F-4C/D Cockpits

[phantom]

I believe they are USN seats.

 

Mike

[Tony T]

The answer is: it depends on what scale you're interested in.

 

Assuming this question is genuine and that you are model-making in 1/32 scale (as LSP doesn't cover anything more petite and there do not exist readily-available models in a larger scale) then the answer is: lots!

 

The probem with the F-4 is that you have to identify era and markings first, and then set about stage two: how did they differ in that era, and what differences existed in the type of squadron jet I'm hoping to depict?

 

Asking about F-4Ds, in particular, is like saying 'what flavour icecream do get at an icecream shop?' 

 

Do you have a partuclar F-4C or F-4D subject in mind? In which case, I'm sure there's lots of us that might help with specific answers.

 

Cheers, and happy modelling!

 

Tony T

[Showtime 100]

The answer is: it depends on what scale you're interested in.

 

Assuming this question is genuine and that you are model-making in 1/32 scale (as LSP doesn't cover anything more petite and there do not exist readily-available models in a larger scale) then the answer is: lots!

 

The probem with the F-4 is that you have to identify era and markings first, and then set about stage two: how did they differ in that era, and what differences existed in the type of squadron jet I'm hoping to depict?

 

Asking about F-4Ds, in particular, is like saying 'what flavour icecream do get at an icecream shop?' 

 

Do you have a partuclar F-4C or F-4D subject in mind? In which case, I'm sure there's lots of us that might help with specific answers.

 

Cheers, and happy modelling!

 

Tony T

 

Some good points here.

 

 

I would add that, unless said model is going to be judged in a competition or you are a professional model builder, don't worry about too much detail. From three meters away does the model look like an F-4D? If yes, that's good enough for the general accuracy. And yes; I am a recovering rivet counter  !

 

In a competition where judgement might come down to accuracy of a model, then your point is absolutely spot on. Otherwise, model building is supposed to be fun and enjoyable.

 

When I read your excellent point regarding what era 'D', my mind started overloading because, yes, there are maaaany variants of the 'D'!

 

The 'D's' were flown from 1965 to at least 1985 so that's twenty years of one variant that had upgrades along the way.

 

 

Another example: The A-6E Intruder flew from 1970 until they were retired in 1996 and had many huge/major upgrades and even more smaller upgrades/mods.

[csavaglio]

Other than AMPS, which is armor only, accuracy is rarely a consideration other than gross inaccuracies....IPMS's website quotes something like an all black space shuttle.  There's just no way for the judges to be an expert on every subject in the categories.  I would expect that it would be difficult to find a contest where the judge is going to bash you for having a few incorrect swtich boxes in the cockpit of an F-4.  Even gross inaccuracies are lowest on the checklist for judging.

 

It would be unfair, for example, to have a Bf-109 expert judging a category and finding lots of minor inaccuracy faults in the 109s while having no clue about a P-51 in the same category.

 

As was said, it depends on what the end goal is.  I've noticed a recent trend in this forum toward the minutia when it comes to accuracy.  The lack of this was one of the reasons I liked and continued to come to this forum and really no others.  To each their own.  We're all here to enjoy building.  I've seen too many modelers get caught up in tiny details and never actually build anything because nothing's ever good enough and I can't see how this is enjoyable for anyone.  Kind of like the guys who never get a date because no girl is ever perfect enough. 

 

And repeating other points, the F-4D is a minefield for the all the crazy electronic mods done.  It's best to pick an airframe and try to mimic what can be seen on photos of that plane.  Some stuff you're just going to have to use your best judgment on.  If anyone gives you grief over it, just tell them the one you flew was like that.....

 

Chris

[marauderdriver]

                                                    AMEN !

[blackbetty]

chris, lots of good points

i have more reference on the F-4 than any other single plane, still i have only done one "fun" build and one i consider "just meant to be finished".

i was reluctant to even show it on here because of all its inaccuracies.

but in the not all too distant future i will do a hill grey one.....or two....or......

[jozef]

I am a technical idiot and cannot speak about technical details. However from what I have read and heard I would fully agree with the opinion to look on the picture of the plane you want to build and guess from general information available (i.e. Jake´s book  ). I can tell that I tried the BB cockpitt and would say that it is modeller friendly. At least compared with the Verlinden cockpitt I used in my F-4C build. BB came later when I already had mine finished and I only tried dry fitting and there is no comparison (my view). However I may be biased since I know Jeff and can tell that it was me who persuaded him to do 32nd stuff (at least that is what he told me), F-4J being the first set in our scale. However I do not think he ever regretted it  .

Oh my, reading this topic, I would jump building the other Phantoms from my stash right away. However, they need to wait a bit.

 

Jozef 

[joe]

I have an F-4D that's been on the bench for a while and it's about 75% complete and will be pretty much OOTB. I wanted to model a specific Vietnam era a/c from a photo but impatience got the better of me and I used the kit ( Tamiya ) decals. So it will end up looking like the photo but not with the correct a/c number.

 

As it had been a few years since I built my first vf-84 F-4J, I wasn't happy with certain things from that build so now i'm also doing a rebuild of that a/c while I do the D......I just can't get enough.....!

[Showtime 100]

Other than AMPS, which is armor only, accuracy is rarely a consideration other than gross inaccuracies....IPMS's website quotes something like an all black space shuttle.  There's just no way for the judges to be an expert on every subject in the categories.  I would expect that it would be difficult to find a contest where the judge is going to bash you for having a few incorrect swtich boxes in the cockpit of an F-4.  Even gross inaccuracies are lowest on the checklist for judging.

 

It would be unfair, for example, to have a Bf-109 expert judging a category and finding lots of minor inaccuracy faults in the 109s while having no clue about a P-51 in the same category.

 

As was said, it depends on what the end goal is.  I've noticed a recent trend in this forum toward the minutia when it comes to accuracy.  The lack of this was one of the reasons I liked and continued to come to this forum and really no others.  To each their own.  We're all here to enjoy building.  I've seen too many modelers get caught up in tiny details and never actually build anything because nothing's ever good enough and I can't see how this is enjoyable for anyone.  Kind of like the guys who never get a date because no girl is ever perfect enough. 

 

And repeating other points, the F-4D is a minefield for the all the crazy electronic mods done.  It's best to pick an airframe and try to mimic what can be seen on photos of that plane.  Some stuff you're just going to have to use your best judgment on.  If anyone gives you grief over it, just tell them the one you flew was like that.....

 

Chris

 

Speak for yourself.

 

 

As someone who has known IPMS judges; I found it interesting (In my experience) that when said judges had to judge models competing against each other and said models were all equally super awesome, guess what they ending using as a way to finalize scoring/judging? A-C-C-U-R-A-C-Y. Accuracy in color schemes. Accuracy in variant of model represented. Accuracy in decal markings, etc. 

 

Does it happen at absolutely every single IPMS competition? Of course not. But it happened enough times for me to notice.

 

 

Maybe your definition of 'rarely' is different than mine .

[Tony T]

I don't understand all the references to judging and competitions, and I'm not being pedantic.

 

The F-4C can be made pretty much OOB for any era, unless you want a Wild Weasel IV, in which case you will need Derek Bradshaw's conversion set (when released).

 

If you want a Vietnam era, non smart F-4D, build the Tamiya F-4C/D OOB, just omitting the 'Spike related indicator from the right-hand side of the pilot/AC's coaming.

 

If you want a Vietnam era smart bomber or LORAN bomber, you will need to tweak the rear office a bit, or buy the Avionix/BB set.

 

If you want a post war F-4D with the 566 Mod, you will need to rework the rear cockpit, particularly the radar scope and hood. Wolfpack are coming to the rescue according to Kagemusha.

 

There were other variations, but probably not worth worrying about unduly.

 

HTH

 

Tony T

[csavaglio]

I don't want to offend, but I'm just want to make one point about IPMS judging, as having been a judge in far more contests than I care to think about.....accuracy is used as a judgment criteria far more often and in far more detail than is allowed for in the rule book. 

 

You're friends are absolutely correct in that accuracy is the final say, but only at what IPMS describes as "gross inaccuracies."  In fact, coincidentally enough, the IPMS handbook even uses F-4's as an example.....

 

In the hundreds of categories I've judged, I've only seen accuracy legitimately play a signficant role once or twice, which I would describe as rare.  I have a car sitting in my garage that's one of 625 that I notice all the time, but that doesn't make it less rare.

 

I had a big rant typed up, but I'm at the end of my 5th 12 hour mid shift in a row with 2 more to go.  For the record, I don't care for IPMS these days and the way judging is conducted is at the top of the list, both when done by the book (unusual) and off the hip (much more common).

 

Chris

Edited October 16, 2013 by csavaglio

[Brian79]

I believe they are USN seats.

 

Mike

What is the difference?

[jmel]

What's wrong with the seat?

 

As Mike pointed out, Paul, the seats in all the BB/Avionix sets are US Navy-style seats.  Ironically, the seats in the Aires F-4J set, and the Quickboost stand-alone seats marketed as "US Navy" are in actuality only correct for USAF.

 

Jake

[P Stoner]

I think I have a set of all the seats mentioned, all but Eduards( which I've never built yet and have heard they set a new standard in AM seats!) I guess a mini seat review is in order. I'm a visual guy, I can read and talk all day, but I gota see it!!

 

I have court first!!!!!

 

Paul

[Ben Brown]

Oooooh, Phantoms! I'm glad I stopped by!

 

Another difference you might see between the C and D is in the glare shield on the front instrument panel. The Cs had the bit to the pilot's right of the radar sloped downwards, as you see in Showtime 100's post. The Ds started out that way, too, but had a larger gun sight. Some were modified so that the right side went out horizontally, and some warning lights were added below it. Not sure if the panel below is of a D, but it's illustrative of the glare shield. The Tamiya D glare shield is this design. If you want an earlier D, it's relatively easy to cut out the D gun sight and swap it to the C glare shield. 

 

Cheers!

 

Ben