Jump to content

Pete57

Members
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pete57

  1. Had the box been labeled 'GLOSTER F.9/40 RAF COSFORD MUSEUM', then I would agree, but the box was labelled 'GLOSTER METEOR F.1', so I stand my ground. The decal sheet was for three aircraft: F.9/40 DG202/G, an early F.Mk.I (EE216) and a late F.Mk.I (EE227). With the parts supplied with the original issue, only the first option could be built and then in its post-January 5, 1944 'incarnation', when the aircraft had to be re-built and modified at Gloster, Moreton Valence following considerable damage to the nacelle, centre section and outer wing panel caused by the explosion of the port engine on a take off from Church Broughton on July 24, 1943. The aircraft was never modified to the 'correct' F.Mk.I's standard, and in its current configuration, it must be considered a 'hybrid', i.e. an F.9/40 with fuselage upgraded to Mk.I's (G.41A) standard - bullet (or acorn) fairing at the fin-tailplane intersection and clear, rear-canopy (it was originally solid) - but fitted with a set of early Mk.III's (G.41C) wings - speed brakes and cropped main landing gear bulge. Regards,
  2. I don't do 1/48 scale, but i remember their first issue was wrong. Later on they re-issued a correct kit Please check this link Regards,
  3. Nope. The size was the same as the original, Rover W.2B/23 engined prototype, DG202/G. Except for the De Havilland H.1/ H.1B Goblin and Metro-Vick F.1 powered prototypes DG206/G, DG207/G and DG204/G respectively, the nacelles' shape and dimensions remained the same for all the Gloster F.9/40 prototypes, the F.MK.Is and all but the last 15 Mk.IIIs. All the Power-Jets W.2/500, W.2/700 and Rolls Royce B.37 Derwent Srs 1 thru 4 powered machines had this same type of nacelles, but with shorter exhaust nozzles. The last 15 Mk.IIIs and all the following Marks, received the stretched nacelles, pioneered by the Mk.I EE211/G, which improved the aircraft's critical mach. Aircraft fitted with the prototype RR. B.37 as well as Derwent Srs 1 thru 4 turbojets, including the last, stretched-nacelle Mk. IIIs sported a small oil vent on the top, right-side of each nacelle. These have to be scratch-built whenever one chooses to reproduce one of these aircraft. Curiously, the old Airfix kit these had these vents... About ten years ago, I emailed MPM a small essay I had created, detailing the subtle and not so subtle differences between the wartime marks of the Gloster Meteor (the Mk.I thru the long-span Mk.IV), had the wartime Meteor indeed been in their future plans. MPM confirmed it was in their future plans and thanked me for the essay. When I first saw their 1/72 Mk.I announced, having already bought their Mk.III, and suspecting a possible sacrifice of accuracy in name of commonality, I again emailed some scans of drawings from the Camouflage & Marking issue on the Gloster Meteor which best depicted, in my opinion, the differences in the Mk.I and Mk.III's wings...The rest, as they say, is history! . Regards.
  4. Hope this can be of help... Taken from the Erection and Maintenance manuals of both the Bell P-59 (TO AN 01-110FF-2) and the Bell P-63 (TO AN 01-110FP-2): “All metal parts such as struts, forks, etc., which form a part of the alighting gear and, which are exposed when the gear is lowered, receive two coats of dull Army-Navy interior green lacquer in addition to the coat of zinc chromate primer specified above. Parts and interior of the wheel wells are finished with one coat of zinc chromate primer only” Two coats of the same dull Army-Navy interior green lacquer are called for in the “PAINT FINISH FOR CABIN INETRIOR” section, with stainless steel, unplated steel and aluminum alloy rivets to receive one coat of primer prior to their application. Now, one would be inclined to believe this dull Army-Navy interior green lacquer to be color No. 611 of the ANA Bulletin 157, however… The list of the materials to be used in TO AN 01-110FF-2 shows the following, two green lacquers: “Olive Drab Camouflage Lacquer, Shade No. 41 of AC Bulletin No. 41”, and “Medium Green Camouflage Lacquer, Shade No. 42 of AC Bulletin No. 41” Whereas TO AN 01-110-FP-2, shows: “Olive Drab Camouflage Lacquer, Shade No. 613 of Bulletin No. 157A”, and “Medium Green Camouflage Lacquer, Shade No. 612 of Bulletin No. 157A” Given that, in both cases, the Olive Drab is to be used for exterior camouflage, the dull Army-Navy interior green lacquer can only be the Medium Green Shade No. 612 of Bulletin No. 157A or the similar Medium Green Shade No. 42 of AC Bulletin No. 42. and therefore this should be the Bell Interior Green, at least for the N and Q versions of the P-39. My … Regards,
  5. Has anybody had a chance to have a look at the sprues? Judging by the box art and side drawings on MPM’s website, the canopy appears to be over-dimensioned and the ailerons to be the same as those of their other wartime Gloster Meteor kit – the F.Mk.III – which would be totally incorrect for the F.Mk.I whose ailerons sported a horn-balance and a differently located trim-tab. Hopefully, there are no speed brakes and the main landing-gear’s underwing bulge extends to the flap-line… I sure hope MPM did not screw this up by trying to maintain as much commonality as possible with their Mk.III!
  6. I've noticed the cockpit seems to be Interior Grey-Green, whereas the b/w picture of LZ548's cockpit in Watkin's book (see scan herebelow) shows a predominantly black color (as expected that late in the conflict)… On the other hand, though, I don’t see any reason for the restoration crew to change the cockpit color… Any ideas? Pete
  7. Steve, Reckon that's exactly it! But...why MSG over Sky? Any other aicraft known to have used this combination? Pete
  8. I admit the thought did cross my mind...
  9. If we accept Medium Sea Grey for the upper surfaces (it does look like the undersides color in BritJet’s b/w rendition), and rule out Yellow (different color than the roundel’s outer ring), “aluminium” (there doesn’t seem to be that aluminized paint’s or natural metal’s glint), and most definitely PRU Blue (clearly it is not a dark color), then what options are we left with? And, what about the colors of the currently preserved Sea Vampire prototype (LZ 551/G)? In the b/w pictures of its early trials, the colors do seem to be very similar to - if not the same as - those of the other prototypes…
  10. Hi Bob, This is the pic I'm talking about Notice how the roundel's yellow ring seems to be of a different color than the boom's underside color... Whaddya think? Regards,
  11. Hi, My first post here... What color were the Vampire prototypes painted? Technically speaking, they were not fighters, but rather experimental aircraft – the designation being E.6/41 – nevertheless they should have been painted in accordance with the M.A.P. pattern No.2 for monoplanes with a wing span of under 70ft., i.e. areas of Dark Green and Dark Earth or Ocean Grey, with Yellow undersurfaces, as per the directive issued on June 6, 1940, regarding new and generally unknown prototypes. This is indeed the scheme worn by the two Gloster E.28/39 Pioneers (incidentally, also an experimental type). The first DH 100, E.6/41 (LZ548/G) was painted a “Possible Medium Sea Grey over aluminium undersurfaces” in W.A.Harrison’s interpretation in the Warpaint Series No.27, while other color profiles on the internet show Grey upper surfaces over Yellow undersurfaces. A b/w picture of this aircraft, on page 7 of “The Havilland Vampire – The Complete History”, by David Watkins, clearly shows how the yellow, outer ring of the Type C1 roundel is of a lighter shade than the undersurfaces color. The all-Medium Sea Grey upper surfaces were called for in the scheme issued on June 7, 1943 (about two months before the aircraft’s first flight) for high-altitude fighters operating by day - but why an experimental aircraft? And if it had later been decided that the aircraft was to be a day, high-altitude fighters, why weren’t the undersurfaces painted P.R.U. Blue as the spec called for? A stable mate, the DH 103 Hornet’s prototype, had the upper surfaces painted Medium Sea Grey (as it was to be a high-altitude, day fighter), but its undersurfaces were rightly painted Yellow (as evidenced by the orthochromatic pictures) designating its prototype status – so why not the Vampire’s prototype? The third E.6/41 prototype (MP838/G) seems to have been painted the same scheme, while the only picture of the second prototype (LZ551/G – and the only survivor of the trio) I’ve found (on page 2 of Warpaint No.27) shows the aircraft painted a “patchy”, very dark grey on the upper surfaces, with wide areas apparently un-painted. As this aircraft was later converted into the Sea Vampire prototype, I’m inclined to believe this particular picture was taken while it was being thus modified, as further evidenced by the two-piece canopy... Can someone cast some light? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...