Anthony in NZ Posted May 20, 2021 Author Share Posted May 20, 2021 Thanks Derek....you are correct, lets hope I captured it when its finished! Quick update before going to work. Wasn't going to bother but it might be of interest. Hard to se 4 or 5 hours work here just on this side. See the slight curvature I now have on the side, pretty hard to photograph with only 2 hands sorry... Aaaaand it dosent look any different after all that work LOL Iain Ogilvie has kindly given me permission to use some of his photos on my build to illustrate what I am trying to achieve This is quite a good one Anyhow, hope this is of interest to those wanting to build a Brit Toom scvrobeson, Derek B, Spooky56 and 6 others 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talon Posted May 20, 2021 Share Posted May 20, 2021 LOL. 53 pages in and we're at the fuselage. Must be another Galbraith special. Anthony in NZ and Derek B 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scvrobeson Posted May 20, 2021 Share Posted May 20, 2021 I can see the changes you made around the intakes. It's a tiny little detail, but I think we all know that you'd go after every rivet and change. All I can offer is my encouragement as you continue on. Matt Derek B and Anthony in NZ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scvrobeson Posted May 20, 2021 Share Posted May 20, 2021 8 hours ago, Derek B said: Indeed, those few inches make a huge difference! Great work on those intakes and fuselage structure Anthony (the absolute real pay-off, of course, will be when the model is completed and is posed in a manner which matches a photograph of the actual aircraft and no one can tell the difference between the two!). Derek Derek, quick question on your picture. Does that show that a second skin was added for the Brit versions? I don't know if I'm missing something, but it looks almost like there's a second skin there where the Spey intake went on? Matt Anthony in NZ, Derek B and D.B. Andrus 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainM Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 You've indeed got that curve going there. I have no knowledge of Phantoms at all, but looking at the above images and what they convey, you've definitely got that captured well! It's amazing how all the Marks differ! I knew the Brits flew them, but had no idea of the substantial differences that were involved. Fabulous work indeed! Derek B and Anthony in NZ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 7 hours ago, scvrobeson said: Derek, quick question on your picture. Does that show that a second skin was added for the Brit versions? I don't know if I'm missing something, but it looks almost like there's a second skin there where the Spey intake went on? Matt Good question? It is difficult to determine from that image. From my experience, military aircraft structures are not double skinned. I am no Phantom build expert in this area, but I believe that fuel tanks live in this area of the aircraft spine along its length, so it may be internal tank skinning (or may be what is left of it after they cut the fuselage!). Regards Derek Anthony in NZ and scvrobeson 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony in NZ Posted May 21, 2021 Author Share Posted May 21, 2021 Interesting indeed, it almost looks like the built over the top of the original structure. Look at this image here, it appears to be at the same station frame.... scvrobeson and Derek B 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) Hi Anthony, It's possible, but I can see that causing a lot of potential additional structural and weight issues, so it would not really be desirable from a design perspective? (although parts of the original F-4J design do appear to have been modified in areas). This fuselage does appear to be sectioned in approximately the same place as the J-79 powered F-4 above, but as can be seen (and as we have now come to expect) that it has been extensively modified/redesigned to accommodate the RR Spey engines (the only way of actually verifying this is to have dimension 'D' of my diagram above measured across a US J-79 cockpit section and see if it is the same or not?). Regards Derek Edited May 21, 2021 by Derek B Anthony in NZ, scvrobeson, GMK and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainM Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 Morning gents My two cents worth as someone who knows nothing about Phantoms, but looking at the two images of that C and the Spey Phantoms side-by-side at the disassembly point - I would hazard a guess that the Spey version is a total redesign that would have involved it's own production process - there is very little that is actually similar between those two aircraft at that station except for the basic shape and some of the piping, etc. I think that the redesign starts even further forward down the fuselage, perhaps just behind the aft cockpit. That "double-skinning" I think would be part of the design to accommodate the airflow acoustics of the Spey engine and the strengthening required for that airflow - there is a lot of pressure build-up at the intake, and slapping a different engine on that sucks more air, creates more pressure, etc without any sort of redesign of the intake would most likely cause that intake to collapse inwards on itself. My guess is although you're looking at the same aircraft shape at a glance, that's almost where the similarity ends. They are so different under that skin.... D.B. Andrus, Anthony in NZ and Derek B 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony in NZ Posted May 21, 2021 Author Share Posted May 21, 2021 (edited) Yes I think you are both correct. On studying all the images and listening to the reasoning it appears they are very different structurally (as Derek says, there may be some parts J-79 airframe parts incorporated), but otherwise a whole different beast that looks like a Phantom! Thanks Chaps, such an interesting study.... Edited May 21, 2021 by Anthony in NZ Derek B and IainM 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easixpedro Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 I honestly think it's exactly like the legacy Hornet vs. Super Hornet. USN leadership got it past (i.e. hoodwinked) Congress by saying it's the same airplane, when the reality is much different. Sure there's parts commonality, but the Super Hornet is about 30% bigger if memory serves (it might not, so don't quote me). But by saying it was an upgrade to the same airframe, the navy bypassed all the bureaucratic requirements to buy a brand new aircraft (including all the testing requirements, which were still done, albeit at a lower threshold). Wouldn't surprise me if something similar happened back in the day if the MoD really wanted an upgrade, but couldn't get it past leadership. Enter McD (now Boeing so you can see the pattern) with a plan to pitch... seems plausible enough and leaves modelers the world over wondering! D.B. Andrus, Anthony in NZ, IainM and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony in NZ Posted May 21, 2021 Author Share Posted May 21, 2021 9 minutes ago, easixpedro said: I honestly think it's exactly like the legacy Hornet vs. Super Hornet. USN leadership got it past (i.e. hoodwinked) Congress by saying it's the same airplane, when the reality is much different. Sure there's parts commonality, but the Super Hornet is about 30% bigger if memory serves (it might not, so don't quote me). But by saying it was an upgrade to the same airframe, the navy bypassed all the bureaucratic requirements to buy a brand new aircraft (including all the testing requirements, which were still done, albeit at a lower threshold). Wouldn't surprise me if something similar happened back in the day if the MoD really wanted an upgrade, but couldn't get it past leadership. Enter McD (now Boeing so you can see the pattern) with a plan to pitch... seems plausible enough and leaves modelers the world over wondering! Sounds like the same thing to me as well. Probably most think its the same airframe in the general public arena but to us nerdy modelers we get to know all the differences when we study them in such detail!! Derek B, IainM, D.B. Andrus and 3 others 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek B Posted May 21, 2021 Share Posted May 21, 2021 That is one of the joys of this hobby - learning! Derek Supersonic, Anthony in NZ and IainM 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scvrobeson Posted May 22, 2021 Share Posted May 22, 2021 16 hours ago, Derek B said: Good question? It is difficult to determine from that image. From my experience, military aircraft structures are not double skinned. I am no Phantom build expert in this area, but I believe that fuel tanks live in this area of the aircraft spine along its length, so it may be internal tank skinning (or may be what is left of it after they cut the fuselage!). Regards Derek Great help. I'm probably the last person to claim expertise on aircraft construction, or the F-4 Phantom, that's just what I thought I saw on that photo. I could be completely off-base, just seemed somewhat plausible looking at that photo. Matt Derek B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony in NZ Posted May 22, 2021 Author Share Posted May 22, 2021 1 hour ago, scvrobeson said: Great help. I'm probably the last person to claim expertise on aircraft construction, or the F-4 Phantom, that's just what I thought I saw on that photo. I could be completely off-base, just seemed somewhat plausible looking at that photo. Matt I agreed with you too Matt...nice to have it answered. I was just sitting on the couch after starting on replacing some panel lines before I head off to get my second Pfizer jab, and I thought for the first time looking at it from this angle , HEY that looks like a British Phantom! Well it was a big thing in my world because I had been struggling to see the woods for the trees or step back to see the bigger picture. Sorry for the poor pic I just snapped it on my iPhone on the couch at a distance Right-O , off for my Jab Cheers Anthony D.B. Andrus, scvrobeson, Derek B and 17 others 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now