Jump to content

MPM #72567, Gloster Meteor F.Mk,I


Pete57
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anybody had a chance to have a look at the sprues?

Judging by the box art and side drawings on MPM’s website, the canopy appears to be over-dimensioned and the ailerons to be the same as those of their other wartime Gloster Meteor kit – the F.Mk.III – which would be totally incorrect for the F.Mk.I whose ailerons sported a horn-balance and a differently located trim-tab. :confused:

Hopefully, there are no speed brakes and the main landing-gear’s underwing bulge extends to the flap-line… <_<

I sure hope MPM did not screw this up by trying to maintain as much commonality as possible with their Mk.III! :bangin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, all,

what I have noticed in the Mk III render, is that the top of the fuselage curves gently towards the fin (where I think it should be dead flat) and the fin/rudder itself is too small. Weirdly, in the F.4 none of these mistakes are present.

Have any of the readership observed the same thing?

Fernando

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't also the engines be smaller than on the F.III?

Unfortunately some kit manufacturers (original term removed by occa) are lousy investigators often, as much I appreciate them tackling the subjects that are overlooked by the mainstreamers.

Why don't they let some hobby nerds check their plans before they start?

Edited by occa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't also the engines be smaller than on the F.III?

Nope.

The size was the same as the original, Rover W.2B/23 engined prototype, DG202/G.

Except for the De Havilland H.1/ H.1B Goblin and Metro-Vick F.1 powered prototypes DG206/G, DG207/G and DG204/G respectively, the nacelles' shape and dimensions remained the same for all the Gloster F.9/40 prototypes, the F.MK.Is and all but the last 15 Mk.IIIs.

All the Power-Jets W.2/500, W.2/700 and Rolls Royce B.37 Derwent Srs 1 thru 4 powered machines had this same type of nacelles, but with shorter exhaust nozzles.

The last 15 Mk.IIIs and all the following Marks, received the stretched nacelles, pioneered by the Mk.I EE211/G, which improved the aircraft's critical mach.

Aircraft fitted with the prototype RR. B.37 as well as Derwent Srs 1 thru 4 turbojets, including the last, stretched-nacelle Mk. IIIs sported a small oil vent on the top, right-side of each nacelle.

These have to be scratch-built whenever one chooses to reproduce one of these aircraft.

Curiously, the old Airfix kit these had these vents...

Unfortunately the Czechs are lousy investigators often, as much I appreciate them tackling the subjects that are overlooked by the mainstreamers.

Why don't they let some hobby nerds check their plans before they start?

About ten years ago, I emailed MPM a small essay I had created, detailing the subtle and not so subtle differences between the wartime marks of the Gloster Meteor (the Mk.I thru the long-span Mk.IV), had the wartime Meteor indeed been in their future plans.

MPM confirmed it was in their future plans and thanked me for the essay.

When I first saw their 1/72 Mk.I announced, having already bought their Mk.III, and suspecting a possible sacrifice of accuracy in name of commonality, I again emailed some scans of drawings from the Camouflage & Marking issue on the Gloster Meteor which best depicted, in my opinion, the differences in the Mk.I and Mk.III's wings...The rest, as they say, is history! :weep: .

Regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes they were elongated in the later marks, that was what I had in my mind, thanks for clearing it up Pete :)

Then at least the kit is not as wrong as I suspected lol ...

I too tried to instruct the MPM guys once but they did not react.

Edited by occa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the Czechs are lousy investigators often, as much I appreciate them tackling the subjects that are overlooked by the mainstreamers.

Why don't they let some hobby nerds check their plans before they start?

Yes, because its easy to generalize for every manufacturer in the country.

:rolleyes:

Edited by -Neu-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the Czechs are lousy investigators often, as much I appreciate them tackling the subjects that are overlooked by the mainstreamers.

Why don't they let some hobby nerds check their plans before they start?

I thought Czechmaster had a good reputation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the Czechs are lousy investigators often, as much I appreciate them tackling the subjects that are overlooked by the mainstreamers.

Why don't they let some hobby nerds check their plans before they start?

This is a comment inviting ridicule. Perhaps you might like to give some referenced instances and show how you would have initiated better research efforts and engineered the product better for the same outlay?

There are literally scores of hobby companies in the Czech Republic - they include CMR which probably has about the highest possible reputation for reseach thoroughness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said 'often' not always lol.

I am aware I should have worded it differently and not not restricted it to Czech manufacturers.

Now on to some examples, there are plenty out there, I can only speak for 1/72 kits.

- MPM confused the diameters of the dual row 2 x 7 cylinder Pratt & Whitney engines with those of the Curtiss Wright single row nine cylinder ones on their Hudson. Their 2 x 7s are of a bigger diameter than the 1 x 9, go and check it if you don't believe me.

Another one:

- Special Hobby forgot the lower intake cowl lip on their Fairey Firefly MK.V ...

- The AZ model Martlet I has the proportions of the cowlings and fuselage front area wrong, same with the Sword Wildcat VI ...

- The older Ryan Fireball from MPM has a much too short fuselage ...

- The fin to fuselage transition on the Valom Boeing XF8B is simply wrong, they blended it together while the real plane has the slim fin placed on the round rear fuselage.

I could go on and on.

IMO the reason these errors occur are that they rely on plans and drawings which are often faulty, they should check photos and look into technical facts.

Czechmaster kits tho are generally very good indeed, that I can agree on ...

Their Defiant is the only 1/72 kit that has the under fuselage upwards bend behind the trailing edge incorporated. Take a side view photo and see what I mean.

Edited by occa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging by the box art and side drawings on MPM’s website, the canopy appears to be over-dimensioned and the ailerons to be the same as those of their other wartime Gloster Meteor kit – the F.Mk.III – which would be totally incorrect for the F.Mk.I whose ailerons sported a horn-balance and a differently located trim-tab. :confused:

I sure hope MPM did not screw this up by trying to maintain as much commonality as possible with their Mk.III! :bangin:

So I assume Tamiya 1/48 is wrong in this respect too?

Thansk,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I assume Tamiya 1/48 is wrong in this respect too?

Thansk,

Andy

I don't do 1/48 scale, but i remember their first issue was wrong.

Later on they re-issued a correct kit

Please check this link

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said 'often' not always lol.

I am aware I should have worded it differently and not not restricted it to Czech manufacturers.

Now on to some examples, there are plenty out there, I can only speak for 1/72 kits.

- MPM confused the diameters of the dual row 2 x 7 cylinder Pratt & Whitney engines with those of the Curtiss Wright single row nine cylinder ones on their Hudson. Their 2 x 7s are of a bigger diameter than the 1 x 9, go and check it if you don't believe me.

Another one:

- Special Hobby forgot the lower intake cowl lip on their Fairey Firefly MK.V ...

- The AZ model Martlet I has the proportions of the cowlings and fuselage front area wrong, same with the Sword Wildcat VI ...

- The older Ryan Fireball from MPM has a much too short fuselage ...

- The fin to fuselage transition on the Valom Boeing XF8B is simply wrong, they blended it together while the real plane has the slim fin placed on the round rear fuselage.

I could go on and on.

IMO the reason these errors occur are that they rely on plans and drawings which are often faulty, they should check photos and look into technical facts.

Czechmaster kits tho are generally very good indeed, that I can agree on ...

Their Defiant is the only 1/72 kit that has the under fuselage upwards bend behind the trailing edge incorporated. Take a side view photo and see what I mean.

And other national manufacturers are all perfect in this regard?

I think you're being hard on the czechs when they basically have it tougher than most other manufacturers. Its easy to build a Lancaster, F-16 or some other mainstream aircraft because there are literally thousands of plans and photos out there for references. When you start designing kits of obscure aircraft, you're going to get these issues. Moreover asking them to undertake the research you're demanding is just not economically feasible. Nothing would get produced because the research costs would be too high... particularly given their profit margins are so small.

Seriously its easy to criticize but I think the kits we get from Czech manufacturers are pretty good. Sure there are some issues but its understandable and not some sort of laziness or negligence on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And other national manufacturers are all perfect in this regard?

I think you're being hard on the czechs when they basically have it tougher than most other manufacturers. Its easy to build a Lancaster, F-16 or some other mainstream aircraft because there are literally thousands of plans and photos out there for references. When you start designing kits of obscure aircraft, you're going to get these issues. Moreover asking them to undertake the research you're demanding is just not economically feasible. Nothing would get produced because the research costs would be too high... particularly given their profit margins are so small.

Seriously its easy to criticize but I think the kits we get from Czech manufacturers are pretty good. Sure there are some issues but its understandable and not some sort of laziness or negligence on their part.

That is not entirely true, some features are clearly to get if one looks on photos for five minutes, like the fact that canopy for the MPM Northrop A17 series is much too narrow on the top, the real one has an outwards bend in relation to the fuselage when viewed from the front which results in a significantly broader top than the model has, not to speak that they nowhere got the (tho admittedly complex and so difficult to recreate) shapes of the cowling-fuselage-wing junction right.

I'll leave it that ... I just appeal that they check photos in the future and don't solely rely on plans.

Maybe I am just one of the few who compares models with photos to determine if the shapes and proportions look generally right, in that case the other modellers should not be bothered by what I say about the accuracy.

Edited by occa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have said kit manufacturers in general and not address a certain country only, I apologize for that.

After all we are modellers which means we can try to correct things if they bother us, also almost every model has a more or less minor flaw.

On the other side I got personally attacked, threatened and called names in a PM from a certain ER person which I find way over the line and uncalled for, I was just voicing my frustration, some seem not to take it lightly.

That said I stand by my apology above anyways.

Edited by occa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't do 1/48 scale, but i remember their first issue was wrong.

Later on they re-issued a correct kit

Please check this link

Regards,

Hi there,

I'm aware of the original faux-pas with the airbrakes, it's the different ailerons and trim tabs that interests me?

Regards,

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it was't wrong. It was a superb model of a museum aircraft.

Had the box been labeled 'GLOSTER F.9/40 RAF COSFORD MUSEUM', then I would agree, but the box was labelled 'GLOSTER METEOR F.1', so I stand my ground. :)

The decal sheet was for three aircraft: F.9/40 DG202/G, an early F.Mk.I (EE216) and a late F.Mk.I (EE227).

With the parts supplied with the original issue, only the first option could be built and then in its post-January 5, 1944 'incarnation', when the aircraft had to be re-built and modified at Gloster, Moreton Valence following considerable damage to the nacelle, centre section and outer wing panel caused by the explosion of the port engine on a take off from Church Broughton on July 24, 1943.

The aircraft was never modified to the 'correct' F.Mk.I's standard, and in its current configuration, it must be considered a 'hybrid', i.e. an F.9/40 with fuselage upgraded to Mk.I's (G.41A) standard - bullet (or acorn) fairing at the fin-tailplane intersection and clear, rear-canopy (it was originally solid) - but fitted with a set of early Mk.III's (G.41C) wings - speed brakes and cropped main landing gear bulge.

Regards,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Judging by the box art and side drawings on MPM’s website, the canopy appears to be over-dimensioned and the ailerons to be the same as those of their other wartime Gloster Meteor kit – the F.Mk.III – which would be totally incorrect for the F.Mk.I whose ailerons sported a horn-balance and a differently located trim-tab. :confused:

I've dug out the old Camouflage and Marking and appreciate the issue: as drawn therein, Meteor F.1 ailerons have a horn-balance and a differently located trim-tab. It would not be beyond the wit of man to fill and rescribe the MPM and Dragon wings but, especially in the case of the horn balance, it's likely to be a bit of a faff.

But I've since been through all the F.1 photos in all my Meteor references and can find only 1 picture showing that configuration on an F.1 (Shacklady p.29 shows EE210/G, the first production F.I, in US markings: the port aileron is at extreme deflection and the horn balance appears visible). Otherwise, in the 4 cases where the ailerons were clearly visible, they are of Mark.III type: EE212/G (eg Goulding p.248, 90% certain), EE214/G (eg Shacklady p.33: 90% certain), EE223/G (eg Jones p.52: absolutely no doubt), EE227 Trent Meteor (eg Shacklady p.37: absolutely no doubt). However none of these are in RAF use: all are undergoing various trials, during the course of which they could have picked up all manner of non-standard modifications.

Nor could I find reference (admittedly in a fairly quick skim) to changes to ailerons being made between Marks F.1 and F.III, unless they are swept up in such vague phrases as "airframe strengthening and other refinements" (Shacklady).

So for me the balance of the evidence available to me so far is in favour of F.Is having the same aileron arrangement as F.IIIs. At least the kit designers can mount a plausible line of defence. Must be tough for them: they have to decide one way or the other and Sod's Law dictates that on a 50:50 call they'll always make the wrong one.

But I am not a Meteor expert and look forward to be deluged with compelling evidence the other way from those who are.

Shacklady: The Gloster Meteor (Macdonald), Jones: Gloster Meteor (Crowood), Buttler: Gloster Meteor (Warpaint 22), Bowyer: Gloster Meteor (Postwar Military Aircraft 2), Phillpott: Gloster Meteor (PSL), Bond: Gloster Meteor (Midland), Shores: 2 TAF Vol 3 (Classic), Goulding: Meteor, Whirlwind and Welkin (Camo and Markings 11).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aircraft fitted with the prototype RR. B.37 as well as Derwent Srs 1 thru 4 turbojets, including the last, stretched-nacelle Mk. IIIs sported a small oil vent on the top, right-side of each nacelle.

These have to be scratch-built whenever one chooses to reproduce one of these aircraft.

Curiously, the old Airfix kit these had these vents...

The Dragon kit provides nicely hollowed-out versions of these (parts C5 and C6). Their locating holes are flashed over so, although Dragon miss a trick by not mentioning the fact, the parts breakdown allows you to build either a Welland-engined F.III Interim (EE236-244 - long tailpipes, no vents) or a Derwent-engined F.III (EE245 onwards - short tailpipes, oil cooler vents). The 616 Sq transfer options they provide are for a mixture of both.

  • Like 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...