F200 Gloster Meteor F Mk IV.

[PeterB]

When John announced his Meteor build, I mentioned I had built this kit in the mid 1970's (together with the Canberra), but that I had either lost or thrown it, which I now regret. Rob S spotted that comment, and in exchange for some bits I sent him, has very kindly sent me one of his, so it seems I have not finished with this GB quite yet. It is a fairly simple kit, and I will probably do a bit of work in the cockpit and wheel bays if I have time - just started the final phase of my wall building so we will see how it pans out.

 

Pics once I get started - I think that as John is going to do the Dutch option I will go with the RAF Silver one of 263 Squadron who had the interesting name of "Fellowship of the Bellows" - must look into that to see the origin, as well as getting out my reference material on the Meteor. I was contemplating building a Meteor F8 for another GB so I can check up on that at the same time.

Edited September 18, 2019 by PeterB

[Rabbit Leader]

The Frog Meteor is not a bad kit, it’s not as fine as Airfix’s Mk.III (once you remove the rivets) however has some nice features for what it is. We’ll look forward to this one being built and painted in that beautifully smooth High Speed Silver colour scheme. All the best. 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

[smellybeard]

It's a lovely kit - if a bit plain.

The intakes could probably do with a bit of attention. Maybe a leftover set of small orifice intakes from the matchbox NF could be gunthered on to it.

10 minutes ago, Rabbit Leader said:

it’s not as fine as Airfix’s Mk.III

The fuselage of the Airfix one looks all wrong to me. Way too skinny. Way way. Horrible.

[PeterB]

9 hours ago, smellybeard said:

It's a lovely kit - if a bit plain.

The intakes could probably do with a bit of attention. Maybe a leftover set of small orifice intakes from the matchbox NF could be gunthered on to it.

The fuselage of the Airfix one looks all wrong to me. Way too skinny. Way way. Horrible.

Don't have the Matchbox kit but I do have the Xtrakit F8 which I think is ex MPM or somebody like that. I will look at the intakes and see it they might be copyable - in my case without the benifit of a 3d printer, though the way the price of them is coming down, if I were younger I might just think about one. I imagine the difficult part is programming the shape? Actually, now I think about it I believe they provide both large and small ones as an option in that kit.

 

Pete

Edited September 18, 2019 by PeterB

[Procopius]

3 minutes ago, PeterB said:

Don't have the Matchbox kit but I do have the Xtrakit F8 which I think is ex MPM or somebody like that. I will look at the intakes and see it they might be copyable - in my case without the benifit of a 3d printer, though the way the price of them is coming down, if I were younger I might just think about one. I imagine the difficult part is programming the shape? Actually, now I think about it I believe they provide both large and small ones as an option in that kit.

They do provide both in the Xtrakit/MPM offering; I used kit spares on a Matchbox Meteor once.

[PeterB]

Yes, just checked and you are right, and I will not be using the smaller ones on my F8. Tempting, but my skill with razor saws is not good so I will have to think about it.

[smellybeard]

35 minutes ago, PeterB said:

I imagine the difficult part is programming the shape?

Oh yes and on top of that I'm from the tail end of the pencil and paper generation; an arch technophobe who came back from TV to industrial design decades after the universal switch to CAD.

That said, if there weren't spare MPM and Matchbox intakes to be had, I'd be willing to have a go at Meteor intakes. My CAD system is much more able than I am but the Meteor intakes are circular in section. There's only one curve to match, really. I'm more afraid of Solidworks than I am of any saw.

Edited September 18, 2019 by smellybeard

[PeterB]

Actually the Frog intakes are the correct diameter but are lacking the "thick lip" and not entirely round. If the Xtrakit intakes could be made to fit they would certainly look better. I suspect blending them in could be a problem as the kit nacelle is very thin. If I have time I might give it a try, but as the kit is a present I do not want to ruin it. The alternative might be to thicken the inside with filler or even a circle of thin card. Not sure I want the hassle at this stage in the GB.

 

Pete

[Aardvark]

5 hours ago, Procopius said:

They do provide both in the Xtrakit/MPM offering

Correctly "Xtrakit/MPM/Airfix offering" because Airfix also repack F.8 from Xtrakit/MPM. I have one Airfix F.8 he had a fantastically low price in comparison with Xtrakit/MPM.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

 

 

 

[PeterB]

Hi Serge,

 

Does the Airfix kit still want you to make your own struts for the main wheel mudgards?

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Ok, as some of you will know from my other build threads, not long after I started this GB in June, my wife asked me to take down an old garden wall and build a new one. It is only a small wall but required a lot of soil and stones removing, and a fair bit of concrete putting down as a foundation before I could start laying blocks and at my age it has been quite a challenge. Due to a combination of weather and kit building it has taken quite a while, but should be finished in the next couple of days, at which point I will start on this kit.

 

 

In the meantime here is a brief background to the plane itself – some of you will know this already but others may not. The Gloster Meteor F1 was the first operational allied jet, entering service in July 1944. The early Rolls Royce Welland engines of 1600 or 1700 lb thrust left them seriously underpowered, with a speed at sea level of only 385mph, rising to 410mph at 30000 ft so only 20 Mk1 were built. Production then switched to the FIII which initially had 2000lb thrust Derwent I engines, but these were soon replaced with 2400lb thrust Derwent IV which pushed the speed up to 486mph and had a rate of climb of around 4000 ft per minute, both at sea level - better but still not exactly sparkling performance.

 

In 1948 the Mk IV entered service powered by 3500lb thrust Derwent V engines which improved things radically. Initially the standard FIII airframe was retained but it soon became clear that the engines were too powerful for the wing strength. In 1946 the RAF High Speed Flight took a number of FIV modified by clipping 5ft 10inches of the wings and set a new World Speed Record of 616mph, and so it was decided to clip the wings on the production models after a few had been built, thus unloading the wing. Inevitably this raised both the take off and landing speed and reduced the sea level rate of climb from 7900 ft a minute with full wings to only 7350 ft a minute, but with a speed of 585mph at sea level and a much improved rate of roll, not to mention alleviating the stress problem on the wing, it was considered worthwhile. The Mark IV I will be building has a standard FIII fuselage and tail albeit somewhat strengthened, and the clipped wing. It was flown by over 20 RAF Squadrons and was exported to many countries.

 

First generation jets were notoriously thirsty so the FIV had a blister 180 gal drop tank fitted under the fuselage, and later the wing bomb pylons were plumbed to take 100 gal drop tanks, all of which are provided in the kit.

 

Data from Putnams “Aircraft of the RAF from 1918” and Aerofax “Meteor”.

[jean]

3 hours ago, PeterB said:

 Due to a combination of weather and kit building it has taken quite a while, but should be finished in the next couple of days, at which point I will start on this kit.

Peter, you are a lucky man, and I do hope you know it!

In my case the weather is always good (ain't that a shame?) and it is because of building that my kit building has taken quite a while!!! And I cannot see any salvation on the horizon!

Anyway, enjoy your kit building!

 

JR

[PeterB]

Thanks Jean,

 

As I have said before, being retired makes a big difference to the time I can spend on my kit building, and although my wife keeps coming up with her little projects, she has been pretty patient so far. Getting the wall finished on Friday will make me a bit more popular, and when I finish fixing the drainage problem in that part of the garden (next week I hope) I will be "up to date", though that will not last long I guess. After her nearly fatal illness a few years ago, she seems to always be in a hurry to get things done - I guess staring death in the face makes you realise how short life can be!

 

Hope you can find time to finish your kit as I am looking forward to seeing it.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

[Rabbit Leader]

2 hours ago, PeterB said:

.... makes you realise how short life can be!

Which is also a queue that it might be time to start building ones collective stash in earnest? Now I do say, those Frog Meteor parts do look rather crisp and the Meteor IV is up here as one of my favourite aircraft. Surely (in similar vein to the DH Hornets), you are not going to tempt me to research another modelling subject I don't seem to have? Like the Canberra, the Meteor is one of those taboo modelling subjects for me where I make a start, however for some reason fail to finish. Thankfully, my Kiwi Canberra will end this hoodoo, so perhaps a Frog Meteor may also help break the shackles for this type as well? I look forward to seeing how this turns out Pete, all the best. 

 

Cheers.. Dave   

[JOCKNEY]

Great to see another one from you Pete

To my shame I've never built a meteor something I will put right in the future

Good luck with the build.

 Cheers Pat

[PeterB]

Hi Dave,

 

Part of me wants to try and replace the jet intakes and part of me thinks I will screw it up so just build it OOB. They are the right size but don't have "the look" of Meteor Derwent V intakes. Decisions, decisions!

 

Incidentally, barring mishaps my ruddy wall should be finished in a day or so, so I might take up your suggestion from July and post a thread. Now if I could just get the kitens to sit on it for a pic, that would tick all the boxes! They have already left their paw prints in the blasted cement.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

Edited September 19, 2019 by PeterB

[jean]

13 hours ago, PeterB said:

 Now if I could just get the kitens to sit on it for a pic, that would tick all the boxes! They have already left their paw prints in the blasted cement.

There is always CA glue...

I do hope you find this suggestion helpful.

Have fun.

 

JR

[Rob S]

On 9/19/2019 at 8:22 AM, PeterB said:

Tempting, but my skill with razor saws is not good so I will have to think about it.

 

After all of the other modelling skills you have displayed I find that hard to believe!  

 

The only thing I could suggest is scribing first using your favourite Scriber (and of course making sure that you get that bit spot on!), then making the cut deeper with something like an Olfa P Cutter (or alternatively a Tamiya rebadged Olfa P cutter), and then using your razor Saw (Number of TPI suited to the particular plastic and making sure it's clean after each cut and not generating unnecessary heat).  

 

I did this on the A300B2 to A300B1 cut down

 

 

(and not to mention the Lincoln) and it seemed to work OK (except for the fact that they will never be finished as this House move is going to kill me!).  

 

Hope this helps.  

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Rob S

[Rob S]

15 hours ago, Rabbit Leader said:

Surely (in similar vein to the DH Hornets), you are not going to tempt me to research another modelling subject I don't seem to have?

 

..., so perhaps a Frog Meteor may also help break the shackles for this type as well?

 

When's your Birthday again Dave?  Or alternatively Christmas is just around the corner!  

 

(and with homage to Whatshisname in those Films "and my name's not Shirley!"  

 

EDIT : 

 

OK Leslie Nielsen and Airplane!  

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Rob S

[Rabbit Leader]

24 minutes ago, Rob S said:

When's your Birthday again Dave?  

I tell my kids it’s any day the postie arrives with a parcel with my name on it!! All good Rob, I’ve got my eye a Meteor IV, I’m just hoping no one else out there has the same idea? 

 

Now I’m just offering up my DH Hornet kit to a set of (inaccurate) plans, my god there’s some work involved to get this thing even remotely close to looking like a Hornet! 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

[jean]

3 hours ago, Rabbit Leader said:

Now I’m just offering up my DH Hornet kit to a set of (inaccurate) plans, my god there’s some work involved to get this thing even remotely close to looking like a Hornet! 

 

Cheers.. Dave 

Then may I suggest you try the MS 406 when you have a minute to spare?

Enjoy!

JR

[Johnson]

19 hours ago, PeterB said:

They have already left their paw prints in the blasted cement

Immortalised!

 

Best wishes for the build Pete, will be following but not offering advice, a plane I know absolutely nothing about. Look and learn for me!

[Aardvark]

On 9/19/2019 at 1:03 PM, PeterB said:

Hi Serge,

 

Does the Airfix kit still want you to make your own struts for the main wheel mudgards?

 

Pete

Hi, Pete!

 

It's interesting question.

I did not think about that.  When I bought Airfix, I proceeded from the fact that both to the MPM, so to the Xtrakit , you need to buy aftermarket from CMK. So why paying big? 

I limited Meteor for my -  Meteor F.Mk.III &  Meteor F.8 for single version. 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

[PeterB]

Hi Serge, 

 

The cockpit, wheel wells and engines are quite well detailed on the Xtrakit, but presumably MPM could not or did not want to make the short thin struts running from the leg to the mudguards and show them as something to make yourself (if you want to bother). Frog include the struts on the Mk IV but they are rather overscale.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

The engine installation of the Meteor was quite unusual. The Derwent engines were derived from the original Whittle/Power Jets prototypes and were of the “Centrifugal Flow” type. They were shorter and fatter than the “Axial Flow” types used on the Me262 and later jets so it was decided that they should be mounted in the wing rather than in pods under the wing (except for the MkII which had a different engine and never entered service).

 

 

Consequently the front spar actually ran in front of the engine and the rear spar was what was called a “Banjo” type, and split to run both above and below the tailpipe as you can see.

 

 

Frog have provided a part with the spar represented on it to glue inside the nacelle. This pic of the navalised MkIII shows how it looked in practice.

 

 

Perhaps inevitably the first carrier landing was made by the late Eric “Winkle” Brown, who not only holds the Guiness record for the number of different aircraft types flown but also for carrier landings and take-offs (by a very large margin which I doubt will ever be beaten).

 

The Frog Nacelles have the correct intake diameter (though are not exactly circular) but do not have quite the right appearance as the "lip" is too thin. I was considering cutting them back and grafting on some "spares" from my MPM/Xtrakit/Airfix Mk 8 which I will be building with the optional larger intake, but I may instead try adding a little Milliput to the insides and then sanding them down.

 

My wall is now finished, though I gather I now have to improve the drainage and replace the glass in my greenhouse. However the weather forecast for the next week  from this evening onwards looks like modelling weather unfortunately! Don't you just love it when your other half says "I have been thinking...." or "Could you do me a favour, if you are not too knackered...."

 

Let battle commence!

Edited September 21, 2019 by PeterB