HK Models 1/32 Meteor

[morane]

On 9/3/2022 at 10:50 PM, Ali62 said:

I may be incorrect BUT I AM ALMOST 100% sure the Meteor was a bought over project. Another company started it, they went bust or something and then it was bought over by HKM. So personally my thoughts are they were never really interested in the subject and they may not have all the data etc. 

I have said it before there is quite a lot wrong with the Mk.4, but like many it looks not bad when built. I have also mentioned it before I have discussed the issues with Paul Fisher and he agrees, and his conversions were quite tricky to do as they needed to fit the kit, sacrificing some of the accuracy. Oh and one of my main source of reference is a set of unpublished drawings by John Adams. I too have lots of references and done some of my own measurements with regards to the Meteor.

I may be proven very incorrect, BUT I highly doubt we will see more Meteor versions by HKM.

 

 

Hello 
I would be very interested to know the errors you may have noticed on the HK Meteor.

Richard

[Dpgsbody55]

19 hours ago, Tony T said:

 

I agree re the F.8 Meteor, and think the same about the T.7 and NF derivatives. A pity Neil (apparently) isn't interested. I have the Fisher sets but would prefer plastic.

 

Tony 

 

I doubt we'll ever see aT.7 or NF versions of the "Meatbox".  I wish I'd bought the F8 Fisher conversion but I did thankfully buy the Fisher T.7 conversion and this went together very well.  It was my fist serious resin conversion and no problems to build.

 

You can see my WIP here if you want some inspiration.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

[ade rowlands]

9 hours ago, morane said:

Hello 
I would be very interested to know the errors you may have noticed on the HK Meteor.

Richard

 

From memory one of them is they only put the cannon shell ejection chutes on one side of the lower fuselage. I only had the kit briefly before selling it on so don’t really remember any others, possibly something engine related.

Edited September 6, 2022 by ade rowlands

[Tony T]

3 hours ago, Dpgsbody55 said:

 

I doubt we'll ever see aT.7 or NF versions of the "Meatbox".  I wish I'd bought the F8 Fisher conversion but I did thankfully buy the Fisher T.7 conversion and this went together very well.  It was my fist serious resin conversion and no problems to build.

 

You can see my WIP here if you want some inspiration.

 

 

Cheers,

Michael

 

Thanks Michael. Love your build — and two engines!  Got just the one Profimodeller Derwent set but I'm seeing the benefits of installing two.  

I'm a bit more optimistic about seeing a 1/32 NF Meteor kit in the fulness of time, albeit a full 3D print or resin kit. For now, the smaller scales provide nice stocking fillers. 

 

Still wondering what the new tool 1/32 kit HK Models' offering will be. I've lost track with all the starts, stops and changes in direction, but if the Spey Toom's on indefinite idle and the P-51B and Ju-52 have been ditched the field's wide open. Just hope it's something exclusive to them so they can get a good few runs. 

 

Tony 

[thierry laurent]

11 hours ago, morane said:

Hello 
I would be very interested to know the errors you may have noticed on the HK Meteor.

Richard

The front section of the engine air intakes is off and this is quite noticeable. This is very probably the worst issue of the kit.

[thierry laurent]

11 hours ago, morane said:

Hello 
I would be very interested to know the errors you may have noticed on the HK Meteor.

Richard

The front of each engine is replaced by a blanking plate with basic features. Obviously you can get Profilmodeller engines but they are not cheap, not easy to build and, far worse, they are noticeably incomplete! The Meteor Derwent had huge hoses covered by asbestos tape over their top sides. Simply look at the 1/48th Airfix kit. It has them. I agree it is not easy to find good pictures of them but they are very visible when the engine hatch is removed. Too bad.

 

[Tony T]

1 hour ago, thierry laurent said:

The front of each engine is replaced by a blanking plate with basic features. Obviously you can get Profilmodeller engines but they are not cheap, not easy to build and, far worse, they are noticeably incomplete! The Meteor Derwent had huge hoses covered by asbestos tape over their top sides. Simply look at the 1/48th Airfix kit. It has them. I agree it is not easy to find good pictures of them but they are very visible when the engine hatch is removed. Too bad.

 

 

There's a good walk-around of a Derwent here on LSP...

https://www.largescaleplanes.com/walkaround/wk.php?wid=181

 

For the braided wiring, use metallic tinsel cord (used for gift tags) inserted and glued into holes made with a pin vise. That and fuse wire. Laborious but effective. For non load bearing joins Revell Contacta clear universal glue (bit like clear nail varnish, which also works) is a great adhesive. I've learned so much about useful modelling materials from the stuff my wife uses.

 

Tony 

 

 

[thierry laurent]

57 minutes ago, Tony T said:

 

There's a good walk-around of a Derwent here on LSP...

https://www.largescaleplanes.com/walkaround/wk.php?wid=181

 

For the braided wiring, use metallic tinsel cord (used for gift tags) inserted and glued into holes made with a pin vise. That and fuse wire. Laborious but effective. For non load bearing joins Revell Contacta clear universal glue (bit like clear nail varnish, which also works) is a great adhesive. I've learned so much about useful modelling materials from the stuff my wife uses.

 

Tony 

 

 

Thanks Tony. 

 

Unfortunately you never see the hoses I mentioned out of the engine bay. You can just see them when the engine is in the wing and the top hatch is removed. So, engine walkaround pictures are useless to depict them. Moreover scratchbuilding them is not easy as they have a variable cross-section.  

 

Thierry 

[Rockie Yarwood]

3 hours ago, Tony T said:

For the braided wiring, use metallic tinsel cord

Thanks for the tip, Tony. I see a trip to the craft store in my future...

 

[Tony T]

2 hours ago, thierry laurent said:

Thanks Tony. 

 

Unfortunately you never see the hoses I mentioned out of the engine bay. You can just see them when the engine is in the wing and the top hatch is removed. So, engine walkaround pictures are useless to depict them. Moreover scratchbuilding them is not easy as they have a variable cross-section.  

 

Thierry 

 

You do sometimes. Just wrap 1-2mm masking tape around fuse wire as that is what they resemble — like a couple of bandaged pipes. 

Walk around pictures are supremely useful in getting the basics right, reducing clutter. Once done, then just add the two wrapped pipes and attach them to the bulkheads. I believe these were just part of a hot bleed anti-icing system.

Anyway, that's what's planned here. 

 

Tony 

[thierry laurent]

Thanks Tony. I always wondered about what they were intended for.

[morane]

Hello everyone and thank you for your answers.
I'm aware of the problems of the engine nacelles (for this I have the Fisher correction kits) I also have an engine from promodeler, which actually requires a lot of work if you want to get closer to reality.
In fact in his post Ali seems to suggest problems of forms and dimensions, it is on these points that I would have liked clarifications

Richard

[Ali62]

Here is a brief on my findings, these are based on comparing the1/48 Classic airframe kits, 1/48 Airfix kit, 1/48 Tamiya kit, WARPAINT DRAWINGS credit to David Howley and John Adams, plus the additional 1/48 scale drawings that John Adams provided me with. So with all of these considered and making allowances for measuring, scaling etc. this is as accurate as it will get, well I may get to do even more work but this shows the major areas. Note all of the above almost match each other if scaled up and or down, the one that does not match is the 1/32 kit.

Where this throws the look out is when you make the 2 seat options as the fuel tank scribed lines are in the incorrect place and therefore when comparing to photographs things look ‘off’. The other area is the dimension from the leading edge to the base of the fin is approximately 8-10mm to short, once again when designing alternatives these dimension variations makes it very tricky to get things correct.

Added to this BUT at this point I do not have definitive results, I think the F.4 canopy is not correctly shaped and or proportioned. Almost convinced the fuselage cross section is not quite correct, I shall investigate further.

Added to the issue of the engine nacelles and some other details this is not a great kit.

BUT BEFORE I get shot down in flames, built up it looks like a Meteor, especially a Mk.4 so take it as it is, or not.

to make other versions the way the kit is broken down will mean a lot of changes if not entirely new kit, well especially the major components and that is not even talking about making it more accurate…… so therefore I cannot seeing that being an option for HKM, without a total revisit to the topic

 

FINAL DISCLOSURE this is my findings, willing to discuss any that have documented differences.

 

 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Ali62

[morane]

Thank you Ali,
Your observations are very interesting.

But the question is if we move the tail fin 8 or 10 mm, is the total length of the model consistent with the real Meteor?

Richard 

[thierry laurent]

25 minutes ago, morane said:

Thank you Ali,
Your observations are very interesting.

But the question is if we move the tail fin 8 or 10 mm, is the total length of the model consistent with the real Meteor?

Richard 

 

The main issue is where are the millimeters missing? If this is located in a specific location it makes sense to consider correcting it. But this may be a total nightmare to restore the correct fuselage tapering from the front to the rear. However, if the error is distributed along most if the not the full length, forget it. The result will be worse than the initial problem!