[Elmer]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is interesting... thanks for posting, kb. This is the tail numbering I would have expected, just goes to show how confusing tail numbering can be. I get the impression from Joe Baugher's research that it is more common to drop the first digit of the sequence number, not the first digit of the fiscal year. I wonder if USAF eventually "standardized" this practice later in the 70s or early in the 80s, thus the changing of 66-7463's tail number to 67-463? But, this still created a problem for aircraft numbered higher than 0999.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by David Hingtgen

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

Too late!

Which still begs the question, if a company is going to bother with it, wouldn't it be just as easy to stencil it correctly?

[Elmer]

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?

Naw, it was put under the microscope from the beginning... remember the raging storm about the incorrect canopy... the sidewindows (Of course you don't have to pull out a magnifying glass to see that they should be there) and the hinge? I think this is healthy... it gives the manufacturers feedback about how to improve their models... and why wouldn't they want that? A more accurate model would please more collectors and result in higher profit for the manufacturer (not to mention strengthened reputation). HM has suffered a bit from making errors on first releases of many castings, but in my estimation has strengthened its reputation by a commitment to work hard to get it right.

[djjeffhall]

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?

Amen brother

[kb466]

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?

I worry about the same thing. It is one thing to offer constructive criticism and another to nitpick on points that are insignificant or on points for which the person criticizing is misinformed. All in all, I think this Phantom looks great and I will happily add it to my collection.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by kb466

I worry about the same thing. It is one thing to offer constructive criticism and another to nitpick on points that are insignificant or on points for which the person criticizing is misinformed. All in all, I think this Phantom looks great and I will happily add it to my collection.

No point in worrying about it. Companies aren't going to build or not build based on a dozen concerns posted on this forum or on any other. Companies will build based on sales. And what is insignificant to some is significant to others. There is nothing wrong in pointing out characteristics that could be improved. Was I misinformed about the tail lettering of this particular aircraft? Perhaps. But how often do model companies get it wrong? At times they do. Am I misinformed on the stenciling? No. There is no question this stenciling is awful. And it may be more noticeable from a near viewing distance than I thought... look at CFBC's pictures on DAF. I can easily tell that Port stenciling is incorrect also, and that isn't a macro picture like the one Pappy took. Stenciling giving the aircraft's nomenclature and serial number isn't insignificant, by the way. It cuts to the heart of the aircraft's individuality. I really don't care for absolute correct stenciling anywhere else, but I do look at any stenciling, large or small which give a clue to the aircraft's identity. This is what led to my confusion over the tail lettering. Was that my fault? No, it was HM's for giving incorrect model, production block, and serial number. HM stenciled this as an F-4C with serial 67-463. Is it misinformed to look this up and find this particular aircraft as an RF-4C? Had the serial and nomenclature been correct, I could have looked it up and found the aircraft I was looking for. Insinuating I am nit-picking or misinformed is slightly insulting. If you go back and read my original post I asked someone to correct me if I was wrong. You did, and I thanked you for it. You gave me a lecture about serials and tail lettering which I could see that you are not fully correct about, but I politely took it.

The casting looks extremely nice... but... it could have been a crown jewel at 1:72. The stenciling, slightly oversized rear canopy hinge, and absence of turbines in the intakes are a let down for me. Will all of this prevent me from buying one, two, or several of HM's Phantoms. No. But I so wanted to adore this model like I do CW's Tomcat. And if I don't, don't let it threaten any of your enjoyment for this model. I am glad for all of you that you are all overjoyed with it.

[kb466]

Originally Posted by Elmer

Insinuating I am nit-picking or misinformed is slightly insulting. If you go back and read my original post I asked someone to correct me if I was wrong. You did, and I thanked you for it. You gave me a lecture about serials and tail lettering which I could see that you are not fully correct about, but I politely took it.

Elmer,
I wasn't singling you out with my comments. I was referring to the all too common uninformed criticism that we often see here. In contrast, I thought you had researched the issue of the serial numbers and the tail lettering and that you were informed on the issue. I thought that there was some healthy give and take on the issue. I just happened to know a little bit about this airplane and knew that HM had the tail lettering correct, even though it did not make a lot of sense. Also, if I seemed condescending about the serial numbers, let me offer my apologies. If I was mistaken in some aspect of that discussion, I would welcome your pointing it out. There is room for all of us to learn here, me included. I guess I have talked of "misinformed nitpickers" here and in the past, but I really do not throw you into that category. It was obvious that you had done your homework and were informed on the issue, though you might have been initially mistaken with respect to the tail numbers. Still there was no doubt that yours was an informed opinion. Again, I am sorry to have given the impression I had focused my comments on you.

On the issue of the stenciling, you are certainly right about that-- it is scrambled. I have seen the same problem on plastic kits, particularly some of those out of China. Apparently, they know that there is stenciling there, but they do not know what it says, so they make something up. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, I can live with it. I am still looking forward to getting this Phantom in my collection.
Bill M.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by kb466

Elmer,
I wasn't singling you out with my comments. I was referring to the all too common uninformed criticism that we often see here. In contrast, I thought you had researched the issue of the serial numbers and the tail lettering and that you were informed on the issue. I thought that there was some healthy give and take on the issue. I just happened to know a little bit about this airplane and knew that HM had the tail lettering correct, even though it did not make a lot of sense. Also, if I seemed condescending about the serial numbers, let me offer my apologies. If I was mistaken in some aspect of that discussion, I would welcome your pointing it out. There is room for all of us to learn here, me included. I guess I have talked of "misinformed nitpickers" here and in the past, but I really do not throw you into that category. It was obvious that you had done your homework and were informed on the issue, though you might have been initially mistaken with respect to the tail numbers. Still there was no doubt that yours was an informed opinion. Again, I am sorry to have given the impression I had focused my comments on you.

On the issue of the stenciling, you are certainly right about that-- it is scrambled. I have seen the same problem on plastic kits, particularly some of those out of China. Apparently, they know that there is stenciling there, but they do not know what it says, so they make something up. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, I can live with it. I am still looking forward to getting this Phantom in my collection.
Bill M.

Well... thank you Bill. This was a gentlemanly reply and much appreciated. Apology and explanation accepted and understood.

Based on my comments, I sincerely hope I did not dampen anyone's enthusiasm for this new release. By all the pictures that have been posted so far, and by Pappy's review, it appears to be a fine model.

[STARMAN 352ND]

I got my F4 Phantom today and love it...
They did a real nice job on this .
JP

[Shamrock]

I'm with you on that Starman. Got mine last Friday and am very pleased with it;so much so that I've boxed up 'Annette' and sent her to the attic! Let's have the E soon