Blast from the past Robin Olds Mig Killer Phantom built by Dave Boksanski

Another model built by Boh for Scale Modeler.   If you have been following this blog you will see that Boh was prolific model builder.  Not much was a change to him.  He would jump into the model
build while puffing on his big cigar.  When I would come by to build models with him. I could tell by the cloud of cigar smoke as to how the build was  going.   Dave sure loved his cigars.

The kit was the 1/72 revell F-4C kit.  In 1973 it was the best Phantom around at that time.  The model was sanded down to remove the surface details and rivets.   The model was scribe with a number 11 exacto blade.  I can hear the screams.. OMG with an exacto blade.   It would be several year later when Al Mason of  Bare metal foil would bring out his scribing tools.  I believe he was the first to make a commercial scribing tool.    How far we have come...  Enjoy thanks to Charlie Dunton for finding the article for the blog. 

F4 Phantom C model vs D model by Berny (aka Phormer Phantom Phixer)

 There were a lot of differences, internal and external. The F-4D had the APQ-109A RADAR set resulting in the front cockpit having a different shaped glare shield and a larger combining gun sight and mount. This was not a HUD as come call it, but was actually a combining reflective glass gun sight. Also on the front glare shield were different shaped RWR and ILS scopes. The FCP pedestal panel had added control boxes and switches.

Rear cockpit in the F-4D had a larger and higher instrument panel. On the right console was the addition of the bomb nav control panel. The F-4D used a bomb nav computer for better weapons delivery which the F-4C did not have. If you are building a "Smart D" capable of carrying smart bombs than the RCP will have a square RADAR scope, not the round one. "Smart D's" had the APQ-109V RADAR set, so the scope was square and could produce an image like a TV. There was a circuit breaker panel added, just beside the WSO's right leg, down low and forward on the right console.

The F-4D had a different ECM system and the signal processor housed in the Radome Chin Pod was much larger. That is why the F-4D had the hump on the Chin Pod and the F-4C didn't. The RHAW antenna on the vertical fin was more rounded on the F-4D, not pointed like the F-4C.



 No operational F-4 Phantom carried the IR sensor. The F-4A tested it but it never became operational on any version of the F-4. The chin pod was built into the F-4B with hopes of including the IR sensor but never came to be. The F-4C was designed to incorporate changes the USAF needed, such as engine cartridge start capability, anti lock brakes, INS, and many others. The F-4C was basically a F-4B airframe with improvements the Air Force needed. The chin dome was common on all F-4C aircraft. The USAF operated Navy F-4B Phantoms as a test. They were stationed at McDill AFB, Florida. They were called the F-110. As the Air Force began receiving their F-4C's they returned their F-110's back to the Navy and were renamed F-4B's.

When the Air Force went to MDD to design the F-4D, a lot of changes were added. One was to eliminate the chin dome as it wasn't needed. As the war in SEA showed, some type of ECM was needed to warn crews of radar lock on, missile launch and danger. The chin pod was replaced back on the radome of the F-4D and was used to house the ALR-46 ECM. The ALR-46 had a larger processor so the hump was added to make room for it. The F-4C used a different type ECM with a smaller processor and fit into the nose dome without any modification.

The Herpes mod was added later with an improvement of the ALR-46. Only a few of the D's were modified as funding ran out when the defence budget was slashed. By then the F-4D was leaving active USAF service and being replaced by the F-4E and F-16A/B. The Guard and Reserve was even giving them up in favor of newer more capable aircraft.

The F-4C did use the Navy style pylons, inboard and outboard, until they converted to the newer style.  If you look close at the Navy style inboard pylon you will see it is actually a "Zero Launch" AIM-7 launcher.  In order to carrry anything other than an AIM-7 required a pylon adapter.  The adapter allowed TER's, Sidewinder launchers and other ordinance to be carried.  Everything had to be mounted on the adapter.  TER's could not be jettisoned without jettisoning the adapter.  The bad thing there is if it is carrying Sidewinders, you would also jettison them.

The USAF style inboard pylons had a MAU-12 bomb rack built into the pylon.  It isn't as streamlined, is much heaver, but it will carry a heaver load.  The Sidewinder launchers are mounted to the pylon allowing direct connection of anything to the bomb rack, without an adapter.

Early F-4C and D's also used the Navy style AIM-9 launchers.  Many can be seen loaded on the F-4 in the early war time in SEA.  By 1968 most had converted to the newer style USAF launcher.  The old Navy style were used for many years by the Guard and Reserve units into the 1980's.

The RF-4C continued to use the Navy style inboard pylon through out its service.  It carried only an ECM pod or travel pod on that station so a Bomb rack wasn't needed.

The second fighter variant ordered by the U. S. Air Force was the F-4D.  Externally, it looked much the same as the previous F-4C, but the easiest way to tell the difference was to look at the infrared housing under the radome.  F-4Cs had a smooth housing, and although some early F-4Ds had no fairing at all, most had a fairing with a noticeable bump on the underside.  The configuration of the hump would change over the service life of the F-4D, but it was always there in one form or another.

NAA vs Canadair built F-86's

 Quick way to Identify North American built F-86 vs Canadair built F-86

Douglas video on the A-4 skyhawk.

The A-4 was one hell of an aircraft.   Here is a great video.

C-121 Warning stars

To me the C-121 was the most glamorous aircraft built. The aircraft has sexy lines. At the same time graceful curves.  During the 50 and 60 these aircraft flew 24/7 providing an early warning for air defense.  I think most will agree.

Arctic Spinter for F-18

the F-18’s Arctic Splinter Camouflage of the VFC-12 “Fighting Omars” at Naval Air Station Oceana Virginia Beach, VA.   The paint mask can be found here: Hornet Aggressive artic scheme

How too apply a decal on the A-4 skyhawk. By David Aungst

David has six easy steps to lay down  the wing decal over the vertices.   This is the bane of building A-4 Skyhawk model.
The Start

The wing vortex generators are very large and on high-viz Skyhawks, you need the national insignia to go over them.

Step 1

Apply the decal. Only have the forward section of the decal flat on the wing. Hold the decal up in the back. Stiffer decal will stay up on their own. Thin ones need help. I am using my favorite decals tool (a sewing needle mounted in a wood dowel) to prop up the back of the decal.

Step 2

With the decal popped up, apply setting solution (I use Solv-a-set) directly on the vortex generators under the decal. Then, let got of the decal. On thin decals, the raised portion will just flop down. On thicker decals, the setting solution will work in the decal from the back side and it will relax down.

Avoid the temptation to "help" it go down. You run the risk of distorting the decal.

Also, try to avoid any air bubbles around the vortex generators. Any air bubbles will make bubbles in the decal that you will later have to pop so the decal lays flat.

Step 3

Now starts the waiting game. All the wrinkles tell you the setting solution is working. As the decal is drying, I will apply more setting solution on the area of the vortex generators to help keep the decal softened. As it drys, the decal is sucked down over the vortex generators.

IMPORTANT - Do not try to flatten the wrinkles out of the decal. This wrinkling is normal and will level out as the decal dries.

As the solvent continues working, the decal can look really bad. Still, refrain from trying to fix it at this stage.

You can start seeing the decal being pulled down over the vortex generators, here.

Step 4

The decal is mostly dry/set. Some wrinkles are still present. The decal is getting pulled down over the vortex generators.

Step 5

This is the morning after.

The decal is fully dry/set. You can see that the decal had snuggled down over most of the vortex generators. The ones at the left end are not yet fully pulled down.

Step 6

Use a tool to poke holes in the decal at the bubble points. Take care not to do too may. These holes are what may create tares in the decal that later need to be fixed with paint.

Then, apply more decal solvent.

Repeat this step as much as you need to until you are done.

Done! The decal has snuggled down over all the vortex generators.

Here is a view without the light reflections. You can see I have a few minor tares in the decal at the base of a few vortex generators to touch-up with paint on the left end. This was where the bubbles were under the decal, so these were expected. The right end vortex generators had the decal suck down around them without bubbles, so they did not need poking (which causes the tares).