1/32 F-4E Chico the Gunfighter

[Devilleader501]

I am probably getting this wrong but your soft lines look to me more like hard lines. The transition between the two greens look like soft lines to my eye but the transition to the tan color seems to indicate a hard line. At this scale I am sure it's hard to find a happy medium. Do you sand or scuff the paint any after you shoot. Reason why I ask is because some of the lines look sharp to me but then again some of of them look soft. I am a little more curious as to your method of camouflage because I have been trying this technique for a while and have yet to come up with anything close to what you have here.

I can hard line like a mad man but when it comes to soft lines I have no idea so please enlighten me. I have tried raised masks with blue tack till I am blue in the face but come up with results that are hard lines at one point then soft at another. What painting technique do you use and at what point do you spray as far as angle to the mask itself and what distance.

Keep up the great work I am really looking forward to seeing more.

[chuck540z3]

I am probably getting this wrong but your soft lines look to me more like hard lines. The transition between the two greens look like soft lines to my eye but the transition to the tan color seems to indicate a hard line. At this scale I am sure it's hard to find a happy medium.

Hi Josh,

I'm not Marcel, but what you see is sort of correct, but it's still accurate. The contrast between the greens and tan color is so strong, the demarcation line looks sharp. Using a few of Scott Wilson's pics in my build, check out the green to green line, which is kind of fuzzy, vs. the green to tan line, which is quite sharp.....

Also, like any free-hand paint job, no two jets are identical and the details will vary quite a bit.

Cheers,

Chuck

BTW, Marcel, you're doing a great job!

[Scott R Wilson]

Guys, thanks for the encouragement and Scott, those pics are REALLY useful!

Scott, here is what I am talking about with respect to the surface behind the intake... seems to me there is often times substantial touch-up going on here:

Marcel

I see it now, the color differences were too subtle for me to see at first. Here's one thing you might consider: frequently the correct colors of paint for touchups weren't available in spray cans so the crew chiefs used what they could find that was close. At Ramstein we couldn't get 30219, 34079 or 34102 in a spray can, those colors weren't even listed in the GSA catalog in spray cans (I looked), but they could get 14087 gloss dark olive (which was relabeled 14084 in the 1990s when FS595B came out). Guess what they used for touchups? You can see some on the right wing over the wheel well in my photos that Chuck reposted.

Here's a recce from Zweibrucken that I photographed late one afternoon at Ramstein, notice just how much the touchups don't match? I don't know if they had the same issues with paint in the Vietnam days, but I'd suspect they did. See if you can find photos showing weathered Phantoms from that time, they might give you some more interesting effects to work with.

Edited July 25, 2014 by Scott R Wilson

[Finn]

Here is one that looks to be touched up in the field:

http://www.sharpshooter-maj.com/Images/twtd02/f4011a.jpg

Jari

[Scott R Wilson]

Here is one that looks to be touched up in the field:

http://www.sharpshooter-maj.com/Images/twtd02/f4011a.jpg

Jari

THAT'S what I'm talkin' 'bout!!! Probably less extreme than some, too.

[chuck540z3]

Finn (Jari) and Scott Wilson helping out on your build Marcel. I am SO jealous!

[Finn]

In later years paint touch up improved, somewhat:

http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1988/DF-ST-88-06859.jpeg

http://media.nara.gov/stillpix/330-cfd/1983/DF-ST-83-04025.jpeg

Jari

[Check Six]

Phabulous Phantom tech here!

Just like chuck's Phantom build; There's tech here that can be used by phellow Phantom phans.

[Finn]

Couple more Vietnam F-4 pics, problem masking the radome:

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/6c7c5ce772935769_large

Replacement panel paint sometimes not matching:

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/c8e5ad788b474dbe_large

Jari

[Check Six]

Couple more Vietnam F-4 pics, problem masking the radome:

http://www.gstatic.c...772935769_large

Replacement panel paint sometimes not matching:

http://www.gstatic.c...88b474dbe_large

Jari

Awesome!

It's stuff like this that gives a model or diorama character.

Thanks for sharing!

[Marcel111]

I'm not Marcel, but what you see is sort of correct, but it's still accurate. The contrast between the greens and tan color is so strong, the demarcation line looks sharp. Using a few of Scott Wilson's pics in my build, check out the green to green line, which is kind of fuzzy, vs. the green to tan line, which is quite sharp.....

Chuck, glad to see you've got my back And yes, it's awesome having Jari and Scott drop in for some serious research and reference.

I first noticed how entirely inconsistent soft edges of camos almost always are when I studies pics of Alaska F-16's (future build). Those jets are generally pristine but even their camo is inconsistent, some of the camo demarcations are almost hard edge and on other sections of the aircraft they will be softer.

I can hard line like a mad man but when it comes to soft lines I have no idea so please enlighten me. I have tried raised masks with blue tack till I am blue in the face but come up with results that are hard lines at one point then soft at another. What painting technique do you use and at what point do you spray as far as angle to the mask itself and what distance

Josh,

I think the good news is that you can give yourself a little leeway because the real thing is very definitely not particularly consistent. I use the method as previously shown in a post, the mast is suspended about 1/4 to 1/8 of an inch above the surface to be painted. Angle the airbrush just a little away from the mask,never angle into the mask. If you have high contrast colors, you will need to mask closer than if the colors are less contrasted. Also, set the pressure relatively low. I am also very conservative when I do this, I just do small sections at a time and for right angles I may off one of the surfaces with tape and do that surface seperately.

I see it now, the color differences were too subtle for me to see at first. Here's one thing you might consider: frequently the correct colors of paint for touchups weren't available in spray cans so the crew chiefs used what they could find that was close. At Ramstein we couldn't get 30219, 34079 or 34102 in a spray can, those colors weren't even listed in the GSA catalog in spray cans (I looked), but they could get 14087 gloss dark olive (which was relabeled 14084 in the 1990s when FS595B came out). Guess what they used for touchups? You can see some on the right wing over the wheel well in my photos that Chuck reposted.

Here's a recce from Zweibrucken that I photographed late one afternoon at Ramstein, notice just how much the touchups don't match? I don't know if they had the same issues with paint in the Vietnam days, but I'd suspect they did. See if you can find photos showing weathered Phantoms from that time, they might give you some more interesting effects to work with.

Thanks for those outstanding references! I plan on doing a Vietnam F-4D one day and will go over the top with weathering that. My Vietnam Marine F-4J will also look seriously worn. For Chico, I think I'll keep things as they are right now, period pics generally show 366TFW jets to look weathered but not as worn as some of the other Phantoms.

I'm getting very close to throwing on the decals but still have to do some details, such as the red leading edges of the pylons. BTW some pics show Chico to have camo colored pylon leading edges, whereas other (I presume later) pics (e.g. the head-on view shown at the beginning of this thread) show what looks like red leading edges. Have a look at the Chico pics on this LSP thread to see what I am talking about:

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=31113

Marcel

[Scott R Wilson]

Thanks for those outstanding references! I plan on doing a Vietnam F-4D one day and will go over the top with weathering that. My Vietnam Marine F-4J will also look seriously worn. For Chico, I think I'll keep things as they are right now, period pics generally show 366TFW jets to look weathered but not as worn as some of the other Phantoms.

I'm getting very close to throwing on the decals but still have to do some details, such as the red leading edges of the pylons. BTW some pics show Chico to have camo colored pylon leading edges, whereas other (I presume later) pics (e.g. the head-on view shown at the beginning of this thread) show what looks like red leading edges. Have a look at the Chico pics on this LSP thread to see what I am talking about:

http://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?showtopic=31113

Marcel

Is it for sure that it was always the same tail number flying the "Chico" sorties? If so that would be extremely unusual. Normal ops have different tail numbers scheduled each day in order to keep the hours on each airframe in the unit relatively close to the same . It would seem more likely that a different tail number was assigned to Chico sorties either daily or at least quite often. Believe me, the convenience of uploading the gun pods and centerline tank on to a particular tail number and leaving them there instead of downloading them from one jet in the evening and uploading a different jet would never enter into the equation.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Scott R Wilson

[Scott R Wilson]

Is it for sure that it was always the same tail number flying the "Chico" sorties? If so that would be extremely unusual. Normal ops have different tail numbers scheduled each day in order to keep the hours on each airframe in the unit relatively close to the same . It would seem more likely that a different tail number was assigned to Chico sorties either daily or at least quite often. Believe me, the convenience of uploading the gun pods and centerline tank on to a particular tail number and leaving them there instead of downloading them from one jet in the evening and uploading a different jet would never enter into the equation.

To expand on my previous post, inboard pylons were rarely removed, so given the normal way of scheduling different tail numbers from day to day I think it is far more likely the Chico with camo pylon leading edges and the Chico with red were two different tail numbers rather than the same jet repainted or with changed out pylons.

Just for trivia, the tail number/ sortie scheduling at least during my time on the Phantom was done by a group called Plans and Scheduling, more commonly referred to as "Dreams and Schemes".

Edited July 26, 2014 by Scott R Wilson

[Marcel111]

Is it for sure that it was always the same tail number flying the "Chico" sorties? If so that would be extremely unusual. Normal ops have different tail numbers scheduled each day in order to keep the hours on each airframe in the unit relatively close to the same . It would seem more likely that a different tail number was assigned to Chico sorties either daily or at least quite often. Believe me, the convenience of uploading the gun pods and centerline tank on to a particular tail number and leaving them there instead of downloading them from one jet in the evening and uploading a different jet would never enter into the equation

Based on what I have read, Chico was a unique aircraft. But then again, who knows for sure. I have also read that Chico ALWAYS flew with the Gun Pod/CBU configuration but I have a pic showing a Phantom with external gun pod and Snakeyes on the inboard pylon (cannot make out more of the Phantom in the pic so not sure if this is or is not Chico). I also have a pic of a 366TFW F-4E loaded with six Mk.20's... when I often read that Chico was the only AF Phantom with Mk.20's.

One thing that does however indicate that Chico was unique is that all the pics I have of Chico show the red trim around the cockpit to have a squared off front, which was unusual for 366TFW jets.

Marcel

[Scott R Wilson]

Based on what I have read, Chico was a unique aircraft. But then again, who knows for sure. I have also read that Chico ALWAYS flew with the Gun Pod/CBU configuration but I have a pic showing a Phantom with external gun pod and Snakeyes on the inboard pylon (cannot make out more of the Phantom in the pic so not sure if this is or is not Chico). I also have a pic of a 366TFW F-4E loaded with six Mk.20's... when I often read that Chico was the only AF Phantom with Mk.20's.

One thing that does however indicate that Chico was unique is that all the pics I have of Chico show the red trim around the cockpit to have a squared off front, which was unusual for 366TFW jets.

:cheers:/>

Marcel

I've read the same stuff, but I suspect the info is incorrect. Only one F-4E in the whole USAF inventory certified to carry Mk.20s? That's extremely unlikely. Or maybe all F-4Es were certified but that one jet is the only one that carried them operationally? I also find that implausible.

I guess it'd be nice to be able to see all the existent photos of "Chico" in one place so we could compare camouflage patterns and perhaps verify it was just one tail number. I still bet they used multiple tail numbers.

[Scott R Wilson]

I've read the same stuff, but I suspect the info is incorrect. Only one F-4E in the whole USAF inventory certified to carry Mk.20s? That's extremely unlikely. Or maybe all F-4Es were certified but that one jet is the only one that carried them operationally? I also find that implausible.

I guess it'd be nice to be able to see all the existent photos of "Chico" in one place so we could compare camouflage patterns and perhaps verify it was just one tail number. I still bet they used multiple tail numbers.

I just spent a bit of time re-reading all the stuff online I could find about Chico. It does seem several people claim it was just one F-4E, 68-0339, that was modified in the field for this role. Color me still skeptical though, there are just too many problems with that scenario. Field modified by who, the squadron electricians or weapons weenies? How did they get engineering approvals? Why just one aircraft, what happened when 339 went down for maintenance issues? Everyone who ever worked on an F-4 would tell you that was a likely happening!

I know it was wartime but it just doesn't make sense to me. From what I know, such modifications are always proofed at the Depot level because of potential problems local guys just might not know even would exist with the changes, so did Ogden ALC, AMA, or whatever they called it back then modify one of their birds first to prove the safety of this modification? I know what Wertz and some of the other people who claimed to have met the original crew chief, loaders, et cetera said, but it just doesn't seem likely to be a completely true story. If you told me all F-4Es COULD carry SUU-23s on the weapons pylon and this airplane alone was so loaded, I could believe that. But one-off field wiring modifications done at local level with no engineering, tests and approval from Ogden? Not likely, based on my experience.

But in the context of this model, none of that is important. Marcel, please carry on!

Scott W.

[Finn]

Scott, what i can gather is the F-4E was cleared to carry SUU-16/23 gun pods on the c/l and o/b pylons so there wouldn't be mods required, the mechanical and electrical connections would be on the bomb rack. Just train the crews to load them onto the a/c, & load the ammo into them. Which brings up an interesting problem, the pods were loaded with ammo from the right side so the main gear might be in the way of the pod on the left pylon. As for the Rockeyes about the only mod would be to load the weapon delivery ballistics into the weapon computer. Back to the gun pods, here was a one time config that was used, 5 SUU-23s on a F-4E:

http://366th-tfw.net/index73-images/P3344859a.jpg

the Wing Commander flew it.

Jari

[LanceR21]

Such a clean work ! Love the paint job !

Cheers,

Nenad

[Scott R Wilson]

Double post, don't know how that happened, see the next one below...

Edited July 31, 2014 by Scott R Wilson

[Scott R Wilson]

Scott, what i can gather is the F-4E was cleared to carry SUU-16/23 gun pods on the c/l and o/b pylons so there wouldn't be mods required, the mechanical and electrical connections would be on the bomb rack. Just train the crews to load them onto the a/c, & load the ammo into them. Which brings up an interesting problem, the pods were loaded with ammo from the right side so the main gear might be in the way of the pod on the left pylon. As for the Rockeyes about the only mod would be to load the weapon delivery ballistics into the weapon computer. Back to the gun pods, here was a one time config that was used, 5 SUU-23s on a F-4E:

http://366th-tfw.net/index73-images/P3344859a.jpg

the Wing Commander flew it.

Jari

You pretty much confirmed what I thought, that the "field wiring changes to one aircraft" were nothing more than urban legend. The unit evidently acquired the SUU-23 pods and hung them on the jet(s) ready to rock and roll. As to the Rockeyes, fwiw my old ANG unit flew them on F-4Cs in 1980-81, the 149TFG was tasked with a mission called TASMO, Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations. It's easy to think either the ballistics testing had already been done before "Chico" or the unit got the ballistics data from the Marines they acquired the bombs from. I don't know what all was involved with programming the bombing computer but I'm sure it was relatively easily done. Thanks for your info, Jari!

[Finn]

Scott it's quite possible all the data for the Rockeye, and other weapons, were already stored in the bombing computer since the Phantom was a Navy plane and the Mk-20 was a common Navy weapon. Most likely it was easier to install all the software for all current weapons rather than individual ones. The aircrew just probably had to find the right pages in the book for the settings to accurately delivery them.

Jari

[Marcel111]

Nenad, thanks for staying with this thread. Jari, Scott, big thanks for all the information, that just adds so much more spice to the build.

Here after long last is an update. I gloss coated for washing and decalling. Usually I use Future, but I thought I'd try Gunze Acrylic gloss. Future is very thin and if you apply it wet, which you should, it can easily run on surfaces that are not lying flat. The Gunze seemed to work very well but when I washed the underside, the wash highlighted tiny surface cracks. Not too big of a deal, I simply lightly sprayed the affected areas with light gray. But I will stick to tried and tested Future next time round again. To be fair to the Gunze clear coat, it is probably not meant to be applied as wet as I did.

I also wash before decalling. This is simply risk mitigation, since once the decals are on there is not turning back and I have often found that I still want to tinker around with the paint after washing. Once I am happy with everything, I will apply wash on the larger decals that have panel lines running through them.

And here she is. Decalling is not yet complete. The mouth still has a few bubbles etc. but these will be removed by pricking them with a sharp blade and reapplying Future over the affected area (I use Future as my decal setting solution).

Building a kit with good surface detail is so much more rewarding. My last build was the Revell EF-2000, after applying wash it looked like snakes were crawling all over the airplane because the panel lines are so thick on that kit. I had to overspray everything to get those snakes under control. No such issues here, the panel lines are beautiful.

As it turns out, I applied the formation light strips too far aft on the vertical stabilizer (way too late to correct that now), which reduced the available area to apply the serial number. I had to cut out the numbers individually so as to compress everything.

The Two Bobs decal provides quite a bit of stencilling... can anybody out there comment on how much stencilling would be found on the F-4E SEA in '72?

:cheers:/>/>

Marcel

Edited August 3, 2014 by Marcel111

[Finn]

Here are a few examples:

http://www.keytlaw.com/f-4/wp-content/gallery/keyt/rkfrontsidef4.jpg

http://www.usafa68.org/history/Aircraft/F4E_Coe1.jpg

http://udornvet1.tripod.com/sharkteeth.jpg

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/KoratF-4E277Resized_zps0a6c5f24.jpg

http://www.bobfreitag.net/korat_web/Ekmark/photos/scan_pic0037.jpg

Jari

[chuck540z3]

Marcel. GREAT job of painting!! I love it.

FYI, I found that the formation lights on the F-4E vertical stabilizer are positioned a little different from aircraft to aircraft, so you may be OK. Keep going Buddy. This Phantom will be awesome!

[Marcel111]

Thx Jari, good to know my F-4E data sheet won't be going to waste, looks like there is lot of stencilling on those Vietnam Phantoms. I will be giving most of them a light overspray to suitably tone them down

Chuck, very good to hear those strips were not all located in exactly the same location.

:cheers:

Marcel