Meteor NF engine nacelle size

[Wez]

1 minute ago, Magua87 said:

From memory the lips of the intakes were made of wood? I wonder if that's what we'd see with wear or another layer of paint underneath (if so, what colour?) 

I've seen this elsewhere but without checking my references I cant' verify this.  The wide breather intake was a modification on narrow breather aircraft (well at least on Mk.8's), I would have expected this to have required replacement of the intake assembly rather than just chopping off a some wood from the front of the intake.  What I'm seeing looks like metal to me.

 

Looking at the other aircraft in the formation it's finished in the standard finish with no colour trim on the intake so I would expect some of the colour beneath the intake to be the original camouflage.

 

[Flankerman]

Re the wooden intake lips.....

 

IIRC, the Meteor was originally designed to have SIX cannons in the nose - but during final design, this was later reduced to four.

 

To compensate for this loss of weight forward, the intake lips were made of lead on early marks.

 

When the F.8 was being designed - with the longer rear fuselage and new fin, the CofG was restored and the lead intake lips could be dispensed with - being replaced with wood.

 

At least that's what I had read...

 

Ken

[sloegin57]

1 hour ago, Magua87 said:

From memory the lips of the intakes were made of wood? I wonder if that's what we'd see with wear or another layer of paint underneath (if so, what colour?) 

 

The front end of the intakes were indeed made of pre-formed wood, fabric covered and painted in the normal camouflage colours.  Some Units painted this area in either Flight or Squadron colours.

 

 

1 hour ago, Magua87 said:

To keep this train running I've got one more question. Does anyone have any photos of the canopy retraction mechanism? I'm toying with building an aircraft with an open canopy and will need to remove the shuttle currently posed for a closed canopy and build a new one out of plastic card. 

Some time ago I compiled this photo essay for BM in answer to a similar question :-

HTH

Dennis

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by sloegin57

[neilfergylee]

On ‎26‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 20:33, sloegin57 said:

Slightly off topic but one other thing to remember when building Meteors of any marque, bar the 4, is that the camouflage pattern on the I's and III's was reversed when applied to the 8's and subsequent marques.  The 4 is not included as the aircraft stayed in service not that long and was aluminium overall during that time

 

Dennis

Dennis,

 

Early Mk.IVs were delivered in standard wartime camouflage, a la Mk.I and Mk.III.  And, just for fun, the last batch of Mk.IIIs had the extended nacelles of the Mk.IV, while early Mk.IVs had the long wings of the I and III!  Therefore, late Mk.IIIs and early Mk.IVs were visually identical.

 

I have serial number details if you really want...

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

[Dave Fleming]

24 minutes ago, neilfergylee said:

Dennis,

 

Early Mk.IVs were delivered in standard wartime camouflage, a la Mk.I and Mk.III.  And, just for fun, the last batch of Mk.IIIs had the extended nacelles of the Mk.IV, while early Mk.IVs had the long wings of the I and III!  Therefore, late Mk.IIIs and early Mk.IVs were visually identical.

 

I have serial number details if you really want...

 

Cheers,

 

Neil

 

From memory, IIIs had an extra small intake on the top of the nacelle.

 

One of the land speed record attempt F4s was camouflaged

[neilfergylee]

1 hour ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

From memory, IIIs had an extra small intake on the top of the nacelle.

 

One of the land speed record attempt F4s was camouflaged

Dave,

 

Useful gen.  I wonder if that would relate to the initial batch of Mk.IIIs that used Welland engines, rather than Derwents?  I shall do some research and get back.

 

Again, I shall do my homework but two Mk.IIIs were modded with long nacelles as research aircraft for the speed record.  These might have been the camouflaged ones.

 

Neil

Edited April 30, 2018 by neilfergylee
Typo corrected.

[viscount806x]

To go sliightly off topic, does anyone think it worth while having a competition to guess  whether Meteor NF nose lengths or Sabre wing forms have the record for the most repeat threads ?

 

All previous info is still archived here on our beloved BM including the definitive info from John Adams himself here:

 

 

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

 

In short, bin the longest nose part from the Matchbox kit. Incidentally, I contacted Special Hobby recently and managed to get them to correct the nose length on their forthcoming NF.14 kit. We were going to have yet again a too long NF.14.

Those printed references have a lot to answer to. Out of over 12 book on the Meteor on my shelf, the only one to have the -14 length correct is the 'Super Profile' by M J Hardy. Even the great and revered Shacklady had it wrong! Incidenatally, an official reference for the 49ft 11ins -14 is the RAFs own AP - AP 2210AP Vol.1.

Cheers, Nige B

[Wez]

1 hour ago, viscount806x said:

I contacted Special Hobby recently and managed to get them to correct the nose length on their forthcoming NF.14 kit. We were going to have yet again a too long NF.14. 

 

I too did the same, they thanked me for information and assured me they'd corrected the length of the fuselage, time will tell but they seem to be decent coves so I'm confident they'll get it right.

[Dave Fleming]

On 4/30/2018 at 12:24 PM, neilfergylee said:

Dave,

 

Useful gen.  I wonder if that would relate to the initial batch of Mk.IIIs that used Welland engines, rather than Derwents?  I shall do some research and get back.

 

Again, I shall do my homework but two Mk.IIIs were modded with long nacelles as research aircraft for the speed record.  These might have been the camouflaged ones.

 

Neil

 

EE457 shows the extra intakes here:

 

 

https://digitaltmuseum.no/021015548287/luftfoto-ett-fly-i-lufta-gloster-meteor-f-mk-4-ee-457-fra-raf/media?slide=0

 

 

and here’s a clipped wing camouflaged mk 4

 

https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/Soubor%3AGloster_Meteor_Mk_III_ExCC.jpg

 

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Meteor-EE521/Meteor_EE521_a?full=1

Edited May 5, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[John R]

On 5/4/2018 at 4:04 PM, viscount806x said:

Those printed references have a lot to answer to. Out of over 12 book on the Meteor on my shelf, the only one to have the -14 length correct is the 'Super Profile' by M J Hardy. Even the great and revered Shacklady had it wrong! Incidenatally, an official reference for the 49ft 11ins -14 is the RAFs own AP - AP 2210AP Vol.1.

Cheers, Nige B

I think that Bill Gunston got it right in his 'Fighters of the Fifties'. It says NF14 same length as Mk 12.

John

 

[neilfergylee]

16 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

EE457 shows the extra intakes here:

 

 

https://digitaltmuseum.no/021015548287/luftfoto-ett-fly-i-lufta-gloster-meteor-f-mk-4-ee-457-fra-raf/media?slide=0

 

 

and here’s a clipped wing camouflaged mk 4

 

https://cs.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#/media/Soubor%3AGloster_Meteor_Mk_III_ExCC.jpg

 

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Meteor-EE521/Meteor_EE521_a?full=1

Dave,

 

Some cracking shots there that will soon find their way into my digital archive!

 

The shot of EE457 does indeed show those extra inlets which I had never noticed before but they do appear to be an easy way to tell a long-nacelle F.3 from an F.4.  As an aside, I have been doing some research on the F.3 and its nacelles, discovering that the last 15 were built with them, while others such as EE457 had them retrofitted.  While most F.3s were of type G.41D, the long-nacelle versions were G.41E and F.4s were G.41F.

 

As a final factoid, EE453 and EE454 were retrofitted with long nacelles for the speed record project.

 

Thanks again.

 

Neil

[Magua87]

What shade of grey would you use for the intakes? "Grey" is about as descriptive as the Xtrakit instructions get. Also it seems like the cockpit is black, black, and more black. Same for the seats? And the seatbelts? I'm all questions tonight! 

[Wez]

8 hours ago, Magua87 said:

What shade of grey would you use for the intakes? "Grey" is about as descriptive as the Xtrakit instructions get. Also it seems like the cockpit is black, black, and more black. Same for the seats? And the seatbelts? I'm all questions tonight! 

I'm away from  my references right now but from memory but I'd use silver for the intake interior.

 

The cockpit is black, black as night, black as coal...  ...paint it black (or whatever you use for black in 1/72nd).

 

Seat harnesses are very likely to be blue as that was the standard colour by then and de-rigueur for GFE.

 

Not sure about the seats, were they GFE and made from the same phenolic/paper mix as used on the Spitfire/Vampire etc...  ...dunno, hopefully others will chip in, if they were, they'd be a dark red-brown.  If they're metal they'd be black too.

 

[Magua87]

11 hours ago, Wez said:

I'm away from  my references right now but from memory but I'd use silver for the intake interior.

 

I dug out my Special Hobby T Mk 7.5. Their colour call out for the wing spar is aluminium, but they don't give a reference for the rest of the inside of the nacelle. If I'm reading the Airfix instructions right (1/48 F8), it's gun metal (Humbrol 53 to be specific). 

 

https://www.scalemodellingnow.com/hnaircraftkit-airfix-gloster-meteor-f8/2

[Julien]

Regarding the intakes and the front part these were made of wood. It was made up from differnt layers and the shape formed. They were then taped and puttied into the fuselage. The Meteor I am helping to restore has one intake where this has been removed to assess the state of the wood, and another (from a nightfighter) where its all still intact.

 

For modelling purposes not sure why Airfix show this as a panel line on their kit, unless they airframe they used had the tape and putty removed.

 

Regarding the seats and cockpit. there are some pictures of the cockpit from WS788 which is currently being restored by a friend of mine up at the Yorkshire Aviation Museum.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234989204-gloster-meteor-nf14/

[Wez]

Julien,

 

Very helpful link, it looks like the seat is metal and is definitely black.

 

Thanks also for the explanation on the intake construction, Dennis had confirmed they were wood but it's interesting to find out just how they were made up.  Also interesting that in the brave new world of the jet age there was still a place for old fashioned techniques and materials.

[Julien]

26 minutes ago, Wez said:

Julien,

 

Very helpful link, it looks like the seat is metal and is definitely black.

 

Thanks also for the explanation on the intake construction, Dennis had confirmed they were wood but it's interesting to find out just how they were made up.  Also interesting that in the brave new world of the jet age there was still a place for old fashioned techniques and materials.

Here are a couple of pictures which show both as they are at present. WH453 had narrow nacelles which the MOD changed out to wide ones at some point.

 

 

 

The uncovered intake is the original wood as far as I can tell. Its also worth noting before anyone does any "seemless" intakes that inside there are seems at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions. On the outside those panels overlap so you actually get a visual of a panel line.

[neilfergylee]

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:

 

1. 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.
2. The Airfix model has both extended jetpipes and vents: this appears to be a combination not found in service.
3. 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

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by neilfergylee

[Dave Fleming]

Did anyone ever establish if the claim the rear of the nacelle on long nacelled mk IIIs was different to that on mk IVs was correct?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[neilfergylee]

3 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

Did anyone ever establish if the claim the rear of the nacelle on long nacelled mk IIIs was different to that on mk IVs was correct?

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.

[Dave Fleming]

3 hours ago, neilfergylee said:

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.

 

Actually, I may have got that wrong - I think the quoted difference was between the mk I and mk III, need to check

[neilfergylee]

50 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

Actually, I may have got that wrong - I think the quoted difference was between the mk I and mk III, need to check

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

[Dave Fleming]

18 hours ago, neilfergylee said:

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

 

No, I think it was the shape of the engine fairing leading to the jet pipe (and I can almsot convince myself I see a difference between early mi Is and later ones!)

[neilfergylee]

18 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

 

No, I think it was the shape of the engine fairing leading to the jet pipe (and I can almsot convince myself I see a difference between early mi Is and later ones!)

I'm intrigued!  Can you find any photos?

[Julien]

@neilfergyleethe black intake front in your post above does appear to be metal, I would say 100% this is a fabricated replacement at some time. Intake rings were wood which was then taped and puttied into place. This is from my own experience  of the F.8 I am helping to restore and from speaking to other restorers such as the guys at Elvington who are having new wooden fronts made. 

 

Julien