[Dobber]

I agree, though, I was fortunate enough to have the 2 schemes I really wanted be the first 2 releases!

Chris

[smartd]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

They have to do a Blue Angels F4, it only makes sense with the F6F and A-4. One thing is certian, the F4 will be the plane that keeps on giving for HM. It may take some time, but we'll eventually see one we really must have from just about every user nation.

I agree with that Shawn. HM are on a winner that could sustain them for a long time. At least until the molds crack.

[Elmer]

While looking at pictures of Pappy's Ritchie Phantom II, I noticed the stenciling for nomenclature and serial (with a bunch of garbldygook underneath ) and thought something didn't look right. So I cross referenced with Joe Baugher's web-site. HM painted 67-463 on the tail. Baugher lists this aircraft as an RF-4C-36-MC Phantom II. This can't be correct... can it? Is Ritchie's Phantom supposed to be an F-4D? Does anyone know if the RF-4Cs were upgraded?

Edit: Just did a google image search for Ritchie's Viet-Nam era Phantom... 67-463 is a Collings Foundation bird "painted up" in the colors of Ritchie's Phantom. Someone correct me if I am wrong... but it appears the aircraft for HM's model is this Collings Foundation "re-creation". It does not appear 67-463 is an F-4D at all, but rather an RF-4C painted up as an F-4D. Somehow, this stings as inauthentic to me.

[STARMAN 352ND]

These are his Phantom's he flew during the confirmed kills were recorded.
JP

[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by Elmer

While looking at pictures of Pappy's Ritchie Phantom II, I noticed the stenciling for nomenclature and serial (with a bunch of garbldygook underneath ) and thought something didn't look right. So I cross referenced with Joe Baugher's web-site. HM painted 67-463 on the tail. Baugher lists this aircraft as an RF-4C-36-MC Phantom II. This can't be correct... can it? Is Ritchie's Phantom supposed to be an F-4D? Does anyone know if the RF-4Cs were upgraded?

http://abqscalemodelers.com/Ritchie_...-463_Pic_1.jpg
http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesMil...er/F4OY463.jpg
http://modelingmadness.com/research/mk/f4d/f-4d%2066-7463%20oct%2087.jpg
Google Image Result for http://modelingmadness.com/research/mk/f4d/f-4d%2066-7463%20oct%2087.jpg

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

These are his Phantom's he flew during the confirmed kills were recorded.
JP

Yup... HM modelled the Collings Foundation "re-creation". 67-0463 is an RF-4C. This is not one of the Phantoms Ritchie flew for any of his aerial victories. I would have preferred that HM used one of the tail numbers above... would have been more historically authentic.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Above and bellow: F-4D 66-7463, a Combat Tree-equipped Phantom II flown by Captains Ritchie and DeBellevue as "Oyster 3" on May 10, 1972. The aircraft is shown later during its career, with no less but six kill-markings applied and armed with AIM-9J Sidewinders: on 10 May it carried two AIM-4Ds (one each on the inner station of inboard underwing pylons), an ALQ-101 ECM-pod on the right inboard underwing pylon and an ALQ-71 ECM-pod on the right inboard underwing pylon.

[kb466]

Hobby Master has it correct-- this Phantom, which was credited with six mig kills was 66-7463. The tail number only used the last five digits, thus it was 67 463 on the tail. I believe this particular F-4, 66-7463 survives and is on display at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. The Collings Foundation jet, if painted in these markings, is not the real 66-7463.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by kb466

Hobby Master has it correct-- this Phantom, which was credited with six mig kills was 66-7463. The tail number only used the last five digits, thus it was 67 463 on the tail. I believe this particular F-4, 66-7463 survives and is on display at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. The Collings Foundation jet, if painted in these markings, is not the real 66-7463.

Hmmm... not so sure. I am not sure how the air force would have displayed 66-7463's tail number, but I don't believe it would have used 67 in place of 66... this would have totally confused the fiscal year in which the aircraft was procured by USAF. (Does anyone have a picture of this Phantom at the USAFA in Colorado Springs, showing the tail number?) But if this is correct, look at the stenciling on the starboard side of the model. You will clearly see the serial (67-463FA ) with the nomenclature: F-4C-23. Yet... even this is confused. The Phantoms from this production block carry serials 64-0738 to 64-0817. But, then again, HM's stenciling is mostly garbldygook anyway and a confused mess.

Thanks for the pics, JP. If the real pic is from 1972, and not the Colling's Foundation Bird, then perhaps HM got the tail number correct, but the stenciling is a mess.

[Elmer]

From Joe Baugher's web-site:

"For a while during the 1960s, it was common practice to expand the tail number to a minimum of 5 digits, and even sometimes to cut down the tail number to five digits by deliberately omitting the fiscal year digit and one or more of the first digits of the sequence number. This practice lead to a lot of confusion.
There were some cases in which a long serial number such as 64-14841 would be presented on the tail as 14841, with both fiscal year digits omitted. Once again, this practice led to a lot of confusion.
Camouflage began to reappear on USAF aircraft during the Vietnam War, and this led to a change in tail number presentation. The letters "AF" were added directly above the last two digits of the fiscal year, followed by the last three digits of the sequence number. The three-digit sequence number has a height of the AF and fiscal year letters combined and is sometimes called the "large" component of the tail number. For example, F-4E serial number 67-0288 had the tail number 67(small) 288 (large). This could of course lead to confusion, since aircraft 67-1288, 67-2288, etc would have exactly the same tail numbers as 67-0288 under this scheme. This would not ordinary cause a whole lot of difficulty unless of course some of these larger serial numbers also happened to be F-4Es (which they were not). Unfortunately, the system was not always consistent--for example F-4D serial number 66-0234 had a tail number that looks like this: 60(small) 234(large). It appears as if this number was obtained by omitting the first digit of the fiscal, and combining the remaining "6" with the "0234". Consequently, one often has to do a lot of educated guessing in order to derive the aircraft serial number from a knowledge of its tail number, and a knowledge of the aircraft type and sometimes even the version is required."


So... kb466, you may be right. If so, 66-7463's tail number is very confusing... and not consistent with standard rules for tail number display. Perhaps the Collings Foundation Bird's serial is not 67-0463, it can only be settled by a picture of its stenciled nomenclature and serial. One thing is certain... HM's stenciling of nomenclature and serial on this model is a confused mess.