Matchbox NF Meteor Questions

[Wez]

OK folks, remind me...

...the Matchbox Meteor comes with three lengths of nose, short for the NF11, longer for the NF12 and longer still for the NF14. I'm sure I read somewhere that the extra long nose is a mistake and that the middle length NF12 nose is actually correct for the NF14 too. Is this correct?

Secondly, do all NF14's have the big bore intakes or are they too a mix of narrow and big bore intakes and it's a case of finding a photo of your particular subject so you can match the right intake to your subject?

Any help gratefully received.

Wez

[bentwaters81tfw]

Do not use the longest length nose, use the middle length for NF12 and NF14.

[theplasticsurgeon]

Agreeing with Bentwaters.
It's covered in this GB thread http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/1331-meteor-triple-header/

This NF-14 uses nose parts for the NF-12

Longer nose resulted from someone measuring the length of the nose from the front of the windscreen -

without realising the windscreen is shorter, and total fuselage length is same as for an NF-12.

[Wez]

Thanks for the info Gents.

Tim, I must say I found your triple-build very inspiring - I don't think mine will be progressing anywhere near as quickly!

Wez

[Welkin]

The NF14 had the large bore intakes, as did the NF12 and NF13.

The NF11 generally had the small bore intakes, although I think some of them may have been retrofitted with the large bore intakes?

[Wez]

The NF14 had the large bore intakes, as did the NF12 and NF13.

The NF11 generally had the small bore intakes, although I think some of them may have been retrofitted with the large bore intakes?

Thank you Sir!

I've dug the model out, found the Airwaves photo-etch, located the Aeroclub undercarriage and the ARBA resin Derwents, now it's just a case of poring over the Modeldecals to choose a scheme.

Wez

[Duncan B]

Thank you Sir!

I've dug the model out, found the Airwaves photo-etch, located the Aeroclub undercarriage and the ARBA resin Derwents, now it's just a case of poring over the Modeldecals to choose a scheme.......

Wez

.........And buying in an industrial sized tub of filler makes into a fine looking kit once done but makes the Finemolds Me410 look like a shake and bake kit.

Duncan B

[The wooksta V2.0]

I read somewhere - possibly here - that putting some spacers in the fuselage is easier that all that tedious filler nonsense. Mind, the fit of the rest of the kit is appalling anyway.

I hate the Matchbox Meteor with a passion, having fought several over the years. I've a PJ one somewhere when I want to do a really good one.

[heloman1]

Is there anyone does a nice AM cockpit for the 14's? I've got two kits in the stash and that's what holding me up!!!!!!

Colin

[Don McIntyre]

IIRC, John from Aeroclub was one of the first to debunk the "longer nose" of the NF.14 as molded by other manufacturers. His 1/48 Vac kit was the first to get it right, IIRC.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Don McIntyre

[Duncan B]

I read somewhere - possibly here - that putting some spacers in the fuselage is easier that all that tedious filler nonsense. Mind, the fit of the rest of the kit is appalling anyway.

I hate the Matchbox Meteor with a passion, having fought several over the years. I've a PJ one somewhere when I want to do a really good one.

It was the wing joint that got me. I also have the PJ one in the stash and it looks to be a beauty, one day soon I'll get round to it.

Duncan B

[John R]

I don't know if it's distance lending enchantment or just that I have encountered some pretty awful kits since then but I didn't think that it was THAT bad when I built mine.

John

[Wez]

.........And buying in an industrial sized tub of filler makes into a fine looking kit once done but makes the Finemolds Me410 look like a shake and bake kit.

Duncan B

I'd need that for a Tamigawa kit so there's nothing new there!

I read somewhere - possibly here - that putting some spacers in the fuselage is easier that all that tedious filler nonsense. Mind, the fit of the rest of the kit is appalling anyway.

I hate the Matchbox Meteor with a passion, having fought several over the years. I've a PJ one somewhere when I want to do a really good one.

Bloody hell! It must be bad if you can't beat it into submission!

Wez

[viscount806x]

I read somewhere - possibly here - that putting some spacers in the fuselage is easier that all that tedious filler nonsense. Mind, the fit of the rest of the kit is appalling anyway.

I hate the Matchbox Meteor with a passion, having fought several over the years. I've a PJ one somewhere when I want to do a really good one.

I built a load of these about 10 years back. Bracing the fuselage around the very open and flexible cockpit area between the front and rear seats, across the interior lower cockpit area definitely helps. You should not need so much filler as some say, it isn't a half bad kit and has loads of bits left over for the spares box. The rear fuselage is a bit on the slim side though when compared with an Aeroclub F8 or T7 (in 1/72), not sure if that is such a bad thing either but it is noticeable when standing alongside the latter. The cockpit area itself is quite sparsely furnished but it is easily busied up with some bits of scrap plastic and etch. I remember using Aeroclub metal u/c parts V037 but they are no longer so freely available, cue John Aero......

[DOUGHNUT]

With kits of the Trent Meteor and Prone Meteor out I can not understand why the Nightfighter versions have not been produced. Surely its not a major step to make from a Mk4/ T7/ F8 ????

[Test Graham]

Xtrakit do one - I saw it yesterday in Transport Models.

[Wandering Minstrel]

IIRC the Xtrakit one is just the Matchbox plastic in a new box though....

[Sten Ekedahl]

IIRC the Xtrakit one is just the Matchbox plastic in a new box though....

Correct!

[Richard M]

With kits of the Trent Meteor and Prone Meteor out I can not understand why the Nightfighter versions have not been produced. Surely its not a major step to make from a Mk4/ T7/ F8 ????

I asked them about this last year and they are planning on doing them, just a matter of time. I'm hoping we might see some more test bed options with different engines.

[Dave Fleming]

Looking at a couple of NF14s I built back in the 80s and a photo of the real thing, I can't beleive no-one ever spotted the too long nose before!!

[Ptmvarsityfan]

Made the Matchbox in the 80's too and don't recall any major

issues with the fit although also did the too long nose for

the 14!. The Matchbox was a great kit for its time and

still think the ventral tank is more accurate than the

MPM which looks too shallow to me. I have a little

stock of Matchboxes as they are still very cheap,

and use the tanks from the Matchbox with the MPM

kits. Also the Matchbox wing is not over-thick as

on the MPM series.

Cheers, Paul

[chrisrope]

Weirdly, I love the Matchbox Meatbox Just taken delivery of another today in fact

[John Aero]

I blew the myth of the "longest Meteor night fighter" some years ago. Here is the letter which was first published.

In the past like all small manufacturers and indeed most large ones I have

relied heavily on published three view drawings and data to create my model range and soon learned which ones seemed reliable and to spot the printers, set up and scaling errors. Indeed I would not have dreamed of doubting my heroes drawing ability, many of whom I’m pleased to say became customers and friends. Over the years I have accumulated a very large collection of plans and drawings, including some, pretty obscure subjects.

However as experience and the slow promotion to City Father took their toll

The number of variations on a ‘theme’ by various draftsmen, which in many cases was his draft (or draught) or a re-traced interpretation of somebody elses earlier drawing, began to jar as did the “I compared it to the drawing and found it was 1mm short” school of reviewing after all the published dimensions in Putnams or Janes AWA are written in stone. Or are they?

Here is just one of my recent trials.

It was whilst preparing the patterns for the 1:48 range of NF Meteors, that I found a nose waveguide generator panel on the Mk.14 which if scribed to the drawing didn’t look like the photograph. So it was off to nearby Newark Air Museum were I took some measurements and opened up a whole can of worms, even bearing in mind the codicile “museum aeroplanes can be odd balls”.

The overall length of the Meteor NF.Mk.14 is almost always quoted in both major and minor publications and on most published drawings as being 51’ 4 and the text often includes a statement on the lines of “the NF.14 had an even longer nose”. I found this is not correct and that virtually all published drawings and length data for this aeroplane are wrong.

At some time an error of 17 inches has occured in dimensioning the NF.Mk.14 and this myth has been perpetuated time and time again.

The first Night Fighter Meteor was the NF.11 which used the British radar AI.10 and was 48’ 6” long. This was followed by the Mk.12 and the first Night Fighter to use the new American AI 21 (ARI 5860) radar. To accomodate this new radar, the nose was made 17” longer ( than a NF.11) becoming 49’11” long. Note: the NF.13 is a Tropicalised Mk.11.

NF Mk.14’s were also fitted with AI 21 and were identical in length to a NF.Mk.12 at 49’ 11” not the oft published 51’ 4”, This is confirmed by Air Publication AP 2210P vol 1, the only differences, being the new blown canopy and a servo operated rudder. At some point someone has added 17” twice. No NF. Mk14 was 51’ 4” long. 17 inches is nearly 3/8ths of an inch or 9mm in 1:48 scale. The 12 and 14 both had the same increase in fin area to compensate for the nose extension.

The NF.Mk. 14 nose looks longer than the Mk.12 as it has a shorter windscreen and shorter engine nacelles (the bigger bore Derwent 8 intakes are cut back in length). In service the length of some Mk.12’s and all Mk.14’s became shorter at 49’ 8.5” when a passive tail warning radar R3697 was fitted, and the tail cone was removed. Later in service as navigation trainers NF. (T) Mk.14. it sometimes occured that when the redundant radome’s tatty di-electric was re-painted gloss black the first metal mounting ring was also painted giving the illusion of a longer radome. As a consequence of this new information, as far as I am aware, most Meteor NF14 drawings and/or data are in error with the exception of an early Aeromodeller drawing those published length is correct. The Matchbox kit can be easily corrected by using the kit Mk.12 nose instead of the Mk.14 parts.

I have also been able to check the aluminium evidence by measuring Mk’s 11, 12 and three different Mk.14s thanks to our small volunteer Air museums.

Canberra, Vampire, Hornet and now Griffon Spitfire drawings are all showing some errors which again have been constantly repeated, but they are another letter.

The above information is now in print in Phil Butler and Tony Buttlers Aerofax book Gloster Meteor. It is worth mentioning that the author of the Putnam Gloster aircraft history, Derek James told the late Alan Hall "I was wrong". Also a former Mk 14 pilot also disagreed with my findings "because he'd flown them". The truth is a real aeroplane,tape measure and plumb lines and the AP..

John

[John Aero]

I have the original Matchbox project drawings for the Meteors given to me by Maurice Landy (Matchbox project manager) and curiously they were planned for 1/48th. The rear of the fuselage is indeed too slim and the engines are slightly too wide apart. Do not use the nose parts for the Mk.14 but use the ones for the 12.

John

[John R]

Bill Gunston's book 'Fightters of the Fifties' published in 1981 gave the length of the NF14 as 'same as the NF12' so not everyone got it wrong.

John