Gloster Meteor Dinky Toy
 

Early 1950s, I actually got to sit in a Gloster Meteor (probably a Mk 4), on a Dutch airbase - that was still possible in those days.
And of course, I had a liitle diecast Dinky Toy Meteor on my bookshelf. Now long gone.....

So, seeing a Meteor flying again at this year's Farnborough obviously brought memories. And, a couple of days later, finding another little Meteor in a local 'collectables' shop, was a truly nice surprise.

And now I've discovered the same question I've asked myself many years ago...
On what Mark is the model (which supposedly dates from 1946) based?
The engine tail pipes are too thin for even a Mk 4. Is that the result of a casting problem, or was the original an even older Mark, with the narrower jet pipes?
(To see a photo of the diecast model, just google "gloster meteor dinky toy".)

Pure curiosity.... sure. But I'd surely be pleased and grateful to discover the answer after all those years!

I was lucky enough to sit in an F8 at Filton (thanks to my second-cousin war ace John Braham) and fly in a T7 from RAF Chivenor (CCF summer camp).

I had the original Dinky Toy and recall wondering about those exhausts at the time. Can't think of any reason for making them like that.

A later Meteor had alternative exhausts, normal ones at the rear and supplementary ones vectored downward, switched by a flap valve, for short take-off trials.

F1?

http://www.airpages.ru/img/gm1_1.jpg

Likely that it's either an F.1, as suggested in the previous post, or one of the early F.3 aircraft. Both were powered by the Welland, which had a considerably narrower jetpipe than the Derwent that powered subsequent aircraft:

http://www.airvectors.net/avmeteor_04.png

Putting the clues together sofar, it appears to be an early Mk III.
The tailpipes are the 'thin' ones of the Welland.
The wingtips are the round ones of the Mk III, not the straight 'cut-off' ones of the Mk IV.
The cockpit represents the sliding canopy of the Mk III, not the side-opening one of the Mk I.

Thanks all already !
Any more clues will be most welcome, of course !

Accuracy wasn't a strong point with Dinky - they were toys after all. Of the same vintage was the Shooting Star. With leading edge wing sweep but an unswept trailing edge it actually it looked better than the original IMHO :)

Cast items tend to shrink slightly as they cool and any inaccuracy in the die can be magnified by shrinkage. Also, since those days toy and model makers have become more interested in accuracy and the market is bigger and allows for improved technology.

Dunno about the Meatbox as I only experienced the T7 and that had Mcrit built into the canopy. The Vampire T11, which was a smooth, especially the tailplane, as any other Mk used to start bucking at about M.82 - 84 dependent on how bent the aircraft was.

I had several Dinky Meteors along with Swifts,Hunters and Javelins. These operated out of a frontline airfield on the sitting room floor whose runways consisted of laid down bog rolls which in those days were made of sterner stuff than they are today.

^ You just reminded me that I had a Gloster Javelin toy, not sure what brand, but it was my favourite plane at the time.

In the days when I was young enough to be allowed "toys" I also had, among other matchbox aircraft, a Meteor. However, my favourite one was a de Havilland Sea Vixen (along with a Supercharged Bently 4.5 litre).

I am looking forward to my second childhood so that I can start playing with "toys" again

S'land: I am younger than you and decades into my 2nd childhood....start yours immediately!

And my remembrance of my die cast Super-Mystere, wich judged by Google pictures must have been from Dinky, was likely awakened ;-)

I have two or three Dinky Meteors up in the attic (along with lots of others) which I started collecting from jumble sales etc when I was a kid. I was always of the impression that they were Mk.IIIs.

DINKY JETS
 

A later Meteor had alternative exhausts, normal ones at the rear and supplementary ones vectored downward, switched by a flap valve, for short take-off trials.


Realy!! Sounds like vectored thrust! Can anyone from that era confirm this.


Back to Dinkys, I had them all in the sixties, with an airfield inked into the kitchen table, before I was into real jets, now I have them all again, only more Hunters and Meteors, Lightnings, Sea Vixens, Javelins, and a Swift with its box. (not bothered what it's worth).

Westlands tested RA490 at RAF Merryfield in the early 1950s. It was a Meteor IV with F8 fin and small additional vertical fins on the tailplane; it was fitted with Rolls-Royce Nene engines and deflector vanes.

Although I don't remember seeing the aircraft itself, I certainly remember later exploring the test pits and tunnels over which it would be parked to do various tests.

All gone now, sadly....

As for RA490, sadly it ended its days on a fire dump.

No ejector seat, so the effect of a single engine failure at the 90 KIAS minimum speed at which it flew would have been....interesting.

Flight article from 1957 about the Nene Meteor:

meteor thirst | deflector vane | ramjet development | 1957 | 1897 | Flight Archive

I wouldn't liked to have been sitting in it at ANY speed below 90 knots.

In the 1950s I was also scheduled for an "air experience" flight in a T7 at RAF West Malling belonging to 500 Squadron (County of Kent) Aux.AF (the so-called "weekend flyers").

Unfortunately, the Saturday morning our CCF unit was taken to the airfield for the planned flights came just a day or so after the MoD had announced the disbandment of all Auxilliary squadrons, with immediate effect. Our excitement was rather dimmed when the anticipated air trips were cancelled, and instead a tour of the hangars and hardstandings was substituted. A number of the squadron pilots were also milling about disconsolately, it hit them even harder than us ... :sad:

However, many years later I came across the PPRuNe archive thread "Meteor Accidents - 1953", with the absolutely appalling toll of Meteor crashes and fatalities of that period, and reflected that maybe missing that flight wasn't such a bad thing after all! You were indeed lucky with your T7 flight henry crun, both for enjoying it, and surviving it!

Incidentally, I assume you are not the same 'henry crun' who made post No 2 in that accident thread ...