Jump to content

Navy Phantom II


Shubie

Recommended Posts

As far as I can see from my references, all Navy Phantoms had no arrows on the stabilators.  This is from the Bert Kinsey book.  If you have it, it’s in Detail & Scale Vol. 12.  
I am bringing this up due to the latest issue of the Journal.  Which has an excellent article on the 1/48th scale F-4J. 
In my collection of references, an excellent photo is shown of this particular aircraft, in squadron/signal publications Aircraft #65, page 48.  This not to be nitpicking, but kits don’t always have the right parts, and sometimes need to be corrected.

 Thanks,

Shubie

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, they don't.  However, some USN/USMC F-4's had a rectangular doubler or patch in the same general area.  And late in their service lives, some USMC aircraft did sport the arrowhead-shaped doubler--there is at least one photo on the interwebs showing it.  IIRC, the debate was whether the stabilator came from a retired USAF Phantom or not, but no matter where it came from, it was clearly visible.

As you say, if a modeler is a stickler for accuracy, always check those references.  I've found that there are very few absolutes out in the world, there's always an exception to the rule.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ralph Nardone said:

Usually, they don't.  However, some USN/USMC F-4's had a rectangular doubler or patch in the same general area.  And late in their service lives, some USMC aircraft did sport the arrowhead-shaped doubler--there is at least one photo on the interwebs showing it.  IIRC, the debate was whether the stabilator came from a retired USAF Phantom or not, but no matter where it came from, it was clearly visible.

As you say, if a modeler is a stickler for accuracy, always check those references.  I've found that there are very few absolutes out in the world, there's always an exception to the rule.

R

Ralph, that applies across the board!  A photo is only a moment in time.  If accuracy is your thing, then choose a moment for your model and provide the reference photo.  Aircraft, race cars, tanks and ships can all be changed in a moment to suit a particular situation.  Never say never.  Because something isn't in place for one or several photos, doesn't mean "never".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the same interesting article in the new Journal, and came away with a different impression. I don't think he was trying to make an "accurate" model per se, as much as he was trying to improve on the kit's details with what he had on hand. He clearly states what he used, and he doesn't mention buying anything FOR the build. Everything he does is more along the lines of improving perceived missing kit detailing, and although some of the items he uses may also be more accurate or correct, I never saw him state that he was out to eliminate any and all inaccuracies.

 

We all build to a purpose to satisfy ourselves. I'll take issue with the statement that "but kits don’t always have the right parts, and sometimes need to be corrected." That statement is true only if YOU have that personal dedication to complete accuracy. Many of us don't, whether it's for lack of time, or simply not being as demanding of ourselves as others. For many builders "OOTB" is good enough. For others, they want to improve obvious points of interest like cockpits, wheel wells, and gun bays; but no more. And still others do set out to capture that accurate moment in time so that their project IS "correct" in every detail. I just advise being careful not to project your own style onto anyone else's efforts.

 

Gil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gil:  Exactly.  To quote the Late, Great Al Superczynski, "Build what YOU want the way YOU want to."  And I don't think anybody in this thread has stated otherwise.  I think most modelers do this anyway--only a very few of my IRL modeling friends really care what others think of their models, they build for their enjoyment/satisfaction and nobody else's. 

I was merely pointing out things in case somebody reading *is* that guy who wants to be nut/bolt/rivet accurate.  I know a few, and that's their kick.  Not for me to say they are right or wrong.

Pete:  True, and it is especially true of ships--look at the "old" battleships that were damaged at Pearl Harbor--when some of them emerged from repairs and refits, they bore only a slight resemblance to what they were before (added armor, torpedo bulges, masts, armament).  As new technology enters the fleet, the old stuff is removed and the new installed in its place.

I've said it a million times--there are as many ways to enjoy this hobby as there are people enjoying it.

Cheers!
R

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cunningham’s F-4J

Since I started this, let me explain.

If anyone knows the history of this particular plane they would know that after they got their last mig kill.  The plane was lost, the pilot and rio ejected and survived.  Therefore this particular planes photos, show no arrow on the stabilators.  

This arrow on the stabilators is shown on every Monogram, Hasagawa, etc. kit that are in my collection, therefore the manufacturers need to create the proper stabilators for Navy F-4’s.

The easy correction is to just sand off the arrow and rescribe the straight line top and bottom.  Not that hard of a fix.  The author put a lot of extra things in this kit.  I just feel, if you or anybody else did the extra work he did, it wouldn’t take that much more to correct the stabilators.

Thats all I was trying to say, and with that I will not bother to nit pick ever again.  
As was mentioned before, build what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything you have stated is true. 

The modeler who built the Phantom for the article did not remove the stiffener for whatever reason.

No harm, no foul, nothing to get excited about...

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...