Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

922 profile views
  1. The characters in Traditional Chinese are 爆闘. The second character is slightly simplified at the top. SC
  2. HerculesPA_2, Thank you for your finishing/painting tips on PLA. Will definitely let you know if I need more information! Anothony, At this stage I think of my prototype as closer to a vacuum-form than a replacement for finely detailed Tamiya plastic. Your skills, attention to details, and problem solving skills will apply no matter what the modeling material is. SC
  3. Derek B, Thank you! Chek, This is the approximate cross section of the Tamiya 1/32 F-4C kit (in white) compared to Jumpei Temma's drawing (in red). Jumpei's cross section drawings are very good when compared to McAir cross section drawings. The Tamiya upper hump seems a little wide and where the engine nacelles meet the upper hump also seems a bit high. If these can be ignored perhaps a plug can be created to help with the contour even though it doesn't completely conform to the original aircraft shape. How to smoothly blend it in may be an issue. SC
  4. Thank you for your comments. I will add drawings information on the original post. HerculesPA_2, very nice Brazilian Air Force Hercules C-130E SAR. How did you finish the surface? Did you have to sand it much? I used the Original Prusa i3 MK3S for this print. SC
  5. Hello LSP, The 3d model was created using McAir drawings and manuals, with the help of photogrammetry. This FDM print was done with PLA, which may be too brittle for post-processing. Eventually I would like to use HIPS instead and resin for detailed parts where needed. As a tribute to the original aircraft design, I thought it would be interesting to create modular parts like the real airframe (radome, forward fuselage, wing torque-box, center fuselage, horizontal stabs, etc). Many details (missile wells, various intakes and vents, antennas, cockpit, engine and exhaust) have yet to be added. Panel lines and clear parts will also need to be tackled. I focused on the overall dimension and shape accuracy first. It has the thin wings without the bumps, so probably represents an early F-4B. This is a prototype and I hope to upgrade and improve the parts as I go along. Other members of the Phamily are also being created, leveraging off common components. Hope you find it interesting. Thanks to all the Phantom experts on LSP and other aviation related sites for sharing their builds and knowledge! The McAir drawings were mostly from Ron Downey's Aviation Archives, a wealth of information especially of McDonnell/Douglas aircrafts. http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com/ Jumpei Temma's study of the F-4 Phantom was very inspirational and full of information. http://soyuyo.main.jp/f4/f4e-1.html Derek B here on LSP has also generously shared F-4K/M drawings. SC
  6. After digging through some more drawings, photos, and forums postings, I think I might have an answer about the radome. It is yes and yes. The radome does end at CFS48.28, but there is a metal ring (for mounting?) on the aft portion of radome that is supposed to be painted the same color as the aircraft (from CFS46.68 to CFS48.28?), which also isn't always followed. So painting wise, the radome looks like it ends at CFS46.68 (radome trim) sometimes, and CFS48.28 other times, but physically it ends at CFS48.28. SC
  7. Hello All, After looking quickly through my photo library, I didn't find good side shots of Phantoms with long focal length, so I'll use a few closer shots of an F-4S to overlay MDD F-4K Drawing 3762 (in cyan) that Derek B was so kind to share with me. The drawing is only good along the vertical center plane (BL0.0), so cannot match any features that deviate from there. Comparing flat 2d drawings (inaccurate shapes, inconsistent scaling or warping, etc.) and 3d photos (perspective, lens distortion, warping, cropping, etc.) I have found to be very tricky. A technique I have been learning is photogrammetry, which uses multiple photos from multiple viewpoints to reconstruct a 3d model. The following overlays use such a model in orthgraphic views. The missing areas are due to insufficient photos to cover those angles (mostly the bottom side). And a good set of drawings with good dimension data is essential to help scale the model and to line it up to the axes. Derek B's MDD F-4K Drawing 3762 (cyan). Jumpei Temma's F-4C drawing (red). I have found this F-4BCDJ Drawing 32-1144 (yellow) from Aviation Archives to be very good. (Note in the top view the intake splitter plate seems to be too far from the fuselage.) This combines the 3 drawings. I hope that was helpful. Now a question I would like to get a definitive answer from the real Phantom experts here is where does the short randome end. I have seen both CFS48.28 and CFS46.68 in different official station diagrams. The tip is usually stated as at FS-27.10 at the height of WL10.58. SC
  8. I have been doing some measurements on Phantom kits from various companies, and this is the approximate cross section of the Tamiya 1/32 F-4C kit (in white) compared to Jumpei Temma's drawing (in red). This is for information only and is not meant to devaluate the Tamiya kit (or other Phantom kits in general) in any way. SC
  9. The AOA vane on late C-Config ROCAF F-5Es (sharknose, RWR, etc.) moved to the port side above the emergency entrance door to accomodate refueling probe installation (though they were not installed). Early ROCAF F-5Es are known as the K-Config (conical nose, skyspot rod antenna, etc.). I believe F-5Es with refueling probe installed on the starboard side would also have the AOA vane on the port side. SC
  10. I think the KH cockpit floor might be too shallow. Here is the approximate cross section at Y=229.5 for both Hasegawa (green) and KH (blue) kits, and T-38 rear cockpit (red) near the same position. (I believe the T-38 rear cockpit is similar to the single seater cockpit, please confirm.) Looks like the Hasegawa cockpit floor is more accurate in depth, but the side consoles are too low, whereas the KH side consoles are more accurate in height, but the floor is too high (when compared to the T-38 rear cockpit). Each grid spacing is one inch. This will probably affect fitting in accurate sized AM seat. Back in post #554, Daniel's photos show the KH seat as being shorter than the CAM seat. The port side console kit cross sections are taller because of the throttle controls. SC
  11. A few more observations. The Skyspot Antenna on the spine closely behind the canopy is not on the later F-5Es. The IFF Antenna right next to the nose landing gear well door is not on the early F-5Es. It is usually upgraded with the front and rear RWR and CDS at the same time. See post #601 above to see both configs. The battery access door on the starbord avionics bay should be closer to the RWR receiver. There are older configs wtih two doors on the starboard side, and newer configs with one each on both port and starboard sides, in which case on the port side the acess door would be further back from the RWR receiver. The Gravity Fuel Fillers on the spine should be on the port side (as correctly indicated on the KH decal placement guide), instead of on the starboard side. SC
  12. I got the kit a few days ago, and noticed that the doors to the fold-out boarding steps and external canopy handle are also on the starboard side when they should only be on the port side. Hasegawa did this too. Also the oval panel of the AOA probe is below the canopy emergency release access instead of above. SC
  • Create New...