Gloster Meteor F3/F4

[HL-10]

Meteor experts, your assistance please 😊

What are the external differences, if any between an F3 & an F4?

 

Thank you 😊

[MikeC]

The main visible difference was the engine used, and the fact that the F3 had full-span wings, although there are other changes that are not evident.

 

Many F3s had shorter engine nacelles, but some had longer nacelles, and these can be confused with a Mk IV.  The only way to tell for sure is to check the serial number against production lists or serial lists (eg http://www.ukserials.com/).  There is also the wing, and most F4s had the shorter-span wing, I'm not sure any F3s did - if anyone knows more please say.  The third way is the engine: lookk at a long-nacelled Meteor from the front, the F3 has an intake roughly at 11 o'clock at the point the diameter is at its maximum.  I'll see if I can dig out a photo.

 

HTH.

[HL-10]

Thanks for the information😊

[Mr T]

No F3 was built with the short span wing. Early F.4s were built with long span wings, but most were subsequently re fitted with short span wings. I think (not near my refs) that they all changed before issue to squadrons. 

[MikeC]

The only F4s with long-span wings that I'm aware of were the record-breaking aircraft, "The Yellow Peril" (can't recall the serial) and EE549; and the latter was modified back to short-span wings at some point later in its life.

[rossm]

EE568 - the chase plane for the trials of the Vickers A.2 scale model of the Miles M52 was another. I think as @Mr T said the early ones all had long span wings. The Meteor IV Profile booklet states the clipped wings were introduced following an accident due to a very rapid pull-out from a dive and they had to be retrofitted to some aircraft "before delivery to the Service". This implies only prototypes and trials aircraft would have flown with the long span wings and squadron aircraft would have been modified before delivery. I'll see if I can verify that assumption.

[rossm]

Hmmm, the Modeller's Datafile says 100 were delivered with the long span wings and quotes the accident as the reason for shortening.

 

And to confuse things further the Putnam book on Gloster Aircraft states "In squadron service the F4's rate of roll was being penalized by the 43 ft long-span wings which were not sufficiently stiff. Rather than delay delivery to the RAF by redesigning the wing to meet specification F. 11/46, the span was reduced to 37 ft 2 in, producing a 6 per cent cut In wing area, which improved the rate of roll to more than 80 degree per sec but increased take-off and landing speeds."

 

The Punam also gives the length of the IV as 3 inches less than the I and III.

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Interesting: why should it be any shorter?  There has to have been a reason, as this would have been an expensive change to the production line.  There doesn't seem to have been any change at the nose, and a shorter-chord rudder would appear to be the only simple change - is there any sign of this?  I suspect an error - possibly the original value was based on an early design General Arrangement drawing that never caught up to the real build?  But if so, who'd notice? 

 

Clipping the wings would also reduce the climb rate and ceiling.

[Britman]

My memories of building F III and F IV Meteors many years ago is that the wing tips in the IV had a broader cord than the III. As I said , a long time ago when the Frog and Airfix kits could be found on the shelf at your "local" model shop!

 

Keith

[Graham Boak]

I would put these chord differences down to interpretation by the model companies, or by whichever draughtsmen did the drawings they were working from.

[rossm]

12 minutes ago, Britman said:

My memories of building F III and F IV Meteors many years ago is that the wing tips in the IV had a broader cord than the III. As I said , a long time ago when the Frog and Airfix kits could be found on the shelf at your "local" model shop!

 

Keith

One of each - happy days....................

 

[modelldoc]

Check out the Meteor book:

 

Bryan Philpott "Meteor" by Patrick Stephens Ltd. Wellinborough, 1986

 

Here my Airfix F Mk 3 (Airfix):

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/26912448504/in/photolist-2m2iXNs-2iT37wR-JooYQU-Jcnavp-H1akjQ-qhYYgY-qxfJJ7-fFBDoJ-dpsa8S-dpsbn9-dps8SL-998nhc-97qFmT

 

And here the F Mk 4 (FROG):

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/16106249106/in/photolist-2m2iXNs-2iT37wR-JooYQU-Jcnavp-H1akjQ-qhYYgY-qxfJJ7-fFBDoJ-dpsa8S-dpsbn9-dps8SL-998nhc-97qFmT

 

And this is a conversion to a U 15 from the FROG kit:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21603181@N08/8141660028/in/photolist-2m2iXNs-2iT37wR-JooYQU-Jcnavp-H1akjQ-qhYYgY-qxfJJ7-fFBDoJ-dpsa8S-dpsbn9-dps8SL-998nhc-97qFmT

 

 

modelldoc

[Graham Boak]

Has anyone checked the wing shapes of these two kits against the later models, or perhaps even a decent plan, should such be available?

 

If anyone cares, it should be straightforward enough to calculate the wing areas of each kit, and compare them with published values.  Sorry, I don't have either kit.

 

Looking at the two kits, has more than just the tip been removed from the Mk.IV?  Is the aileron shorter? 

 

 

[rossm]

12 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Has anyone checked the wing shapes of these two kits against the later models, or perhaps even a decent plan, should such be available?

 

If anyone cares, it should be straightforward enough to calculate the wing areas of each kit, and compare them with published values.  Sorry, I don't have either kit.

 

Looking at the two kits, has more than just the tip been removed from the Mk.IV?  Is the aileron shorter? 

 

 

5ft10in was taken off the span so I think the aileron must be shorter. The drawings in the Putnam back this up.

[Graham Boak]

Hence the larger tip chord, then.