Jump to content

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


John Masters
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

52482430563_b23a3346de_z_d.jpg

 

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

 

52482347975_4fd5d01b7e_z_d.jpg

 

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.

 

52481886286_254435e058_z_d.jpg

 

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

 

52481386562_25d2bbd96f_z_d.jpg

 

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?

 

52481937686_e248401a6e_z_d.jpg

 

19 Sqn profile...

 

52482430473_07f192f5f7_z_d.jpg

 

--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

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

52489425557_08b174b049_z_d.jpg

 

52489909271_747f05a059_z_d.jpg

 

--John

 

 

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

52490945149_2f330d8dcd_z_d.jpg

 

52491214893_faa7d1c105_z_d.jpg

 

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

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

52490945149_2f330d8dcd_z_d.jpg

 

52491214893_faa7d1c105_z_d.jpg

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

52495066019_1b5c5ac2ee_z_d.jpg

 

Shiny, shiny...

 

52494299187_ec4ae827ba_z_d.jpg

 

52495066064_f24cbe646f_z_d.jpg

 

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

  • Like 6
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...