are where there are corrections to be made if one chooses to make the corrections. That is what I'm pointing out and I'm sure that 99.9% of the modeling population could care less if some of the things I'm pointing out are there, but .1% might find what is being found helpful.

I do appreciate your point of view though and hope that what is found to be wrong on this kit doesn't alter your buying one. Depending on how it cuts up, I may use the Academy kit to make a VX-5 F4H-1 with the S shaped intake instead of using the Hasegawa "J" kit that is suggested in the Cutting Edge conversion. More to come on that later.

Take a look at the photo below; Academy lines are red, and as the lines were measured and should be are black. I didn't highlight the Academy Slat attachment point in red they are still white. Oh, look at how well the pieces to the tail-end mate up! That is outstanding machine work and will likely prove to assemble very nicely.

Where the Academy stab starts going strange is inside the accurate outside shape. We've already discussed the attachment points of the slat so we won't rehash. Here are some issues that are pretty important for some, others maybe not so much.

1. The heat-resistant natural metal area is not far enough down the stabilizer.

2. Where the actual center section is doesn't match up to the pivot.

3. If you put the center section, from the measurements I took, where it should be, it's still not centered in the pivot area but it is closer.

This part of the Phantom II has been discussed at length many times before and how important it is to get right. From the natural metal colors used (light to dark, dark to light) too their size and actual locations. The Academy kit has, without a doubt the most accurate stabilizer OUTLINE of all the kits. I thought the Monogram part was the best, and it was, until the Academy kit was introduced; however The Monogram stabilizer outline is not accurate for a slotted stab; fill the slot and it would be accurate for a non-slotted stab.

What to do, what to do.

How I'm going to correct this, more to come later.

Cheers

Larry McCarley

21045

Good stuff, Larry.

Hopefully, someone will release a PE set that includes the stab pivot / attachment point, then we can just sand off the raised detail on the kit and replace it with a better representation of the real thing. The stab itself is certainly more of a problem. It seems to me that filling all the surface detail and rescribing would be the only way to correct the bigger issues. It's either that, wait for a resin replacement, or live with it as it is. Personally, I think the kit is basically so good that it's well worth correcting the mistakes, so (since my rescribing skills are less than good!), I'm going to wait for a month or two and see what resin bits come to market. Who knows, maybe someone will release some nice resin aircon inlets and Mk.5 seats too.

Richard

[Richard J]

Same B.S that was started on Z-5. Every kit that comes out is a piece of crap, according to the experts. As some one said above. it makes into a fine representation of an f-4. it is not an identical 1:1. stuff happens. most modellers are not going to worry about the stabs, or the 5 degree off refueling probe. If that is the case, don't buy it! a model is a representation, it's pretty darn close or it's not even close. Everything has flaws.

If you don't want it or can't live with it, send it to me. I think the academy f-4 is the best kit out there as is the AFV with it's "strange" shape someone complained about. I read these forums to see what problems were encountered with the building and the fit. i could give a rats backside if the refuleing probe is slightly in the wrong place. If it's not in a contest, who's going to know? Oh , the one building it. Fine, if your that much a purest, then i don't think modeling is a good hobby for you.

Just MY opinion!

Sorry, but this stuff is nonsense. Why would you buy the Academy kit rather than the Hasegawa kit? Why would you buy the Hasegawa kit rather than the Monogram kit? Why the Monogram rather than the old ESCI kit? The reason is simple... because you want something better. Maybe all YOU wanted was a recessed panel line F-4B (accuracy be damned!), and that's fine. But if everyone was like you, there would be no point in Academy releasing a new F-4J or F-4E, because we've already got recessed panel line kits of those aircraft. Where do you get off telling people that they should all want what you want? Are you going to complain about people painting their Academy F-4's next? I mean, Academy moulded it in color, right? According to you, shouldn't we all just be happy with what Academy gave us?

None of the "experts" have said the kit is "crap". No one who's bought it said that they "don't want it or can't live with it". This is a thread about the details, about improving an already great kit, and solving a few issues. If that's too much for you to take in, start your own thread about your by-the-numbers out-of-the-box builds. For you, I'd recommend '80s vintage Matchbox kits, because they mostly had recessed panel lines, and were moulded in color!

This is a hobby, damn it! People can make of it whatever they want. If you don't like this kind of thread, do yourself and everyone else a favour, and STAY OUT OF IT.

Just MY opinion.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Richard J

[dragonlance]

This is a thread about the details, about improving an already great kit, and solving a few issues. If that's too much for you to take in, start your own thread about your by-the-numbers out-of-the-box builds.

Hear, hear. No one is forced to read or participate in this thread. I for one cherish all of the information given in this and similar topics.

Vedran

[Netz]

I agree Darren and think the original poster looks extremely knowledgable on the Phantom in fact far more than myself.

However maybe a slightly less malicious title and tone in the posts would make it appear more helpful than simply bashing.

I enjoy posts pointing out errors and fixes.

It works and helps everyone.

With this title and the result above people clearly saying they will not buy it is simply an indicator of the malicious tone of the post.

It may not be his intent but it is the result..

There is no way to sugar coat a critique of a kit or part,if it's wrong it's wrong,I don't think the title sets the tone of what Larry has been writing, most of the negative or malicious talk on this thread has come from the other posters.

Take the research Larry is providing and use it,or not.

I don't like adding these types of responses but these comments are ruining this thread, it's happened to me here on these boards in the past and it's very frustrating.

I can't wait till you get to the Stabs, If anyone doubts what attention to detail can do for a model, you need to see Elmo's F-4J that Larry has referred to (I'll post pictures and link to them once I find them), And you might want to find shots of Larry's own work, his attention to detail and craftsmanship is something allot of us modelers strive for.

Curt

[Laurent]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[JeffreyK]

Improved resin stabs are already in the works, followed by other stuff for the kit. Hopefully more details soon.

Cheers

Jeffrey