Gloster Meteor

[kitnut617]

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

The first F.4 prototype was a converted F.III.  It used nacelles which were developed on one of the F9/40's (EE211), here I'm attempting to replicate the F9/40 from a photo that appeared in Air-Britain's Aeromilitaria quarterly a few years ago.  I'm using a Matchbox wing on the Airfix fuselage.




The photos showed that the nacelles narrowed down quite a bit at the tail pipe exit and were a bit longer as a result but was eventually revised to how the F.4 had them in service

[jcf]

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?

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

The 6-gun layout goes back to the original requirements for the F.9/40, Gloster got the Ministry to agree to a reduction to
four cannon, however the story doesn't end there:
"Strangely, although this agreement was reached only a few weeks after the brochures were submitted, the F.9/40 front
fuselage was built to accept six cannon armament and this basic structure remained remained virtually unaltered in every
mark of Meteor subsequently manufactured. As late as November 1946 the Meteor 4 type record included diagrams of
the front fuselage bulkheads with cannon locations marked 1 - 6, although all the stress calculations were carried out
with the two bottom cannon, Nos.3 and 4, deleted."
- pp. 45 - 46, Gloster Aircraft since 1917, Derek N. James, 2nd Edition Putnam 1981

As Robert pointed out the F.4 'prototype' was a converted F.3, number EE360. The F.4 was produced with both long
and short wings as the G.41F and G.41G, respectively.
"In the Autumn of 1946, after 100 F.4s had been constructed, it was realized that the airframe was not quite strong
enough to withstand completely the extra stresses incurred by the 111 m.p.h. increase in speed provided by the
Derwent 5 engines. Most of the extra stresses were absorbed by the wing structure and a major re-design was necessary,
but this would have delayed deliveries to the R.A.F. and so a quick, and satisfactory alternative had to be found. Gloster's
design team came up with an answer which took the form of clipping 2 feet 10 inches from each wingtip, this modification
appearing first on EE525, the ninth production F.4."
-p.54, Macdonald Aircraft Monographs:The Gloster Meteor, Edward Shacklady, Doubleday edition 1963
The majority of long-wing F.4s were retrofitted with the short outer panels.

The photo of EE360 does not show a six gun armament, nor is any mention of it made in Shacklady's book
(nor do my other Meatbox references), however under the 'Special Purpose Meteor F.4s' section there is the following:
EE531. After tests with the Meteor F.3 the Royal Navy had thoughts about operating the F.4 as a
ship-board fighter. To this end EE531, which was originally used for gunnery trials for a prototype gun
installation, was transferred to Heston Aircraft on 14th August, 1946, for folding wing experiments. Later
a series of tests were carried out for the investigation into the effects of cannon blast on its nose cone.

Food for thought, eh? 

For an idea of what a long-span F.4 looked like look at the P.203 drawing in this thread:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,16717.msg235584.html#msg235584
The dotted lines on the drawing are the standard (F.1/F.3 type) long wing.

Jon

[rickshaw]

Thanks, Jon.  Loads of food for thought there.

[jcf]

Proof it pays to occasionally dig through your stacks of paper references :
Original six-gun F.9/40 layout (Gloster dwg Zc29066)
F.9/40M, the Metrovick F.2 powered DG204/G.

Both from 21st Profiles Vol. 2 No. 14.

[Gondor]

Wish I had seen the F2 drawing before the 46 GB started 

Gondor

[kitnut617]

Wish I had seen the F2 drawing before the 46 GB started 

Gondor

Why?  you project looks really good ---

[rickshaw]

Proof it pays to occasionally dig through your stacks of paper references :
Original six-gun F.9/40 layout (Gloster dwg Zc29066)
F.9/40M, the Metrovick F.2 powered DG204/G.

Both from 21st Profiles Vol. 2 No. 14.

Excellent!  Both looking very interesting.

Gondor your '46 GB contribution seems to me to have got the main details right so don't beat yourself too much.

[Gondor]

Just wait untill you see the next variant I build, more accurate, up to a point, and a little bit more different....

Gondor

[NARSES2]

Special Hobby are coming out with a 1/72 Trent Meteor, the Prone Meteor is already out.

Now I will be getting at least one and of was thinking of building one of them as either a land based or carrier based torpedo bomber ? Meteor's did make carrier landings on a trial basis so that's viable. I'm not to sure about the weight of the torpedo but if memory serves the USN had some light weight (in WWII terms) ones. So a BPF torpedo bomber ? I know there wouldn't be many if indeed any targets and the torpedo bomber was a bit of a dead end by this time but when ever has that stopped the powers that be, and besides the specification would have come before they realised the idea was old hat.

Chris

PS I'm happy to be contradicted by those more knowledgeable than me with ref to my writing off of the torpedo by the end of WWII.

PPS This idea came to me whilst enjoying a rather liquid lunch 

[kitnut617]

Now I will be getting at least one and of was thinking of building one of them as either a land based or carrier based torpedo bomber ? Meteor's did make carrier landings on a trial basis so that's viable. I'm not to sure about the weight of the torpedo but if memory serves the USN had some light weight (in WWII terms) ones. So a BPF torpedo bomber ? I know there wouldn't be many if indeed any targets and the torpedo bomber was a bit of a dead end by this time but when ever has that stopped the powers that be, and besides the specification would have come before they realised the idea was old hat.

Chris

Pretty much why the Wyvern was TF.1 (Torpedo/Fighter) when it was first introduced at the end of the war.  The RP did away with airbourne torpedos

[NARSES2]

Now I will be getting at least one and of was thinking of building one of them as either a land based or carrier based torpedo bomber ? Meteor's did make carrier landings on a trial basis so that's viable. I'm not to sure about the weight of the torpedo but if memory serves the USN had some light weight (in WWII terms) ones. So a BPF torpedo bomber ? I know there wouldn't be many if indeed any targets and the torpedo bomber was a bit of a dead end by this time but when ever has that stopped the powers that be, and besides the specification would have come before they realised the idea was old hat.

Chris

Pretty much why the Wyvern was TF.1 (Torpedo/Fighter) when it was first introduced at the end of the war.  The RP did away with airbourne torpedos

I was kinda thinking of the Wyvren when this idea hit me. Just thought they could have probably got the Trent Meteor into service sooner ?

[kitnut617]

Pretty much why the Wyvern was TF.1 (Torpedo/Fighter) when it was first introduced at the end of the war.  The RP did away with airbourne torpedos

I was kinda thinking of the Wyvren when this idea hit me. Just thought they could have probably got the Trent Meteor into service sooner ?

That might work too, the Trent Meteor had extended u/c legs so there was good prop clearance, there would be enough room for a center mount torpedo

[The Wooksta!]

Where does your extra fuel go?  IIRC, the F.III wasn't plumbed for wing tanks and a centreline torpedo is going to kill your belly tank.

[kitnut617]

Where does your extra fuel go?  IIRC, the F.III wasn't plumbed for wing tanks and a centreline torpedo is going to kill your belly tank.

Well considering that a 'torpedo' carrying version was never even thought about Lee, the wings being plumbed or not shouldn't be a problem, right ?  But you can have wingtip tanks or underwing pylon tanks, or both ----

[eatthis]

Where does your extra fuel go?  IIRC, the F.III wasn't plumbed for wing tanks and a centreline torpedo is going to kill your belly tank.

now if that isnt an excuse to put a torp under each wing i dont know what is!