Gloster Meteor

[GTX]

AAAAAAGH!  Again, does no one ever f*cking THINK before grafting cowling from Aircraft A onto Aircraft B?  It may look right from a profile view but not in the other dimensions.  And just becauise you can do it, that doesn't mean that you should.

Chill out!

Regards,

Greg

[Daryl J.]

How about large intakes on that high altitude Meteor?   It'd tweak the caricature a bit further.      



Daryl J.

[Weaver]

From what I recall from an old IPMS magazine article the Airfix Meteor F3 has an inaccurate fuselage cross section which would make grafting it onto another Meatbox kit a pain - lots of filler as Wooksta suggests.  A wing swap probably will be the best way to go.  The Matchbox/Extrakit Meteor is admittedly a bit fiddly, but I wouldn'y say it's any worse than that, really, other than the misleading nose which is too long as discussed above.
Do stick with your NF14/F8 cross, though, sounds a good idea.  Wing tip Fireflash missiles (as per the Swift F7) could be draggy (as indeed could be anything else), so is a reheat option on the cards??
This is 'What If?' after all, so whatever floats your boat......and enjoy and post up pics of the finished item!

Missile-wise, I was thinking one of the following:

1. Firestreaks on the wingtips, plus maybe F-94-style rocket pods on the outboard leading edges. However, since I have nearly no stsh to raid, this wolud depend on me getting, say, a Lightning with alternative Firestreaks and Red Tops so that the former were spare.

2. Early (Folland) Red Deans on the tips, as per the real-life test-ship (there's a picture of this in BSP - Missiles & Hypersonics). These would have to be scratchbuilt, but since they're all straight tubes, rectangles and cones, that shouldn't be too much of a pain. Besides, Red Dean went through so many non-operational configurations that it's not unreasonable to suggest that any hypothetical operational version would be slightly different to the real test missiles.

On afterburners, yes I mentioned that in my "options list" below.

I quite like the idea of doing these two, plus a big-gun Trent version (one thing I do have lying around is a damaged Airfix F.3 with the appropriate short pods for a Trent version), but don't hold your breath - lots of other non-model stuff to do as well!

[Weaver]

No, having done various cut and shuts with several Meteor kits from various manufacturers, I know what I'm talking about!  I never said use the Airfix fuselage, I said use the nose, preferably with the cockpit in situ.  Yeah, you'd still have to fill the fuselage, but it's doable if fiddly.

Sorry, you've lost me: why am I cutting the fuselage at all? All I want to do is swap wings between an F.8 and an NF.14? 

[kitnut617]

No, having done various cut and shuts with several Meteor kits from various manufacturers, I know what I'm talking about!  I never said use the Airfix fuselage, I said use the nose, preferably with the cockpit in situ.  Yeah, you'd still have to fill the fuselage, but it's doable if fiddly.

Sorry, you've lost me: why am I cutting the fuselage at all? All I want to do is swap wings between an F.8 and an NF.14? 

I think what Lee is getting at is that the F.3 and F.8 have the same nose.  And as he said (and going back to page 2 in this thread I wish I had come up with that solution for one of my Rampage conversions) it would be far less work to graft on the nose than to rework the wing to fuselage joint.

[Weaver]

I see what you're getting at, but that then leaves me with:

1. A finished 8 x gun, single-seater with long nacelles, but an F.3 canopy,

2. A butchered Airfix F.3,

3. No clipped wing, missile-armed "NF.15".




Swapping wings between Xtrakit examples leaves me with:

1. A finished 8 x gun, single-seater with long nacelles and the correct canopy,

2. A finished clipped-wing, missile-armed "NF.15"

[kitnut617]

Swapping wings between Xtrakit examples leaves me with:

1. A finished 8 x gun, single-seater with long nacelles and the correct canopy,

2. A finished clipped-wing, missile-armed "NF.15"

I don't have the Xtrakit F.8 but I do have the MPM FR.9 and these are both basically the same kit (MPM makes the Xtrakit) and I also have the Matchbox NF.11/12/14 kit (lots of them) and I'm wondering how you will just swap the wings over from one to the other as they have completely different systems of attaching the wings.

Incidently, I also have an Aeroclub F.8 and the resemblance between it and the Xtrakit kit is very, very similar, did Aeroclub sell their moulds to Hannants and then they improved on it?

[Weaver]

I see what you're getting at, but that then leaves me with:

1. A finished 8 x gun, single-seater with long nacelles, but an F.3 canopy,

2. A butchered Airfix F.3,

3. No clipped wing, missile-armed "NF.15".




Swapping wings between Xtrakit examples leaves me with:

1. A finished 8 x gun, single-seater with long nacelles and the correct canopy,

2. A finished clipped-wing, missile-armed "NF.15"

What's the problem with having a butchered F3?  Surely you could use it for bits for another project (converting the F8 to a PR10 for example)?  A stash of gash bits is essential for a what if modeller.  Nothing is waste. 

Nothing in principle: I'm just comparing the outcomes of the two plans.

Also, I seem to recall that the Xtrakit Meteor has two different canopies? 

The Xtrakit F.8 has two canopies, but on your plan I'm not buying one, because I'm grafting an Airfix F.3 nose onto an NF. kt in order to get the 8 x gun single-seater. Or do you want me to but the F.8 as well, just for the spare canopy?

As for not having a clipped wing NF14, buy another!

And do what with it? Where is the set of short-span, gunless outer wings coming from?


Another thing's occured to me and I'd appreciate your opinion of it. The Meteor had a dead-straight transport joint just outboard of the engine, so you could, in principal, cut the outer wings off and swap them over, thus avoiding the whole issue of the wing-root construction. However, you'd lose a slice of wing in the thickness of the cut: how significant/difficult do you think this would be?

[kitnut617]

Another thing's occured to me and I'd appreciate your opinion of it. The Meteor had a dead-straight transport joint just outboard of the engine, so you could, in principal, cut the outer wings off and swap them over, thus avoiding the whole issue of the wing-root construction. However, you'd lose a slice of wing in the thickness of the cut: how significant/difficult do you think this would be?

That would be another way to do what you want to do Weaver.  As to the missing cut thickness, replace it with a piece of plastic card of the right thickness, I've done that before when cutting fuselages and wings.  When doing this method I'd make a wing spar too so you can keep the diheadral correct, on the Xtrakit it should be easy enough to do what with the continuous wing (I would make one before you did any cutting and use the existing profile of the kit parts), then just copy it for the Matchbox kit. 

[Weaver]

Holy thread revival!

The Wooksta informed us, in typically colourful fashion, that the Unicraft Trent Meteor conversion wasn't up to much. However, he didn't go into details, so now I'm asking, what EXACTLY is wrong with it?

Is it inaccurate, in which case it might not matter for a crazy whiff idea,

or

is it low-quality/badly fitting, in which case, for a whiff, a scratchbuilt "fantasy" turboprop installation might be just as good?

Here's another thought: since the Meatbox tested lots of the early jet engines and the first turoprop, What If it also tested an early turbofan, i.e. someone had the brainwave of dealing with the Trent's ground-clearance issues by fitting a multi-blade ducted fan to the front of a Derwent? The result would look a bit like a scaled-down version of those RB-57s fitted with TF-33s.

[kitnut617]

Holy thread revival!

The Wooksta informed us, in typically colourful fashion, that the Unicraft Trent Meteor conversion wasn't up to much. However, he didn't go into details, so now I'm asking, what EXACTLY is wrong with it?

Is it inaccurate, in which case it might not matter for a crazy whiff idea,

or

is it low-quality/badly fitting, in which case, for a whiff, a scratchbuilt "fantasy" turboprop installation might be just as good?

Here's another thought: since the Meatbox tested lots of the early jet engines and the first turoprop, What If it also tested an early turbofan, i.e. someone had the brainwave of dealing with the Trent's ground-clearance issues by fitting a multi-blade ducted fan to the front of a Derwent? The result would look a bit like a scaled-down version of those RB-57s fitted with TF-33s.

I'm not sure if anything is wrong with it as far as what it should look like, but the resin is typical Unicraft, lots of flash and full of bubbles.  From photos I've seen of the real thing it looks about right but the prop that gets supplied with the conversion isn't the correct one for what was used in flight, it seems to be copied from a photo that shows the engine on a test rig but without a spinner and the blade shape is totally wrong, they should look like the prop blades on a Griffon Spitfire only they are smaller and most importantly, they turn in the opposite direction to the Griffon so you can't use a Spit prop.  I tried making some from another type of prop but wasn't very successful but I have found a prop which will work quite well.  Aeroclub has a Sherpa kit in 1/72 (got one) and I found that the prop is just about right but it is a bit bigger in diameter which allows you to reprofile the tips to the correct shape, the spinner is just about spot on if you take the Unicraft one as being about right.  I wrote to Aeroclub asking if I could get just the props from the kit and was able to.

here's a few pics of the conversion I done so far, it's another stalled project I'm afraid though.  All you get is the nacelles and the kit doesn't address the extended u/c that the Trent Meteor got.  The nose leg is quite a bit different to the standard leg and it's mounted further forward in the nose, and although the main u/c legs were the same the trailing arm was set at a different angle.  Photos show that the standard u/c wheel axle is about where the bottom edge of wheel bay door is with the weight of the aircraft on the wheels, but on the Trent Meteor (and the Metro-Vick powered version) the bottom edge of the wheel bay door is about level with the top of the wheel hub (i.e. half the diameter of the hub higher),  I can't remember but I think you get a canopy with the conversion, you need a Mk.I Canopy for this.

Robert

[PR19_Kit]

Here's another thought: since the Meatbox tested lots of the early jet engines and the first turoprop, What If it also tested an early turbofan, i.e. someone had the brainwave of dealing with the Trent's ground-clearance issues by fitting a multi-blade ducted fan to the front of a Derwent? The result would look a bit like a scaled-down version of those RB-57s fitted with TF-33s.

..... or a PR19 even? 

The engines on the PR19 are exactly that, scaled down TF-33s from an RB-57F conversion that DB Models made to the wrong scale, as they're 1/82 apparently.

[Weaver]

Thanks for that Kitnut - hmmm dunno if I want one or not now. The canopy doesn't matter to me as mine would be based on a later airframe anyway, but the prop and u/c issues sound like a pain: I had the impression that the Unicraft kit included revised u'c.....

Kit - yeah I thought of that and nearly modified my post, but then I thought nah, I'll see how long it takes him to come back....

The TF-33 conversion was a whole new engine inserted into the front of a Canberra (or in your case, Meteor) engine pod and so was quite long in front of the leading edge. I rather imagined a fan fitted straight on the front of a Derwent would be shorter, with the cowl overlapping the body of the pod more.

[jcf]

Here's another thought: since the Meatbox tested lots of the early jet engines and the first turoprop, What If it also tested an early turbofan, i.e. someone had the brainwave of dealing with the Trent's ground-clearance issues by fitting a multi-blade ducted fan to the front of a Derwent? The result would look a bit like a scaled-down version of those RB-57s fitted with TF-33s.

The Metrovick F.3 had an aft thrust augmentor fan and the F.5 was to have an aft mounted contra-rotating blade thrust augmentor ... basically an unducted fan.


Metrovick F.3

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%200022.html
F.5 article from Flight - Jan, 1947





p.s. Terry 'braincells37' Moore built a Trent Meteor years ago without a conversion kit, its one of those conversions that doesn't really
require aftermarket, aside from sourcing the props.

[PR19_Kit]

Kit - yeah I thought of that and nearly modified my post, but then I thought nah, I'll see how long it takes him to come back....

The TF-33 conversion was a whole new engine inserted into the front of a Canberra (or in your case, Meteor) engine pod and so was quite long in front of the leading edge. I rather imagined a fan fitted straight on the front of a Derwent would be shorter, with the cowl overlapping the body of the pod more.

4 hrs and 5 mins then......... 

Rolls-Royce's early fan engines had full length cowls, the Conways on the VC10 as an example, and by today's standards would hardly count as fan engines because of the low by-pass ratio. Your history would require some serious time shifting to enable the engine designers to learn about high by-pass ratios 20 years earlier, but then we are in Whiffland after all. 

The big problem with doing anything radical to a Meteor engine mounting would be the ring frame around the engine itself. The standard Derwent ones were pretty big, a full length fan engine ring frame would be ginormous by comparison. Somewhere there's a published photo of the Sapphire engined Meteor test bed with the cowling removed, and the ring frame looks like it used to be part of the Forth Bridge!

Of course you could invent Unobtanium, which is MUCH stronger than titanium and weighs almost nothing, plus every Whiffer has vast stocks of it anyway.........