Tamiya 1/32 F-4C/D

[Boomstick]

I am finally taking the plunge on this kit. Doing research, I like many others have learned the issue with the intakes.  I plan on doing an inflight display (Robin Olds Bolo Mission) so intake covers are not an option.  I'm not too keen on spending another 40/50 bucks on aftermarket intakes where major surgery is involved.  Is there a fix for the kit intakes, what have some of you guys done to correct the issue. My skills are up for the task if I have to use aftermarket, but just would rather not.  

[phantom]

Very rare in my life has anyone (except maybe a IPMS judge) EVER looked up the intake of one of my models. Not one of those things I worry about. But I have once put very stretched out cotton up there to give the illusion of air vortex. Which covered up a nasty job I did once on the intakes.

[Boomstick]

Interesting idea there.  Just my luck some Phantom fanatic might be a judge, but if I build it OOB, minus decals and necessary pod, this known issue should not be expected to be corrected, just me thinking out loud. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Boomstick

[RichB63]

An article from the Large Scale Planes website describes (and briefly illustrates) a DIY approach…click here then scroll to the bottom.

 

HTH’s

 

Rich

[ViperDoc]

Boomstick,

if you are planning on doing Olds jet in flight on Jan 2, 1967 for Bolo using the Tamiya 1/32 kit you are going to have to do some conversion. OOB you can’t do his jet. You will have to rework the radome as his jet on that day did not have the under radome pod. Most of the C models that flew that day had a “dorkless” radome.  Also you need to make sure that the tanks and such are right. Fuel tank on far left wing, 2 AIM-9Bs on inner pylons, centerline fuel tank and the ECM pod on outer right wing pylon.  That was en route to the fight. As soon as MiGs were seen then the fuel tanks were jettisoned, retaining the pylons. So if you’re going to build it in flight you need to decide at what point in the flight you want to represent. Fundekals do a wonderful set of the Bolo jets with an impressive amount of research. I’d look at them before you get started. The best and only correct artwork of Olds’ jet on that day is Keith Ferris’s painting “MiG Sweep”.  I’d use that as a great reference 

[Buckmeister]

2 hours ago, ViperDoc said:

As soon as MiGs were seen then the fuel tanks were jettisoned, retaining the pylons. 

 

To be clear: the wing tank(s) and their pylons were an integral assembly.  When the tank was punched, its pylon went with it.  The weapons pylons stayed on. The QRC-160 carried on the right outboard station was hung from the weapons pylon.  That looks similar to, but isn’t the same as the drop tank pylon.

[11bee]

I built this kit last year, subject was another 8th TFW jet (589), circa 1967.    Took a lot of time to correct the kit issues (including intakes) and get it up to the level of detail I wanted but nothing is particularly difficult.   If a caveman like me can do it, anyone can.   With regard to the intakes, it's a pretty easy fix.  No need for conversion parts, you will still end up cutting kit plastic either way so why not save yourself $40?.   Here's my conversion underway, with the parts just taped up to show the general layout.

 

 

 

Here's the bad boy after about a 9-month build.

 

 

Sorry for photobombing your thread, I couldn't resist.   The full build is over on LSP if interested.   One word of advice - get the Fundekals Wolfpack decal sheet.   It's amazing.   Best decal sheet ever made for a scale model, I'm not kidding (IMO).    

 

Good luck. 

[Boomstick]

10 hours ago, ViperDoc said:

Boomstick,

if you are planning on doing Olds jet in flight on Jan 2, 1967 for Bolo using the Tamiya 1/32 kit you are going to have to do some conversion. OOB you can’t do his jet. You will have to rework the radome as his jet on that day did not have the under radome pod. Most of the C models that flew that day had a “dorkless” radome.  Also you need to make sure that the tanks and such are right. Fuel tank on far left wing, 2 AIM-9Bs on inner pylons, centerline fuel tank and the ECM pod on outer right wing pylon.  That was en route to the fight. As soon as MiGs were seen then the fuel tanks were jettisoned, retaining the pylons. So if you’re going to build it in flight you need to decide at what point in the flight you want to represent. Fundekals do a wonderful set of the Bolo jets with an impressive amount of research. I’d look at them before you get started. The best and only correct artwork of Olds’ jet on that day is Keith Ferris’s painting “MiG Sweep”.  I’d use that as a great reference 

Yup, I've done the research, I have the Fundekals decals, new radome, and the pod from GT Resin.  I just need to decide if I want drop tanks on or off.  

[Boomstick]

25 minutes ago, 11bee said:

I built this kit last year, subject was another 8th TFW jet (589), circa 1967.    Took a lot of time to correct the kit issues (including intakes) and get it up to the level of detail I wanted but nothing is particularly difficult.   If a caveman like me can do it, anyone can.   With regard to the intakes, it's a pretty easy fix.  No need for conversion parts, you will still end up cutting kit plastic either way so why not save yourself $40?.   Here's my conversion underway, with the parts just taped up to show the general layout.

 

 

 

Here's the bad boy after about a 9-month build.

 

 

Sorry for photobombing your thread, I couldn't resist.   The full build is over on LSP if interested.   One word of advice - get the Fundekals Wolfpack decal sheet.   It's amazing.   Best decal sheet ever made for a scale model, I'm not kidding (IMO).    

 

Good luck. 

No worries.  You did a beautiful job on yours.  I will check out your build. 

[Boomstick]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

I built this kit last year, subject was another 8th TFW jet (589), circa 1967.    Took a lot of time to correct the kit issues (including intakes) and get it up to the level of detail I wanted but nothing is particularly difficult.   If a caveman like me can do it, anyone can.   With regard to the intakes, it's a pretty easy fix.  No need for conversion parts, you will still end up cutting kit plastic either way so why not save yourself $40?.   Here's my conversion underway, with the parts just taped up to show the general layout.

 

 

 

Here's the bad boy after about a 9-month build.

 

 

Sorry for photobombing your thread, I couldn't resist.   The full build is over on LSP if interested.   One word of advice - get the Fundekals Wolfpack decal sheet.   It's amazing.   Best decal sheet ever made for a scale model, I'm not kidding (IMO).    

 

Good luck. 

No worries.  You did a beautiful job on yours.  I will check out your build. 

[BillS]

Bee’s jet is nothing short of spectacular in every regard. I’d love to see more pics. My thing with the Tam 32 C is the numerous issues but it’s mostly the shape particularly from the windscreen forward. The windscreen is to shallow in profile and the forward fus. looks sort of swollen. As molded, there are scab patches all over this thing replicating battle damage repair.This leads me to to such concerns as panel and door accuracy along with fasteners. There are oodles that can be added to the cockpit as well, I mean OODLES. Gear wells too. Me, I’m waiting for a new school 32 rendering from some ambitious company, if not Tam then ICM?. It will happen as beloved as the Phantom is. It’s just who and when. I can deal with some shape and detail issues OOB. I’ve built 9 Zouki Mura quarter F-4s and 2 Tam quarters. But the big kit  just presents too much effort to bring in to “G”.my ha s off to Bee foe sticking to it and making a museum quality replica.

[GeneK]

On 7/27/2023 at 7:56 AM, Boomstick said:

 Is there a fix for the kit intakes, what have some of you guys done to correct the issue. 

 

If you have a friend who can do 3D printing, then this would be perfect for you:

 

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/1-32-f-4-phantom-seamless-intake-tube

 

You can see the outstanding build here in Large Scale PLanes . 

 

I assume, Boomstick, that you are building what you want, not what you or others think judges want.  A well finished intake, especially one as large and prominent as on the Phantom, are important to most modelers ... I think. However, as stated by a prominent modeler ...

 

Quote

[Intakes are] Not one of those things I worry about.

 

Gene K

[Boomstick]

1 hour ago, GeneK said:

 

If you have a friend who can do 3D printing, then this would be perfect for you:

 

https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/various/1-32-f-4-phantom-seamless-intake-tube

 

You can see the outstanding build here in Large Scale PLanes . 

 

I assume, Boomstick, that you are building what you want, not what you or others think judges want.  A well finished intake, especially one as large and prominent as on the Phantom, are important to most modelers ... I think. However, as stated by a prominent modeler ...

 

 

Gene K

Thanks for sharing Gene. I seriously need to invest in 3D printing.  I will address the intakes but honestly, I'm more concerned about my first USAF Vietnam era paint scheme.  Most of my aircraft have been Navy birds or modern USAF colors. Any advice there is appreciated as well.  Getting back to the intakes, there are varying opinions on how far back the camo paint goes in the intakes.  For the time frame I'm doing, I've read several places that it was 36 inches in. Still trying to research that.  

[GeneK]

10 hours ago, Boomstick said:

 For the time frame I'm doing, I've read several places that [the camo in the intakes] was 36 inches in. Still trying to research that.  

Good luck on that subject. The answer may be "It depends ... ." Looking forward to what you find.

 

Thirty six inches is a good general distance, but as always, if you can find a pic of the particular Phantom you're modeling ... during the time frame you are depicting, etc.. For example, some white intakes had several inches overspray from the vari ramp. Then there's who did the paint job - local paint shop, factory, or depot. ETC. Then ... .

 

Sorry for the whiffle waffle reply.

 

Gene

[Buckmeister]

In talking with the guy from Fundekals at a show, they seem to think the Operation Bolo birds had camo 36” back inside the outboard faces of the intake. On the inboard side it was just the variable ramp that was painted, and it was white aft of that.  Those birds got painted at Clark AFB, Philippines.  But there isn’t a lot of photos showing the inside of the intakes of any of them, so who knows?

[11bee]

 

On 7/29/2023 at 6:54 PM, BillS said:

Bee’s jet is nothing short of spectacular in every regard. I’d love to see more pics. 

If interested, the full build is here:  Wolfpack Phantom - 8th TFW F-4C - Works in Progress - Large Scale Planes    I tried to add in a bunch of info about the real thing.   Those early paint jobs were amazing in their complexity and general "weirdness".   Also have pics of the finished model in the Criteque forum here on ARC. 

 

Boomstick, I looked into the intake interior paintwork quite a bit.   As you said, lots of variations but it seemed that for one of the early jets painted by contractors at Clark AFB, it was more prevalent to have the 36" deep camo paint inside the intakes.    Really comes down to your preferences, no one will be able to judge you wrong.  BTW, if you haven't seen this page, it's a great reference for early F-4C's.   Picciani Airaraft Photos - F-4C Phantom (piccianiaircraftphotos.com)

 

 

 

[GeneK]

20 hours ago, Buckmeister said:

...  had camo 36” back inside the outboard faces of the intake. On the inboard side it was just the variable ramp that was painted, and it was white aft of that. 

Never made much sense to me camo wise. What adversary would be in a position to see the intake inside outboard ... versus the intake inside inboard? Sounds like a "Who's on First" narrative. 

 

https://modelingmadness.com/scott/decals/fd/fds48034.htm

 

Gene K

[mawz]

Would make more sense that the intake was initially painted as a unit, so whatever the length of the section would be camo. 

Like Gene, I can't see anything more than the lip itself making sense from a camo perspective, so the only real sense would be what's easiest for the shop.

Edited July 31, 2023 by mawz

[Boomstick]

Thanks for the info everyone. I will keep things simple! Here is what I have so far! Even with the aftermarket there’s still some work involved! 

[GeneK]

All those goodies should give you some great fun!!!  You'll likely be getting resin cockpit decals too.

 

Gene K

[Boomstick]

5 hours ago, GeneK said:

All those goodies should give you some great fun!!!  You'll likely be getting resin cockpit decals too.

 

Gene K

Indeed. Looking forward to getting started soon.  With the canopies being closed, in flight, not sure how much we'll see of those beautiful 3D printed decals.  But it's mighty tempting....

[Boomstick]

Stopped by the USAF Museum for some last minute motivation. I realize it's 829 but still a beautiful bit of reference. 

 

[Boomstick]

On 7/31/2023 at 7:33 AM, 11bee said:

 

If interested, the full build is here:  Wolfpack Phantom - 8th TFW F-4C - Works in Progress - Large Scale Planes    I tried to add in a bunch of info about the real thing.   Those early paint jobs were amazing in their complexity and general "weirdness".   Also have pics of the finished model in the Criteque forum here on ARC. 

 

Boomstick, I looked into the intake interior paintwork quite a bit.   As you said, lots of variations but it seemed that for one of the early jets painted by contractors at Clark AFB, it was more prevalent to have the 36" deep camo paint inside the intakes.    Really comes down to your preferences, no one will be able to judge you wrong.  BTW, if you haven't seen this page, it's a great reference for early F-4C's.   Picciani Airaraft Photos - F-4C Phantom (piccianiaircraftphotos.com)

 

 

 

Looking at Old's Museum Phantom, the camo looks to be the 36" rule.

[11bee]

One note of caution.  Jennings (the guy behind Fundekals) probably has studied and documented the early F-4C paint jobs more than anyone else out there.   He said multiple times that the paint scheme on 829 at the USAF Museum is heavily flawed.    I wouldn't use it as a reference.    That link I posted earlier is probably the best collection of color pictures of those early jets available on the interweb.   

 

All that being said, if the 36" deep camo look works for you, have at it.   Good chance you'll be correct and if you aren't, even better chance that no one will ever find a picture to prove you wrong.   

[GeneK]

16 hours ago, 11bee said:

 I wouldn't use [the USAF Museum Phantom] as a reference.   

 

Good point, 11bee.  ANY display aircraft is suspect ... unless you are modeling that particular aircraft.

 

Worst examples of bad display camo painting  was on the magnificent collection of USAF aircraft at Maxwell Air Force Base back in the early eighties. It's ironic that the aircraft are in front of the then Albert J. Simpson Historical Research Center (now the Air Force Historical Research Agency) - not like the house painters contracted to do the job didn't have great references available. I assume they've have been repainted "correctly".

 

Gene K