Tamiya 1/48th F-4B Phantom II (item#61121)

[Craig Baldwin]

So many possibilities. 

 

 

[Swordsman422]

Pouring over the sprues, am I blind or am I only seeing one tail tip without options for earlier variants?

[GeneK]

5 hours ago, Dave Roof said:

 

Not quite sure how you don't know that (George  is a Tamiya Rep) by now, but yes he is. 🙂 

Thanks, but gosh, I feel so inadequate. Sorry I didn't know what is apparently known world wide about George and his significant position within the Tamiya organization ... I wrongly assumed he was "just" an informed modeler living in California who very thoughtfully shared  the gems he mined online. I understand now why Bill asked George when he/Tamiya was going to release the kit around the globe.

 

Apologies to George and thanks again for his informative and timely posts.

 

Gene K

[Dave Williams]

I didn’t know George was a Tamiya rep either.

[gtypecanare]

Any questions about Tamiya that I can help answer I’ll do my best.

[Gunny]

5 hours ago, Swordsman422 said:

Pouring over the sprues, am I blind or am I only seeing one tail tip without options for earlier variants?

 

the early -B model tip is included next to the later model AN/APR-30 tip.

[Thadeus]

Well, I was going to say there's a good chance the "incomplete" weapon sprue could contain some a2g ordnance. Tamiya 1/72 F-16C comes to mind. But then I took a second look at Tamiya F-14 missiles. That's the same sprue - sans the 54's.

Ah well...

 

[stalal]

2 hours ago, gtypecanare said:

Any questions about Tamiya that I can help answer I’ll do my best.

 

Any idea about which marking options will be in the box?

[GeneK]

8 hours ago, Craig Baldwin said:

So many possibilities. 

 

 

 

Looks like a Sgt Fletcher on the left wing and a McD on the right????

 

Gene K

[BillS]

At Danang the Marines stole Air Force tanks. A camo’d tank on a gray jet might raise eyebrows!

[RichB63]

58 minutes ago, GeneK said:

Looks like a Sgt Fletcher on the left wing and a McD on the right????

 

Gene K

I concur, good catch!

[Craig Baldwin]

Oops getting my info mixed up.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Craig Baldwin

[Finn]

Here is one with a spare tire:

 

 

also note the Aero-3 launcher with AIM-9B on it.

 

Jari

[BillS]

I saw that tire arrangement when an VA-195 A-7 dropped in to Reese one afternoon and blew a tire by riding the brakes. Another ‘195 jet came out the next day with a new tire. Us Air Force guys would have sent a ‘130 with 10 extra tires axle jacks, tools and three guys to fix the problem!

[GeneK]

What are the possible differences on the bottom of the Sgt Fletcher wing tanks that merit a separate piece? Or is it to accommodate the circular access panel shown (to eliminate scribing after joining the halves)?

 

 

Gene K

Edited March 12, 2021 by GeneK
Darkened image to bring out detail a little.

[Craig Baldwin]

2 hours ago, BillS said:

Us Air Force guys would have sent a ‘130 with 10 extra tires axle jacks, tools and three guys to fix the problem!

 

I did see a picture of similar arrangement on a South Dakota ANG A-7 wing pylon. A Koku Fan magazine comes to mind.

[RichB63]

2 hours ago, GeneK said:

What are the possible differences on the bottom of the Sgt Fletcher wing tanks that merit a separate piece? Or is it to accommodate the circular access panel shown (to eliminate scribing after joining the halves)?

 

 

Gene K

I wondered the same thing. In addition to the access panel, there are three drain/sump points and a dozen or so prominent dome head screws (see photo), but it’s hard to tell from the sprue shots if these additional details have been incorporated into the insert.

 

We’ll just have to wait and see!

 

[ya-gabor]

2 hours ago, RichB63 said:

I wondered the same thing. In addition to the access panel, there are three drain/sump points and a dozen or so prominent dome head screws (see photo), but it’s hard to tell from the sprue shots if these additional details have been incorporated into the insert.

 

We’ll just have to wait and see!

 

 

 

This is an interesting solution on part of Tamiya for a problem with the fuel tank. With a two sided part it is not possible to reproduce the drain points/access panel on the bottom of the tank. BUT please look at the FineMolds 72 nd scale tank it is visible that the joint line/build connection which on the real tank has “rivets” (joint screws) all along its length but it is ON BOTH SIDES of this joint line. If a two sided mould is used then because of the "undercut" on the bottom side of the tank joint line the correct shape will not be possible to reproduce! Instead one will get what is seen on the FineMolds tank I illustrated here. A triangle shape. 

 

 

Actually two of the three drain holes are on the front and back end of the tank so this separate part can reproduce only the front drain hole and the access panel on the central part of the tank as seen on the Tamiya sprue.

 

Speaking of the drain holes, this is something almost no manufacture has EVER reproduced / cared about. Not only on a Phantom kit but on any aircraft kit.

 

But also in case of the Sargent Fletcher tank everyone is forgetting that in front of the pylon ON THE TOP there is a gravity fill cup of the tank! Once again not easy (impossible) to reproduce with a two part mould if the split is vertical!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Edited March 12, 2021 by ya-gabor

[RichB63]

8 hours ago, ya-gabor said:

 

 

This is an interesting solution on part of Tamiya for a problem with the fuel tank. With a two sided part it is not possible to reproduce the drain points/access panel on the bottom of the tank. BUT please look at the FineMolds 72 nd scale tank it is visible that the joint line/build connection which on the real tank has “rivets” (joint screws) all along its length but it is ON BOTH SIDES of this joint line. If a two sided mould is used then because of the "undercut" on the bottom side of the tank joint line the correct shape will not be possible to reproduce! Instead one will get what is seen on the FineMolds tank I illustrated here. A triangle shape. 

 

 

Actually two of the three drain holes are on the front and back end of the tank so this separate part can reproduce only the front drain hole and the access panel on the central part of the tank as seen on the Tamiya sprue.

 

Speaking of the drain holes, this is something almost no manufacture has EVER reproduced / cared about. Not only on a Phantom kit but on any aircraft kit.

 

But also in case of the Sargent Fletcher tank everyone is forgetting that in front of the pylon ON THE TOP there is a gravity fill cup of the tank! Once again not easy (impossible) to reproduce with a two part mould if the split is vertical!

 

Best regards

Gabor

Gabor, you raise some excellent points. There is plenty of room for detail improvement in kit fuel tanks in general and those for 1/48 Phantoms in particular. 
 

I’m eager to see up close what kind of innovative wizardry Tamiya has worked this time.
 

Here’s my effort at improving a pair of Sargent Fletcher 370’s in 1:48. Of the several kits I examined, Academy offered the best starting point (and that held true for the 600 gal Royal Jet tank as well).

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by RichB63

[ya-gabor]

Hi RichB63,

 

WOW!

Nice work there! I am doing (trying to do) the same detailing for the FineMolds tanks in 72nd. Not sure how I will do those rivets.

Imagine you used some rivet decals.

 

 

Stay Safe!!!

 

Best regards

Gabor

[GeneK]

2 hours ago, RichB63 said:

Here’s my effort at improving a pair of Sargent Fletcher 370’s in 1:48. Of the several kits I examined, Academy offered the best starting point (and that held true for the 600 gal Royal Jet tank as well).

 

Which kits did you examine, and why did you select the Academy?

 

Thanks,

 

Gene K

[RichB63]

8 hours ago, GeneK said:

 

Which kits did you examine, and why did you select the Academy?

 

Thanks,

 

Gene K

Hi Gene,

 

Academy, Hasegawa, Monogram and Zoukei-Mura 1:48 Phantom tanks were all considered. 
 

For the 370 g wing tanks, all four manufacturers were reasonably close in terms of overall proportions. And, with the exception of ZM, they all measured very close to 1:48 with respect to linear dimensions.  

 

Academy and ZM, being newer, benefit from finer tooling quality. As a result, mold symmetry and detail are superior compared to the golden oldies.’ So, for me, it came down to these two.
 

I chose Academy’s tanks because they measured closer to scale. In addition, the shape and placement of the pylon were more accurate.

 

For reference, I used a set of detailed USN drawings, measurements taken from museum examples, and numerous photographs from books and online sources.

 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by RichB63

[GeneK]

14 minutes ago, RichB63 said:

For reference, I used a set of detailed USN drawings, measurements taken from museum examples, and numerous photographs from books and online sources.

Thanks, Rich - appreciate your research and the information! I never gave much credence to the Academy tanks since they left off such a prominent feature as the seam flange. I have no confidence in Academy's research  ... but I do in yours!

 

I added the Tamiya tank to your picture by sizing the  T tank to the Academy (since you said it was the most  accurate). Makes the ZM look Not-That-Great. 

 

 

Gene K

 

Gene K

 

 

[RichB63]

On 3/12/2021 at 2:43 PM, GeneK said:

Thanks, Rich - appreciate your research and the information! I never gave much credence to the Academy tanks since they left off such a prominent feature as the seam flange. I have no confidence in Academy's research  ... but I do in yours!

 

I added the Tamiya tank to your picture by sizing the  T tank to the Academy (since you said it was the most  accurate). Makes the ZM look Not-That-Great. 

 

 

Gene K

 

Gene K

 

 

Yeah, I was surprised too. And the excess length is more than my comparison photo suggests, due to camera angle and lens distortion.
 

The image below shows just how large a section (almost 3/16”) would have to be removed from the ZM tank to achieve a scale length of 240 inches. However, doing so would throw off the proportions, resulting in a short coupled, stubby appearance for the tank, as its girth is oversized as well.
 

Overall, I really like the ZM Phantom line of kits and, in most respects, consider it superior to Academy’s. But, as I had leftover Academy 370’s in my stash, and they were closer to scale, I went with them.

 

To be fair, it would be hard to detect the ZM size difference once the tanks are installed on a finished model. But it does become obvious through measurement or side by side comparison to other properly sized tanks.

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by RichB63
Corrected ZM tank excess length to 3/16,” plus spelling and grammar

[Shidenkai]

On 3/10/2021 at 9:40 PM, gtypecanare said:

Any questions about Tamiya that I can help answer I’ll do my best.

Is there any chance of an F-16-D in 1:48 from Tamiya?? I asked in Schizuoka two years ago.

That would be very nice next to the new Phantom.