Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Pete57

  1. Hi Edgar,

    Thanks for the useful info – I thought it’d be easier for British than US aircraft, now I know it’s not! :o

    Perhaps - and given the experience - you can help me limit my search.

    What I’m looking for is the specs that covered the finish of the following types

    Gloster G40 E.28/39

    Gloster F.9/40

    Gloster G.41A thru G.41F (Meteor F.MkI thru early, long-span Mk.IV) both experimental and Squadron 616 service

    De Havilland E.6/41 Spider Crab (Vampire prototypes)

    De Havilland DH.100 Vampire F.Mk.I



  2. Hi Christer A, and thanks for the info! :worthy:

    Now you've got me wondering if Saab deviated from the existing regulations by painting the cockpit the same top surface green color instead of black, or if the two survivors could possibly have been incorrectly restored... :unsure:

    Any idea?


  3. The specs covering the exterior and interior colors of US aircraft of the WWII era can be found in the Finish Specification-Section of the respective Erection & Maintenance Manual.

    Where can I find the same information regarding British aircraft?

    Were there also aircraft-specific manuals or were they rather covered by general rules and regulations?



  4. My apologies for resurrecting an old thread… :blush:

    I’ve bought Special Hobby’s J-21A and J-21R kits.

    The J-21A’s instruction sheet gives the same green color as the top surfaces for the cockpit interior (The J-21R’s instruction sheet shows no details for the interior colors!), whereas the old Heller kit’s instruction sheet showed black as the cockpit’s main color.

    Can someone please cast some light?

    Thanks, :)


  5. Among the Meteor F.Is EE219 was YQ-D and EE229 was YQ-W. YQ-G was drawn by James Goulding as EE222 but is listed elsewhere (eg Rawlings' Fighter Aircraft) as EE220. Which still leaves a distressing amount of the alphabet to eliminate.

    Gloster Meteor, Postwar Military Aircraft:2, by Chaz Bowyer, lists EE219 as being “D”, while Meteor, Gloster’s First Jet Fighter, by Steven J. Bond lists EE219 as being “YQ-D/YQ-N”.

    According to Shacklady’s book, EE219 was the first operational Meteor, of the first batch delivered to the unit – EE215 thru EE221 – to reach Squadron 616 ad this would explain the “low” letter assigned.

    It could possibly have been re-registered YQ-N, following “re-shuffling” within the unit due to some aircraft being, for instance, written-off, or by taking up slots left by the Spitfire’s departure from the unit.

    EE220 is listed as YQ-G in both publications, however Camouflage & Markings, No11, Meteor, Whirlwind & Welkin, lists it as being EE222 and the Commanding Officer’s – Wg.Cdr. A.Mcdowell – personal aircraft.

    It is possible that EE222 was the original YQ-G, and that EE220 became YQ-G after EE222 was written off, following an emergency landing at Plucksgutter, after it ran out of fuel on Aug. 29, 1944.

    It appears that a total of 3 Meteor F.Mk.I’s were written off during their service with Squadron 616, the first being EE226, on Aug. 15, 1944, when it spun in, while approaching the forward airstrip at Great Chart, where its pilot, Flight Sergeant D.A. Cregg was trying to land being unable to locate the airfield at High Halde where he was supposed to take up his readiness duty. It was replaced with EE229 (YQ-W).

    Two days later, EE225, was returning to the dispersal area, from an operational mission when, during engine shut down, the pilot accidentally pressed the trigger, the 4 20mm cannon fire hitting EE224 which was written off and had to be replaced with EE228


  6. To make up for MPM's fiasco, Cyberhobby has released what appears to be an almost perfect Gloster Meteor F.MK.I! :yahoo:

    I have not physically seen the kit, but images of the kit and instruction sheet are available on the 1999.co.jp website here


    The wing is correct with no speed-brake wells and the l/g 'bulges' correctly extend to the flap hinge-line

    The kit includes the parts to build the two Rolls Royce W2B/23 Welland I turbojets. :speak_cool:


    The incorrect elevators (i.e. no horn-balance) of the previous F.Mk.III kit have not been corrected :badmood:

    The ailerons, albeit partly correct (mid-span trim-tab) likewise lack the balance-horn (Cyberhobby must be allergic to horn-balance!!! :hmmm: )

    Canopy with rear-view mirror bulge.

    Only two choices: EE222/G YQ-G of W/Cdr. A. McDowall, 616th Squadron CO, and EE210/G first F.Mk.I, with US insignia during tests at Muroc



  7. Regarding modelling, the YP-80 and P-80A have the front of the cockpit further back than the F-80C, as the P-80 did not have an ejector seat. IIRC the difference is abpout 9 inches. The easiest was way was to move the windcreen and IP forward.

    Hi Troy,

    I followed the whole discussion (on Hyperscale IIRC). I remember someone pointing out how the canopy's break-line is differently located when compared to the air intake and how the whole cockpit had to be enlarged accordingly.

    However, if you look at the two sideviews I've posted, well, that just doesn't appear to be the case!

    The only item that strikes as being definitely different is the shape of the canopy, i.e. the F-80B/C's canopy is more raked and indeed extends further forward and the canopy's frame is slanted (it's almost straight on the P-80A) in order to provide a clearance for the pilot's legs in the event of an ejection.

    Notice also how the placement of items such as the control stick, the rudder pedals the front edge of the seat, in comparison to other items like the nose-wheel and the forward edge of the fuel tank appears to be un-changed.

    The only modification I see, is the replacement of the whole canopy with a new one having a more raked front part and more slanted frames.

    On the other hand, just by looking at the pictures of F-80B's and C's found on the web or different publications, I get a feeling this could well have been a retrofit, i.e. not all the aircarft sport it.

    regarding colours, Also, there are some pics on wiki. Of particular note is this one, showing the pearl grey finish, and also the brown tinted main canopy.

    look at the wing behind the canopy and windscreen to see what i mean, the difference is quite obvious.

    This was a feature of the XP-80 as well. the P-80 pics above do not seem to have this feature, so maybe it was only early planes.

    I've seen the tinted canopy (always the rear, moving portion only) , used on the XP-80, the two XP-80A's and always on "pristine" examples the YP-80A/P-80A-1's. By "pristine" I mean early in their service life or used for experimental purposes only, so - I'm only guessing here - it may have to do with the little added value it afforded when compared to the extra maintenance it required, just like the original Pearl Grey finish.



  8. The release by Sword of the Lockheed P-80A/B – SW72041 – gives me the opportunity to reproduce my favorite subject, the YP-80A, the only US jet fighter to see operational service, albeit a very brief one, during WWII.

    I have researched this subject for 30 years, so I would like to take the opportunity to share some information which, in my intentions, may be useful to those who will decide to model this specific subject.

    Historical info.

    The code word "Extraversion" was assigned to the Project, on November 13, 1944, pursuant to verbal request by Col. George E. Price (head of the project), by The War Department, Headquarter of the Army Air Forces, Washington D.C. The original letter, signed by R.C. Wilson, Colonel AC, Chief, Aircraft Projects Br., Materiel Division, AC/AS, Materiel & Services, where the aircraft are indicated as "...special XP-80A project for ETO and MTO."

    The four aircraft, earmarked for this Project - actually all YP-80A’s - were.

    S/N 44-83026, c/n 1005 (ETO)

    S/N 44-83027, c/n 1006 (ETO)

    S/N 44-83028, c/n 1007 (MTO)

    S/N 44-83029, c/n 1008 (MTO)

    There is strong evidence this project received the highest priority from ‘the powers that be’, so much so that, in some cases, the lack of spares/items had to be made good by cannibalization performed on some of the aircraft used in the development program which was severely delayed because of this.

    The ETO aircraft were disassembled, boxed and shipped as deck cargo to Burtonwood, England, on Dec. 15, 1944, arriving in the U.K on December 30. It took a whole month, to reassemble and get the two aircraft ready, the extremely cold weather being apparently a major factor.

    The two pilots, Col. Marcus Cooper and Major Fredrick Austin Borsodi, of the Air Technical Service Command HQ, based at Wright Field, arrived sometimes in January 1945, and Col. Cooper took 44-86026 on the type's first flight outside the U.S. Maj. Borsodi was at the controls of the same aircraft, on Jan.28, when a failure in tension of the tail-pipe flange caused part of the hot gasses to exhaust inside the rear section of the fuselage, with varying degree of damage to the tail surfaces and rear empennage disintegration. Borsodi lost control of the aircraft which crashed on farmland, near Bold. Borsodi was killed.

    44-83027 was loaned to The Rolls Royce Engine Company, for flight tests of their B.41 (Nene) engine and was destroyed in an accident on Nov. 14, 1945.

    For details, please go to


    Although the MTO aircraft performed far better, at least from the operational point of view, much less is known as of their operational service. The two Individual Aircraft History Cards and their contents can be best described as ‘skimpy and vague.’

    44-83028 is shown as departing the Con-U.S. on Dec. 26, 1944 for overseas destination code DUKO, MET (Italy, 12th A.F.). It is then listed as being back to the Con-U.S. (an Air Materiel Command in Buffalo, NY) on June 16, 1945.

    44-83029 is shown as departing the Con-U.S. for an unreported overseas destination on Dec. 26, 1944, returning from same on Jun. 16, 1945.

    Some considerations: although the MTO aircraft were shipped 11 days after the MTO aircraft were, the far less inclement weather of Southern Italy makes it not unlikely the MTO aircraft were first flown around the same time their ETO counterparts first flew.

    Another rumor has it that they were shipped to the relatively safer MTO to intercept the Arado Ar.234’s, that were flying recon missions from Udine, in Northern Italy.

    However, considering there are no records of German jets operating from, or over Italy, before February 1945, this is highly doubtful!

    According to An Escort of P-38s, The 1st Fighter Group in World War II, by John D. Mullins, the aircraft were '...brought over in early April by a Wright Field contingent, "for testing under combat conditions in a remote location" ' and were quickly dubbed the "33rd Air Force". ...'

    One of the 1st FG pilots, Major Ed LaClare, logged two flights on the YP-80A.

    These MTO aircraft were delivered to an operational unit, mere weeks after the German jets made their appearance…only a coincidence?

    Later in 1945, the aircraft were shipped back to the States, and a picture of 44-83029 / B can be found on page 52 of Lockheed P-80 / F-80 SHOOTING STAR, A PHOTO CHRONICLE, BY David R. McLaren, although the aircraft is incorrectly captioned as being P-80A-1-LO S/N 44-85123, flown by Major Russ Schleeh.

    I inquired with the author, who in turn, contacted Mr. Bob Esposito (a P/F-80 expert) who confirmed the aircraft as being 44-83029, forced down on a cornfield by Steve Pisanos of Wright Field’s Flight Test Division, in July 1945.

    Scleeh flew the aircraft out, after it was towed to a nearby highway, 13 days after the forced landing.

    The two aircraft were later involved in a drone-control program with 44-83029 meeting its final demise on August 2, 1945, when it broke apart over Kentucky, enroute to Muroc, taking the life of Major Ira Jones.

    The following pictures show the aircraft involved in the MTO portion of Project Extraversion.


    The best known picture, from the Natl. Archives, showing the two aircraft flying formation near Mt. Vesuvius, over or near Naples

    The following set of pictures, also from the Natl. Archives, show the two aircraft being shown to Gen, J.T.McNarney, Supreme Allied Commander MTO by Lt.Col. J.H.Carter of Wright Field’s Test Center, and possibly one of the pilots, at a large AAF airbase, possibly Foggia.


    The two aircraft, on the ground, taken from a B-25.



    Gen, J.T.McNarney and Lt.Col. J.H.Carter inspecting on of the YP-80As.


    One of the pilots or groundcrew on the wing of one of the aircraft. Note the lack of ‘splitter plates’ inside the air intakes and the presence of speed-brakes: some sources claim they were not fitted on the YP-80A’s but this picture clearly proves otherwise.


    Groundcrew on the wing. The aircraft were flown by military personnel and maintained by civilians, most likely from Lockheed.


    Ground support equipment surrounding the aircraft. Notice the fire truck getting ready for the aircraft to 'fire up the blowtorch'


    44-83028 upon its arrival at the 1st FG's airfield at Lake Lesina (Bob Share)

    The following set, by Jim Bertoglio, shows the two aircraft in their ‘operational livery’




    Modeling the P-80A-1 and the Project Extraversion YP-80A.


    The image hereabove is a composite taken from the flight manuals of the P-80A-1 and the later F-80B/C for comparison. Contrary to what has recently been stated is some modeling forums, the cockpit of the F-80B/C (with ejection seat) doesn’t appear to have been stretched (then again, perhaps it is only my impression), but rather the shape of the canopy to have been modified in order for the pilot’s legs to clear the canopy’s frame in the event of an ejection.

    Those wishing to build a YP-80A will also have to omit the installation of the boundary-layer splitter-plates inside the air-intakes (parts 14 and 15) and fill in the boundary-layer louvers on top and bottom of each air-intake.

    Colors and markings.

    Starting with the XP-80A’s, the US early jets were given an extra-smooth, light grey finish called Pearl Grey.

    Whenever available, I use the original Erection and Maintenance manual as painting reference for a specific US aircraft. Unfortunately, although this specific manual was available, the pages dealing with the finish specifications were the March 10, 1948 revision, i.e. when the Pearl Grey finish had already been done away with.

    Fortunately, the fact that the vertical stabilizer tip had always been made with plastic came to my rescue, as the manual specifies that this, specific part was to be painted in the original finish “…two coats of light grey gloss lacquer, color No. 512 of ANA Bulletin 166, Specification AN-L-29. …”

    The FS595’s equivalent to ANA 512, Aircraft Grey, is 16473 ADC Grey.

    This color was polished to a high gloss finish. However, the labor it required later caused a switch to Natural Metal as it was felt that the gain in performance it afforded was more than offset by the extra maintenance it required. The kit quotes FS16492 but this is not correct.

    Walkways were black and made of some spray material called P-010 Vulcabond. They were to be sprayed over the zinc chromate primer to such a thickness as to keep it “…flush and on a level with adjacent finish lacquer. …”.

    All the P/E aircraft arrived in Europe painted ANA 512 overall with the usual serial number on the vertical stabilizer. The only picture I have been able to find of the aircraft sent to England, i.e. 44-83027, at Rolls Royce, shows the aircraft in its original livery and devoid of any special markings.

    The MTO aircraft were similarly painted until their delivery to the 1st FG.

    The details of this 'operational' livery are more or less educated guesswork, done by comparison with known shades, e.g. the color of the national insignia.

    The tail chevrons appeared to be white and red and likewise red appear to be both the tip of the nose and the two slanted stripes on the wing.

    The slanted stripe on the fuselage appear to be very dark, e.g. a very dark blue or green, although Black is also a possibility, being red, white and black the colors of the three Squadrons that made up the 1st FG.

    As the tail chevrons covered the serial number, each aircraft received a black letter, on the nose, for identification purposes, 44-83028 becoming ‘A’ and 44-83029 becoming ‘B’.

    This livery was maintained after the aircraft’s return to the US and re-assignment to Wright-Field, as evidenced by the already mentioned picture on page 52 of Lockheed P-80 / F-80 SHOOTING STAR, A PHOTO CHRONICLE.

    As a curiosity, at least one other P-80A-1 flew at the 1946 Bendix Trophy in a similar livery, flown by Gus Lindquist and winning the Trophy and I’ve always wondered if it is a mere coincidence or if indeed these are the colors of Wright Field’s Test Division...


    Interior colors, in accordance with the March 10, 1948 revision of the E&MM

    The cockpit’s general color is “tinted zinc chromate”, including the headrest and the armor plate, with black instrument panel and black surfaces of the side control panels which are “visible within the cockpit”.

    The control stick is likewise “tinted zinc chromate” with a dull black “handle”.

    The cockpit’s floor, although made of wood, received “two coats of wood sealer” followed by “two coats of tinted zinc chromate primer”.

    The seat was also to be painted tinted zinc chromate primer except for the “adjustment surfaces” which were to be “wear-resistant hard chrome plate”.

    “Canopy reinforcements, supports and windshield structure” as well as rudder-pedals were painted dull black.

    “Wheel well areas” received two coats of zinc chromate primer (un-tinted) and two coats of aluminized lacquer.

    Researchers have determined that the shade of the “tinted zinc chromate” used by Lockheed was reasonably close to the ANA Bulletin 166 Color No. 611, although it was not until the May 19, 1948 revision of the E&MM that compliance to this, specific shade was mandated. I therefore believe that the use of any of the ANA 611 hobby paints shouldn’t be too far off.

    The color picture herebelow shows the general color of the cockpit of the P-80A-1-LO


    The picture herebelow shows how the P-80A-1’s inside of the l/g doors, and the l/g struts are aluminum (aluminized lacquer, not natural metal).


    At least one of the YP-80As had the l/g doors inside painted aluminized lacquer as evidenced by the metallic sheen in one of the b&w pictures hereabove. However, one needs to remember that some of the YP’s were built around the time when the USAAF returned to aluminum powder or paste in paint formulas, after the predicted shortage of aluminum that had previously led to the elimination of this component never materialized. It is therefore possible that some of the early YP’s had the l/g bays and/or the inside of the l/g doors painted otherwise, e.g. tinted or raw zinc chromate primer.

    I have not been able to find pictures that clearly show the inside of the airbrakes and/or their bays. These, specific items are not covered in the ‘Finish’ section of the E&MM. Possible colors are tinted or un-tinted zinc chromate primer or aluminized lacquer.

    Lacking solid evidence, one can always fit them in the ‘up’ position, thus avoiding the problem.

    One last, overlooked detail: the barrel of the left, middle machine-gun does not protrude as does the right one, possibly because of a ‘staggered’ installation.

    Although far from being the definitive guide to modeling the Project Extraversion Lockheed YP-80As, I hope this 'jumbo-sized' topic will be of some help to those who will decide to ‘try their luck’ at this specific subject.

    Happy modeling


    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  9. I presume you mean right turn, if the left aileron is (trailing edge) down? Sorry, probably seems like a nit, but such descriptions lead to confusion!


    You're absolutely right! :blush::banghead:

    It's amazing how far a long day at work and almost regular sleep deprivation can sometimes go toward impairing one's judgment! :wacko:

  10. There are 1/72 drawings of a Meteor F.I with hornbalanced ailerons on page 149 of James Goulding's "Interceptor" (Ian Allen, 1986). Similar drawings but to a smaller scale and primarily to illustrate the camouflage pattern appear in Goulding's Camouflage and Markings 11 on the Meteor, Whirlwind and Welkin (eg p.247). Whether they are reliable, I could not say. However I don't think I am alone in holding Goulding's work in high regard.

    A snippet from "Interceptor": "New prototypes were now being completed and the F9/40s were notching up an impressive number of flights. There remained some aerodynamic problems to be overcome. ..... Lateral instability at high altitude was relieved by flat-sided ailerons and aileron flutter during a high-speed dive was cured by internal mass balancing." If testing with the F9/40s had shown the need for internally mass balanced ailerons, it seems strange that production F.Is were apparently fitted with horn-balanced ones.

    I've seen it also on other publications.

    It is well possible - mho only - that the Mk.III's ailerons were tested on one of the F.9/40's. Yet, for some reasons, they did not become standard on the production Mk.I's, as further evidenced in an official Sep. 29, 1944 report (link):

    "...The Meteor I is therefore, operationally restricted to:

    (a) 15,000ft. in view of aileron overbalance above this height ..."

    Another apparent inconsistency is the lack of a rear-view mirror on (or removal of it from) the operational machines - i.e. those delivered to No. 616 Squadron.

    This can possibly be explained by the fact that aerobatics were expressly forbidden, making the Mk.I unsuitable for air to air combat where such an accessory was needed, while its high speed made it the ideal weapon to fight the V-1 menace and the removal of the mirror and associated bump may have afforded a few extra knots of airspeed - again mho only.

    So far as the shape of the Mk.I's ailerons is concerned, the Airfix Mk.III kit has the horn-balanced, Mk.I's ailerons.

    Theoretically, these could be grafted to the MPM kit and the speed-brakes slots could be filled in, however, one still needs to scratch-build the main lg bulge extension which is probably the hardest part of the conversion job...

    So either we get a proper conversion (resin ailerons and mlg bulge extension) from the aftermarket or - even better - a new, correct Mk.I kit! :thumbsup:

    Me, I'm going to email Dragon and provide them with the same info I had provided MPM: perhaps the Chinese will be more attentive listeners... ;)


  11. I've dug out the old Camouflage and Marking and appreciate the issue: as drawn therein, Meteor F.1 ailerons have a horn-balance and a differently located trim-tab. It would not be beyond the wit of man to fill and rescribe the MPM and Dragon wings but, especially in the case of the horn balance, it's likely to be a bit of a faff.

    But I've since been through all the F.1 photos in all my Meteor references and can find only 1 picture showing that configuration on an F.1 (Shacklady p.29 shows EE210/G, the first production F.I, in US markings: the port aileron is at extreme deflection and the horn balance appears visible). Otherwise, in the 4 cases where the ailerons were clearly visible, they are of Mark.III type: EE212/G (eg Goulding p.248, 90% certain), EE214/G (eg Shacklady p.33: 90% certain), EE223/G (eg Jones p.52: absolutely no doubt), EE227 Trent Meteor (eg Shacklady p.37: absolutely no doubt). However none of these are in RAF use: all are undergoing various trials, during the course of which they could have picked up all manner of non-standard modifications.

    Nor could I find reference (admittedly in a fairly quick skim) to changes to ailerons being made between Marks F.1 and F.III, unless they are swept up in such vague phrases as "airframe strengthening and other refinements" (Shacklady).

    So for me the balance of the evidence available to me so far is in favour of F.Is having the same aileron arrangement as F.IIIs. At least the kit designers can mount a plausible line of defence. Must be tough for them: they have to decide one way or the other and Sod's Law dictates that on a 50:50 call they'll always make the wrong one.

    But I am not a Meteor expert and look forward to be deluged with compelling evidence the other way from those who are.

    Shacklady: The Gloster Meteor (Macdonald), Jones: Gloster Meteor (Crowood), Buttler: Gloster Meteor (Warpaint 22), Bowyer: Gloster Meteor (Postwar Military Aircraft 2), Phillpott: Gloster Meteor (PSL), Bond: Gloster Meteor (Midland), Shores: 2 TAF Vol 3 (Classic), Goulding: Meteor, Whirlwind and Welkin (Camo and Markings 11).

    Hi seahawk,

    I also went thru the same exercise, but adding Hardy:Gloster Meteor Super Profile (Haynes Publishing Group), Lake: Wings of Fame Vol.14 Variant Briefing, Gloster Meteor Pt.1 (Aerospace Pub.), Wartime development, Ethell & Price: World War II Fighting Jets (Airlife), Butler & Buttler: Gloster Meteor (Aerofax), Caruana & Franks: The Gloster & AW Meteor (although none of these managed to yeld any useful extra info) and also in light of the fact that the last 8 aircarft - EE2222/G thru EE2297G - received RR W.2B/23B engines instead of the W2B/23 installed on the previous examples (Shacklady, page 170), i.e. the new ailerons could also have been introduced on the final production a/c.

    However, if you go to page 9 of Boyer's book, you'll see a picture of EE227/G during his service with No. 616 Squadron as YQ-Y, the pilot climbing onboard, and the stick set on a 'left turn' i.e. left aileron fully deflected down.

    This pic is far revealing as it clearly shows the leading-edge of the horn-balance protuding from the wing's uppersurface as well as its 'cutout' in the wings lower surface: this, in my opinion, settles the matter. :)

    Furthermore, the Mk.III was intentionally made 'aileron-heavy' to keep pilots from overstressing the airframe, and I believe this modification was more than a mere change in the gearing, links and rods, but rather involved also the change in the ailerons' shape that we have now become familiar with.

    The reason why EE227, when powered by the Trent turboprops, shows a Mk.III wing is (possibly) that the Mk.I had gone out of production and those kept for experimental purposes were being refitted with the new wing.

    For those whising to convert the MPM kit into a Trent-Meteor, there is a resin conversion-kit by Unicraft which provides new nacelles and 5-bladed props, however be aware that the both the nose and main landing gears which were lengthened (in the real aircraft) 6 inches and, in turn, mandated a change in the wheel bays' dimensions: I'm not sure this is detailed in the conversion-kit's instructions...

    Page 52 of Jones' book shows EE223/G, another Mk.I fitted with Mk.III's ailerons which could also be a good candidate for the MPM Mk.I kit.

    Unfortunately none of the pictures of this specific aircraft I've been able to see, shows if the aircarft was indeed fitted with airbrakes (and short l/g bulge), i.e. a full Mk.III wing, or just Mk.III's ailerons...

    Personally, and for the reasons I've already mentioned hereabove, I believe it had a complete Mk.III's wing, but it's only my guess and, like you, I'm no Meteor expert!


  12. No, it was't wrong. It was a superb model of a museum aircraft.

    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.


    • Like 1
  13. Shouldn't also the engines be smaller than on the F.III?


    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...

    Unfortunately the Czechs are lousy investigators often, as much I appreciate them tackling the subjects that are overlooked by the mainstreamers.

    Why don't they let some hobby nerds check their plans before they start?

    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! :weep: .


  14. 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 :2c:


    • Thanks 1
  15. 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. :confused:

    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! :bangin:

  16. It's difficult to compare the grey of the Buccaneer to LZ551 due to the different angles and variable lighting on the Carrier but these two photos LZ551 top view to me show LZ551 to be much lighter than EDSG. Whatever colour LZ551 is painted in now it's not the same as on the production Sea Vampire as that looks much darker.


    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?


  17. 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… :hmmm:

  18. Warning, speculation follows...

    Alas my sources for Vamps are limited. I could only find one photo of the first prototype (to my surprise), which was in Putnam's "DeHavilland aircraft since..." In that photo the yellow of the 'P' marking is not obviously different from the underside shade. It also looks very much like the top/bottom shades of a Hornet prototype pictured (and it seems to me I've got a color shot of that? I'll have to consult "Camera Above the Clouds"). If, as you say, it can be determined that the underside is NOT yellow, you've got yourself a loverly can of worms! It certainly doesn't appear to be aluminium to me.

    I believe that the rules about prototypes (and whatever the contract justification, this beastie was meant to be a fighter) allowed the topsides to be "appropriate for the intended role." The jet (in general) was seen as the natural "high altitude fighter". DH would have had plenty of Medium Sea Gray about, since NF Mossies were liberally covered in it!

    Not a lot of help, I know, but at least I tried.


    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... :confused:

    Whaddya think?


  • Create New...