[PappyB]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

Now, I can't make out what the stenciling on intake of the model says, so I can't comment if it's right or not.

Which begs the question just how important is this to get 100% right -- maybe HM should do their stencils like the rest of the herd and make them illegible, even with a magnifying glass.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Look what you started Pappy ......Your pictures had to be so big...
Just kidding...
I would of never of notice it if Elmer had not said anything about it..
I think Elmer means the right side intake where you can read it clear on your site when your picture is blown big.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Look what you started Pappy ......Your pictures had to be so big...
Just kidding...
I would of never of notice it if Elmer had not said anything about it..
I think Elmer means the right side intake where you can read it clear on your site when your picture is blown big.

Yes... thank you, JP. I don't need to post a pic. Go to Pappy's site and you can all see it for yourself. And, DH, as confused as USAF markings were during this era, I promise you, it didn't, couldn't, wouldn't look like this. But maybe Pappy is right, not so important after all. But occasionally I like to get out my magnifying glass and read stenciling. I like to know what it says...

[Elmer]

OK... Here is what the starboard intake stenciling says:

U.S. ADt Force F-4C-23-MC
A.F. SEALAL ND 67-463FA
DFFUNOTOIDRUNTFUROIRGREP
SDFIJYERGEIOHHORYLCKCRO

Now I am sure this would have confused ground crews... no wonder I am confused. Wrong variant, production block, serial, spelling, language (is it German?) Alright... not a big deal, but this is why I started this whole bloody mess anyway... 67-463 is an RF-4C... so it appeared to me that HM used the Collings Foundation bird as its study. In sum, we can shut down this argument... the tail is correct. HM got the important stuff correct. I admit it. And thanks to JP and kb for helping to clear up the confusion.

[Shawn 507]

Come on old man, this keeps you up at night? LOL

[kb466]

As a follow-up to the discussion as to the correct numbering on the tail of famous Mig-killing F-4D #66-7463, the subject of the new HM Phantom, I found this photo of #66-7463 long after the Vietnam war in March 1983 and just before its retirement. The interesting thing about this picture is the tail numbering. In the late photo, it is numbered "66-463", in contrast to the Vietnam-era numbering of "67-463" (as on the HM model). It is the same airplane and serial number but different tail numbering.

[smartd]

It has hardly been a month since this model was being looked at as the best thing since sliced bread, now it is being put under the microscope. Manufacturers must just be shaking their heads and asking how do we please them?

[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by smartd

It has hardly been a month since this model was being looked at as the best thing since sliced bread, now it is being put under the microscope. Manufacturers must just be shaking their heads and asking how do we please them?

This is my own personal opinion, I certainly have to agree with you smartd especially your last sentence. But looking at it with the glass half full, it is great that someone has to go to such lengths to find something.

[David Hingtgen]

If you're concerned about microscopic-level stenciling, don't ever buy a Witty.

[vagm]

Got mine from the local hobby shop today! It definitely won't be the last HM Phantom for me. I also saw the Lady Jessie A-4, Schnaufer's BF-110G-4 and the shark mouth P-39 Airacobra in stock.