MPM #72567, Gloster Meteor F.Mk,I

[Pete57]

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).

Hi seahawk,

I also went thru the same exercise, but adding Hardy:Gloster Meteor Super Profile (Haynes Publishing Group), Lake: Wings of Fame Vol.14 Variant Briefing, Gloster Meteor Pt.1 (Aerospace Pub.), Wartime development, Ethell & Price: World War II Fighting Jets (Airlife), Butler & Buttler: Gloster Meteor (Aerofax), Caruana & Franks: The Gloster & AW Meteor (although none of these managed to yeld any useful extra info) and also in light of the fact that the last 8 aircarft - EE2222/G thru EE2297G - received RR W.2B/23B engines instead of the W2B/23 installed on the previous examples (Shacklady, page 170), i.e. the new ailerons could also have been introduced on the final production a/c.

However, if you go to page 9 of Boyer's book, you'll see a picture of EE227/G during his service with No. 616 Squadron as YQ-Y, the pilot climbing onboard, and the stick set on a 'left turn' i.e. left aileron fully deflected down.

This pic is far revealing as it clearly shows the leading-edge of the horn-balance protuding from the wing's uppersurface as well as its 'cutout' in the wings lower surface: this, in my opinion, settles the matter.

Furthermore, the Mk.III was intentionally made 'aileron-heavy' to keep pilots from overstressing the airframe, and I believe this modification was more than a mere change in the gearing, links and rods, but rather involved also the change in the ailerons' shape that we have now become familiar with.

The reason why EE227, when powered by the Trent turboprops, shows a Mk.III wing is (possibly) that the Mk.I had gone out of production and those kept for experimental purposes were being refitted with the new wing.

For those whising to convert the MPM kit into a Trent-Meteor, there is a resin conversion-kit by Unicraft which provides new nacelles and 5-bladed props, however be aware that the both the nose and main landing gears which were lengthened (in the real aircraft) 6 inches and, in turn, mandated a change in the wheel bays' dimensions: I'm not sure this is detailed in the conversion-kit's instructions...

Page 52 of Jones' book shows EE223/G, another Mk.I fitted with Mk.III's ailerons which could also be a good candidate for the MPM Mk.I kit.

Unfortunately none of the pictures of this specific aircraft I've been able to see, shows if the aircarft was indeed fitted with airbrakes (and short l/g bulge), i.e. a full Mk.III wing, or just Mk.III's ailerons...

Personally, and for the reasons I've already mentioned hereabove, I believe it had a complete Mk.III's wing, but it's only my guess and, like you, I'm no Meteor expert!

Regards,

[Seahawk]

However, if you go to page 9 of Boyer's book, you'll see a picture of EE227/G during his service with No. 616 Squadron as YQ-Y, the pilot climbing onboard, and the stick set on a 'left turn' i.e. left aileron fully deflected down.

This pic is far revealing as it clearly shows the leading-edge of the horn-balance protuding from the wing's uppersurface as well as its 'cutout' in the wings lower surface: this, in my opinion, settles the matter.

I wouldn't personally bet the farm on the horn balance being visible but agree with you that, under close examination, the cut-out for the horn-balance is visible in the lower wing. So I'd further agree with you that, in the only picture of a Meteor I in 616 Squadron service that shows the area concerned clearly enough for a judgement to be made, the ailerons are hornbalanced. As EE237 was the antepenultimate Meteor I built, it seems reasonable to extrapolate that the others were built with horn-balanced ailerons as well. As you say, what happened to F.Is during trials work after withdrawal from squadron service is another matter.

So, even if someone came up with the correct canopy for an operational F.I (ie one without the bulge on top), we'd still have the job of correcting the ailerons.

By the way, the lovely picture of a banking Meteor F.I on the cover of the Camo and Markings shows it to have F.III type ailerons (note the actuator fairing for the trim tab) but no airbrakes. I can't read the serial but it has a prototype "P" marking. It doesn't have a sky band so may be one of those retained for trials viz EE210-12 or EE223.

The same photo also shows nicely the +5 degree dihedral on the wingtips. Dragon seem to have missed this. I don't have an MPM kit.

[MiG31]

Are there any reliable drawings which show how the F.1 aileron horn appeared?

[Seahawk]

Are there any reliable drawings which show how the F.1 aileron horn appeared?

There are 1/72 drawings of a Meteor F.I with hornbalanced ailerons on page 149 of James Goulding's "Interceptor" (Ian Allen, 1986). Similar drawings but to a smaller scale and primarily to illustrate the camouflage pattern appear in Goulding's Camouflage and Markings 11 on the Meteor, Whirlwind and Welkin (eg p.247). Whether they are reliable, I could not say. However I don't think I am alone in holding Goulding's work in high regard.

A snippet from "Interceptor": "New prototypes were now being completed and the F9/40s were notching up an impressive number of flights. There remained some aerodynamic problems to be overcome. ..... Lateral instability at high altitude was relieved by flat-sided ailerons and aileron flutter during a high-speed dive was cured by internal mass balancing." If testing with the F9/40s had shown the need for internally mass balanced ailerons, it seems strange that production F.Is were apparently fitted with horn-balanced ones.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Seahawk

[Pete57]

There are 1/72 drawings of a Meteor F.I with hornbalanced ailerons on page 149 of James Goulding's "Interceptor" (Ian Allen, 1986). Similar drawings but to a smaller scale and primarily to illustrate the camouflage pattern appear in Goulding's Camouflage and Markings 11 on the Meteor, Whirlwind and Welkin (eg p.247). Whether they are reliable, I could not say. However I don't think I am alone in holding Goulding's work in high regard.

A snippet from "Interceptor": "New prototypes were now being completed and the F9/40s were notching up an impressive number of flights. There remained some aerodynamic problems to be overcome. ..... Lateral instability at high altitude was relieved by flat-sided ailerons and aileron flutter during a high-speed dive was cured by internal mass balancing." If testing with the F9/40s had shown the need for internally mass balanced ailerons, it seems strange that production F.Is were apparently fitted with horn-balanced ones.

I've seen it also on other publications.

It is well possible - mho only - that the Mk.III's ailerons were tested on one of the F.9/40's. Yet, for some reasons, they did not become standard on the production Mk.I's, as further evidenced in an official Sep. 29, 1944 report (link):

"...The Meteor I is therefore, operationally restricted to:

(a) 15,000ft. in view of aileron overbalance above this height ..."

Another apparent inconsistency is the lack of a rear-view mirror on (or removal of it from) the operational machines - i.e. those delivered to No. 616 Squadron.

This can possibly be explained by the fact that aerobatics were expressly forbidden, making the Mk.I unsuitable for air to air combat where such an accessory was needed, while its high speed made it the ideal weapon to fight the V-1 menace and the removal of the mirror and associated bump may have afforded a few extra knots of airspeed - again mho only.

So far as the shape of the Mk.I's ailerons is concerned, the Airfix Mk.III kit has the horn-balanced, Mk.I's ailerons.

Theoretically, these could be grafted to the MPM kit and the speed-brakes slots could be filled in, however, one still needs to scratch-build the main lg bulge extension which is probably the hardest part of the conversion job...

So either we get a proper conversion (resin ailerons and mlg bulge extension) from the aftermarket or - even better - a new, correct Mk.I kit!

Me, I'm going to email Dragon and provide them with the same info I had provided MPM: perhaps the Chinese will be more attentive listeners...

Regards,

[gingerbob]

However, if you go to page 9 of Boyer's book, you'll see a picture of EE227/G during his service with No. 616 Squadron as YQ-Y, the pilot climbing onboard, and the stick set on a 'left turn' i.e. left aileron fully deflected down.

Good work, both of you, and an excellent example of working together toward the (supposed) goal of accuracy. I presume you mean right turn, if the left aileron is (trailing edge) down? Sorry, probably seems like a nit, but such descriptions lead to confusion!

I confess to being appreciative and ever so mildly dismayed- learned another thing or two to look out for if I do an early early Meteor. Fortunately my immediate plan is for a wartime Mk.III (and in 48th).

bob

[Pete57]

I presume you mean right turn, if the left aileron is (trailing edge) down? Sorry, probably seems like a nit, but such descriptions lead to confusion!

Bob,

You're absolutely right!

It's amazing how far a long day at work and almost regular sleep deprivation can sometimes go toward impairing one's judgment!

[neilfergylee]

On ‎17‎/‎05‎/‎2011 at 20:12, Seahawk said:

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.

@Seahawk you might be able to answer a question that has been running around my own mind for a while.  Now that I know the vent was for an oil cooler, what happened to it on later marks of the Derwent?

[Seahawk]

8 hours ago, neilfergylee said:

@Seahawk you might be able to answer a question that has been running around my own mind for a while.  Now that I know the vent was for an oil cooler, what happened to it on later marks of the Derwent?

No, sorry, I can't.  I just observe and read, I don't understand the engineering.

[Graham Boak]

On 5/18/2011 at 10:46 PM, Seahawk said:

Lateral instability at high altitude was relieved by flat-sided ailerons and aileron flutter during a high-speed dive was cured by internal mass balancing." If testing with the F9/40s had shown the need for internally mass balanced ailerons, it seems strange that production F.Is were apparently fitted with horn-balanced ones.

 

And the respective dates for the discovery of this flaw and its solution, to compare with the build dates of the F Mk.Is?  After finding the flaw, and then finding the solution, they also had to prepare for production of these new ailerons with the internal wing structure changes and skins.  All these things take time, and overlaps between development and production are far from unique to the Meteor.

[AaCee26]

On 5/17/2011 at 10:12 PM, Seahawk said:

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.

Hi!

 

Which one would be better starting point for a prototype Meteor, Dragon or MPM?

 

Cheers,

 

AaCee

[Seahawk]

Personally, I can't say because I've never even fondled the plastic of an MPM example.  However some of the posts at the beginning of this thread are a bit negative about the general shape of the MPM kit.  I consider the Meteor I and III kits two of Dragon's best 1/72 efforts.  The main gotcha with it is that it assumes Meteors had inset elevators: they didn't - the elevators were horn-balanced.  It's a simple fix: cut off the tips of the tailplanes with a sharp knife parallel with the centreline and add them to the outer ends of the elevators.  (I think this has been discussed before in another thread buried deep in Britmodeller.)  For a prototype you'd need the Mk.I kit because it has the earlier canopy.  As for other differences between prototypes and production aircraft, I'd have to defer to others' knowledge, but I'd imagine similar changes would have to be made whether you were starting from the MPM or Dragon kit.