F Mk.8, 19 Sqn., 1953, Coronation Review...MPM 1/72nd scale...

[John Masters]

2 hours ago, 81-er said:

This one's definitely going to keep you busy, but it's looking good

 

Thank you James.  It's not nearly so troublesome as it might look.  I decided to not try to scrape off part of the tub and possibly damage something.  Glue, squeezing, clamps, a shim, CA and some dust from sanding took care of the fuselage.

 

 

No need for filler.  Let the CA run in, sand it down, use the dust for filler, polish it up...smooth to the touch.

 

 

This was also pretty easy.  I ended up with some very thin gaps here and there that filled in easily with PPP, but other that a piece of cake.

 

 

A test fit of the wing-to-fuselage...no gap at the root.  Same with the port side.  I am very happy about that.

 

 

Here's a question...the instructions tell me to use the thinner rings for the intakes, while the 19 Sqn decal set look as if they want me to use the smaller, thicker ones.

the kit profiles are from 1955.  The 19 Sqn is 1953.  Give me some input here before I press on.  I imagine it has to do with the engines?

 

 

19 Sqn profile...

 

 

--John

 

Note:  In looking at images of F.8 from several different airforces (Denmark, Israel, UK, etc...), I am leaning towards the thinner ring. The thicker ring must be from an earlier variant and is included on the sprue as extra bits.  Correct me if I'm wrong please.

 

--JDCM

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stever219]

Meteor F. Mk. 8s could have either small-bore intakes or the later large-bore “deep breathers”.  The former were standard on the production line until late in the WK- serialled or early WL-serialled batches.  For a jet in service in 1953 the small-bore intakes are far more likely to have been fitted, along with the hard-back canopy and single-tab ailerons.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Looking good John, I seem to have the same issues with resin bits. Why cant the companies ever measure the spaces correctly. Seems this and my kit are siblings, those are exactly the same intakes/exhausts I had to put on mine yesterday. 

[John Masters]

8 hours ago, stever219 said:

For a jet in service in 1953 the small-bore intakes are far more likely to have been fitted, along with the hard-back canopy and single-tab ailerons.

Excellent.  Thank you.  I will go in that direction then! 
 

7 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Looking good John, I seem to have the same issues with resin bits. Why cant the companies ever measure the spaces correctly. Seems this and my kit are siblings, those are exactly the same intakes/exhausts I had to put on mine yesterday

Thank you.  I imagine that piece of sprue is shared in a few of their kits!

[Andwil]

8 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Looking good John, I seem to have the same issues with resin bits. Why cant the companies ever measure the spaces correctly. Seems this and my kit are siblings, those are exactly the same intakes/exhausts I had to put on mine yesterday. 

Sometimes I think they take their measurements from the outside of the kit and forget about the thickness of the plastic, which in the case of some of the Special Hobby efforts is considerable…

 

AW

[John Masters]

1 hour ago, Andwil said:

I think they take their measurements from the outside of the kit and forget about the thickness of the plastic

That makes sense. 

[Wings unlevel]

Looks like you’re taming the beast, John!

[81-er]

Nicely done on those gaps, John

 

James

[John Masters]

2 hours ago, Wings unlevel said:

Looks like you’re taming the beast

It's actually quite docile...😁

 

2 hours ago, 81-er said:

Nicely done on those gaps

Thanks.  I'm relieved there were so few.

[John Masters]

This is looking quite good.  

 

Wings, intakes, nozzles.  East fittings.  The nozzles should be examined first so you can line up the panel lines on the fuselage correctly.  And I had to carve out a bit of one of the intakes so the ring did not sit with a small step.  The stabilizer is a very tight fit and required some fettling to get it in.  Other that that it's looking the part, if I may say so myself.

 

 

 

--John

 

 

 

 

[franky boy]

Nice work John. 
 

Looking good. 
 

James

[John Masters]

1 hour ago, franky boy said:

Nice work John. 
 

Looking good. 

Thank you but I take little credit. The parts fit well.  

[John Masters]

The canopy is masked and attached.  I am going with a closed canopy.  I could have cut it to give it that open look but I usually make a hash of that and I am doing well with this kit, so I say, why chance it?  All the gaps are filled around the model.  I was pretty thorough in my search.  Intakes are filled with foam, nozzles are masked.  Wheel wells are filled with foam or putty.  Wheels are assembled and masked.  Basically it is ready for primer!

 

 

 

Here's a question...for the 1953 Coronation review, would this aircraft have had its fuel pods attached?  Should I leave the pylons off as well if not?

 

I await your responses...

 

--John

 

 

[John Masters]

Notice I have forgotten something on the belly?  Hmmm...since been rectified!

[81-er]

It's looking good, John. I'm looking forward to seeing it get some paint now

 

James

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

5 hours ago, John Masters said:

The canopy is masked and attached.  I am going with a closed canopy.  I could have cut it to give it that open look but I usually make a hash of that and I am doing well with this kit, so I say, why chance it?  All the gaps are filled around the model.  I was pretty thorough in my search.  Intakes are filled with foam, nozzles are masked.  Wheel wells are filled with foam or putty.  Wheels are assembled and masked.  Basically it is ready for primer!

 

 

 

Here's a question...for the 1953 Coronation review, would this aircraft have had its fuel pods attached?  Should I leave the pylons off as well if not?

 

I await your responses...

 

--John

 

 

Just found this photo file, if you scan down to #20 on the 1st page I think your squadron or bird may be one of them. And looks like no to your question. 
 

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/coronation-review.html?sortBy=relevant

[John Masters]

4 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Just found this photo file

Many thanks.  They don't look like 19 Sqn but that probably doesn't matter.  I imagine all the aircraft were fitted out the same.  

[gingerbob]

14 hours ago, John Masters said:

Here's a question...for the 1953 Coronation review, would this aircraft have had its fuel pods attached?  Should I leave the pylons off as well if not?

 

The ORB makes no mention of fitting the wing tanks (sometimes they do, as if that's an unusual event), and in the Cinema Pathe newsreel I saw no evidence of wing drop tanks on any Meteors.  I would imagine that the belly tank was fitted, though that's not based on any particular "evidence".  Squadrons congregated at nearby airfields for such events, so there'd be little need for maximum endurance.  (Incidentally, in that newsreel I saw a lot more "classic" Meteor tails than I did Mk.8 style, though that's based on a quick scan.)  19 Squadron's ORB did make a comment about this time that their Mk.8s were getting old (in relation to serviceability), but I notice that they flew them for another three years before finally getting Hunters!

 

Also, while I don't claim to have detailed knowledge of the fine points (now there's an understatement!) the wing appears clean when drop tanks are not fitted, so I'd say no pylons.

 

bob

[Dave Swindell]

15 hours ago, John Masters said:

Here's a question...for the 1953 Coronation review, would this aircraft have had its fuel pods attached?  Should I leave the pylons off as well if not?

Hi John

From the Hikoki book on the Coronation Review WE863/A was part of the flypast, flying in formation 36 from North Weald. 19 Sqn put up 12 Meteor F.8's in 3 diamond 4's with the centre diamond leading, and the other 2 diamonds behind and each side in an equilateral triangle. Pilot was P/O E.W. Hopkins and he flew on the extreme right of the formation. There's a small photo which purports to show this formation, wing tanks don't appear to be fitted but it's too small to make out whether the underfuselage tank is fitted. Photo's of F.8's in the static review show none with wing tanks, some with underfuselage tank and some without. There's a profile of WE863/A showing the underside tank but no wing tanks (and markings as per the decal sheet), so unless there's a photo out there your call on the underside tank.

Interestingly, although shown as marked up with Sqn Leader pennant, code letter A and corresponding extra squadron colours on the tail (a popular S/L marking option on Meteors) it wasn't flown by S/L B Beard who led 19 Sqn on the day, only a partial serial ??348 is noted for his aircraft. If the numbers are correct options are fairly limited - F8 WH348, T7 WL348 or MkIII EE348, the latter seems unlikely, the T7 is a possibility if they had one on strength for training, but why another F8 would be chosen in preference to "his" marked aircraft, especially for such a prestigious event I don't know.

 

[John Masters]

6 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

There's a profile of WE863/A showing the underside tank but no wing tanks (and markings as per the decal sheet), so unless there's a photo out there your call on the underside tank.

Thanks Dave!

7 hours ago, gingerbob said:

the wing appears clean when drop tanks are not fitted, so I'd say no pylons.

Thank you.

[John Masters]

Primer white...looks pretty smooth.

 

 

--John

 

 

[81-er]

It looks very smooth from here John

 

James

[John Masters]

18 hours ago, 81-er said:

It looks very smooth from here John

Thank you James.  At this point I have little choice...

 

Here we go!  I was advised to use this as my High Speed Silver...

 

 

Shiny, shiny...

 

 

 

Tomorrow I'll take some Duraluminum and go around with a hairy brush and pick out some spots, just for depth.

 

I think it looks pretty good.  

 

--John

[franky boy]

Looking very good John. Picking out some bits in aluminium will really start to bring it to life. 
 

James 

[81-er]

Looking good, John. I'd say that's a great choice for HSS

 

James