Gloster Meteor

[kitnut617]

From reading various books, the forward cockpit location started way before jet design began.  There was a train of thought of arming aircraft with very large calibre guns, 40mm, 57mm, 75mm etc and the best location for these guns was in the fuselage because of their size and problems with recoil and weight.  A method to mount these guns was to fire them through the spinner which meant they had to be mounted on or in the engine, another method was to move the engine behind the pilot.  The idea of large guns were the result of disastrous operations of attacking major ships with torpedos, the guns could be used in a 'stand-off' position, sometimes a mile or more away, instead of having to come in close to launch a torpedo.  A by-product of moving the engine behind the cockpit was that it was near the cg so installing a bigger engine (more power -- usually) was easier to accomplish.  A further by-product was the superior pilot's view of having the cockpit moved forward and a number of designs cropped up, the Rolls Royce PV or FTB and the earlier concepts which evolved into the Wyvern are good examples.  So very early designs of jets (British mostly at the beginning) had this feature (Meteor, Ace, Hawk, Attacker) but the USA soon followed suit.  The second generation German jets soon found this to their advantage too.  Of course the big gun theory was soon superceded by the arrival of the RP but the advantage of the forward cockpit wasn't forgotten.

I had always wondered what a mid-engined Spitfire would look like, the pic below gives you a good idea of what a mid-engined Mustang would have.  A mid-engined Spitfire probably would look like an Attacker on a diet.

[GTX]

Chaos,

I think you will find the Me-262's seating was more simply the result of evolution from earlier piston engined types which had the same rough arrangement.  Also, remember the initial prototypes still had a piston engine in the nose:




Regards,

Greg

[kitbasher]

What if Gloster went for a similar seating position to the Me-262:

Regards,
Greg

So a bit like http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,24765.msg382154.html#msg382154 (and see http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal10/9101-9200/gal9199-Scorpion-Janus/00.shtm)?

[jcf]

None of my various Meteor references show the mounting locations or spacing for the RP rails.
Anybody have a diagram or measurements?

[kitnut617]

Jon, if you can get hold of a copy of the Aerofax book 'Gloster Meteor' by Phil Butler and Tony Buttler, there's a photo on page 37 of the proposed ground attack Meteor (sometimes called the Reaper).  It's an almost underside view and I think you could scale off the photo.  If you don't have access to a copy, PM me your email addy and I'll see what I can do.  They are not exactly 'zero' length pylon either, they have a rod connecting each pylon.

[jcf]

Hi Robert,

I have several photos of the RAAF birds in Korea, but none are from the belly or straight on.
Were the mounts on the ground attack Meteor in the same location as the F.8, as I'm aware
it had extended wings.

I'm planning on modifying the mounts from the Dynavector Wyvern as they are the correct style.

PM sent.

[kitnut617]

The rail position certainly look the same, and I believe the extra wingspan was because of the wingtip fuel tanks are included where they look a permanent fixture.

Wyvern, Sea Fury, Attacker, any of those rails would be right.

[PR19_Kit]

The cover of Jan Zurakowski's book 'Legend in the Skies' shows a nearly underside view of the Reaper, complete with rails etc.

[jcf]

This photo gives me ideas.   



Link if the photo doesn't link directly:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alfblume/2284473292/

[rickshaw]

My goodness.  Just goes to prove there is nothing new under the sun!  And there I was thinking I was being smart in the '46 GB:

[PR19_Kit]

Reading the comments under the Flickr album piccie shows that the Aarlborg Museum folds the wings for storage. Reading between the lines suggests that the Museum engineered the fold, but you can see how that one piccie could change our perceptions of 'Sea Meteors'.

[jcf]

Reading the comments under the Flickr album piccie shows that the Aarlborg Museum folds the wings for storage. Reading between the lines suggests that the Museum engineered the fold, but you can see how that one piccie could change our perceptions of 'Sea Meteors'.

Especially the PR versions. 

[rickshaw]

Reading the comments under the Flickr album piccie shows that the Aarlborg Museum folds the wings for storage. Reading between the lines suggests that the Museum engineered the fold, but you can see how that one piccie could change our perceptions of 'Sea Meteors'.

I'd love to get a picture of the fold mechanism.

[rickshaw]

Just recently reading the old Profile on the Meteor F.4 several points leapt out at me.

The F.4 was originally designed to carry six 20mm cannons.  Four in the fuselage sides and two under the cockpit floor but they were never fitted except to the prototype because of dangers that a possible jammed round could present if armourers were forced to clear it on the ground.  Apparently access to the guns were a problem in that position and a hung round would be difficult to clear.   Does anybody have any pictures of the prototype with six guns?

The wingfold is actually quite possibly easily engineered from the description of the way the wing structure works, with a significant break at that position on the wing.   Apparently all that holds the outer wings on is several bolts.   If a connector was substituted between the bolt holes, you could then have a means of storing the wings in the folded position.   A naval version, as I suggested could have had a proper folding mechanism quite easily put in place.

Apparently the first prototype F.4 had long wings.  Does anybody have a picture or drawing showing this?

[Mossie]

Hi Robert,

I have several photos of the RAAF birds in Korea, but none are from the belly or straight on.
Were the mounts on the ground attack Meteor in the same location as the F.8, as I'm aware
it had extended wings.

I'm planning on modifying the mounts from the Dynavector Wyvern as they are the correct style.

PM sent.

Jon, I'm a bit late to the party, but the RAAF boxing of the MPM 1/72 F.8 has resin rockets included.

Instructions, showing mounting positions: http://www.model-making.eu/show_file.php?src=%2Fzdjecia%2F8%2F7%2F3%2F1334_2_MPM72543_7.jpg
Build by Brett Green on Hyperspace showing mounting positions (actually a modified Xtrakit boxing): http://hsfeatures.com/features04/meteorf872bg_1.htm