I’m getting ready to build the Hasegawa 1/48 Phantom FGR Mk.II, and I have a hundred questions I need answered. Does anyone know of a website that might have some of the visible differences listed? Obviously, the tailpipes are different, but what about the intakes? I need some way of knowing how accurately Hasegawa made this kit, since all the Phantoms in this series have been made from mixing and matching molds. It is, overall, a very fine series which over the years has achieved “classic” status. But each kit of the different versions has its own peculiar glaring error(s), such as large humps on the wings that don’t belong because to save money Hasegawa used wing molds from another model that weren’t appropriate to the other model.
I just have a feeling this Brit F-4 is going to be rife with these kinds of errors. For one thing, I’ve seen many photos with the tiny side windows on Mk. II’s omitted, but though it’s quite easy to fix the error (if it is one), it’s just another example. Also, I have seen cockpit photos that show major differences, especially in the back seat. Does anyone know if the back seat on the Mk. II is offset to one side?
Anyway, any help would be appreciated.
TOM
The British phantoms were powered by Rolls Royce Spey Engines
Plus the fuselage was wider
The plane was based on a F4J
click on this link loads of pictures
http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/phantom/index.html
I know the Squadron Signal book on the F-4 in Action has some pages on the British Phantoms, you might want to get acopy of that. I don’t have it in front of me but I’ll try to look it up unless some one else beats me too it. Aside from that I think the main difference is that they developed a cockney accent after awhile.[;)]
No, I’m aware that the tailfeathers were, well, not feathers anymore in the Brit Phantoms. The Spey tailpipes were just solid, short cylinders from the outside. One Brit source just told me that the fuselage shape was changed slightly because the positioning of the Spey caused the tailpipes to point more toward the ground. Don’t know if this info is accurate. I haven’t yet been able to put a USN F-4J or similar sub-type side-by-side with a Spey-engined Phantom to test this. Of course, a good set of drawings, which I do not have, would solve this question quickly. If the whole fuselage is misshapen by Hasegawa, there’s nothing I can do. But it’s the details I’m more concerned with.
And, Sean, thanks for the link. I should have known that if anyone would come through on this question, it would be you. I do have the Osprey “Modelling the F-4 Phantom” which has a Hasegawa Mk. 2 in it. And, of course, the Osprey book includes those two beauties Sean has in his signature.
I’m expecting SAM’s Warpaint book on the type, so maybe it’ll help some. I’d really like to find one in the “Raspberry Ripple” scheme. I seem to recall seeing one in that scheme, but I would need decals for it and I don’t know if they exist. It’s a very attractive scheme.
And now, off-topic, once again I briefly saw that beautiful civilian Canberra on the National Geographic Channel in a documentary about weather modification. I think this early-model British Canberra is based in northern California and does contract flying for military contractors and such. But the reason I mention it is because it’s painted in the red, white and blue scheme used by the RAF’s test establishment, and called “raspberry ripple.”
There are at least two flying Canberras on the US Warbird Registry. One of them is painted in the earlier test sceme with the wide black and yellow stripes on the underside and, I think, glossy light sea gray on the topside. Now, if someone could just rebuild a B-57B to flying condition, painted in the colors of the fabled “Doom Pussy” unit, that would be worth going to an airshow for. I think a lot of people would be shocked at just how nimble the Canberra was for a plane that size.
TOM