Incaroad Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) I just keep finding more problems that will need attention from you that want your Phantom II's to look the part. I'm one that does...! I'm sure you all saw Elmo's fantastic F-4S right? Well after viewing his magnificent model I contacted him to find out how he did those remarkable "see-thru" stabs and he graciously let me in on his procedure! The Phantom I'm doing is BuNo 149452 that was a VX-5 F-4B and was ultimately turned into a China Lake QF-4B. Yep a "B" not an "N" and I have to have those see thru stabs like Elmo created for his "S." So I grab up the Academy stabs and start looking at them... YIKES, I can't do the modification on them like they are; Academy made a glaring error...( like so many others) and I thought you all might want to know about this little problem. I'm not sure yet if the locations are at least accurate but wow, how could they get this one so wrong. You see details are what set Elmo's "S" apart from some other very nice models at Phoenix in 2004 and details are what I want to see in this Academy F-4B/N, but some things just boggle the mind. Take a look at Monogram's stab... I know, there are no engraved panel lines and/or fasteners all over the place, but they got the slat attachment's in the correct attitude...! Gee-whiz the Monogram kit is what, 30+ years old, wasn't drawn with a computer, and the details that set models apart from others was captured correctly... I know for an F-4J this stab was intended for, it isn't correct with the stiffener arrow, but come on... At least it's easy to remove. I know I could put all those fasteners and panel lines in with little difficulty! Now onto something else. The refueling probe that Academy gave us to show extended or retracted; you'd think they would have got that correct too... Well they didn't get the angle right. I guess a small thing actually when one wants to show it CLOSED! While it's open most wouldn't notice I guess. I intend it to be closed so I'll have to modify it to make it look correct. Again...we have all that fastener detail and engraved panel line detail that so many want but a simple thing like the proper angle just misses their cad draftsman... More to come... Cheers Larry McCarley Edited January 4, 2013 by Incaroad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PlasticWeapons Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Good catch, Larry. I'm still waiting on my kits to arrive... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RockRiver Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 (edited) Hi, I have noticed that IFR problem too - the way, Academy set the Refuelling probe door it would not even be able to open without colliding with the intake ramp... You're right with all the hi-tech engineering on a kit like this and then - things like this or the air condition intakes... Ingo ps: I simply can't read the Red on Black notes about the stabs. :crying2:/> Edited December 30, 2012 by RockRiver Quote Link to post Share on other sites
alessio Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Ciao First to all thanks to everyone is already " studying" and showing all the good aspect and issues of that kit. Of course i bought it, just because it's a B version, but honestly, even if the detail is nice....panel lines..rivets..ecc...well im still not able to say that i will totaly dismiss my hasegawa collection.... The academy kit looks more complicated to build....i guess is the price about having more details, btw the issues with the intakes...fuel probe..ecc...lead me to prefer to add some resin intake on the haesegawa bird...plus other wonderfull wolfpack items already available..like wing fold..flaps..slats.....ecc Lot of improvment have been made by academy, but with little effort much more could have been done to beat totaly the hasegawa kit. Illkeep following all the in progress build, hope ill be able to change my mind.. Regards Happy modelling Alex Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Ciao First to all thanks to everyone is already " studying" and showing all the good aspect and issues of that kit. Of course i bought it, just because it's a B version, but honestly, even if the detail is nice....panel lines..rivets..ecc...well im still not able to say that i will totaly dismiss my hasegawa collection.... The academy kit looks more complicated to build....i guess is the price about having more details, btw the issues with the intakes...fuel probe..ecc...lead me to prefer to add some resin intake on the haesegawa bird...plus other wonderfull wolfpack items already available..like wing fold..flaps..slats.....ecc Lot of improvment have been made by academy, but with little effort much more could have been done to beat totaly the hasegawa kit. Illkeep following all the in progress build, hope ill be able to change my mind.. Regards Happy modelling Alex While the Academy kit looks complicated, it is a very easy build. I've built Phantoms from all the different manufacturers, and this is by far the best Phantom in 1/48 scale. It has no problem beating the Hasegawa kit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Richard J Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 More to the point, the inboard heat resistant part of the stab doesn't even come close to extending outboard as far as it should on the Academy kit. Look at the difference between the Monogram (correct) and the Academy in the OP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pookie Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 You know what bothers me most though? The kit's skin does not come even close to ressembling the real thing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tailspin Turtle Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 More to the point, the inboard heat resistant part of the stab doesn't even come close to extending outboard as far as it should on the Academy kit. Look at the difference between the Monogram (correct) and the Academy in the OP. I've modified this post to show the dimension in 1/48th scale between the tip and the inboard section of the stabilator: http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.com/2012/11/f-4-stabilator.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 I forgot to mention that the well is sunk into the fuselage opening about .010... Also Academy didn't scribe in the Refueling light... See photo. I simulated approximately where it should go, what you see in the photo is Photoshopped. So if you are so inclined to correct... Happy New Year! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 More to the point, the inboard heat resistant part of the stab doesn't even come close to extending outboard as far as it should on the Academy kit. Look at the difference between the Monogram (correct) and the Academy in the OP. Tomorrow or the 1st I will be taking some measurements of the Stabs and will report back with dimensions from the YF-4J I have access too. Should be quite interesting. Happy New Year! Larry McCarley 21045 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phasephantomphixer Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Yes, the stab slot braces are parallel to airflow. And since you have the kit out and "can" post good pics, would you mind submitting a shot of the engine cans installed? The build up that was online shows the cans undersized like the 1/32 Tamiya kits. I just want to see if that is how the issued kit is. Thanks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captoveur Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Since its such a horrible kit I'll give you $10 for it and you can send it to me. I stared at your stabilator "problem" for 10 minutes and I still have no idea what the problem is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
phasephantomphixer Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Since its such a horrible kit I'll give you $10 for it and you can send it to me. I stared at your stabilator "problem" for 10 minutes and I still have no idea what the problem is. The stab that has the slotted front. They tooled it with slot braces 90 deg. from the surface of the stab, not angled with the airflow. The usual Academy with several small shape or incorrect part issues. Nothing out of the ordinary. Edited January 2, 2013 by phasephantomphixer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Since its such a horrible kit I'll give you $10 for it and you can send it to me. I stared at your stabilator "problem" for 10 minutes and I still have no idea what the problem is. can you see the difference between those two symbols : "-" and "/"... if you can't... whash the mudd in your eyes.. and take a look again a the stabilator pic (and how the slots are done ("/"), and how they should have been ("-")) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PlasticWeapons Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) The old 1/72 Revell F-4 Phantom kits have the same issue as the Academy Phantom rear stabs. FYI. :D Edited January 2, 2013 by PlasticWeapons Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Yes, the stab slot braces are parallel to airflow. And since you have the kit out and "can" post good pics, would you mind submitting a shot of the engine cans installed? The build up that was online shows the cans undersized like the 1/32 Tamiya kits. I just want to see if that is how the issued kit is. Thanks. Here are three photo's that show how the burners go in as Academy states. There is a notch on the bottom of the wing panel that the burner slips into. Hope that helps with what you are looking for. Cheers Larry McCarley 21045 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 Since its such a horrible kit I'll give you $10 for it and you can send it to me. I stared at your stabilator "problem" for 10 minutes and I still have no idea what the problem is. I'm not sure where you picked up that I said this is a horrible kit. On the contrary, I think this is a really nice kit with a few glitches I'm trying to point out to those that might want to correct them. It will build into a fine replica of an F-4B/N right out of the box. Check D-Robs OOB build, it looks terrific! http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=258653 As far as the stabilizers go check this picture and those white lines should be going with the flow of air. Cheers Larry McCarley Quote Link to post Share on other sites
frontpenny Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I would say this topic is very informative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captoveur Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 can you see the difference between those two symbols : "-" and "/"... if you can't... whash the mudd in your eyes.. and take a look again a the stabilator pic (and how the slots are done ("/"), and how they should have been ("-")) Now that you point it out I see it.. I think they also put 3 too many rivets on one of the panels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Now that you point it out I see it.. I think they also put 3 too many rivets on one of the panels. I don't think it's necessary to make comments like that. It's a legitimate issue. Whether you feel it's worth correcting is up to you but it's nice to be aware of things like this. As long as the original post doesn't include comments slamming the kit, I see nothing wrong with constructive criticism. To me, the mis-aligned IFR probe housing is a bigger miss than the stabilizers and again, I'm glad it was pointed out because I never would have caught this on my own. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VFA-103guy Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Would it not be possible to correct the IFR probe housing with a decal for it? Seems like an easier fix than filling/rescribing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Incaroad Posted January 4, 2013 Author Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Would it not be possible to correct the IFR probe housing with a decal for it? Seems like an easier fix than filling/rescribing. A lot of people may like that approach as well as the IFR light. I have exact measurements for that light and surrounding metal if you'd like them. I will fill er in with super glue and plastic dust and take a stab at scribing in that puppy! The IFR light too. Good suggestion! Cheers Larry McCarley 21045 Edited January 4, 2013 by Incaroad Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Darren Roberts Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I've also got a vinyl piece for the Monogram J kit. One could simply apply the vinyl and it will give the outline of the shape. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 I've also got a vinyl piece for the Monogram J kit. One could simply apply the vinyl and it will give the outline of the shape. Should I choose to fix the probe door on the 2 that arrived today, that is the approach I'm going to take. If it works for the Monogram kit it'll work for the Academy! I was pleased to see that they included the outboard weapons pylons as well as the tanks; I'm running low on spares from Hasegawa to use! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RockRiver Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) A lot of people may like that approach as well as the IFR light. I have exact measurements for that light and surrounding metal if you'd like them. I will fill er in with super glue and plastic dust and take a stab at scribing in that puppy! The IFR light too. Good suggestion! Cheers Larry McCarley 21045 Exactly what I have done - I gave up showing the probe extended, closed the door, filled the seams with superglue, sanded smooth and used a Hasegawa door to outline the door for rescribing in the (a more) correct position. I might use the probe and associated parts for an extended probe on a Hasegawa FG.1 IFR light is scribed already too. Regarding the stabilator I will do nothing about it. Somehow annoying, sure - but hard to correct and not that obvious. Next things to do some correcting scratch building on are the air condition intakes. (If nothing else pops up in between....hopefully not) Has anyone already worked on th a/c intakes? Ingo Edited January 4, 2013 by RockRiver Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.