[kb466]

Originally Posted by Elmer

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.

The correct serial for this Phantom is and was 66-7463. On the tail it was numbered 67-463. They only took the last five digits of the serial number and left off the first "6". This is not unusual for the USAF to do this-- in fact it is rather common. There was only room for five digits in the Air Force numbering scheme for Phantoms, so they took the last five digits. As another example, if you look at many USAAF aircraft in WW2, you will note that many of the numbers on the tails start with "2". This is usually an indication that the serial number is 42-XXXXX. Again, they dropped the first digit of the contract number. The same is true where the number starts with "4"-- it usually means that it was a 1944 contract block and only the last digit of the year was used.

Finally, as to this particular airplane, here are two pictures of the real F-4D Phantom #66-7463. One picture is taken when in service in SE Asia in 1972 during its Mig-killing days (or shortly thereafter) and the other is a recent photo of it on display at the Air Force Academy. In both pictures, it is numbered on the tail 67-463 per USAF practice. The Collings Phantom is clearly numbered to masquerade as the famous #66-7463, but is not that plane.

[STARMAN 352ND]

Elmer,
Not to go off topic but i will tell these numbers are confusing...Look at Gen.Olds Phantom it had a 40-829 now where in the world did that 40 come from ? Most of them are 64-, 66- or 67-.
JP

[kb466]

Originally Posted by STARMAN 352ND

Elmer,
Not to go off topic but i will tell these numbers are confusing...Look at Gen.Olds Phantom it had a 40-829 now where in the world did that 40 come from ? Most of them are 64-, 66- or 67-.
JP

I suspect the actual serial number was 64-0829 and that, again, they dropped the first digit of the year. Elmer actually posted a pretty good description of how the numbers were "butchered" by the USAF to fit on the tails and how it caused confusion.

Edit: Yes, 64-0829 is the correct number. I looked it up and it said that it is presently on display at the USAF museum. Here is a link to a site where you can look up USAF serial numbers:

USAAS-USAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers--1908 to Present

[kb466]

Originally Posted by Elmer

One thing is certain... HM's stenciling of nomenclature and serial on this model is a confused mess.

Elmer,
I don't understand what you mean about the stenciling on the model being a mess-- are you referring to what HM put on the tail?... because that looks correct to me. I just did not see it in the pictures. Do you have a model in hand?

[STARMAN 352ND]

All in all i believe Hobby Master got it right...The real picture of the bird proves it...
If you notice Elmer the Collings Phantom has the kills on different too.
JP

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by kb466

Elmer,
I don't understand what you mean about the stenciling on the model being a mess-- are you referring to what HM put on the tail?... because that looks correct to me. I just did not see it in the pictures. Do you have a model in hand?

No. Look at Pappy's web-site: Page Title, top left picture (blow it up). The stenciling I am referring to is on the starboard intake, right below the canopy. Granted, you probably couldn't read it without a magnifying glass (or as Pappy has done, a clear macro picture that can be blown up). This "messy" stenciling was another cause of confusion for me, since it gives an odd serial (67-463FA--not sure what the FA refers to, perhaps nothing more than added garbldygook).

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by kb466

Here is a link to a site where you can look up USAF serial numbers:

USAAS-USAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers--1908 to Present

Yes... that is Joe Baugher's web-site. He is an expert in aircraft serials... the most comprehensive data base on the web. So... I looked up 66-7463 and... according to Baugher: "7463 had 6 confirmed MiG kills during SE Asia war. Now on display at USAF Academy. "

You are correct kb and JP, this appears to be Ritchie's Phantom in which he got his final kill. This F-4D comes from production block 29. Look carefully at the stenciling I am referring to on the model. It is nowhere near close to what it should be. Not a big deal really, since my eyes couldn't read it without a magnifying glass, and it is more important that they got the tail number correct... but it added to my confusion. I might add... if HM is going to put that stenciling on, wouldn't it be just as easy to get it correct. Bugs me a little.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by kb466

The correct serial for this Phantom is and was 66-7463. On the tail it was numbered 67-463. They only took the last five digits of the serial number and left off the first "6". This is not unusual for the USAF to do this-- in fact it is rather common. There was only room for five digits in the Air Force numbering scheme for Phantoms, so they took the last five digits. As another example, if you look at many USAAF aircraft in WW2, you will note that many of the numbers on the tails start with "2". This is usually an indication that the serial number is 42-XXXXX. Again, they dropped the first digit of the contract number. The same is true where the number starts with "4"-- it usually means that it was a 1944 contract block and only the last digit of the year was used.

Yes. I understand all of this. I have done exhaustive studies of B-24 serials, so I am very familiar with how serials were placed on the tail during the war. Post war, the rules become even more confused. But, generally speaking (and I emphasize generally... because as we have learned you can always find an exception to the rule), on modern USAF aircraft, the two small digits refer to the fiscal year in which the contract was let for the aircraft's production. 66-7463 could have just as easily had 66463 on the tail, with the first digit in the sequence number dropped (which is usually what is done). But it didn't.

I suspect that HM may have used the Collings Bird as its study thus the incorrect stenciling on the starboard intake. Other model makers commonly make this mistake. Many times, if serials cannot be found, and if a surviving bird is painted up in the livery of an actual bird, model makers will use the re-created bird as its study. Several come to mind: GMP's Old Exterminator P-40, EI's Tex Hill and Ina P-51s. I know there are others, but I just can't call them to memory right now.

Anyway, thanks JP and kb for clearing up the confusion. I am not trying to bash this model... just want to make sure it is correct. If models are done correctly, they will stand scrutiny.

[hawkonevoodoo]

Originally Posted by Elmer

One thing is certain... HM's stenciling of nomenclature and serial on this model is a confused mess.

What part of it is a confused mess, please post some pictures so we can see what you mean?

[David Hingtgen]

The AIR FORCE painted their planes in a confused mess in Vietnam. HM merely copied that. 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. I do know that type of stenciling can easily have errors in 1:1 scale (wrong block, wrong model, even wrong serial) , which sometimes causes issues for the maintenance guys who are trying to use the info. It also tends to get repainted fairly often, inducing more errors every time they try to recreate how it looked as delivered.

67-463 on the tail can mean several things during that era, and there's many ways a plane serialed 66-7463 may be marked on its tail. Pretty much a squadron-by-squadron, year-by-year thing. (and even plane-by-plane, especially when it comes to a commander's plane)