Did a Meteor ever go Supersonic?

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Chaps,

Perhaps you might be able to settle a discussion that I had with my Sister's Father-in-Law. He is a lucid Ex Halifax Bomber Nav of fairly mature years (!) who proclaims to have witnessed a Meteor F? go supersonic in about 1948. He was on the ground, and the said fighter carried out the flight overhead, clearly in a full power dive. His recollection is a 'sonic' boom and hence his stance.

I maintained that the Meteor had neither the wing form, engine intake design, or the thrust to allow this to happen, and I thought there would be a very good chance that the fighter would go out of control due to compressibility effects around the very small tail.

What do you all think? Possible?

My only possible explaination for the 'Booms', was the surging of both engines due to intake compressibilty. However, I stand to be corrected as I have been horribly wrong before!!

All Ex 'Meatbox' drivers please drag the memory banks and help me out. Personally, I think it would be fantastic if I could prove the Old Fella right!!! :ok:

Regards in anticipation,

Advo

[Jackonicko]

Opinion from an old pilot with F.Mk 4, T.Mk 7 and PR.Mk 10 in his logbook.

No chance.

No way on earth.

Impossible.

[BEagle]

Ah - the 'power dive'. Another aeronautical mystery ranking alongside the 'tail spin' and the 'air pocket'...........

I cannot imagine any Meatbox going supersonic more than once - because that would probably have been unsurvivable.

[forget]

Advo, Are you about to tell 'a lucid Ex Halifax Bomber Nav of fairly mature years' --- Ya Boo, Told you so! :hmm:

[Flatus Veteranus]

I knew a chap who thought he saw M0.9, but everything was shaking itself to pieces and he lost his tailplane before he could grab the "blind". (Mk 1 seat). His chute deployed so low that he broke his back. But the Bedouin took great care of him and he lived to fly again. (And die in a later Javelin prang, I believe!). No way could a Meatbox go supersonic and survive.:sad:

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Forget,

Actually no, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman, to such an extent that I questioned my own understanding of High Speed Aerodynamics. What I seem to have got however, is an affirmation of my thesis.

However, where did his 'Sonic Boom' come from? Engine Surge? or other effect. I would have thought a 'Meatbox' doing anything over about 0.8M could make any number of noises!!!!

Can any of you (Meteor) experienced chaps remember the Vne or Mne limits?

Regards,

Advo

[henry crun]

The Mk 8 vne was either 510 or 530, can't remember after all this time.
NF11 was much reduced at 430, because of the big doors over the guns and ammo boxes outboard of the engines.

I suggest that anyone who saw over about .82 had a wildly overreading mach meter.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Henry,

Thank you, that is helpful. 510Kts @ 25- 30k would equate to about 0.8M. Looking at the physical design of the a/c, I personally couldn't see it being able to achieve much more.

However, what about the engines? were they prone to surge at higher speeds, were there any limitations?

Advo

[Bob Viking]

Are you sure your maths is correct?
510 Kts at 25-30 k is probably a little bit more than M0.8!
BV:ok:

[LowObservable]

<<I knew a chap who thought he saw M0.9, but everything was shaking itself to pieces and he lost his tailplane before he could grab the "blind". (Mk 1 seat). His chute deployed so low that he broke his back. But the Bedouin took great care of him and he lived to fly again. (And die in a later Javelin prang, I believe!).>>

Reminds me of the cat called Lucky...

[elf]

Asked my father about this. He flew with chap picked up by Bedouin before the incident took place. Stated that he recalled that it was a 208 Sqn pilot although at this stage "mad as hatters" came into the conversation and we moved on.
His answer to the possibility of the Meteor going supersonic was that it could have happened as long as the fuselage and wings were occupying different parts of the sky - otherwise no chance.
Recalls Vne for Mk 8 as 535 and Mne as 0.8.

[The_Baron]

According to AP 2210H & J ( Meteor 8/9) Pilots notes, the limits were : from sea level to 2000ft 515Knots; 2000 to 20000 M0.80 and above 20000 no limit. The T7 Notes (AP 2210G) show slightly lower limits. From memory, compressibility precluded excursions much past M0.80 as there would be wing drops and control could be lost till denser air was encountered. I do not think that anyone could get a Meatbox through M1.0 although I would like to be proved wrong.

[henry crun]

advocatusDIABOLI: I have not heard of, or experienced, surge at any speed or altitude with a Derwent, it just kept going regardless of how it was treated, or for that matter, mistreated.

I never forced a Meteor to an out of control in compressibility stage, though I did witness it once

I was cruising northbound in the middle of England at about 35,000ft when I saw a gleam up high in my 11 o"clock, it was a Mk 8 tipping in on me on a high quarter.

He started to flick just as I lost sight of him in my 7 o"clock, and was still flicking completely out of control when he reappeared at about my 5 o"clock.
The silly bugger disappeared into the cloud tops, which were at about 25,000ft, and I didn't see any report of an accident next day so I presume he recovered.

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Thank You All, for your most helpful replies.

Regards,

Advo

[9arrow]

At RAF "At Home" airshows in the early fifties it was customary to fly a Hunter or Sabre faster than the speed of sound. If this was not possible,I remember a Meteor being flown in a fast pass along the runway while some airman would let of two firecrackers from the tower. This happened on one occasion at Wattisham. Maybe this is what the gentleman saw.

Cheers,

Dave

[dakkg651]

Either that or the bang was the sound of a Martin Baker letdown initiation!

[Kitbag]

FWIW centrifugal compressors are far less sensitive than axial flow when it comes to surging. They are also less efficient which is why they have fallen into disuse for 'jet' propelled aircraft.

[grusome]

BEagle,
OTOH, the cartwheel had to be seen to be believed - Laverton, Victoria, c1954.
Gru

[aw ditor]

Only flew the Meatbox briefly at Worksop (Asymmetric Course on 7s' and 8s') but concur with everything said above. Good Book by Nick Carter "Meteor EJECT" via Woodfield Publishing, might convince any doubters'.

[Bof]

Brings a tear to my eyes. Have you noticed guys, it only needs one post by one of our younger brethen asking a question about the the Meteor, and us oldies immediately turn out in force with the answer and our reminiscencies.
I remember that feeling at about .82M as the controls went solid and the right wing started to drop. Still happened on the NF14 at the same speed but you really had to be pointing downhill. The old girl would only reach aroun .74M in level flight which is why the Canberras were often restricted to about .7 in the big exercises, so that the Meatboxes had a sporting chance of catching one!!

[Legalapproach]

Pilots notes for the NF 11/14 read
Above 10,000 feet
With ventral tank only. As speed is increased there is a slight nose-up change of trim. At 0.78M the flying controls become very heavy and general airframe buffeting commences. At about 0.79M either wing may drop slowly necessitating a very strong restraining force. Moderate rudder buffeting commences at 0.81M and porpoising may occur. At this stage the control forces are so heavy that 0.81M is the practical limit to which the aircraft may be flown.
Maximum speeds are shown as:
a) Sea level to 10,000 feet 430 Kts
b) 10,000 to 29,000 0.78M
c) above 29,000 No limit for structural reasons: only limited by controlability

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Firstly,

Bob, you are correct sir, my maths was pants! I really should be ashamed.

Secondly,

Bof, Nice of you, but I'm really not that young!! My experience however is in Interceptors that can go Supersonic Up Hill!!

Finally, I have enjoyed reading all the posts, particularly the reminiseses. My conclusion is this:

It couldn't happen, without someone having a really bad day :eek: . Actually, it probably couldn't happen at all, as the bad day would happen first at about 0.9M. The only problem now is how to break the news to the 'old fella'. I'll probably go with the 'At Home Day story', I liked that one!!!

Please feel free to continue telling stories of your times on Meteors!

Regards to all,

Advo

[Bof]

AD
Supersonic uphill!! - Now you really are pulling our legs! You'll be telling us you had Inertial navigation next, or shooting at aircraft more than 300 yds away, or flying above 40 thou. That's the trouble with modern younger aviators - can't tell a tale without exagerating!

And as for all those figures from an NF pilot's notes. How can my 50 year memory cope with that! 'Course, if I sat in one tomorrow it would all come back in a flash! Cor, supersonic uphill! I should co-co!!

[forget]

The only problem now is how to break the news to the 'old fella'.

You won't do it. :) You'll have a beer with him, or whatever you two drink, and next time the super-sonic Meteor is mentioned, you'll nod, and sip on whatever you two drink. :ok: Tell me I'm wrong when it's happened.

[phil gollin]

As we are talking of old Meteors, how about this.

The main visual difference between the F.III and F.4 was the longer nacelles on the engines. Supposedly some of the last production F.IIIs were produced with longer nacelles.

Does anyone know which airframe numbers these were and when the production line change occured.

(If people don't know the answer, do they know where any Meteor experts are located so that I could ask them)

Thanks

[XV277]

The last 15 F3s produced had the longer F4 style nacelles.

I don't have the serials to hand, and there's no guarantee that the number order equates to the production order!

I'll have a look in a couple of books later

[forget]

Good stuff here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_Meteor


No. 616 Squadron RAF received the first Meteor F 3 on 18 December 1944. This was a substantial improvement over the Meteor F 1, but the basic design still had not reached its full potential. Wind tunnel and flight tests demonstrated that the original short nacelles that extended just before and behind the wing, contributed heavily to compressibility buffeting at high speed. New, longer nacelles not only cured some of the compressibility problems but added 120 km/h (75 mph) at altitude, even without upgraded powerplants. The last batch of Meteor F 3s featured the longer nacelles while other F 3s were retrofitted in the field with the new nacelles. The F 3 also had the new Rolls-Royce Derwent engines, increased fuel capacity, and a new larger, more strongly raked bubble canopy.

[BEagle]

Were the longer nacelles the ones I've heard referred to as 'heavy breathers'?

Mind you, for long Meteor nacelles, you'd be pushed to beat these:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/nenemeteor.jpg

Meteor IV RA490 with twin 'deflected jet' Nene 101s, RAF Merryfield 1953/54. Later trials showed that it could be flown at speeds down to 70KIAS.....

Wouldn't want to lose one at low speed on the approach.....:eek:

[Green Flash]

Reminds me of a story my Dad (ex mob) told me. Whilst visiting his folks in the north of York he heard a 'boom' above the clouds and a Meteor came howling out of a high cloud base, engines going full chat and ploughed into the ground just north east of York aerodrome, near the York/Scarborough railway line. Nothing left. Think this happened early '50's.

[henry crun]

Beagle: At one point in the production of the Mk 7, and all Mks after that, the intakes were increased in diameter.
These were generally known as deep breathers.

Perhaps these were what you heard called heavy breathers.

[Topofclimb]

Don't forget you don't need to be at Mach 1 to have parts of the airframe supersonic. I've seen small shock waves forming as low as .7 something so its quite possible that a high speed dive at .8 and a hard pull could produce some form of shock waves on the aircraft although whether that would make a "boom" I'm not sure although I think its highly likely!

[normally right blank]

The quite loud "bang bang" windowrattling crack of a supersonic pass - mostly high level ones -was quite characteristic. Almost never heard today. (Except when an F-something get too involved in a dogfight, and the tropopause is not as predicted. :uhoh: ) But there was the Meteor "blue note"! It certainly stopped you in your tracks. They seemed to go pretty "high speed", but were probably slowing for landing (and in idle?). (I lived for 20 years 3 NM North of Karup, EKKA). The Hunter had something similar, but not so "deep". Hunter example: Two Hunters on "rat patrol" catching four G-91's and "gunning" them: Strange deep howl from the Avons' slowing to the Fiats' full out speed. :cool: In 25 years daily listening to Drakens I heard the same thing only a handful of times. (It had an Avon 200 engine). But the Meteor was something else - though hopefully never "near" supersonic. It would have been fatal. (Danish total losses pr. 10.000 flying hours: Meteor 4 - 9.13. F-16 - 0.45. Meteor 7's unknown, but 7 lost of 9. One scrapped, one preserved. Seven crashed. First loss after 4 months pulling the wings off in a high speed pull up.:sad:

[The_Baron]

I believe that the 'blue note' was something to do with the gun ports. Certainly the Meteor produced a great sound at 500 KIAS +; the Hunter also produced a blue note - but at a greater speed - around 600 KIAS I think. The blue note was always a feature of a 'beat up' if you could get away with it. Perhaps Whooligan can shed some light on the Hunter blue note.

[Gainesy]

Used to get the blue note from 45 and 58 Sqn's Hunters at Wittering and the run and break was nowhere near 600.

[Bof]

And you did't need anything near 500+ on a Meteor either.

[Dr Jekyll]

Getting slightly off topic here, but why was the meteor designed with the engines so far apart? I would have thought that engines closer to the wing root would have improved handling response and single engine behaviour. It seems especially odd since early jet engines would presumably be expected to be relatively unreliable.
The same question also applies to the canberra of course.

[Gainesy]

The mindset of leaving room for the props on a twin-engined aircraft?

[Green Flash]

Given that early jets wern't the most flexible of things, perhaps the airflow outboard was cleaner than round the nose/down the sides, therefore leaving the motors less prone to intake turbulence and flameout? :confused: Me no expert, mind. Or maybe gas ingestion from the guns?

[BEagle]

Presumably, the Meteor's undercarriage had to go somewhere and couldn't be included in the nacelles (as on the Mosquito) for obvious reasons. Moving the engines inboard and the undercarriage outboard would need a much stronger outer wing section due to root bending moments - and longer undercarriage legs as well due to dihedral etc? Which would have limited the available payload or performance. So, fix the undercarrriage location and place the engine carrying structure immediately outboard?

Then do something similar on the Canberra?

But the CF-100 designers obviously learned a trick or two from such British eccentricity!

[Mike Read]

My last flight in a Meteor (and in the RAF) was in June 1969 ferrying one of Chivenor's TT Flt a/c to St Mawgan prior to a runway resurface at Chiv. I had been a regular Meteor pilot since my first flight in a Mk 7 at Valley in 1951 and from 1952 had been a Meteor QFI/IRE. I have never heard anyone suggest it is possible for the beast to go much more than .8m. Latterly, i.e. up to my retirement, it was considered unwise to exceed 400 kts ias. If you had ever spun one and heard the moans and groans from even a relatively new airframe and then wound one of these old ladies up to the 400 mark and heard similar noises with modest amounts of "g" you would have not wanted to go any faster.

As for the "blue note", a flight of them joining the circuit at about 350k for a break and landing was a sweet sound. The object of the break was to enable a/c to maintain a tactical battle formation as long as possible and then spend as short a time as possible in the circuit. Hence run in on the deck, then pull up into the circuit throttles closed, airbrakes out decelerating and flying as tight a pattern as you could. The experts leading would almost make a glide approach and those following would aim to be about 500yds apart for touchdown and if all four aircraft weren't on the runway together by the time the lead reached the end questions would be asked. Any speed above about 350k would result in a rather too large circuit. It was all great fun but really not terribly practical.

Incidentally I recently saw the Martin Baker 7/8 fly over my house at a very sedate speed. It brought a lump to my throat!

[Jaguar Pilot]

Yes old chap.

It was called a Lightning. The F3 with 301 Avons had a subsonic climb speed of 450kt/M0.9, supersonic was 500kt/M1.1 if my memory serves me correctly.

JP

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Interestingly, most modern or not even modern Interceptors / Fighters can climb supersonic. F14, F15, F16, Mig29, Su27, Tornado even! (Clean). Certainly the Typhoon has difficulty NOT going super in the climb and the EE Lightning is just an older example of the same order of performance.
However, in most cases, supersonic climb is not the most efficient profile or doesn't generate the optimum climb rate/angle, so actually most fighters don't do it routinely.

But it's nice to have the choice!

PS: Harriers Can't....... Nuff Said.

Advo

[Jaguar Pilot]

The only reason for a supersonic climb back in the 60's was to achieve a fast/late intercept, albeit an expensive way of doing it.

The rate of climb (power available v power required) suffered only slightly - it was groundspeed that was required.

I don't think the Harrier could go supersonic even in a dive - check the intake/fan architecture.

[normally right blank]

Thank you all for keeping the "corporate memory", "story telling" etc. (Smart companies selling this concept for mega-bucks ;) ). Anyway, not to corrupt the "memory": ..(It had an Avon 200 engine). .. I was wrong.
The Danish Drakens were fighterbombers and about twice as heavy as the fighter Swedish, Finnish and Austrian ones. They, as the late fighter ones, had RM 6C (Rolls-Royce RB.146 Mk. 60 Avons - i.e. Avon 300's. Licence built by Volvo Flygmotor. With Swedish afterburner supposed to be the longest jet engine in the world?). From pilots' reports a very "carefree", non surging engine by the way.
Some clever fellow, Bill Gunston ?, once wrote that "the Draken did the same as the Lightning, but with half the number of engines". Supersonic up hill? Over to Sweden!
Best regards
P.S. Did you know the Meteor intake fairings were made of wood?

[advocatusDIABOLI]

Forget,

My dear chap, you are ofcourse totally right! I am having dinner with the gent at the weekend, and I guess (know!) the subject will come up. My plan is to avoid the technical, and simply say ' My, that must have been something! what a great Jet the Meteor was.... etc etc'

Thanks for the (what should have been obvious :ugh: ) advice. If there are any better suggestions, I'd love to hear them!?

Regards to all,

Advo

[normally right blank]

Yep! Like the old Danish pilot on seeing a YF-16 out-turning an F-4 in 1975 in Vaerloese. "I could have done better with my Meteor". ;)

[Jaguar Pilot]

Not difficult to out-turn an F4, especially if you could get him low on energy.

[luffers79]

226 Day Fighter O.C.U. (Meteors), R.A.F. Stradishall - May 1954.
A few other students & I, on a clear day, were counting our air to air scores on the "flag" when the Wing Commander (Flying), who happened to be there, suddenly shouted, "Look !!" - pointing skywards towards the Eastern end of the runway.
There was one of our Meteor 8´s (flown by a student) at about a thousand feet, going VERY fast, Vertically, about to tent-peg about a mile away !!
Subsequently we were told of a Sabre pilot, flying at altitude near there & going downhill at .86 Mach, saw a Meteor in the process of "bouncing" him. Apparently the Meteor went Screaming passed him - last seen going vertically down. No "boom" heard though, by me.

[Bof]

Luffers,

Sorry to pee on your Sabre mate's story, but there is no way that he could have been bounced by a "Box" at .86M After about .83 he would have had no really effective aerodynamic control. As for turning, forget it, the controls would not have been capable of doing anything!! Point your toes, you're going in like a tent peg!!

[henry crun]

Hmmm, Strad 1954, if the wing/co flying was who I presume it to be, surely he would have said
"L L L L L L L L L L L L L L ooooooooooook" ? :}

[luffers79]

Bof.
I am aware of your point about .83M, of course - and that is why I made reference to the figure of .86M.
However, I don´t recall making any references to "control" or "turning".
P.S.
The Sabre pilot was not my "mate".

[Tim Mills]

Henry, I remember it well: 'BBBBBBlue Section BBBBBreak PPPPPPort BBBBBreak PPPPPPort GGGGGGo!'

Great to have another Meatbox thread, long may they continue.

How about one about looping Vamp T11s from 30,000ft+, and the adventures resulting? It was in the syllabus, if I remember.

[Audax]

I seem to remember with the later marks of JPs being taught high level loops.We used to go above 30k in the Mk5, demo a high speed (!!) run then go into a Max Rate Turn to demo compressability. Following that, a descent IIRC to @25k to show a loop.

As for the spacing of the Meatbox engines, I always understood it was in case the jet turned out to be a white elephant and it left room for piston/prop replacement