Author Topic: Participative thread - The end (Read 41670 times)

JP Vieira · « **Reply #75 on:** March 24, 2012, 05:49:31 PM »

Quote from: gofy on March 24, 2012, 10:18:19 AM

XR770?
the two birds on the tail??
Wing shape above the triangle??

My guesses...

Mr. Gofy

Yes, all good guesses but already mentioned earlier.
Thank you for participating and try again, there are more errors to identify.

JP Vieira · « **Reply #76 on:** March 24, 2012, 05:51:22 PM »

Quote from: aeroplaneDriver on March 24, 2012, 12:04:49 PM

Well in the nose pic the canopy jettison door and access ladder markings are wrong, and I thin the small NACA duct is too...

You are correct.

Quote from: aeroplaneDriver on March 24, 2012, 12:04:49 PM

not so sure on the center fuselage pic...

What do you mean? The two images cover the entire airplane; are you having trouble seing the central fuselage...?

JP Vieira · « **Reply #77 on:** March 24, 2012, 06:12:06 PM »

There are about 5 more errors to identify.
Extra points for the naming of the pilots helmet and both ejection seats

Maverick · « **Reply #78 on:** March 24, 2012, 07:25:33 PM »

My guesses:

Martin-Baker series for the front seat, SK-1 for the rear.

Mk 2A or the like for the pilot, GSh-6A helmet for the GIB.

Regards,

John

JP Vieira · « **Reply #79 on:** March 24, 2012, 09:11:24 PM »

Quote from: Maverick on March 24, 2012, 07:25:33 PM

My guesses:

Martin-Baker series for the front seat

Sorry, no.

Quote from: Maverick on March 24, 2012, 07:25:33 PM

, SK-1 for the rear.

No, but very close

Quote from: Maverick on March 24, 2012, 07:25:33 PM

Mk 2A or the like for the pilot,

It is really the MK.3 but as the two are very similar I will accept

Quote from: Maverick on March 24, 2012, 07:25:33 PM

GSh-6A helmet for the GIB.

Yes, but already discovered

aeroplaneDriver · « **Reply #80 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:14:01 PM »

[/quote]
What do you mean? The two images cover the entire airplane; are you having trouble seing the central fuselage...?
[/quote]

My bad...didnt see the scroll bar at the bottom...

Is it an early Folland seat?

The markings I thought might be ship kill markings appear to canopy opening instructions on the intake splitter, and there shouldn't be a starter exhaust on the forward fuselage.

ChernayaAkula · « **Reply #81 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:36:32 AM »

To my eyes, the gun muzzle cover is a little too long, even for the long "Midas IV" muzzle cover. It protrudes too far beyond the little part connecting the radome and gun muzzle cover. Difficult to explain. $:-\$

JP Vieira · « **Reply #82 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:44:04 AM »

Quote from: aeroplaneDriver on March 24, 2012, 11:14:01 PM

Is it an early Folland seat?

Sorry, no; not very far chronologically speaking ...

Quote from: aeroplaneDriver on March 24, 2012, 11:14:01 PM

The markings I thought might be ship kill markings appear to canopy opening instructions on the intake splitter, and there shouldn't be a starter exhaust on the forward fuselage.

You are correct. :)

JP Vieira · « **Reply #83 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:45:47 AM »

Quote from: ChernayaAkula on March 25, 2012, 05:36:32 AM

To my eyes, the gun muzzle cover is a little too long, even for the long "Midas IV" muzzle cover. It protrudes too far beyond the little part connecting the radome and gun muzzle cover. Difficult to explain. $:-\$

Sorry, no. If there is an error it was not intentional (I blame it on the lineart

).
Thank you for participating; please try again, there are still some more errors to identify :)

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #84 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:50:02 AM »

I think you are going to have to provide a deadline on this soon...else you risk getting death threats in the mail

...of course, that also opens the way for the next challenge.

(BTW, this has been a great thread!)

Maybe if you could post a image marking out all the errors already identified, it could help focus people's attention.

JP Vieira · « **Reply #85 on:** March 25, 2012, 07:42:36 PM »

Thank you Greg for those suggestions.
So the deadline for discovering all the errors is until the next weekend (ends on April 1st).
And also following Greg's suggestion here is an image of the Phantom with all the errors already discoverd marked.

gofy · « **Reply #86 on:** March 26, 2012, 07:06:44 AM »

001 on the tail?

JP Vieira · « **Reply #87 on:** March 26, 2012, 04:22:18 PM »

Quote from: gofy on March 26, 2012, 07:06:44 AM

001 on the tail?

Very good. :)

Keep participating.

Cliffy B · « **Reply #88 on:** March 28, 2012, 03:25:04 AM »

Is that the heavier tail hook of an FAA Phantom?

Slerski · « **Reply #89 on:** March 28, 2012, 06:17:31 PM »

For the intake warning...

It's not "DANGER" but "JET INTAKE" (JET up and INTAKE down) and you need to had a white rectangle with DANGER written in red inside of the warning sign (in front of the intake)

JP Vieira · « **Reply #90 on:** March 28, 2012, 09:46:26 PM »

Quote from: Cliffy B on March 28, 2012, 03:25:04 AM

Is that the heavier tail hook of an FAA Phantom?

Sorry, no.
Keep participating; almost finished :)

JP Vieira · « **Reply #91 on:** March 28, 2012, 09:47:54 PM »

Quote from: Slerski on March 28, 2012, 06:17:31 PM

For the intake warning...

It's not "DANGER" but "JET INTAKE" (JET up and INTAKE down)

You are correct. :)

Quote from: Slerski on March 28, 2012, 06:17:31 PM

and you need to had a white rectangle with DANGER written in red inside of the warning sign (in front of the intake)

Yes, but allready mentioned.

Keep participating almost done :)

JP Vieira · « **Reply #92 on:** March 28, 2012, 10:08:01 PM »

Hello
Here is an update on the errors so far discovered.
By my accounts there are still 7 errors to discover... There is also the namimg of the two ejection seats.
Have fun; the deadline is April 1st

GTX_Admin · « **Reply #93 on:** March 29, 2012, 02:12:50 AM »

Well the tail hook looks to be either longer then standard or the tailplanes are larger. Lack or IR sensor on a F-4B...though I suppose this one doubles for the gun under the nose that doesn't belong there. Lack of intake on cheek (just below where the 425 is)?

JP Vieira · « **Reply #94 on:** March 29, 2012, 03:13:04 AM »

Quote from: GTX_Admin on March 29, 2012, 02:12:50 AM

Well the tail hook looks to be either longer then standard or the tailplanes are larger.

The tailplanes are larger; but was alrteady discovered.

Quote from: GTX_Admin on March 29, 2012, 02:12:50 AM

Lack or IR sensor on a F-4B...though I suppose this one doubles for the gun under the nose that doesn't belong there.

Yes, already signaled

Quote from: GTX_Admin on March 29, 2012, 02:12:50 AM

Lack of intake on cheek (just below where the 425 is)?

Yes, already discovered: I did not signaled it on the image: sorry.

Here is an updated image of it

gofy · « **Reply #95 on:** March 29, 2012, 10:23:29 AM »

'F-4B' on the tail- clearly this isn't a 'B' model

Mr. Gofy

Maverick · « **Reply #96 on:** March 29, 2012, 11:40:09 AM »

The serial below the F-4B is inappropriate for the machine. Outer wing panels seem lacking lights. Lack of antennae along the dorsal spine. Lack of slats along the tailplane. RWR on forward edge of vertical tail.

JP Vieira · « **Reply #97 on:** March 29, 2012, 05:45:15 PM »

Quote from: gofy on March 29, 2012, 10:23:29 AM

'F-4B' on the tail- clearly this isn't a 'B' model

Mr. Gofy

Yes, you are correct; The basis for this was an F-4E model.
At the start I said you had to report the errors based on the description provided (F-4B of the US Navy, etc); as suchas this is clearly an -E model, (althought modified) I can accept that as an error (even if other errors were reported by identifying "correct" details for an -E model)
Keep participating :)