Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Magua87

Meteor NF engine nacelle size

Recommended Posts

On ‎08‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 16:37, Julien said:

@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

 

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

 

Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎02‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 19:03, neilfergylee said:

 

  1. 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.

 

p1431451480-3.jpg

 

 

 

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

Edited by neilfergylee
Typo corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting thread to me, especially but not only where it has touched on the early & late Mk III jet pipes. I'm keen to one day do the Meteor that was gifted to the RNZAF postwar, which had the short jet pipes of the Derwent engined version. Looking at the instruction of a larger scale Mk III, it didn't appear to have different nacelles but short & long jet pipes which would be convenient & easy to achieve but accurate?  That of course, is yet to be proven.

Steve.

Edited by stevehnz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stevehnz said:

This is a very interesting thread to me, especially but not only where it has touched on the early & late Mk III jet pipes. I'm keen to one day do the Meteor that was gifted to the RNZAF postwar, which had the short jet pipes of the Derwent engined version. Looking at the instruction of a larger scale Mk III, it didn't appear to have different nacelles but short & long jet pipes which would be convenient & easy to achieve but accurate?  That of course, is yet to be proven.

Steve.

 

Thanks Steve,

 

This image from Shacklady's book may be of use to you:

 

42831715991_1e0af2dd79_b.jpg

 

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

Edited by neilfergylee
The inevitable typo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the one Neil, thanks. Nothing as smart as 1/48, I was hoping to refinish an age old Airfix Mk III as this but still not sure if the Derwent nacelle was longer at the rear than the Welland one or did the Derwent just have a shorter jet pipe, leaving the nacelle contours the same? :unsure:

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stevehnz said:

That's the one Neil, thanks. Nothing as smart as 1/48, I was hoping to refinish an age old Airfix Mk III as this but still not sure if the Derwent nacelle was longer at the rear than the Welland one or did the Derwent just have a shorter jet pipe, leaving the nacelle contours the same? :unsure:

Steve.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎08‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 12:15, 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!)

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:

 

43111236782_38a7e2bcd6_b.jpg

 

The jetpipe looks a little small, especially when compared to a Mk.IV:

 

Gloster+Meteor+MK4+C-084.2.jpg

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 11:18 PM, neilfergylee said:

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:

 

43111236782_38a7e2bcd6_b.jpg

 

The jetpipe looks a little small, especially when compared to a Mk.IV:

 

Gloster+Meteor+MK4+C-084.2.jpg

 

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

I suspect that this difference was a result of the  Derwent engine design changes.

 

The Derwent  engine Mk I-IV design was used on the Mk 3 Meteor.    The Mk 5 Derwent used on Mk 4 was a very different engine.

 

Rolls Royce had identified a requirement for a bigger and more powerful jet engine. As  the Derwent  was  now a good reliable engine they basically  used  the basic Derwent  design as a basis  of a new design  larger engine   and this subsequently  became the Rolls Royce Nene .   The Nene exceeded all expectations and the prototype produced over 5000lb thrust. Consideration was then made to fit the Nene into the Meteor. Unfortunately this engine was far  too wide to fit the wing so in  a strange turn of events RR  then designed  a  scaled down  version the Nene  which produced around 3.500 lbs thrust which was an great improvement on the  2400lb Mk IV Derwent  and this engine was then fitted into the Meteor 4  and because of the comminality of the basic design became the  Derwent 5 engine.

 

Looking at the pictures above its apparent that the jet pipe of the (Mini Nene) Derwent 5 was much wider than that of the Derwent 4 resulting in a change of the rear necelle profile on the  Mk 4 onwards.

 

Selwyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Selwyn, thanks for that: I think we're pretty-well there while @Dave Fleming, and @stevehnz, this is for you both.

 

You will see that this (which used images from Shaklady's book) is limited slightly as I ended-up using a W2/700 engine for one of the examples but I think this provides a pretty useful guide to early Meteor nacelles:

42554483534_9bfb3d7f89_o.png

Cheers,

 

Neil

Edited by neilfergylee
Aded SteveHNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic work Neil, thanks! Just goes to show there is still stuff to learn/relearn/discover

Edited by Dave Fleming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dave Fleming said:

I think the Welland jet pipe may be narrower than the Derwent one

Thats what I was thinking too, which means to convert a Welland engined kit to a Derwent engined one is more than just shortening up the jet pipe but building up the tail end of the nacelle slightly & opening it up a little. Not quite as simple as I'd hoped but doable. Thanks @neilfergylee for that photo, it illustrates the differences superbly well.

Steve.

Edited by stevehnz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/06/2018 at 12:19, neilfergylee said:

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

 

Neil

Its at The Bentwaters Cold War Museum.

 

meteor.JPG

 

wh453%20may17.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2018 at 23:17, Julien said:

Its at The Bentwaters Cold War Museum.

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While searching for answers for my 50s Warpac/NATO GB HERE if interested I found this thread and a mighty big help it has been. Thank You all. However I think I may be able to offer a bit extra.

 

So

tumblr_pmd109jZdW1t8blhlo2_1280.jpg

 

tumblr_pmd109jZdW1t8blhlo1_1280.jpg

 

Note the profile of the nacelle rear in particular how the scalloped shape is almost entirely gone. As stated EE337 had the Derwent V the next airframe EE338 was standard. Even allowing for the slight angle change I believe that the rear end has been cut short to clear the larger jet pipe. By removing the rear piece (covering it with a piece of paper) the scallop is eliminated by a trick of vision, without needing nacelle mods. Both images from the Shacklady book for discussion only.

 

This image has a different view of the engine rear end

 

tumblr_pmd109jZdW1t8blhlo4_1280.jpg

 

Those pipes certainly seem a lot bigger Yes?

 

Finally you may find this old review of interest

 

tumblr_pmd109jZdW1t8blhlo3_1280.jpg

 

As Mr J Goulding was there I believe his remarks may be taken as generally accurate. It seems that the engine 'blister/vents' ARE the feature of Derwent I-IV and so no V engine plane needs them. As confirmed by the hooked Meteor which certainly had a V fitted as part of the conversion.

 

I hope this is of interest to somebody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SleeperService said:

I hope this is of interest to somebody.

Well,it certainly is to me!  I shall do some reading and reply but your contribution is extremely useful.

 

Kind regards,

 

Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we sure that both the narrow, and the wide inlets have wooden nose sections? I was under the impression that it was just the narrow intakes that featured the wood?

 

Also another small detail change to be aware of with the NF.14 is that the opening DV window changed noticeably in shape at some stage.  I think this may have happened towards their later service life, possibly as NF(T)s. 

Most, if not all, of the preserved NF.14s feature this later DV window, which is different to that used in service shots of NF.14s.

 

For an example of a preserved Night Fighter Meteor with narrow intakes, WM366 at Staverton is a fine example, surprising how different it looks with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both had the wood. I have seen both types with it.

 

The DV window was a late MOD less than 2 years from the last retiring from Service. It was only the port side which was changed. This has recently come up with the guys resotring WS788 at Elington. No one can find out why it was done so late in service life. Its thought is was a MOD for the training role as the last Sqn which had NFs in service 60 sqn out in the Far East, ended Meteor ops in 1961 and their aircraft didn't have the screen mod.

 

Julien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Julien, I should've stated that I had the intakes wooden ring on both type confirmed by the owner of WK800, just after I posted that.

 

Also,  possible info on when the DV windows were changed but need to research further.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×