Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Completed GBs => Group and Themed Builds => April Fool's Day GB => Topic started by: JP Vieira on March 15, 2012, 09:37:45 PM
-
Hello
I decided to start posting my work for this GB.
My work will not be entering the competition, but rather will be more of the reason for a participating thread; when it's finished it will be presented to invite forum member (either participating in the GB or not) to enunciate the "errors" it contains.
As this GB is aimed to produce plausible works (as related to real-world), is in regard to that considerations that this work will be analyzed.
For now I leave you with a little teaser to the profile I am doing
I invite again all forum member to participate in this GB …there will be prizes ;)
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/sample.jpg)
-
And here it is the aircraft: an F-4B of the US Navy.
It is present to invite all forum members to identify the errors it contains (in a real-world perspective, of course ;) )
Please refer to its accompanying text as a orientation to identify all the errors present in the profile.
There are over 20 errors (or as we say in what-if, interesting features ;) )
Have fun :) and let all participate (don’t try to guess them all at once)
I can provide you close-ups upon request
McDonnel F-4B
US Navy
VF-101 Diamondbacks
Vietnam, 1965
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/f-4total.jpg)
-
Some of those errors actually seem like enhancements to me.
Like those mid-1943 red-bordered U.S. markings.
Brian da Basher
-
Is that a MiG 21 drop tank?
-
Some of those errors actually seem like enhancements to me.
Like those mid-1943 red-bordered U.S. markings.
Brian da Basher
Hello Brian
Thanks for participating.
Some of these "errors" would be great for the F-4b ;)
-
Is that a MiG 21 drop tank?
Thanks for participating.
Yes, it is indeed a MiG-21 tank; not the only Soviet thing with this Phantom ... ;)
-
It's a JMN's nightmare!!!! ;D
-
It's a JMN's nightmare!!!! ;D
I hope so ;)
-
Spey powered !! ;D And as a Weps, this plane is AMRAAM compatible :P
-
Spey powered !! ;D And as a Weps, this plane is AMRAAM compatible :P
You are absolutely right!
Who said RR Speys only powered British Phantoms...?
And imagine the quality edge AMRAAM- equipped Phantom would have in Vietnam (if only the Rules of Engagement permitted their use ;) )
Thanks for participating :)
-
You'll never get one off of USS Monterey (Independence class)! Even if she were still in commission.
Nice though!
-
F-4E-style internal cannon and the probe behind the RIO are both WHIFs. Good luck flying that into the basket!
Cheers,
Logan
-
You'll never get one off of USS Monterey (Independence class)! Even if she were still in commission.
Nice though!
You could allways try to launch Phantoms from it; don´t know if there would be any volunteers to do it ;)
Thanks for participating :)
-
F-4E-style internal cannon and the probe behind the RIO are both WHIFs. Good luck flying that into the basket!
Cheers,
Logan
The fixed IFR probe was an idea taken from the F-4E Kurnass 2000 (not sure how it would appeal to the US Navy); the cannon and all other things on this bird are F-4E ;)
Thanks for participating :)
-
Air Group tailcodes should be 'AF' not 'FA' and I don't recall seeing nose modexes in the 400 series for the F-4.
VF-101 are the 'Grim Reapers' not 'Diamondbacks'.
It also looks like it's got a No 11 Sqn 'zap' on the tail.
Regards,
John
-
;D This has been Fun!! More, please!
-
The air scoop at the vertical stabilizer also looks like it doesn't belong there.
-
Pitot tubes on the V-Stab are missing.
-
Air Group tailcodes should be 'AF' not 'FA' and I don't recall seeing nose modexes in the 400 series for the F-4.
VF-101 are the 'Grim Reapers' not 'Diamondbacks'.
It also looks like it's got a No 11 Sqn 'zap' on the tail.
Regards,
John
All correct(ed)!
This Phantom surely had some strange identification numbers ;)
And also some squadron identity crisis... besides also a strange letter code for the air wing
The 11 squadron zap was perhaps an inside job (you'll know latter what his mean ;) )
Thanks for participating :)
-
The air scoop at the vertical stabilizer also looks like it doesn't belong there.
No it doesn't, at least not for an F-4B ;)
Thanks for participating :)
-
Pitot tubes on the V-Stab are missing.
Yes, the pitot tubes seems misplaced ;)
Thanks for participating :)
-
Thanks all for your participation.
You are making this thread a real fun. :)
I hope you continue to identify the errors (there a lot more there). ;)
I also hope you consider participating in the GB with some of your usual amazing work.
Thanks again to all
-
I don't think the formation "Slime Light" should be there.
There is a RWR receiver missing above the rudder.
There are some antennas (2?) missing from the fuselage spine.
I don't see any cup holders. ;D
-
I`d like to see this land on the present day USS Monterey... ;D
Come to think of it, I`d like to see this land on the USS Monterey of World War 2.... ;)
-
I don't think the formation "Slime Light" should be there.
Not for an F-4B
There is a RWR receiver missing above the rudder.
There are some antennas (2?) missing from the fuselage spine.
This aircraft has some strange avionics ;)
I don't see any cup holders. ;D
Yes, the pilots almost didn't went to the mission for lack of those ;D
Thank you for your participation
-
I`d like to see this land on the present day USS Monterey... ;D
Come to think of it, I`d like to see this land on the USS Monterey of World War 2.... ;)
It really takes a pilot (and RIO) with nerves of steel to do that ;)
Thank you for your participation
-
The missile on the aft fuselage station is wierd: not a Sparrow or an AMRAAM, but I can't place what it is.... ???
-
The Horizontal stabilizer is the wrong shape...it looks like it's carrying Lima sidewinders about 15 years too early...I may be wrong but the front seat looks more like an ESCAPAC than a MB...back seat doesn't look right either, but cant tell what it looks like.
This is fun!!
-
The missile on the aft fuselage station is wierd: not a Sparrow or an AMRAAM, but I can't place what it is.... ???
Yes, it is a real-world aam...
Maybe you need to look outside the USA ;)
-
The Horizontal stabilizer is the wrong shape
You are right; the horizontal stabilizer is taken from the F-4 (HL) version (not build) intended for the Royal Navy
...it looks like it's carrying Lima sidewinders about 15 years too early...
Yes it does; a case of very advanced weaponry ;)
I may be wrong but the front seat looks more like an ESCAPAC than a MB...back seat doesn't look right either, but cant tell what it looks like.
You are right: the ejection seats are not what they were supposed to be; but they are not ESCAPAC; neither of them are from the USA or from the UK...
This is fun!!
My feelings exactly; please keep discovering new errors :)
-
OK...next batch...
The rear AAM being discussed looks like maybe a Meteor? Either way it appears to be mounted on the fuselage instead of the semi-recessed belly station.
The US Navy never use "U.S. NAVY" on markings, just "NAVY".
There appears to be some sort of APU exhaust or some other vent that doesn't belong just above the engine exhaust.
Can I get a closeup of the canopy and forward fuselage area?
:D
-
The rear AAM being discussed looks like maybe a Meteor? Either way it appears to be mounted on the fuselage instead of the semi-recessed belly station.
It is not an Meteor; the fact it appears mounted and not recessed is more of an non-intentional mistake by me (sorry). As for that AAM you might not be too far off (geographically speaking ;) )
The US Navy never use "U.S. NAVY" on markings, just "NAVY".
You are right
There appears to be some sort of APU exhaust or some other vent that doesn't belong just above the engine exhaust.
You are right again
Can I get a closeup of the canopy and forward fuselage area?
I will provide a close-up on the entire aircraft, but not for now (sorry). There are some more errors i would like to see identify before I provide those close-ups (that will for sure make evident some other errors).
Please be a little patient and I will provide soon those close ups.
Many thanks for your participation :)
-
There are still more than 15 errors to be found...
Some of them perhaps will only be discovered when the close-ups are provided, but other are still visible int he original image.
-
OK, my last three, then someone else needs to have a go...
First...DUH!! The missile in question is a Red Top! I just noticed the forward fin visible.
Also, just above the missile is a UK serial, looks like XR770..Lightning number to go with the Lightning missile?
Finally, the NACA duct ahead of "U.S. NAVY" doesnt belong.
-
First...DUH!! The missile in question is a Red Top! I just noticed the forward fin visible.
Right on!
Also, just above the missile is a UK serial, looks like XR770..Lightning number to go with the Lightning missile?
Right again. The Ligthning number goes well with the AAM, but that is not the only reason... there something else British in there... ;)
Finally, the NACA duct ahead of "U.S. NAVY" doesnt belong.
Right again.
Thanks for your participation: good observation skills.
-
GOT IT!
I knew there was something odd about the inboard tank...it's a Lightning OVERwing tank! Right??
Now I'm really done!!
-
GOT IT!
I knew there was something odd about the inboard tank...it's a Lightning OVERwing tank! Right??
Now I'm really done!!
Yes it is!
But here more British elements in there... ;)
You can participate all you want; I am glad you do.
Thanks
-
The double "Ejection Seat" warning under the front cockpit belongs to a... Lightning maybe ?
And the radome doesn't look right to me
-
The double "Ejection Seat" warning under the front cockpit belongs to a... Lightning maybe ?
Right on. This is a signal used on the Lightnings.
And the radome doesn't look right to me
Yes, this radome is not of the tipical -B version either in shape nor in the reinforcing strips it has.
Thanks for participating :)
-
Only more about 15 errors to identify ... ;)
-
OK, so I did some pretty cursory research and only found 4 kills total by F-4Bs in '65....does that make the 4 kill markings on a single plane in 65 an error?
-
OK, so I did some pretty cursory research and only found 4 kills total by F-4Bs in '65....does that make the 4 kill markings on a single plane in 65 an error?
Yes, the kill markings are another error; either related to the year in question and also to the squadrons refered (the Grim Reapers and the Diamondbacks).
Very good.
Thansk for participating.
Almost there... just another 10 plus to go ;)
-
The yellow "RESCUE" arrow pointing at the external canopy jettison is missing from the area near the slime light, and there should be a white "DANGER" stencil inside the red warning chevron in front of the intake.
-
That "rectangle", yellow position lights: aren't they introduced later than 1965?
-
The yellow "RESCUE" arrow pointing at the external canopy jettison is missing from the area near the slime light,
and there should be a white "DANGER" stencil inside the red warning chevron in front of the intake.
You are right. Two less to find.
-
That "rectangle", yellow position lights: aren't they introduced later than 1965?
You are right, but The Big Gimper had allready discovered that one (reply # 22).
But you have a lot of others to find... ;)
Keep participating
-
Damn JP, this is brutal!! But FUN! Great thread!! ;)
-
Damn JP, this is brutal!! But FUN! Great thread!! ;)
Thanks, it has been a great fun for me also.
I am planning in putting in a bigger image of the aircraft.
-
Hello
here is a biggerr image; now lets find out the remaining errors: have fun
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4BUSNavyx2.jpg)
-
Is that a cannon trough in front of the slime light?
A camera port?
GIB seems to be wearing a US-type helmet or something
Wing Commander isnt a USN rank, though that could be an exchange pilot so not necessarily an error...
French-style canopy warning under the back seater.
-
Is that a cannon trough in front of the slime light?
A camera port?
It is a cannon; you are correct
GIB seems to be wearing a US-type helmet or something
No, its not an US helmet...;)
Wing Commander isnt a USN rank, though that could be an exchange pilot so not necessarily an error...
Yes, he could be an exchange pilot, but even still there is something wrong with him...
French-style canopy warning under the back seater.
You are correct.
Keep participating; thanks :)
-
Ugh! I meant to type "U2" helmet, not "US"....but it must be one of those old Soviet full-face helmets.
The front seat dude looks like he may be wearing a UK style mask/helmet too...which would support the Wing Commander rank.
Cant really tell what the markings are above the stars on the intake splitter...almost looks a bit like the ship kill markings in Argentine Super Es and A-4s in '82 though...
I hope you'll be doing another of these once this one is done!
-
The names on the side are completely bogus. "Tommy Redcoat" and "Ivan Commie'?
-
Ugh! I meant to type "U2" helmet, not "US"....but it must be one of those old Soviet full-face helmets.
You're getting warmer...
The front seat dude looks like he may be wearing a UK style mask/helmet too...which would support the Wing Commander rank.
Yes , he does.
Cant really tell what the markings are above the stars on the intake splitter...almost looks a bit like the ship kill markings in Argentine Super Es and A-4s in '82 though...
Not kill marks, but I guess the size of the image does not let you see what it is.
I hope you'll be doing another of these once this one is done!
Done?? Not quite Sir :) a few more to go.
-
The names on the side are completely bogus. "Tommy Redcoat" and "Ivan Commie'?
Bogus? No, simply a very stereotyped way to indicate their origin (and of their equipment). ;)
-
Were on the final run as only a few more errors remain not named.
Extra bonus points for those who find them
And more extra points for those who identify the flight helmets (technical designation).
-
And here is a bigger image (to make more clear some aspects of it).
Hope it helps in the final run :)
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/f-4totalcopy.jpg)
-
Weird little light? on the cannon fairing.
AIM-9L instead of a more usual AIM-9B for the era.
Rear ejection seat doesn't look like a US version.
Regards,
John
-
Are the stripes on the AMRAAM wrong as well? ???
-
Has anyone mentioned the Pitot tube below the windshield yet? It doesnt seem right...
-
The center tank looks like its from an F16?
Regards
Keith
-
Weird little light? on the cannon fairing.
Yes, that's a camera port.
AIM-9L instead of a more usual AIM-9B for the era.
Yes, but was allready mentioned.
Rear ejection seat doesn't look like a US version.
Regards,
John
Allready mentioned; extra points for naming it
Thanks for participating
-
Are the stripes on the AMRAAM wrong as well? ???
Very good. :)
-
Has anyone mentioned the Pitot tube below the windshield yet? It doesnt seem right...
Very good. :)
-
The center tank looks like its from an F16?
Regards
Keith
It is a tank from a Lightning, but was allready mentioned.
Keep participating; a few more errors to go
-
The GiB wears a Soviet GSh-6 helmet.
It's missing the air scoop slightly above and ahead of the front landing gear well.
-
The GiB wears a Soviet GSh-6 helmet.
Absolutely right. Extra points for you ;)
It's missing the air scoop slightly above and ahead of the front landing gear well.
Yes, considering its an F-4B ;)
-
I hope you are all motivated to participate in this GB.
There is still time to enter (remember the prizes ;) ) and all kinds of work is admissible.
Hope to see your works in here.
So, profilers, modellers and all others artists, participate! :)
-
My project is well underway, though I'm not posting anything during the build, so that I can play "whats wrong with this" once I'm finished.
Hope you'll be continuing this little game with a new profile!
-
My project is well underway, though I'm not posting anything during the build, so that I can play "whats wrong with this" once I'm finished.
Glad to hear that! I think it will be interesting.
Thank you
Hope you'll be continuing this little game with a new profile!
I will continue, but not sure when; let's see... :)
-
I hope you are all motivated to participate in this GB.
I have a little something underway...
-
I hope you are all motivated to participate in this GB.
I have a little something underway...
That's great news! Hope to see it soon... :)
-
Hello
Here are two more bigger images to help find out the last errors... Heve fun
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/f-4frente.jpg)
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/f-4tras-1.jpg)
-
XR770?
the two birds on the tail??
Wing shape above the triangle??
My guesses...
Mr. Gofy
-
Well in the nose pic the canopy jettison door and access ladder markings are wrong, and I thin the small NACA duct is too...not so sure on the center fuselage pic...
-
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.
-
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.
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...?
-
There are about 5 more errors to identify.
Extra points for the naming of the pilots helmet and both ejection seats
-
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
-
My guesses:
Martin-Baker series for the front seat
Sorry, no.
, SK-1 for the rear.
No, but very close ;)
Mk 2A or the like for the pilot,
It is really the MK.3 but as the two are very similar I will accept
GSh-6A helmet for the GIB.
Yes, but already discovered
-
[/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.
-
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. :-\
-
Is it an early Folland seat?
Sorry, no; not very far chronologically speaking ... ;)
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. :)
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4Berroscopy.jpg)
-
001 on the tail?
-
001 on the tail?
Very good. :)
Keep participating.
-
Is that the heavier tail hook of an FAA Phantom?
-
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)
-
Is that the heavier tail hook of an FAA Phantom?
Sorry, no.
Keep participating; almost finished :)
-
For the intake warning...
It's not "DANGER" but "JET INTAKE" (JET up and INTAKE down)
You are correct. :)
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 :)
-
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 ;)
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4Berros.jpg)
-
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)?
-
Well the tail hook looks to be either longer then standard or the tailplanes are larger.
The tailplanes are larger; but was alrteady discovered.
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
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
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4Berros-1.jpg)
-
'F-4B' on the tail- clearly this isn't a 'B' model
Mr. Gofy
-
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.
-
'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 :)
-
The serial below the F-4B is inappropriate for the machine.
Yes, you are correct.
Outer wing panels seem lacking lights.
You mean the landing light...?
Lack of antennae along the dorsal spine.
Yes, but already mentioned
Lack of slats along the tailplane.
Yes, you are correct.
RWR on forward edge of vertical tail.
Yes, but already mentioned
-
Here is an update on the errors discovered so far
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4Berros2.jpg)
-
Hum... The RIO ejection seat is a F-86 or a F-84 ejection seat. But I think more F-86 (North American T-14 E ?)
-
Hum... The RIO ejection seat is a F-86 or a F-84 ejection seat. But I think more F-86 (North American T-14 E ?)
Sorry, no. The time frame is correct, but the country is not ... ;)
Keep participating, only more 3 days until the deadline. :)
-
Hello
We are entering the last 2 days of this thread.
There are still some more errors to identify and also the naming of the two ejection seats.
I can help the identification of the ejection seat by saying that there are not from the USA and they are both from the earlier jets... hope this helps ;)
Here is an update on the errors discovered so far.
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4Berros-2.jpg)
Please keep participating in this thread and also in the GB :)
-
Are the seats British??
Mr. Gofy
-
Are the seats British??
Mr. Gofy
No... but you are getting warmer (considering they are not US ;) )
-
Last few hours ... ;)
I will post the last remaining errors tomorrow (if no one tries one last time until then). :)
-
Russian seats??
Mr. Gofy
-
Russian seats??
Mr. Gofy
One of them is Russian, yes... :)
-
OK, time is up and here are the final errors
(http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k1/JPVieira_2006/F-4Berrosfinal.jpg)
The errors that you all identify are marked in blue and those not identified are markeed in green.
The two ejections seats were: the SNCASO E-86 for the pilot and the MiG-15 ejection seat for the RIO.
I want to thank all those who partticipate and made this a real fun thread: many thanks to all. :)
-
So we only missed 4; not bad!
Ok, so there were two antennae under the gun and the bang seats, but what is circled on the side of the fuselage?! APU door? Random ECM antennae? ??? ???
-
So we only missed 4; not bad!
You are right, it was a good run :)
Ok, so there were two antennae under the gun and the bang seats, but what is circled on the side of the fuselage?! APU door? Random ECM antennae? ??? ???
No, it is the camouflage of this "1965 US Navy F-4B" ;)