Gloster Meteor wing centre section

[Paws4thot]

8 hours ago, Julien said:

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

Cheers mate; that's at least confirmation that my memory and understanding are not totally wrong!

[Paws4thot]

@SleeperService - As I'm reading your post starting "Using the centre section measurement of 20' 1" in the drawing ..." you're saying that Tamiya's centre section is "about right" (under 1 mm out any way) but the upper fuselage is too narrow? Well, I'd not noticed fortunately, and probably don't have the skills to fix that, but @Radpoe Spitfire OP does suggest a dimensional in-exactitude in the wing between the engines, not in the fuselage section.

[SleeperService]

2 hours ago, Paws4thot said:

@SleeperService - As I'm reading your post starting "Using the centre section measurement of 20' 1" in the drawing ..." you're saying that Tamiya's centre section is "about right" (under 1 mm out any way) but the upper fuselage is too narrow?

Yes, That is exactly what I'm saying based on information to hand.

There is something not right at the fuselage/wing joint AFAICS but without getting a good look at the Cosford airframe I have no idea what it is. My first plan was to sort the fuselage shape and see what happened with the upper wing fit. It sort of works but then causes further problems in the cockpit area. Which is why I want to get a good look at the real thing.

[Radpoe Spitfire]

You're not kidding it's all good fun, I'm going to need your lots help with my project - let's just say watch this space

[Pritch]

On 5/11/2021 at 6:21 AM, canberra kid said:

Some more drawings that may help, or not? The first one is the packing dimensions, which are rounded up to the nearest inch. The others are just nice drawings.

 

John

To digress a bit: I'm making a Mk.III of the RNZAF, and the canopy of the Tamiya Mk.III I'm using looks wrong. Far too small. The after-market canopies (Aeroclub, Falcon) are much bigger and won't fit the fuselage.

Now, with the measurements given here, I can be specific. The 2'6" width equates to 15.9 mm in 1/48, but the Tamiya canopy is 13.5 mm wide.

I always thought that Tamiya measured an actual aircraft. So the question is: was the earlier fuselage narrower and the canopy actually smaller, or did Tamiya just get it wrong?

[Paws4thot]

3 hours ago, Pritch said:

was the earlier fuselage narrower and the canopy actually smaller, or did Tamiya just get it wrong?

Yes and no - There are 2 different clear sprues in Taniya kits, one with a mkI canopy, and one with a mkIII canopy. The mkI canopy is smaller.

[Selwyn]

3 hours ago, Pritch said:

To digress a bit: I'm making a Mk.III of the RNZAF, and the canopy of the Tamiya Mk.III I'm using looks wrong. Far too small. The after-market canopies (Aeroclub, Falcon) are much bigger and won't fit the fuselage.

Now, with the measurements given here, I can be specific. The 2'6" width equates to 15.9 mm in 1/48, but the Tamiya canopy is 13.5 mm wide.

I always thought that Tamiya measured an actual aircraft. So the question is: was the earlier fuselage narrower and the canopy actually smaller, or did Tamiya just get it wrong?

Are you using the Mk1 kit as a basis for your RNZAF Mk III? I mention it as the cockpit  part in the MkI  kit is different to the one in the Mk III kit

 

Selwyn

[Selwyn]

22 hours ago, Paws4thot said:

Cheers mate; that's at least confirmation that my memory and understanding are not totally wrong!

The Meteor was modular in design and built on jigs.  A lot of NF and F8 components were common. Its quite possible that Glosters sub contracted the manufacture of parts and major assemblies for F8 construction  out to AW as they had the appropriate jigs. These components would  be transported to Glosters for use on their F8 production line, so AW parts on a F8 does not confirm that the F8 was built at AW.

Selwyn

[Pritch]

1 hour ago, Selwyn said:

Are you using the Mk1 kit as a basis for your RNZAF Mk III? I mention it as the cockpit  part in the MkI  kit is different to the one in the Mk III kit

 

Selwyn

The F.3 kit. And there's only one canopy supplied.

[Paws4thot]

5 hours ago, Pritch said:

The F.3 kit. And there's only one canopy supplied.

Could you do a photo of the clear parts from the side? The profile of the FIII canopy is noticable different to the FI one, even if the earlier canopy is moulded clear.

[gingerbob]

If nobody else gets to it, I can eventually dig out Tamiya I (done already) and III, and Classic Airframes 4.  But my tactical recon revealed that it is going to take more work than I want to devote just now...

[Troy Smith]

12 hours ago, Pritch said:

I always thought that Tamiya measured an actual aircraft.

They did.  The prototype at Cosford.  Which has the wrong wings, hence the original issue of the Mk.I kit have the Mk.III wing with the airbrakes.

12 hours ago, Pritch said:

So the question is: was the earlier fuselage narrower and the canopy actually smaller, or did Tamiya just get it wrong?

The Tamiya kit has a common fuselage for the I and III kit, with an insert.  If the kit upper fuselage is too small, it's likely the canopy is.  Tamiya, while the do make very well engineered kits,  have made some serious errors in some of the British aircraft kits, eg the old tool Spitfire I/Vb,  and their Beaufighter. 

@SleeperService seems to have spotted a glitch on the Meteor kit.    At the moment, this is still an open question,  but 

13 hours ago, Pritch said:

I'm using looks wrong. Far too small. The after-market canopies (Aeroclub, Falcon) are much bigger and won't fit the fuselage.

Now, with the measurements given here, I can be specific. The 2'6" width equates to 15.9 mm in 1/48, but the Tamiya canopy is 13.5 mm wide.

by too small, do you mean 'too narrow' of just too small, if the upper fuselage is too thin, then that explains the too thin width wise canopy.

What kits are the Aeroclub and Falcon for? Again, do you mean too wide?

This is where some photos and measurements would be really useful, as it is an interesting question/problem,.

 

Shame I no longer have the AMT kit, be interesting to see how that compared... 

[Paws4thot]

1 hour ago, Troy Smith said:

The prototype at Cosford.  Which has the wrong wings, hence the original issue of the Mk.I kit have the Mk.III wing with the airbrakes

Sorry but no. I'm not saying it is accurate as any other airframe, but the original Tamiya kit represents a specific airframe (yes the Cosford one) which was originally an FI, and given FIII airbrakes as part of the development of the FIII.

[Graham Boak]

It was given an F. Mk.III wing after an accident severely damaged its original ones.  It did not have its original wing modified to take airbrakes as part of a development program.

[sloegin57]

32 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

It did not have its original wing modified to take airbrakes as part of a development program.

That honour went to the penultimate F9/40 DG208/G which also had an enlarged rudder fitted in an attempt to cure directional instability.

[Pritch]

4 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

They did.  The prototype at Cosford.  Which has the wrong wings, hence the original issue of the Mk.I kit have the Mk.III wing with the airbrakes.

The Tamiya kit has a common fuselage for the I and III kit, with an insert.  If the kit upper fuselage is too small, it's likely the canopy is.  Tamiya, while the do make very well engineered kits,  have made some serious errors in some of the British aircraft kits, eg the old tool Spitfire I/Vb,  and their Beaufighter. 

@SleeperService seems to have spotted a glitch on the Meteor kit.    At the moment, this is still an open question,  but 

by too small, do you mean 'too narrow' of just too small, if the upper fuselage is too thin, then that explains the too thin width wise canopy.

What kits are the Aeroclub and Falcon for? Again, do you mean too wide?

This is where some photos and measurements would be really useful, as it is an interesting question/problem,.

 

Shame I no longer have the AMT kit, be interesting to see how that compared... 

I have the Mk.1, and got the vacform canopies that were intended to convert the Mk.1 to a Mk.3/4. However, there would be considerable messing about with the fuselage to accommodate the different rake of the windscreen, so that by the time I got around to it, Tamiya had at last produced the Mk.3 kit. Great, except that the sliding part of the canopy is badly coke-bottled. Both vacform canopies are the correct width of 2'6" = 15.9mm wide, but the Tamiya canopy is 2.4mm narrower to fit a narrower cockpit in a presumably narrower fuselage. The current plan is to use the sliding part of the Falcon canopy (https://www.falconmodels.co.nz/clearvax/set40.html) pruned to fit and posed in the open position. But it still looks too narrow compared with photos of the actual NZ6001.

[gingerbob]

Hi gang,

 

Well, I got ambitious this morning and found the other kits.  Wouldn't you know it, they were in the last place I looked!  (That is, the last of the possible boxes- having already tried the "open spaces".)

 

First of all, here's a comparison of the canopy "region" parts- and the different rear armour/headrest/whatever- in Tamiya 3 and 1: (sorry about the fuzziness)

 

 

 

Here are Tamiya vs. Classic Airframes (you can see that the back end on the Tamiya part is a bit more "rounded" as opposed to a more straight taper. Or rather, the Classic one appears "slimmer".)

 

 

And the clear parts: (Classic Airframes on left, Tamiya on right):

 

 

Other than the back end I already mentioned, they seem quite similar to me- no obvious size difference, though I neither measured nor tried to put them right up against each other.  Incidentally, I realize that this isn't really the original inquiry, but I don't have the Airfix kit, and you got me curious!

 

Here's a fuller shot of the two fuselages (Classic has the wing-roots, which are separate parts on the Tamiya) - I think I made this a larger image, so I hope that doesn't cause anyone problems.  Putting one kit's half against the other's, they aren't a "perfect" match, but they're near enough (in outline) that I'm not bothered about it.

 

 

Finally, here's a comparison of the center sections.  Again, close enough for me.  That bump, though, seems to be in a bit different location from one to t'other.  Should it be in the same place? (Classic top, Tamiya below)  Sorry, I forgot to try to compare plan outline directly- I can do that and report back.  And yes, I do plan to get the Airfix, just haven't gotten around to it as I prefer the earlier marks, and I've got a stack of Meteors already!

 

 

 

 

bob

Edited May 13, 2021 by gingerbob

[Paul Thompson]

Bob, apart from the mirrored blob difference in the underside shots, the thing that stands out is the different widths of the wheelbays. But that might be an illusion caused by the tapering centre bit on the Tamiya kit. How does it look in to you in real life, unless you've already re-stashed them) ? I tried putting a straight edge up to my screen to be sure but it's morning and my hands are too wobbly.

 

Paul.

[gingerbob]

I just compared holes and doors.  The biggest difference is the diagonal corner, which is a bit "sharper" on the Tamiya, and I think THAT makes one's eye think the hole (the whole hole?) is more different than it really is.  I noticed, too, that the bulges were slightly different (I will try to organize a photo or two later). [Which begs the question, did the bulges change, perhaps growing to accomodate a larger wheel/tyre?  I'm no Meteor expert, that's for sure.]

 

OK, back with some photos: (Tamiya in between Classic Airframes, and Classic Airframes above Tamiya)

 

 

Another angle to try to show the bulges:

 

 

You can see that the Tamiya outer (rectangular) door is a bit narrower, and if you added a little strip to the hinge side, that would make the bulge on the door look more "in agreement" with the Classic Airframes.  Personally, considering that they're the underside, nestled between the nacelles, I'm not sure that I'd worry about any discrepancy.  If there were one thing I might attack it would be the diagonal, but I'd have to look at some photos to see how visible it would be.  I guess I'll have to go find sprue shots of the Airfix kit to see how that compares.

 

I also compared center-section chord, and what d'ye know, the Classic Airframes has a bit more.  [Edit: rough measure, the scaled difference is 3 inches!]  Hmm...

 

Oh, one other side-effect of this conversation is that I now feel an urge to whang together a Classic Airframes Mk 4!

 

bob

Edited May 14, 2021 by gingerbob
add chord difference measure

[viscount806x]

On 5/10/2021 at 1:43 PM, Radpoe Spitfire said:

Thank you so much, all of you 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.

This is correct, the wing TE to body fairing was changed to the more angular shape. The NF.s also have this later fillet but the T.7 persisted with the F.4 (and earlier variants) curved shape. Beware that many of the published scale plans get this wrong on some marks.

[Radpoe Spitfire]

7 hours ago, viscount806x said:

This is correct, the wing TE to body fairing was changed to the more angular shape. The NF.s also have this later fillet but the T.7 persisted with the F.4 (and earlier variants) curved shape. Beware that many of the published scale plans get this wrong on some marks.

Thank you so much for letting me know the T7 has the same curved fillet, I'll get over to the museum I'm a member of and have a look at ours