Jump to content

Gloster Meteor wing centre section


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Setting aside the airbrakes and different engine nacelles, was the basic wing centre section the same through all Meteor Marks?

I have just measured the Tamiya 1/48 Mk1 against an Airfix F.8 & there's a difference. The Airfix kits inner leading edge is deeper front to back than the Tamiya offering.

I assumed the basic inner wing section was the same for all Marksūü§Ē

Can any Meteor experts help me out on thus one please.

Edited by Radpoe Spitfire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Radpoe Spitfire said:

Setting aside the airbrakes and different engine nacelles, was the basic wing centre section the same through all Meteor Marks?

I have just measured the Tamiya 1/48 Mk1 against an Airfix F.8 & there's a difference. The Airfix kits inner leading edge is deeper front to back than the Tamiya offering.

I assumed the basic inner wing section was the same for all Marksūü§Ē

Can any Meteor experts help me out on thus one please.

I don't know the Meteor too well but I would imagine that that wouldn't have changed. I'll put these here just for reference,

 lTdPAd.jpg

lTdT7D.jpg

John

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Radpoe Spitfire said:

I have just measured the Tamiya 1/48 Mk1 against an Airfix F.8 & there's a difference. The Airfix kits inner leading edge is deeper front to back than the Tamiya offering.

I assumed the basic inner wing section was the same for all Marksūü§Ē

Can any Meteor experts help me out on thus one please.

Possibly because the Tamiya kit has some shape/dimension issues,  explored here

 

I don't have the Airfix kit, but I do have Tamiya, Classic Airframes and Aeroclub kits for comparison, though they are stashed.  

 

I'm not thinking of a Meteor expert on here at the moment...  I'll edit in if one spring to mind

HTH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Possibly because the Tamiya kit has some shape/dimension issues

...and is an F1/F3 hybrid. Even without shape/dimension issues it has an F1 canopy, and airbrakes, which only ever existed together on the one airframe at Cosford.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your prompt replies, I had heard about issues with the Tamiya kit, mainly the airbrakes, but didn't know about the canopy.ūüĎć

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Radpoe Spitfire said:

Tamiya kit, mainly the airbrakes, but didn't know about the canopy.

Don't get me wrong; unless there are dimensional inaccuracies the Tamiya kit is correct for the hybrid used to develop the airbrakes, but it requires either the airbrakes filling for a line F1, or a new canopy for a line F3.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood that Tamiya had altered the tooling to produce a less-specific aircraft.

 

I don't recall ever seeing any suggestion that the wing chord changed on any Meteor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paws4thot said:

...and is an F1/F3 hybrid. Even without shape/dimension issues it has an F1 canopy, and airbrakes, which only ever existed together on the one airframe at Cosford.

The original issue, yes.  Subsequent boxings correct this, so.  The F.III has airbrakes and F.III , the F.I doesn't. have airbrakes and a F.I canopy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think I need to try & clarify about what I am askingūüėĆ the issue is in regards to the area between the wing root to the nacelle.

 

When comparing the leading edge to the trailing edge (front to back), the Tamiya wing is shorter than the Airfix by roughly 2mm.

I believe Airfix laser scanned the Duxford F.8, so I assume should be pretty accurate.

 

So I'm just trying to find out if Glosters,(excepting the addition of air brakes and nacelles),altered the wing centre section in any otherway.

Edited by Radpoe Spitfire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Radpoe Spitfire said:

I think I need to try & clarify about what I am askingūüėĆ the issue is in regards to the area between the wing root to the nacelle.

 

When comparing the leading edge to the trailing edge (front to back), the Tamiya wing is shorter than the Airfix by roughly 2mm.

I believe Airfix laser scanned the Duxford F.8, so I assume should be pretty accurate.

 

So I'm just trying to find out if Glosters,(excepting the addition of air brakes and nacelles),altered the wing centre section in any otherway.

Thanks to @Troy Smith quoting this the short answer is they may have done. Between the F.9/40 and the Mk.III the wing centre section and fuselage got wider. I don't know if the change occurred before or after the Mk.1s were built. I took a load of measurements and photos of the Midland Air Museum F.4 and they tie up to the Airfix F.8 very well indeed. The Tamiya fuselage needs widening 2.5mm from the rear edge of the fuel tank panels to the back edge of the windscreen. That will allow the gun troughs to fit like the real thing and get the cross-section right. The lower wing needs widening to match.

Until I get to Cosford I don't know where the difference in wing section arises. The wing/fuselage fairing doesn't seem to match the photos of F.9/40 so was it cobbled together when the F.III wings were fitted after it's accident, it certainly never flew like that. If the wings were otherwise identical the fuselage fairing should fit properly, photos I've found suggest that's not the case. AFAICS there are two answers;

  • Other changes were made when the F.III (and following marks) were built
  • Did Tamiya measure at the wing to fuselage fairing join not realising the fairing wasn't standard and maybe concealing the last few inches of the wing.¬† ¬†

I'm currently clearing a pile of part built T-34 tanky things once they're done it's back to the Meteors. I've still not been able to get to Cosford to check over that airframe but hopefully that will be happening sometime....

BTW @canberra kid has posted some useful drawings. The under-carriage track is accurate as a measurement. If you check the Tamiya position IIRC it will come up narrow. Note that the front fuselage was modified slightly in the F.8 to take an ejection seat so the top part of the fuselage changed shape. The guns didn't move so can be used to assess the difference.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know that F8 fuselages were altered to accommodate an ejection seat. Is that why there is a fabric covered wooden fillet by the canopy rail area? I thought it odd when I examined the wreck of our ATC squadron Meteor nose back around 1973 ish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fuselage got wider, you say, but did the wing centre centre section change with it?  If this was widened then the span will have increased (given no changes to the tips) and the undercarriage moved apart.  You suggest not, and it would seem to have been an unnecessarily major change.  In Putnam's Gloster Aircraft, Derek N. James does not mention this.  He does however describe an increase in the wing centre section on two prototypes to take the Halford engines, the span otherwise being constant at 43 ft.  The undercarriage track is quoted at 10ft 5 ins, no change being mentioned.  How does this correlate to the Tamiya kit span?

 

What may have changed is the visible part of the wing centre section with the wing/fuselage fairing now overlapping more at the root.  So new wing skins and a shorter distance between the fuselage and the nacelle, shown by a measurement along the leading edge.  Not what is being suggested?

 

The F.9/40 was designed for six cannon and built with four, requiring significant extra weight aft as balance, not removed until the longer nose of the F Mk.8).  This strongly suggests no major design change to the fuselage between the F.9/40 and the production Meteor.  I entirely agree that measurements on the example at Cosford would clarify matters enormously, but feel that this would apply to this specific aircraft and not necessarily to any other.  That a production wing was fairly readily fitted to a prototype aircraft is strong, if not unarguable, evidence that there was no significant difference in the fuselage and wing structures.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the above figures, I started with the quoted 10'5" track, and converted it to 66.14586mm. Would anyone actually notice 2.5mm in 66mm, particularly in a track dimension? You might or might not notice 2.5mm in a fuselage width, but I'd suggest that is dependent on whether or not it represents a section change.

 

As for "kit2 is wrong because it is different to kit1", has kit1 been independently checked against manufacturer's drawing, a full size version of $subject, or both?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the above text the Tamiya kit was based on from measurements said to have been taken from the real airframe in the Cosford Museum, whereas the Airfix one matches dimensions taken from an example in a museum at Coventry. and is said to have been based on laser scanning of another at Duxford.  So at the moment it is Airfix 2: Tamiya 1, with the evidence actually there that both companies seriously  tried to meet your requirements.  The problem here, I think, is that this suggestion that the F.9/40 had a narrower fuselage.

 

It must be added that in their long history, Airfix have produced kits with errors despite going back to the original parent company for drawings, and even when LIDARing an existing aircraft, and Tamiya are not exactly renowned for accurate kits of British Aircraft.  Not that this is a terminal criticism of either company, others having been every bit as "guilty".  There is no single route to producing an accurate model, and  that's without allowing for necessary adjustments for tooling/costs,  Modellers will always be left looking to make their model at least a little bit more representative of the real thing.

 

As for spotting differences, my rule of thumb is some 2% partly because the human eye is surprisingly effective at seeing small differences, and partly because some leeway has to be allowed for the processes of measuring, drawing, creating and producing our toys.  2.5mm in 66mm is about twice that.  This would be visible if two models were side-by side but probably not otherwise,  On a wingspan this would indeed be effectively invisible without actually bringing the two kit parts together.  This doesn't mean that even those familiar with the subject will necessarily immediately notice any errors, even moderately sizable ones, but they will stand out like red lights once attention is drawn!

 

Mason's excellent Macdonald Monograph on the Meteor says nothing about any change in fuselage width.  It does however give three different root chords.  F.9/40 11ft 6in.  Span 43ft.  Meteor Mk.4 and subsequent root chord 11ft 9 in, span 43 ft. except where clipped. Wing area is always quoted at 374 sq.ft despite these changes in chord and/or span.  So the difference in inner wing chord could be 3 inches in 127/130,  1mm on a model: if these differences can be relied upon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much, all of youūüĎć the part I noticed the most was the Tamiya leading edge is notably different. It is almost perpendicular to where it joins the fuselage in comparison with the Airfix F.8's. To me this is what seems to give the greater difference.

Another notable point is the trailing edge of the wing root/ fuselage. 

The Tamiya offering is a neat curve, whereas the F.8 is shorter and straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Mason's excellent Macdonald Monograph on the Meteor says nothing about any change in fuselage width.  It does however give three different root chords.  F.9/40 11ft 6in.  Span 43ft.  Meteor Mk.4 and subsequent root chord 11ft 9 in, span 43 ft. except where clipped. Wing area is always quoted at 374 sq.ft despite these changes in chord and/or span.  So the difference in inner wing chord could be 3 inches in 127/130,  1mm on a model: if these differences can be relied upon.

You sure Graham ?.  My copy says Shacklady.  Mason wrote about the Gladiator in that series - or have I got the wrong series of books ?  

 

Regards

 

Dennis

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Mason's excellent Macdonald Monograph on the Meteor says nothing about any change in fuselage width.  It does however give three different root chords.  F.9/40 11ft 6in.  Span 43ft.  Meteor Mk.4 and subsequent root chord 11ft 9 in, span 43 ft. except where clipped. Wing area is always quoted at 374 sq.ft despite these changes in chord and/or span.  So the difference in inner wing chord could be 3 inches in 127/130,  1mm on a model: if these differences can be relied upon.

EDIT  For Mason read Shacklady.  Thanks Sloegin57.  Mason also did the Hurricane in the series:  There was also a Sabre but I don't think he did that one!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, Wikipedia is being unhelpful, as is my library. Wikipedia seems to suggest that all (Day) fighters and trainers were Gloster built, and only the night fighters were Armstrong Whitworth built: My library is unhelpfully 200 miles away so can't be checked, but my memory says that the F9/40 through the T7 are Gloster designed, and the F8 and later are Armstrong Whitworth designed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armstrong Whitworth built some Mk.4s and quite a lot of Mk.8s, but the 8, 9 and 10s were Gloster designed and built.  AW only had design responsibility for the night fighters.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham Boak thank you,your point about the 3" difference between the F9/40 and Mk IV chords works very well with the differences I foundūüĎć I can only assume that the F9/40 & Mk1 (& possibly the MkIII) wings would have the same chord. It's such a shame no complete¬†examples of the pre Mk IV's survive, it would have caused less problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paws4thot said:

Ah, Wikipedia is being unhelpful, as is my library. Wikipedia seems to suggest that all (Day) fighters and trainers were Gloster built, and only the night fighters were Armstrong Whitworth built: My library is unhelpfully 200 miles away so can't be checked, but my memory says that the F9/40 through the T7 are Gloster designed, and the F8 and later are Armstrong Whitworth designed.

The meteor F.8 I’m restoring was built by AW as I have found their inspection marks in it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ossington said:

I didn't know that F8 fuselages were altered to accommodate an ejection seat. Is that why there is a fabric covered wooden fillet by the canopy rail area? I thought it odd when I examined the wreck of our ATC squadron Meteor nose back around 1973 ish.

Never seen this wood fillet you mention? Not in the F.8 APs I have? Could be it was made up for that cockpit? Only wood I’ve found is on the front of the engine nacelles 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The fuselage got wider, you say, but did the wing centre centre section change with it?  If this was widened then the span will have increased (given no changes to the tips) and the undercarriage moved apart.  You suggest not, and it would seem to have been an unnecessarily major change.  In Putnam's Gloster Aircraft, Derek N. James does not mention this.  He does however describe an increase in the wing centre section on two prototypes to take the Halford engines, the span otherwise being constant at 43 ft.  The undercarriage track is quoted at 10ft 5 ins, no change being mentioned.  How does this correlate to the Tamiya kit span?

Using the centre section measurement of 20' 1" in the drawing posted by @canberra kid Thank You again BTW, The Tamiya one piece lower wing MAY be 0.5mm too narrow to the transport joint. I'm not suggesting anybody get emotional about that. Overall the span is 1/16" short of the 11 3/4" 43' becomes in 1/48. So if you want to widen the outer wing panel by 1/32" each side you can, I won't bother.

 

I do need to clarify one point I made earlier. The fuselage TOP needs widening by 2.5mm. The Tamiya kit has an 'egg' shaped fuselage cross section looking very like the F.9/40 photos which is no surprise. The Mk.III & IV are more slab sided with a shallower top deck, and the F.8 is almost like an arched window with most of the arch missing leaving just a short curved area. The rear section of the cockpit is square-ish and at the front bulkhead it's almost circular. The shape in between seems to be what changed.

11 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

It does however give three different root chords.  F.9/40 11ft 6in.  Span 43ft.  Meteor Mk.4 and subsequent root chord 11ft 9 in, span 43 ft. except where clipped. Wing area is always quoted at 374 sq.ft despite these changes in chord and/or span.  So the difference in inner wing chord could be 3 inches in 127/130,  1mm on a model: if these differences can be relied upon.

This is why I really want to get to Cosford. That 3" difference would explain the wing root fairing shape.

Alleycat have released the F.4 conversion for the Airfix kit, the Mk.III and F.4 cockpit sections should be identical so it may be worth getting one and seeing how it compares. Looks like I've work to do on my projects but at least the F.9/40 variants I want to build will be easy enough from the Tamiya kit.

It's all good fun.   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...