1/72 Scale USN F4-L USS Hancock 1978

[Captain Canada]

I can dig through the cave and have a look. I think I have 2 of them in there.....

[Thorvic]

Aires do a cockpit set and undercarriage bays for the Revell F-4F but pretty sure they could be tweaked to fit in the Matchbox kit 

[Gondor]

I realised last night that I have a Fujimi F-4S that has become a bit of a "hanger queen" and wondered if the tailplanes from that would for the F-4K/M fuselage. Well the look of the pars is promising so I should be able to use those rather than get help from anyone else. Thanks Captain Canada for the offer of help but I don't think I will need it now.
I prefer the Hasegawa F-4 family over the Fujimi lot but unfortunately as things stand Fujimi are the only real game in town for a semi decent F-K or F-4M.

Gondor

[Thorvic]

I prefer the Hasegawa F-4 family over the Fujimi lot but unfortunately as things stand Fujimi are the only real game in town for a semi decent F-K or F-4M.

Gondor

For now. ......

[sandiego89]

Great love the idea of Phantoms on 27c modernized Essex class ships. I vote extended nose strut for sure. Consider beefed up arresting gear engines below deck and catapults (maybe with a longer stroke) into your backstory. Lots of energy to consider to get a phantom off and on the deck. IIRC weight, flying speed, catapult stroke length and ability to get an f4 to flying speed, jet blast deflectors, meaningfully load,  lift strength, arresting engines, landing deck length were all issues when considering jets such as the f4 from the Essex class. Please not throwing a wet blanket on the concept, love the idea, but The ark royal overall size comparison only goes so far, as the angled deck length is the important length comparison. US f4's flew to/from the ark, but with minimal loads.  Looking forward to it.

[Gondor]

Great love the idea of Phantoms on 27c modernized Essex class ships. I vote extended nose strut for sure. Consider beefed up arresting gear engines below deck and catapults (maybe with a longer stroke) into your backstory. Lots of energy to consider to get a phantom off and on the deck. IIRC weight, flying speed, catapult stroke length and ability to get an f4 to flying speed, jet blast deflectors, meaningfully load,  lift strength, arresting engines, landing deck length were all issues when considering jets such as the f4 from the Essex class. Please not throwing a wet blanket on the concept, love the idea, but The ark royal overall size comparison only goes so far, as the angled deck length is the important length comparison. US f4's flew to/from the ark, but with minimal loads.  Looking forward to it.

For all intents and purposes of the build I am simply attempting to put into plastic a paragraph from:

   World Air Power Journal
   McDonnell F-4 Phantom
   Spirit in the Skies
   ISBN 1-874023-28-x

page 156 which states "The F-4L designation was applied to an unbuilt Spey-engined variant intended for the US Navy. Adoption of the more powerful Spey would have allowed US Navy Phantoms to operate from the smaller carriers, which otherwise relied on F-8 Crusaders to provide air defence. The advantages offered by the more powerful British engine were felt to be outweighed by considerations of cost and commonality."

So considering that McDonnell would not put forward an aircraft that could not be expected, on paper at least, to perform the task I would assume that with the reasonably similar sizes of both the Ark Royal and the Essex class of carrier that McDonnell had done their sums so that I don't have to. It is also whiff world too  

I can also understand the reasons why the US Navy decided against the F-4L, twice the number of crew and twice the number of engines than the F-8 Crusader which means more accommodation for aircrew, more space for spare engines or carry less aircraft and store the same number of engines and aircrew as when operating the F-8.

So to summarise my build, this is basically a Spey-engined F-4J with a double extendible nose leg which will be in the markings of CV-19 from the USS Hancock, probably around 1978-9

Gondor

[KiwiZac]

A very cool idea - I much prefer the Spey Phantoms, although a USAF one in SEA is undeniably tasty - and I'm keen to follow along. Nice work, Gondor.

[Captain Canada]

Me too.

[Gondor]

Having miss-read the thread title I was expecting to find you building a 1/72 USS Hancock...

...this is just as good although you've lost me with all the technical stuff like talk about leg length.

When looking through the pictures posted on the forum taken at the US National this year, I saw a picture of a rather large box for CV-11 USS Intrepid which was an Essex class carrier that had the same modifications carried out to her as the USS Hancock did so perhaps I could be a model of the USS Hancock or even change the squadron the F-4L operates with so its part of CV-11. If I can afford to buy the carrier I would have to look at what updates were carried out or rather would have been likely to have been carried out if she had undergone another refit to carry the F-4L which would enable me to make the carrier as a whiff as well.

Gondor

[sandiego89]

For all intents and purposes of the build I am simply attempting to put into plastic a paragraph from:

   World Air Power Journal
   McDonnell F-4 Phantom
   Spirit in the Skies
   ISBN 1-874023-28-x

page 156 which states "The F-4L designation was applied to an unbuilt Spey-engined variant intended for the US Navy. Adoption of the more powerful Spey would have allowed US Navy Phantoms to operate from the smaller carriers, which otherwise relied on F-8 Crusaders to provide air defence. The advantages offered by the more powerful British engine were felt to be outweighed by considerations of cost

So to summarise my build, this is basically a Spey-engined F-4J with a double extendible nose leg which will be in the markings of CV-19 from the USS Hancock, probably around 1978-9

Gondor

Ahh thanks for the clarification and source. A Spey version, I get t now. Bring it on!

[Gondor]

A very cool idea - I much prefer the Spey Phantoms, although a USAF one in SEA is undeniably tasty - and I'm keen to follow along. Nice work, Gondor.

I suppose that if the US Navy had introduced the F-4L then the USAF might have been interested in their own version due to the increased engine power although they may not have bought it due to its lower top end speed which would not have gone down well with the Fighter community even if it was to be used as a mud mover primarily.

Gondor

[zenrat]

Having miss-read the thread title I was expecting to find you building a 1/72 USS Hancock...

...this is just as good although you've lost me with all the technical stuff like talk about leg length.

When looking through the pictures posted on the forum taken at the US National this year, I saw a picture of a rather large box for CV-11 USS Intrepid which was an Essex class carrier that had the same modifications carried out to her as the USS Hancock did so perhaps I could be a model of the USS Hancock or even change the squadron the F-4L operates with so its part of CV-11. If I can afford to buy the carrier I would have to look at what updates were carried out or rather would have been likely to have been carried out if she had undergone another refit to carry the F-4L which would enable me to make the carrier as a whiff as well.

Gondor

Forget 1/350, that's for gurls.  According to Wikipedias specs for the Hancock it was 888 feet long.  Thats 12'4" in 1/72.  Perfectly doable...

[Gondor]

zenrat, all the other ships I have are 1/350 so it makes sense for me to think about building an Essex class boat to the same scale.

Started a bit of work on the F-4L. Removed the forward RWR from a spare Hasegawa fin top so that I can replace what is fitted to the kit. I have also removed the appropriate amount of plastic from my previous F-4M. Various parts of plastic have also been removed which had been applied where the attempt to join an RF-4 nose/cockpit area had found a large gap, the original nose and cockpit are being reattached so the additional plastic is no longer required. It's not a huge amount of work but it is a start. Next will be painting the instrement panels which are a bit of a mess at the moment then I can get the cockpit shut and I can look at adding the RWR to the intake trunking.

Gondor

[Gondor]

The construction and destruction has begun in earnest.

First the modified fin cap



Then the modified fin



And then a modified under fuselage area 



I was attempting to prize out the small section of lower fuselage which is solid on the Air Force machines but where the Navy aircraft have the strop attachment points. So I was using a tool I got from a dentist many years ago when there was a crack followed by the sounds of plastic rattling around some boxes as the broken part went to play hide and seek 

Guess what I am doing this weekend ...... hunting the broken part of the airframe 

Gondor

[zenrat]

Oh how jolly annoying.  Did you say a bad word?