(New) GPM Phantom kit

[Gil]

Performed a lookup on the subject:

The VF-92 squadron deployed on the USS Constellation from 1 October 1971 to 30 June 1972[2][11] On 10 May 1972, F-4J #157269 flown by Lieutenant Commander James "Routeslip" McDevitt and Lieutenant Curt "Dozo" Dose shot down a Vietnam People's Air Force Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 with an AIM-9 Sidewinder.[12] The squadron again deployed on the USS Constellation from 5 January 1973 to 11 October 1973[2] and from 21 June 1974 to 22 December 1974.

The squadron was disestablished on 12 December 1975.

I took a look at Issac's mention that "There should be no framing visible between the windshield sides and the fuselage." I do see some difference in the forward windshield:

Here's YOAVHAZMI-Cockpit-View:

And here's F4J GPM:

For reference here's B.V. Resin's F4J drawing:

Which "almost" sides with YOAVHAZMI's build.

Does anyone ever look at pictures of the subject when they're designing this stuff or is this something that should be chalked up to artistic license?...,

So that's another nick. Yet another fix...,

-Gil

[Gil]

Below is the results of a study of the forward cockpit/canopy panel lines on a real F4J.

Issac pointed out that GPM's new model does not depict this accurately. The B.V. Resin detailed F4J drawings show this detail more accurately and tend to support his argument as do the results of this study.

Drawings are the bane of the designer - so much so that they tend to only use them to rough out a design - utilizing walk-around photographs to further "adjust accuracy".

This might seem to be "nit picking" but I don't think so. An accurate depiction of a subject requires an amazing amount of time devoted to checking details.

One way to get ahead in a design is to choose a subject with a mountain of documentation. The problem with this is that every designer knows this and goes for the low hanging fruit. What is really interesting is that designers will choose erroneous sources without any further quality assurance checking.

Simply put it is easy to be led down the garden path without constant back annotation of the work. And that takes a lot of time.

Am I having second thoughts on purchasing GPM's F4J? Absolutely not. That fuselage is one marvelous piece of work and I'd be kicking myself for not purchasing it when I had the chance.

Banana tending fuselage or not,

-Gil

[skyman00]

Also, keep in mind the shape of the LE of the elevators; GPM doesn't have them accurate on this one. Should be a pretty easy fix.

[Isaac]

This is great conversation here. I for one like to have a model that is accurate as best as possible and practical. I think the more we talk about it, the more it will happen.

The rivet counting is a more extreme version of accuracy. We are not there yet.

We should encourage the purchase of these kits and also send the message that we want better accuracy.

I just purchased the GPM new F-104C!



Isaac

[Don Boose]

This has been a fascinating and informative discussion. I always like to hear about the details of aircraft (and other modeling subjects) and to know about inaccuracies or variations. I usually have neither the talent nor time to make the necessary changes to insure the highest level of accuracy in my models, but am always glad to have the information.

I personally find "Rivet counting" obnoxious only when it is done to disparage the efforts of another model builder. In my personal opinion, so long as it is understood that the satisfaction and pleasure a modeler gets from the model trumps accuracy, then well-informed information can be welcomed or ignored, depending on the model builder's goals.

Don

[Gil]

Originally Posted by skyman00

Also, keep in mind the shape of the LE of the elevators; GPM doesn't have them accurate on this one. Should be a pretty easy fix.

I have a nice story about rivets and how they blew up the Vray Renderer which ran out of memory - a story or a derelict project still waiting for budgetary approvals for newer and improved technology application...,

Here's a pictorial of the tail group which skyman00 mentioned and another line item in the fix budget...,

-Gil

P.S. F-104C!

[skyman00]

Gil, et al,
I’ve been thinking more about this and I thought of some other easy, straight forward mods/fixes that really help with the accuracy of this bird (I went through all of them myself, including “Eagle Eye” Yoav’s canopy frame tweek) without being completely AR in the RC dept.

[Gil]

Ted's comment on the wing bumps on both surfaces is confirmed by the literature and the B.V. Resin F4J drawings as seen below.

The bumps are kind of tricky. The upper surface can be formed by placing a plug underneath a slightly dampened wing surface, covered with a medium density foam sheet and clamped between two flat surfaces and left to dry.

The bottom bump consists of wing contours up to the gear doors periphery. The back side of the gear has a flap that contours the rear surface into the trailing edge - tricky at best and will require a bit more validation.

-Gil

[Don Boose]

I always enjoy your detailed and well-illustrated accuratization threads, Gil. I still rememebr the Seabee project.

Don

[Gil]

GPM F4J Phantom II arrived in the mail yesterday.

It is a repaint of GPM's 5'99 F4E Phantom II. A few additions such as glue strips and availability of laser cut frames. Both lack a frame so the complaint of a banana shaped fuselage is still a distinct possibility for the unwary builder.

I've been working on a Grumman OV-1 Mohawk fuselage which has now bogged down due to the lack of accurate and/or conflicting documentation.

I've been putting off doing anything on the F4 with the thought that if I wait long enough someone else would intercede. So far no luck...,

-Gil