phat trev Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Looking to improve and detail an Airfix Meteor F3 over the coming weeks and as always (it seems) I am looking at suitable schemes and squadron usage before I even start modelling... What Squadrons used this early Meteor, from other sources I have: Interested more in the Camouflaged versions. Meteor F1 No. 616 Manston (also Debden?) Meteor F3 No. 616 No. 41 No. 74 No.1 (codes JX-) No. 245 No. 616 2nd TAF No. 266 (codes FX-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 From Jefford's RAF Squadrons Meteor I - 616 Meteor III/F.3 - 1,56,63,66,74,91,92,124,222,245,257,263,266,500,504,541,616 - not sure which were camouflaged. if you've a favourite squadron from the above I'll look up examples but can't do the whole lot 'on spec'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I suspect that they were all camouflaged. How many carried on into the plain jane days I can't say, but didn't the Mk.4s start off camouflaged? I don't know of any detail sets for the Airfix Meteor, from the way back times I only recall that the top of the fuselage sides needed rounding off. Presumably most of what you might find for a Mk.4 would also do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Squaring off, surely? The Airfix fuselage has a rather egg shaped profile, whereas the Frog mk 4 was more square and prototypical of the type. Short of an Aeroclub canopy and u/c set, I doubt that anyone has done anything for the Airfix F3. ARBA *might* have done some resin Dertwents, but they'll be long gone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I bow to your opinion, it being too long ago to be sure. I do remember filing it rather than building it up with putty - maybe I just flattened the top? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phat trev Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 All added detail will be totally my own diy and from the spares box.. (looking forward to that bit although a new canopy would be very handy and will probably source decals from spares. Will probably go with a camo F3 then as there looks to be a bit of choice of squadrons! (thanks rossm) I will have a look into each of the Squadrons listed -1,56,63,66,74,91,92,124,222,245,257,263,266,500,504,541,616- The detail looking into each front nacelle interests me and I wish to add something here and also improve the skin of of the aircraft too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I seem to recall an article in SAM back in the '80s covering the detailing of the Airfix Meatbox F3. I may have it in the magazine stash, if I can locate it (which may not be possible). IIRC it was one of a series called "Improving the Image" about enhancing old, but (in the opinion of the author) fundamentally accurate kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Someone did it in SAM much more recently. 2006 perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 20 minutes ago, mhaselden said: I seem to recall an article in SAM back in the '80s covering the detailing of the Airfix Meatbox F3. I may have it in the magazine stash, if I can locate it (which may not be possible). IIRC it was one of a series called "Improving the Image" about enhancing old, but (in the opinion of the author) fundamentally accurate kits. My index reveals Volume 9 page 70 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhaselden Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Hey...at least my memory wasn't failing COMPLETELY! That's progress in my book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phat trev Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 53 minutes ago, mhaselden said: I seem to recall an article in SAM back in the '80s covering the detailing of the Airfix Meatbox F3. I may have it in the magazine stash, if I can locate it (which may not be possible). IIRC it was one of a series called "Improving the Image" about enhancing old, but (in the opinion of the author) fundamentally accurate kits. 46 minutes ago, The Wooksta! said: Someone did it in SAM much more recently. 2006 perhaps? 32 minutes ago, rossm said: My index reveals Volume 9 page 70 If anyone has access to any of these articles, I would be very interested to see them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, phat trev said: If anyone has access to any of these articles, I would be very interested to see them! Next week I should be able to get my hands on the old one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I'm still happy with the Airfix Meteor III once the delicately-executed but completely inappropriate rivets are sanded off, and providing it's a gear-up build mounted on some kind of stand. Meteor cockpits are black coal-holes anyway so you don't lose a lot there, and putting a pilot under the closed canpy helps no end. The bare-naked wheel wells are a bit stark so gear-up helps there too. If you ever do this, it's better to attach the main gear doors to the lower wing before adding the top wing halves. The gear doors are not the greatest fit and have a habit of disappearing into the void of the wing. and benefit from some backing with Milliput or some pieces of scrap plastic to make sure they stay attached in line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phat trev Posted April 10, 2017 Author Share Posted April 10, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, rossm said: Next week I should be able to get my hands on the old one. That would be amazing Rossm Edited April 10, 2017 by phat trev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selwyn Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Does anyone have any indication to the outline accuracy of the Airfix Mk III? I seem to remember that many years ago I compared the Frog F4 fuselage with the Airfix and there was quite a difference in overall length, which suggests one of these kits has accuracy problems. I have searched the internet but there seems to be no information as to the accuracy of these kits as far as I can see. Has anyone had their rulers out on these kits to see? Selwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 22 hours ago, mhaselden said: I seem to recall an article in SAM back in the '80s covering the detailing of the Airfix Meatbox F3. I may have it in the magazine stash, if I can locate it (which may not be possible). IIRC it was one of a series called "Improving the Image" about enhancing old, but (in the opinion of the author) fundamentally accurate kits. Terrence Marriot - strangely, I had that issue in my had the other day. From memory, the 'detailling' wasn't completely accurate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 His never was. He converted an Airfix 72nd Mosquito to a T3 but got the cockpit completely wrong. His build of the Resitech TSR2 had him adding Tornado afterburner cans in the exhausts - had he actually done any reading on the type, he'd have known that the last 10ft of the exhausts WERE the afterburners! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 2 hours ago, Selwyn said: Does anyone have any indication to the outline accuracy of the Airfix Mk III? I seem to remember that many years ago I compared the Frog F4 fuselage with the Airfix and there was quite a difference in overall length, which suggests one of these kits has accuracy problems. I have searched the internet but there seems to be no information as to the accuracy of these kits as far as I can see. Has anyone had their rulers out on these kits to see? Selwyn I'm not looking to be contrary, but I've got both of those kits in mid-build on my desk at home right now and did all sorts of compare-and-contrast at Christmas, mainly becasue I was using the Airfix wings as patterns to extend the Frog wings to full span. I don't remember there being a significant fuselage length difference. For my money the Frog nose is too blunt in plan view and mine looks a lot better for a good filing down (having back-filled it with Milliput). I can't see anything horribly wrong with the outline of the Airfix kit but cheerfully admit I have not striven officiously to find anything wrong with it, because I just wanted a nice pleasant low-stress nostalgia build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 There was a change in length at some point, I don't have the reference to hand but an F4 was given a fuselage plug which I think became standard for the F8. My memory isn't clear if it was applied to some F4 production - and I don't think the reference was clear either! Having built both I prefer the Frog as it has a beefier fuselage, the Airfix one looks a bit round shouldered to my eyes. I have a pile of Cyber/MPM/Revell to build but haven't seriously looked at them so can't offer an opinion yet. Obviously a more expensive way to do it, even though the Cyber ones were on offer. I think I'd be very happy combining the Frog fuselage with the Airfix wings, getting rid of my personal accuracy worries and a load of rivets with one stone. Those rivets are a real pain come decalling time if not attended to. Comparison photo.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 And from above showing the Frog to be longer - the rear of the canopy is a clue as to where the difference lies. When I'm reunited with my references next week I can hopefully shed more light. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Actually the Airfix canopy is further back full stop. Measuring the finished models it's hard to be accurate but I'd say 17.4cm for Airfix and 17.6 for Frog. I've an old Profile to hand which gives the length as 12.5m, scaling down to 17.36cm so, pending an accurate measurement, it looks like the Frog is a couple of mm too long. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLC1966 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 52 minutes ago, rossm said: There was a change in length at some point, I don't have the reference to hand but an F4 was given a fuselage plug which I think became standard for the F8. My memory isn't clear if it was applied to some F4 production - and I don't think the reference was clear either! Having built both I prefer the Frog as it has a beefier fuselage, the Airfix one looks a bit round shouldered to my eyes. I have a pile of Cyber/MPM/Revell to build but haven't seriously looked at them so can't offer an opinion yet. Obviously a more expensive way to do it, even though the Cyber ones were on offer. I think I'd be very happy combining the Frog fuselage with the Airfix wings, getting rid of my personal accuracy worries and a load of rivets with one stone. Those rivets are a real pain come decalling time if not attended to. Comparison photo.... What did you use for the HSS paint ? That looks good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_c67 Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 8 hours ago, rossm said: There was a change in length at some point, I don't have the reference to hand but an F4 was given a fuselage plug which I think became standard for the F8. My memory isn't clear if it was applied to some F4 production - and I don't think the reference was clear either! Having built both I prefer the Frog as it has a beefier fuselage, the Airfix one looks a bit round shouldered to my eyes. I have a pile of Cyber/MPM/Revell to build but haven't seriously looked at them so can't offer an opinion yet. Obviously a more expensive way to do it, even though the Cyber ones were on offer. I think I'd be very happy combining the Frog fuselage with the Airfix wings, getting rid of my personal accuracy worries and a load of rivets with one stone. Those rivets are a real pain come decalling time if not attended to. Comparison photo.... I'm almost certain you'll find the MPM model will be the same as you Airfix one as I am led to believe they're the same kit! Unless it's a different mark of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tempestfan Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 The Airfix 3 is their 1970 rivet monster. They reboxed an MPM kit (8 IIRC), but that was ca. 10 years ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilneBay Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I turned one into a MKIV many years ago - couldn't find an example of the Frog one at the time. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now