F-4 variant conversions

Well... I've finally cracked. I've been resisting making any F-4s for some time, but I have some rather nice decal sheets...

I would like to build an F-4J and a slatted F-4E using the Hasegawa kits. However the Hannants site shows that these versions are currently unavailable. I have considered simply swapping the wings in the F-4S and F-4EJ kits. Is the job as simplistic as that? I know that there were other modifications such as slatted tailplanes. Which are required for the versions I want?

I would also like to build an RF-4B. Would putting the wings, burner cans and cockpit from an F-4B on to an RF-4C be a reasonable course of action? And would the equivalent parts from the RF-4C put on the F-4B then make a reasonable F-4C/D?

Thanks in advance for any help and comments.

Reply to
Enzo Matrix
Loading thread data ...
< Hasegawa phantom mix and match proposals >

In general, the parts should be interchangeable between the various kits in the modern F-4 family, so there should be no problem there. You didn't specify scale, but there's a whole bunch of these chaps in 1/72 in my stash. You can get a near perfect brakedown of all the subtleties involved by comparing the parts/sprues lists on the various instruction sheets. If it would help, I could get you a scan of those pages for any of the variants you mention.

Rob

Reply to
Rob van Riel

The wings in the recessed panel line F-4 kits seem to interchange easily. For example, the slatted and unslatted wings work with the base F-4E and F-4J fuselages, so swapping wings between the F-4S and the F-4EJ (not the -EJ Kai) will work.

Regarding the RF-4B, I assume that you want one of the thin wing RF-4Bs, instead of the thick wing RF-4B that Hasegawa released? I would be wary of mixing wing and fuselage parts between the old raised panel line kits and the later recessed panel line kits as I've heard they don't fit quite right. Also, regarding the changes, you won't need the burner cans as the early RF-4B and the RF-4C had the same exhausts. Also, the cockpit in the F-4B kit is wrong anyway in that it is already Air Force style. This was never fixed in the Hasehawa kit.

Dave

Reply to
Dave Williams

See

formatting link
"kit reference" section for a complete (nearly) listing of the parts trees and contents for the Hasegawa F-4 series. It's very useful for cross-kitting work.

Reply to
DJ

Would that be 1/48 scale? Seems correct in the 1/72.

Rob

Reply to
Rob van Riel

Thanks to all who responded. You've been most helpful (which, in my experience, is situation normal for this newsgroup). I didn't think that simple cross-kitting would present a problem with regards to fit of parts. I was more concerned about the accuracy of the resulting model. There have been no howls of protest so I'm going to go ahead with the project. :-)

Thanks again, Rob, Dave and DJ.

Reply to
Enzo Matrix

Aren't there RF-4 versions by Hasegawa? Quite new...? Ingo

*time is an enemy*
Reply to
Ingo Degenhardt

There is a new RF-4C. However, this had the later thick wing, while the RF-4B had the thin wing.

Reply to
Enzo Matrix

I assumed 1/48 scale.

Dave

Reply to
Dave Williams

Most RF-4Bs had the thin wing, but the last dozen or so had the thick wing like the C/D.

Dave

Reply to
Dave Williams

Which is why the original, and some later, RF-4B boxings from Hasegawa come with both the thin and thick wings. Indeed, they did do one special release with the box art from KA-9, the RF-4B, but as an RF-4B / -E, including JASDF markings. At least that's what it looked like when I saw it in a shop in Nagoya, but it was more than I was willing to pay for a curiosity.

Jon.

Reply to
Jonathan Stilwell

The last ten, if I recall my research - I'm planning on converting the

1/32 Revell RF-4C into a USMC RF-4B. Haven't made up my mind on thinning the wing yet. All the thick-winged ones had BUNOs in the 73xx series, and the last two of the ten had the rounded nose vise the coffin-shaped nose.

Also - note that the Navy wheel hub was different than the USAF pattern hub in profile as well as width.

Reply to
Rufus

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.