Chek

Barry, to echo Derek - you're doing seriously fantastic work with your reworking of the F-4J kit. Bravo! Several years ago, I looked into bespoke photo etch for the intake ramps before deciding that (at the time, and for the scale) half-tone (the dot print patterns used in printing) decals were the way to go. However technology and capability marches on and the definition of photo etch or laser etching may now be up to scratch - I dunno! I throw these suggestions out as ideas, nothing more.

I was lucky enough to have a volunteer at Duxford (thank you Michael!) measure the intake ramps of both the F-4J and FGR2 on display at the museum. I hope the annotated photo is clear enough. Note the curved ramp leading edge dimensions are taken to theoretical fixed points for ease of measurement and all data points are indicated by yellow dots. I should also add that the perforations on moving ramp 2 are to a different pattern to GE J79 intakes.

Sorry to hear of your accident Tim, I hope your recovery goes well. It's a good idea to wait to get some hard data - all I can really add to those recently found photos is that the forward portside camera window on the nose slope (out of sight in both pics) would be forward of the visible one, the two cameras being staggered as visible in this well known photo. Regrettably Thierry, despite having every issue of SAM from 1978-2004, I can't find any further coverage. Even more sadly, I think AIRDoc Brit Phantoms Vol. 2 will cover the period from 1978 onwards, well after the recce role was assumed by the Jaguar force. Still, I was glad to find out that one still exists in the RAF Museum storage system having been led to believe some years ago they'd all been scrapped after donating some of their interior equipment to the Jag's Vinten pods. Btw, did anyone else notice the Stafford pod seems to have an intake fairing ahead of the rectangular exhaust port on the side, that isn't present on the nose section photo? Still, best not get concerned about sub-types or mods with any info at all in such short supply. Far be it from me etc. Tim, but assuming that enough data becomes available for you to go ahead, I'd urge you to consider a 1/48 version as well. In fact I'd really like to see the new Airfix team responsible for the Sea Vixen and Javelin take a crack at the Spey Phantom. The Hasegawa version while adequate for its time, is certainly not the last word in Brit Tooms, not by a very long shot as became apparent when researching basic layout on Derek's thread on his planned 1/32nd conversion.

Heh - oh sure, NOW it shows up in Google image search.... It also turns out the RAF Museum has one at its Stafford depot - object number 1986/0865/A ... and while we're on the subject this view shows how tight it tucks up under the FGR2 at the rear. There are some unusual things here ... normally an FG1 squadron, 111 Sqn did use FGR2s from 1974 to 1978 before the FAA released their FG1s after the disbandment of 892 NAS when Ark Royal retired. Also, while the only dedicated recce strike squadrons were 2 and 41, some 12 aircraft were wired to take the pod including some on 54 Sqn's books. XV406 above was used for pod trials at Holme on Spalding Moor. It's also sporting the night recce Sargent-Fletcher photo flash wing tank conversion.

I've just found this photo of the nose section of the FGR2 EMI pod which may be helpful.

I suspect that the intake seperation cut needs to go right back to the flap hinge line to avoid the 'silicone enhanced starlet' look. The Phantom fuselage sat on top of the thru-wing structure so the increase in fuselage width is not a big problem there (photos in Derek's research post a while back illustrate this). Getting the downward turn on the first five feet or so at the mouth of the intake as in the comparison below from Tommy Thomason's analysis is a more intractable problem without going the Dave Klaus' whole new fuselage route. Tommy's 'Tailhook Topic Drafts' article has some very useful info.http://tailhooktopics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/spey-powered-phantom-changes.html As I'm sure you're aware - lots of interest in this project Iain!

You're welcome, phellow Phantom phan. If it helps, the mirror formation photo seems to be from Airliners.net ( http://www1.airliners.net/photo/USA---Navy/McDonnell-F-4J-Phantom/1277212/L/&sid=7125ef13dedcce6db488d6ddf142b022 ) which helpfully identifies the two Angels as BA-5 153876 with the later, long nozzles, and BA-6 as 153076. That places the earlier airframe in the second batch of F-4J's built (Block -27-MC: 153076 to 153088). I'd hazard a guess that the 1969 season Angels were all from within the first two blocks, (BuNo. 153072 being BA-1 (Block -26-MC 153071-153075) although you'd still have to tie other BuNo.s to tail numbers. But 153876 BA-5 was in use 1973 during the European tour with the later engines, as most aftermarket caters for. Also worth noting, the lower fin leading edge probe isn't on either an earlier or later jet (BA-5 in the mirror formation photo). Depending on how committed to accuracy/obsessive you are, chuck540z3's build of an F-4E over on ARC corrects the nozzle issue (though it is revisited later in the thread). HTH.

Barry, the Blue Angels initially flew an early batch of development F-4J's which had the earlier GE engines, as can be seen in the photo below. Some were gradually replaced with more standard 'J' airframes with the later GE engines as time went by, as can be seen in the photo below, where No.5 has the later long petal nozzle and No.6 the shorter.

Hi again Derek - a logical enough conclusion, but unfortunately not (entirely) so. Because the Phantom wing is essentially a one piece carry-through structure which the upper fuselage sits on top of, widening the fuselage does not greatly affect the structural heart. Here are a couple of scans from Mike Burns' Osprey book (long out of print) "The F-4K & F-4M Phantom II" showing the components separately: and with the mid-fuselage mounted: As can be seen there is no overly exaggerated widening of the intake area alone - the whole intake and engine bay structure is moved outwards over the wing. The knock on effect of this must be a change in the flap span. Interestingly I seem to recall from possibly a mid-70's issue of Scale Models this detail being mentioned, but it's only now that its significance becomes plain, hence the need to get to Duxford or someplace with both Spey and J79 engined Phantoms to obtain comparison measurements. It would also help if I could lay hands on the Hasegawa fuselage comparison measurements I made which I'll post as soon as they turn up, but generally I prefer not to base models on other people's models no matter how fine a maker they are. Ideally having a few old scrapped Tamiya Phantoms to cut up and generally abuse would be a great help in sorting out what at present is not unlike a game of mental 3-D Chess! I also found in the Mike Burns' book a couple of good shots showing the section of the increased keel of the tailcone which I hope are useful. This detail is absolutely necessary to help correctly place the thrust line of the Spey jet exhausts relative to the fuselage, with their knock-on effects on the rear Sparrow wells and MLG bays

Hi Derek, just a few random observations which may or may not assist. Having been inspired by Frank's Spey Phantom conversions here on LSP, I invested in a Tamiya F-4J. If however you can make your conversion work for the considerably cheaper Revell option - great! I started off considering Frank's method, but grew wary of the 'silicone enhanced' look of the intakes, which didn't improve much even if the wedge insert was taken as far back as the flap hinge line. Further study of photos showed the intake plan view contours to be generally similar to a standard J79 engined version, only wider. I therefore mapped the fuselage contours of the 1/48 Hasegawa F-4J and FGR2 and found that the whole intake trunking/engine bay assembly needs to be separated and re-attached to give a 6 inch width increase on each side (while retaining the existing wingspan). The 6 inch (full scale) width increase will yield the 20% increase in intake frontal area. At this point I'm stuck until I can get full-size measurements for the flaps and aileron sizes of the F-4J and FGR2 for comparison. The Spey intake ramps also differ slightly, and have completely different perforation patterns to the J79 versions. One thing that Frank missed is that the max circumference of the Spey jet nozzles drop down to almost in line with the upper line of the beefed-up arrestor hook recess, and that a deeper double-skinned titanium keel was added. This can be seen as the dark metal area underneath the bright angled Inconel X steel panels leading from the engine bay vents above the jet nozzles to the stabilator hinge panels.

...although to be really picky David, the dihedral on a Spitfire starts after the flat centre section, about a foot out from the fuselage side in front view, on a chordwise line carried forward from where the rear fuselage/wing fairing meets the trailing edge. Many a Spitfire model comes to grief by starting the dihedral too early and going wingtip high, or averaging out the angle changes and ending up wingtip low. But I expect Roy will have that base covered. You will now be returned to normal non-anal comments...

The B wing had much less of an angle on those inner wing root fairings. I haven't got the exact diagram to hand, but going by my B the point where the root fairing meets the fuselage needs to be moved rearwards about 3mm.

Careful - leading edge slats and leading edge flaps are 2 different things on Phantoms With L/E flaps, they're connected to the boundary layer control system and operate in conjunction with the BLC rear flaps. The passage below from http://www.topfighters.com/fighterplanes/p.../closelook.html explains how they operate. (Note 'flaperons' is the groovy name given to the interconnected drooping ailerons, but that applies to later Navy versions only. ALL land versions have ailerons used for roll control only). The Phantom did not have traditional ailerons that could tilt up and down to provide roll control. It instead used "flaperons", flaplike underwing surfaces outboard of the main flaps. The flaperons, like the flaps, could only tilt down, but worked in conjunction with overwing spoilers to provide roll control. The Phantom was also fitted with leading-edge flaps. The trailing-edge flaps and the flaperons deflected 60 degrees, while the inboard leading-edge flaps deflected 30 degrees. In addition, the aircraft featured a "boundary layer control (BLC)" or "blown flaps" scheme, in which engine bleed air was blown over the flaps to increase their effectiveness at low speed, improving low-speed handling for carrier landings. The Phantom was one of the first operational aircraft to use BLC.

Well isn't that the great thing about models right there? You can do them in any configuration you like! I used to do all my 1/72 F-4's with l/e and t/e flaps down because I liked the look of them better that way too. But now with more research under my belt and working mainly in 1/48 scale I couldn't do it - it'd annoy me after a while That's why when I eventally do my 'piece de resistance' F-4K it'll have to be canopy locked down, all flaps down, leg up and ready to launch. They do look impressively spiky that way! So then I'll also have to do another, just to have an open cockpit and maybe wings folded. In the photo you show, I'd guess there's a crew ready to go as there are no ground connections visible. Flaps down is remarkably uncommon but not absolutely impossible. Maybe a passing Phantom tech can contribute a definitive answer. Have you seen Pierre's (Scalephantomfixer) 1/32 F-4S build thread at: http://imageevent.com/scalephantomphixer/m...132f4smag41deta He goes into quite some detail with the wing and its attachments, but then it's a maintenance scene.

Hi Pete - I was just catching up with this thread when I saw your enquiry. One solution I found by accident came out of the blue. There was a brand of yoghurt in a plastic tub that used a heavy aluminium foil as a sealed top. The foil was textured with a miniature series of various sized criss-cross lines, and some of the areas worked very well when painted, washed and generally distressed. Plus you can get genuine chipping at the edges. Most seem to use the pebble type textured foil now, but check out the cool cabinet at your local supermarket and you might be lucky! I've also scribed plastic sheet with a minisaw blade drawn sideways to create the groove patterns, but the factory embossed foil looks finer and more precise (if not 100% accurate in terms of layout).

The outer ailerons would droop down together as you have depicted, as hydraulic pressure dropped off when parked. However, I've never seen the inner flaps at less than either full up or full down, and when fully down the aircraft is always crewed and running immediately prior to take off/launch (or landing). There's a row of small hi-pressure air-slots that open as the flap lowers that blow engine bleed-air over the inner flaps at low speed, to increase control authority, and they're never left open when parked. (That I've ever seen anyway, after 25 years of watching real Phantoms, collecting books and photos. But I could still be wrong

Phantom ailerons aren't quite the same as conventional ones on most aircraft. The outer ailerons have a 29 degree down, 1 degree up amount of travel, and on later models ('J' onwards), they're inter-connected to droop with the flaps for landing. This may apply to slatted wings also, but I'm not absolutely certain of that*. Frequently, both ailerons droop after power is off, although not usually the inner flaps. The wingtop spoilers provide the differential for roll control, and in the F-4F photo seen in the Airliners net link above, the starboard one can be seen raised just forward of the right aileron. *Edit addition: only the later naval Phantoms have the drooping ailerons - The J, K, N, and the slat-wing S.