neilfergylee

Thank you very much indeed - it's really appreciated.

A bit of an initial update. Two things to address first, the rivet detail (courtesy of Harland and Wolf) on the fuselage and the chordwise bands on the outer wings, just after the nacelles: you can see them in the comparison shot below. The bands do exist, presumably to cover a transit joint, as one can see from this NF.14 at East Fortune: However, the Airfix version is nearly as thick as this! Therefore, I started by filing it down, making sure that I had three pieces of masking tape stuck to the nacelle so as to protect it from any errant file action. Below we see one wing in mid-rectification and the other, original version for comparison: While I was at it, I wanted to do something about the airbrakes. As a concession to the toy side of things, Airfix made these as separate items although they had the characteristics of a cast iron grid! In the real thing, they are visible but not madly prominent, so I used that delightful Vallejo putty to de-emphasise the airbrakes whilst not making them invisible. I also had a pair of Czech Master resin mainwheel bays that I decided to add. These took a lot of filing-down to ensure that the wings would fit-together. One thing I did forget to do was to fill the hole left for the landing light. Yes, there is one on the port wing, but it isn't the size of a searchlight! Finally, before putting the wings together, I filled the front of the nacelles with a combination of lead and Blu-Tack. Models of early Meteors are notorious tail-sitters and as I was opening-up the nosewheel bay, space for weights was limited and I wanted to take advantage of any available space. I should have done more with the interior of the intakes but I was limited for options, so a bit of black paint and kidology will have to do. I glued it together and here we get to the end of this episode. Cheers for now, Neil

Yes, I think you're right about the date and I must confess that I was about to see about the ailerons so you have helped me a great deal there.

Thanks guys! It's going to be OOB but with a few resin extras and a lot of tidying-up! Neil

My fascination with Meteors continues. Having built an NF11 (see thread here), and a PR.10 straight out of the box, the next target was the good old Meteor III from 1972. I have several Meteors in my stash, most dating back to the 1980s and these include a couple in original boxes with a 'Capital Models' sticker and a price tag of £3.25 from when I was collecting them: little did I know back then that there would be a plethora of Meteors to look forward-to in the future - at the time, I thought I would never see any Meteor kits ever again. The original Meteor kit was a product of its time but, while featuring several common 'features' of early-1970s kits, it was dimensionally accurate and most definitely carried-off the appearance of a Meteor very well indeed. The downside was the habit at that time to provide raised detail, especially in the form of rivets that would not have looked out of place on a steam locomotive! The cockpit carried minimal detail (but some - I've seen much worse) and the decal sheet was rather Spartan but one major plus-point was the continuous wing under surface, thus capturing the subtle contours that are seldom found when having separate wings, A few months ago I made a few comparisons between the original F.III and the later Airfix / MPM Mk.8; In turn, the decal sheet has grown over four decades: And I did buy the updated Meteor III decal sheet off eBay to give me all the appropriate stencils and walkway markings: As mentioned above, the Meteor III is a good model and stands well next to its rather more recent equivalent. As an aside, both fuselages are lined-up by a common datum point: the transport joint just ahead of the fin. So, if you are interested, I shall record my progress with this venerable model over the next few weeks. Kind regards, Neil

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE! So, I was thumbing through the Midland Counties book on the Meteor last night and found this photo of a nice late Mk.III: The jetpipe looks a little small, especially when compared to a Mk.IV: So @Dave Fleming, you are absolutely correct and I doff my cap to you! Now my next question is whether the rear of the Mk.III's nacelle was simply a wee bit longer to meet the narrower jetpipe or whether the Mk.IV's had a different profile entirely. I wonder if anybody knows? Cheers, Neil

Ooh I'll be following this one! I love this kind of post where different generations of model are compared. Great thread.

Thank you very much indeed! Meanwhile, here is the finished article PR.10 alongside the original NF.11. I have now started on a Mk.3!

Admiral, very sorry to hear: can you PM me your email address please? I shall then email you the picture direct. Cheers, Neil

@Admiral Puff, I don't have plans but this might help: https://www.flickr.com/photos/26690797@N02/34237947463/in/album-72157682337654581/ you will find a link there to the original (enormous) file. BTW, I don't think the cloth is flight equipment! Neil

@stevehnz, I'll just leave this here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9py97yj5o4w8c7k/SAM Vol1 Iss6.pdf?dl=0

@Max Headroom, as promised, a view of my (just) completed PR.10. I'm fairly pleased but there is much room for improvement. Next up, a Mk.3. Neil

Steve, To the very best of my knowledge and research, the only difference between Welland and Derwent nacelles was the jetpipe length and the vent. The shape was identical. As an aside, when I finish my PR.10, I'm going to work on an Airfix Mk.III. Neil

Thanks Steve, This image from Shacklady's book may be of use to you: It is a Derwent-engine aircraft, so don't forget the 10 o'clock vents! If you were modelling this in 1/48, then Tamiya's model would not be quite right because even the F.III model represents a Welland-engined version. One option, if you are feeling flush, is to buy an Airfix F.8 and use an engine out of that. Neil

Having done a little more research, I have learned that EE337 was equipped with the Derwent 5 engine of the F.IV, so that's why there was no vent. OK, I'll stop going on... Neil

Thanks Dave, I did reply on Wednesday but I clearly pressed the wrong button! Yes, you are spot-on: PR10s were both elusive and had the largest variety of colour schemes, so I think there is an element of having to find an example and do one's best. Certainly in-service shots of PR10s are pretty thin on the ground: the majority of photos tend to be of trials aircraft. I think I am going to go for PRU blue undercarriage legs but silver bay interiors. Thanks again, Neil

Saw one on a space modellers forum where a chap had new glass shelves manufactured with a large central hole so as to display his Saturn V!

Probably safest: I wonder if the a/c were shipped in PRU blue or silver?

Hello folks, I am building a Meteor PR10 in the early scheme of PRU Blue undersides and Sae Grey, Medium upper surfaces. Would anybody have an ides of the colour used inside the undercarriage bays and the undercarriage legs please? At present, I'm going for silver but wonder if they were PRU Blue? Kind regards, Neil

Thank you Julien: I have learned something today! Where is your restoration? Neil

I'm intrigued! Can you find any photos?

It may well be the length of the jet pipes: see my post above ^^^^

The only difference I have found is the presence of the vents at the 10 o'clock position. There is no evidence of a different style of nacelle.

I have been doing a bit of homework and even travelling with my camera this week, so have a bumper batch of things for you all. I visited the museums at Elvington and East Fortune and managed to get up close and personal with two NF.14s and an F.8. A full album of the shots can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/26690797@N02/sets/72157695805591911/with/27625697367/ Nacelles. WS788 is under restoration and I was able to take a shot of the nacelle with the intake ring removed: Meanwhile, WM261 at East Fortune clearly has deep-breather intakes: While, I think WL168 appears to have deep-breathers although it's hard to tell when you're up close and personal: Importantly, I applied a hugely scientific method of identifying the material used for the intake rings - tapping them with my fingernails - and they both sounded metallic. As an aside, here is a rear view of the nacelle, showing how the jetpipe is attached to the nacelle structure. How long is an NF.14 Nose? Well, this long... And this long: Bonus item: the hidden railway on an F.8 It had always intrigued me as to precisely what the rail on the sliding canopy looked like close-up. The answer is that we have a wooden wedge and what really does look like a length of flat-bottomed rail as the runner: And Mark III nacelle details... I've gone to town on this one. First of all, there were three variants of the Mk.III: The first 15 aircraft were of type G.41C and still used the Rolls-Royce Welland, used on the Mk.1. All G.41C aircraft had been withdrawn by the end of Q1/1946. The next 180 were of type G.41D and used the Derwent 1 engine. The final 15 were of type G.41E and had extended nacelles, used on the F.4 and subsequent versions. After doing a bit of digging, this is what I came-up with: G.41C aircraft can be identified by slightly lengthened jetpipes: Derwent engines had a shorter jetpipe and also introduced a vent on the nacelle located at the 10 o'clock position when viewed from the front: This additional vent is the one feature that provides ready recognition between a late G.41E Mk.III and an early (long wings) G.41F Mk.IV: Mk.III: Mk.IV: A few notes: Some sources state the last 30 Mk.IIIs were fitted with long nacelles, but my research (principally but not exclusively Shacklady) indicates it was the only the last 15, although many were retrofitted and redesignated G.41E. A good example is the pair that were converted for the speed record attempt. The Airfix model has both extended jetpipes and vents: this appears to be a combination not found in service. Finally, here is the exception that proves the rule! EE337 was a 'Hooked meteor', Derwent-powered but lacking the vents. All I can say is that it either completely busts my argument or (as I like to think), it was a bit of an oddball, quite probably with slightly different engines. I hope you find all this to be of interest. Neil

In the early 1980s, Scale Aircraft Modelling did a feature on Buccaneers. If it would help, I could scan the article for you.