While on the subject of Meteors, how about PR.3 and PR.5

[kitnut617]

Today I received my quarterly magazines from Air-Britain, June 2008, and in the Aeromilitaria magazine, Air-Britain has published an article by noted author Phil Butler.  Apparently Phil was helping move the late Jack Meaden' vast archive to a safe place when they came across an unfinished book on Gloster Aircraft being written by Jack.  While browsing through the file Phil came across some photos of the PR.3 and PR.5, these are never before seen photos of these two aircraft with the PR.3 being an un-armed Mk.III with oblique cameras in the nose with the windows on either side just by where the nose wheel leg is when extended, and the PR.5 being an un-armed Mk.IV with the nose looking just like a PR.10.  The serial numbers are EE338 for the Mk.III and VT347 for the PR.5, unfortunately the PR.5 crashed with fatal consequences on it's maiden flight when doing a low fast pass of the airfield, apparently the fuselage sides around the fuel tanks failed and the aircraft disintergrated.  These photos have dispelled the myth that these were to be armed aircraft.

Now I have some use for a PR.10 nose I have which will be used to make the PR.5 and also I'll convert one of the Mk.IIIs I have to do the other one.

Cheers,
Robert

[Maverick]

I'm actually a bit surprised they would have designated it a PR.3, given that the F.III was produced.  From what I've gathered the RAF rarely if ever use the same numeral between different roles on a type (eg: Spit F.IX, PR.X. PR.XI, F.XII).

Regards,

Mav

[kitnut617]

Actually Mav you're right, it wasn't officially designated a ""PR.3""  It was a Mk.III taken for conversion where the guns were removed and the camera installed in the nose.  The windows for the camera look like those found on a RF-80, with the odd looking framework that is used to make a flat piece of glass conform to the compound curves of the nose. The camera could only be used looking sidewards.  It was delivered to Benson in Dec '45 but it too crashed ten months later while on trials.

[NARSES2]

Well I built an FR 3 a couple of years back for a GB (photo's are on my old pc, still to be transferred) Used Airfix Meteor and a "Blackbeard" Productions resin nose Wook's gave me  Never knew there was a real project for a PR version

[kitnut617]

The photos that were found are believed to have been taken by someone working on the projects but not for official purposes.  The Gloster Archive at the Jet Age Museum does not have them (well, didn't until these photos were discovered).  Phil Buttler writes that there is a lot of things written about FR.3's and 5's but most of it was just hearsay, these photos have revealed that both version were to be pure PR types without armament.

[kitbasher]

I'm actually a bit surprised they would have designated it a PR.3, given that the F.III was produced.  From what I've gathered the RAF rarely if ever use the same numeral between different roles on a type (eg: Spit F.IX, PR.X. PR.XI, F.XII).

Well, nearly but not quite right I'm afraid, Maverick.  The Spit is a good example of several role designators being used for the same mark, eg F.IX, LF.IX , HF.IX and PR.IX (honestly - about a dozen IXs were finished as PR (not FR) machines).  And then the Mk VIII was built in F, LF and HF versions, and the XIV in F and FR versions.  So if the PR.3 was a PR conversion of the Mk 3, the designation would fit.  Further examples are the Lancaster B and PR 1; B, GR and MR 3; Shackleton MR2 and AEW2.