F-4C Phantom question

[Darren Howie]

If your getting serious about F-4’s id highly recommend these drawings as a great place to start.

Particularly the poorly represented front end.

http://soyuyo.main.jp/f4/f4e-1.html

 

PS that was an awesome find on FB of 680 taxiing in after Bolo.

Only photo of the aircraft showing the front other than those i was told where taken by Olds crew chief with his camera on the pre flight.

Seems Robin Olds memory is to be trusted unlike what a thousand voices saying it wasnt.

I guess having photos of the aircraft you flew standing by its nose helped his memory..lol.

 

[Cheetah11]

 

Hi Greg

 

I do not know how far you are with the build yet and how many things you are going to change but one inaccuracy with the Tamiya kit is the position of the outboard pylons. They are too far outboard. The Revell kit is correct. This problem is also shared by the 1/ 48 Hasegawa kits. I do not know if the ZM 1/48 kits have the same problem but there seems to be an inaccurate set of plans floating around as Tamiya and Hasegawa have made the same error.  An easy way to see this is the pylons should line up with the center of the aileron as per Jennings's drawing above.

 

Nick

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Cheetah11

[jenshb]

I see your drawings have the IR sensor fairing Jennings.  Does that mean Olds' aircraft did have it (assuming that is his aircraft you are using as a template)?

[Barry]

12 hours ago, Darren Howie said:

PS that was an awesome find on FB of 680 taxiing in after Bolo.

Only photo of the aircraft showing the front other than those i was told where taken by Olds crew chief with his camera on the pre flight.

Seems Robin Olds memory is to be trusted unlike what a thousand voices saying it wasnt.

I guess having photos of the aircraft you flew standing by its nose helped his memory..lol.

 

So there exist a confirmed photo of 680 w/o the chin radome?

 

Barry

[mrvark]

Just read through this thread and offer a couple of observations:

 

The 'pointy' inboard pylons were LAU-17/As. They were originally designed to fit AIM-7s to the bottom. I'm not an F-4 expert, but the USAF did get some LAU-17s early in the F-4 program and they continued to be used on RF-4Cs even after the F-4s had switched to MAU-12s.

 

The AERO 3 launchers were designed for AIM-9Bs. When the Navy developed the AIM-9D they had to switch to the LAU-7 launcher because it held a nitrogen tank that was used to cool the D's more sophisticated seeker. The LAU-7s have curved sides to hold the circular cross-sectioned tank and also differed from the AERO 3 in that the nose and tail fairings were curved rather than angular. The USAF planed at one point to buy AIM-9Ds, but the new missile encountered developmental difficulties so they eventually abandoned that idea and instead modified their AIM-9Bs to the AIM-9E (and later J & P) standard. However, in anticipation of getting AIM-9Ds, the USAF bought a number of LAU-7A/A launchers and it's not hard to find pics of them in the 1967-8 timeframe.

 

The USAF never bought the IR sensor originally fitted to the USN's F-4Bs and hated the unsightly donkey dick. However, they bought it because the contract was in place and changing it would've cost big bucks. When they bought F-4Ds, McAir reminded them that it was a new contract and they could dispense with the unsightly appendage. They lept at the idea and for that initial contract they had a nice, smooth radome. However, when the next contract came around, they had to go back to the original design (I think because the USN also needed radomes, but I'm not positive about that). At the time, there was speculation that the D had a bigger radome (I have a book that actually stated that!), but the radomes were interchangeable between Cs & Ds and if a radome was requested from supply, either could be supplied. So, it was quite possible to find Cs with the smooth radome.

 

The Tamiya Sidewinders are utter trash--toss them. I suggest Eduard 632083 for your AIM-9Bs.

[32scalelover]

7 hours ago, Cheetah11 said:

 

Hi Greg

 

I do not know how far you are with the build yet and how many things you are going to change but one inaccuracy with the Tamiya kit is the position of the outboard pylons. They are too far inboard. The Revell kit is correct. This problem is also shared by the 1/ 48 Hasegawa kits. I do not know if the ZM 1/48 kits have the same problem but there seems to be an inaccurate set of plans floating around as Tamiya and Hasegawa have made the same error.  An easy way to see this is the pylons should line up with the center of the aileron as per Jennings's drawing above.

 

Nick

 

Nick,

 

Thanks I will look into that as I had not heard it mentioned before.  I am cleaning up the seams at the moment and preparing to prime. 

 

Greg

[Cheetah11]

1 hour ago, 32scalelover said:

Nick,

 

Thanks I will look into that as I had not heard it mentioned before.  I am cleaning up the seams at the moment and preparing to prime. 

 

Greg

Hi Greg

 

I was maybe a little unclear. The Tamiya kit location is too far outboard. Here is a photo to explain. The location of the pylons should be 23mm inboard of the wing fold line. (15.3mm in 1/48)

 

 

I came across this in an article in Model Aircraft Monthly where Yoav Efrati does a build on the last F-4 kill of the Israeli Scorpion Squadron. According to the article Ra'anan Weiss of IsraDecal discovered the error on the Hasegawa kit after researching decals for the Israeli F-4E. If you are interested in the article I can send you a few pictures from it.

 

Since reading the article I measure and correct all my Tamiya and Hasegawa kits. 

 

A small point is also the shape of the wing tips on the kit. For a 1967 F-4 the RWR antennas should be sanded off. I am sorry I clean forgot about this.

 

 

Nick

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Cheetah11

[mrvark]

2 hours ago, Cheetah11 said:

Hi Greg

 

I was maybe a little unclear. The Tamiya kit location is too far outboard. Here is a photo to explain. The location of the pylons should be 23mm inboard of the wing fold line. (15.3mm in 1/48)

 

Well, you're right, but I think the math is off. The wing fold is at station 160, the outboard pylon at 132.5 or 27.5" inboard of the wing fold. That works out to 0.859" or 21.8mm in 1:32, 0.573" or 14.5mm in 1:48 and 0.382" or 9.7mm in 1:72.

[Cheetah11]

11 minutes ago, mrvark said:

 

Well, you're right, but I think the math is off. The wing fold is at station 160, the outboard pylon at 132.5 or 27.5" inboard of the wing fold. That works out to 0.859" or 21.8mm in 1:32, 0.573" or 14.5mm in 1:48 and 0.382" or 9.7mm in 1:72.

Thanks for the measurements in inches on the real aircraft. I used the 15.3mm quoted in the mentioned article and scaled it up.

 

 

[32scalelover]

Excellent information guys!!!!  You all have been a ton of help.  I will have the outboard pylons and Aim-9B missiles on order cyber Monday.  I have been holding out for the deals for a lot of my AM purchases.  The measurements will really help and I will seal up the tamiya holes and locate the outboard pylon in the correct location.

 

Greg

[Tony T]

There are no proud moulded-in electroluminescent slime lights on the Tamiya kits.

Itek Applied Technology AN/APR-25 RHAWS and the -26 LWR gear was fielded from November 1966. 

 

If you want to remove stuff the stabilator doubler "fishplates" need to go for pre-1973 and the lower wing torque box has a T-shaped reinforcing doubler arrangement introduced after production, probably at the same time as lower wing reinforcing scabs.

 

Tony 

[John1]

Kinda OT - For those interested in the minute details of the Phantom, this guy runs a very cool blog.  His latest article pertains to the changes made to "Door 19", that gives you some idea of the level of detail he goes into. 

 

https://phantomphacts.blogspot.com/

 

I'm interested in ECM topics and the sections on Vietnam-era Navy ECM upgrades was especially fascinating.    If you are an F-4 Phanatic, it's worth grabbing a coffee and checking this out. 

[Cheetah11]

On 11/30/2019 at 4:14 AM, Darren Howie said:

If your getting serious about F-4’s id highly recommend these drawings as a great place to start.

Particularly the poorly represented front end.

http://soyuyo.main.jp/f4/f4e-1.html

 

PS that was an awesome find on FB of 680 taxiing in after Bolo.

Only photo of the aircraft showing the front other than those i was told where taken by Olds crew chief with his camera on the pre flight.

Seems Robin Olds memory is to be trusted unlike what a thousand voices saying it wasnt.

I guess having photos of the aircraft you flew standing by its nose helped his memory..lol.

 

Hi Darren

So did 680 have an IR sensor or not and what about the pylons? Is the photo available?
 

Nick

Edited December 9, 2019 by Cheetah11

[Tony T]

56 minutes ago, Cheetah11 said:

Hi Darren

So did 680 have an IR sensor or not and what about the pylons? Is the photo available?
 

Nick

 

The general concensus is to go with Olds' recollections — no "IR" sensor, nor tail "acorn" above the rudder associated with the Itek RHAWS gear, and probably "pointy" Navy inner wing pylons.

 

My F-4 research was disconnected (Weasel etc) for The Phantom Story (1992) and Iron Hand (2002) but Peter Davies talked to Olds on the 'phone, at length, for his Osprey USAF F-4 MiG-killer books and that may be worth looking into. I divested myself of all my Osprey stock a year ago.

 

Hope that helps rather than hinders,

 

Tony T