F-4 Phantom Opinions Sought

[Chek]

I'm in the throes of planning an F-4 build and have some options to consider

 

The Tamiya is a good quality kit, but has issues, namely the rear fuselage contour abortion and the raised detail. Otherwise I'd be fine with the hard wing the kit provides.

I'm just not happy about getting a symmetrical rear end if sanded down/filled to approximate shape. Also I have the GT intakes and jet pipes.

 

The Revell kit has a slat wing which is good, and I have the GT nose replacement and a set of Tamiya canopy pieces to fix the squashed canopy.

Again,  also GT intakes and jet pipes. As the Revell kit comes with engraved panelling that will save a lot of otherwise extra work.

 

Has anyone who's built and or examined both kits got an opinion on the best route at this stage? I'm thinking standard vanilla SEA with sharkmouth currently.

Although a white wing/SEA overall toned down ALCM chase plane is tempting too.

[Dave Williams]

Never heard about the Tamiya “rear fuselage contour abortion”, and by raised detail, I assume you mean just the raised “scab plates” on the intakes and fuselage, but if you’re going to use new intakes and exhausts for both kits, I can’t see going Revell over Tamiya.  The Tamiya kit has a better cockpit, and the rear floor isn’t too low like in the Revell kit.  Also, the Tamiya kit has better gear, especially the nose gear which is too skinny on the Revell kit.

 

ETA:  Just my personal opinion, of course, but I prefer the Tamiya kit over the Revell.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Dave Williams

[Dandiego]

Built both.

 Tamiya all the way. 

 

Dan

Edited September 1, 2020 by Dandiego

[Chek]

1 hour ago, Dave Williams said:

Never heard about the Tamiya “rear fuselage contour abortion”

 

It becomes more apparent if you apply the NAVY or MARINES titles on the F-4J.

But it's also there on their F-4E and F-4EJ and F-4C/D.

[Chek]

I've borrowed an image from PhilB's build on this site from here

It's a very nice looking build so I hope Phil's OK with it.

 

The first thing is to notice is how flat the N, A and V are on the model.

On the real F-4B, the Y starts curving at about 1/3 rd of its height, but only about the upper 25% on the model.

The Tamiya's nacelle contours are way off and beyond salvaging by sanding.

Ideally an insert such as Hypersonic made to eliminate the incorrect crease on the ZM kits would be great, but Jeffrey says he's sticking with only working in 1/48 scale.

 

[blackbetty]

any pics of the revell kit from that angle?

[Cheetah11]

I had a look at my Revell and Tamiya kits and although there is a difference it is not all that apparent. In the above comparison the NAVY lettering is not the same size or in exactly the same position, so it is difficult to asses the extent of the problem. 
I personally won’t worry about it.

[thierry laurent]

Alas, that issue is not a fantasy one. It is not that obvious on planes without lettering there. So, you have to know where you need to look at and this is typically more visible on White/Grey Navy or Marines planes. However, there are various pictures showing that Tamiya did not correctly reproduce the curves of the rear fuselage. 

[Dave Williams]

The NAVY lettering looks to be a little lower on the model than on the photo, but I do agree that the rear fuselage seems more “pinched” above the exhaust on the real thing.  That said, this is something that doesn’t seem to bother most people who build the Tamiya kit.  I’m definitely not ditching my Tamiya kits in favor of the Revell kit, even if it turns out that Revell got it right.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Dave Williams

[Chek]

8 hours ago, blackbetty said:

any pics of the revell kit from that angle?

 

None that I can find with useful markers on it.

Here's the old 1972 issued original Revell F-4J, which looks in the right ballpark, judging by the highlight lines.

I don't think anybody should junk their Tamiya kits, but it would be nice if a resin insert to correct the contours from 

where the turbine stripe is on USAF Phantoms to just aft of the vents above the jet exhausts were available.

For me the blockiness of the Tamiya fuselage as provided just makes it look wrong.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Chek
photo added

[thierry laurent]

Even if the Revell kit was correct at that level, the numerous shape issues are globally far worse: nose, intakes, mid-fuselage cross-section, hard transition between the engine fairings on the rear belly, canopies, tail tip, ... Ouch ! 

[LSP_K2]

6 hours ago, Dave Williams said:

The NAVY lettering looks to be a little lower on the model than on the photo, but I do agree that the rear fuselage seems more “pinched” above the exhaust on the real thing.  That said, this is something that doesn’t seem to bother most people who build the Tamiya kit.  I’m definitely not ditching my Tamiya kits in favor of the Revell kit, even if it turns out that Revell got it right.

 

I agree. I've also seen any number of the big Tamiya kits done both at local and regional events, as well as here and other sites, and never noticed anything wrong with any of them.

[Marcel111]

I've built a Tamiya F-4E and Tamiya F-4J (converted to an S). They are beautiful kits with good overall shape accuracy and fine panel line detail. They are not Tamiya F-16 kits though, they require quite a bit of work to correct the numerous issues such as raised patch-panels, exhaust vents, exhausts themselves (I'd get resin ones anyway), lacking inside intake trunking, wrongly-positioned outside pylons etc. My eye has never caught the rear fuselage shape issue discussed here so in my world it's a non-issue. I'd say if you are going for a hard-winged Phantom, the Tamiya kit is for you.

 

I have always been interested in doing a G but was a little discouraged by all the resin updates required to convert the Tamiya kit, esp. the slatted wing (would require a bunch of panel line altering also, I think). I've always been put off by the misshapen Revell nose (E&G) but since I saw and ordered the G-M-T corrections I took the plunge and ordered the G kit, which I have already received. Must say I am really impressed by the fine surface detail, my overall impression of the kit is really positive. Once I receive the Q-M-T parts I'll do a little review but they look very good in the pics and to me they clear the way to tackling the Revell kit.

 

Cheers,

 

Marcel

 

 

[scjh]

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

 

[LSP_K2]

I suppose it's really like so many other kits; errors are really only noticeable to those that have an eye for them, and/or seek them out. I don't recall that I've ever studied any kit in such detail (save for a few armor kits) to see if they comply with accuracy, especially as it relates to shapes, contours and other geometry. I have three Revell 1:32 F-4 kits sitting here and have done a fair amount of work on at least one of them. While a quick comparison to the Tamiya kit and some detail photos of those areas, shows the Tamiya detail to be better (more accurately) detailed in some areas, I'm still perfectly OK with the Revell kits "as-is".