PDA

View Full Version : The Meteor: used during WW2 in action!



Aaron_GT
12-02-2004, 11:09 AM
"IIRC, the Meteor was not even allowed to fly over enemy territory, not to mention engaging enemy planes. "

Incorrect. They took engaged in ground attacks in Belgium during WW2 on many occasions.

Aaron_GT
12-02-2004, 11:09 AM
"IIRC, the Meteor was not even allowed to fly over enemy territory, not to mention engaging enemy planes. "

Incorrect. They took engaged in ground attacks in Belgium during WW2 on many occasions.

MEGILE
12-02-2004, 11:12 AM
The original poster corrected his mistake in the thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.simonides.org/~raf264sqn/aircraft/meteor/llne-abreast.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-02-2004, 11:48 AM
I believe the vast majority of it's wartime activities in WWII were limited to V-1 hunting.

I don't think they ever engaged german aircraft in combat, although I could be wrong.

MEGILE
12-02-2004, 11:54 AM
Correct.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h97000/h97044.jpg

BerkshireHunt
12-02-2004, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I believe the vast majority of it's wartime activities in WWII were limited to V-1 hunting.

I don't think they ever engaged german aircraft in combat, although I could be wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a recorded incident involving a flight of Meteors which was all set to attack some 190s- until they were themselves mistaken for German jets by some Spit XIVs and had to break off.
However, Meteors took part in many ground attack missions and on one occasion destroyed a convoy of 30 German supply trucks.

Daiichidoku
12-02-2004, 12:14 PM
The Meteor was always a sad sack....

It was Britains first op jet fighter, but sad performance

Its longevity was only due to fiscal restraints, it was squeezed into every concievable role based largely on that it was britains only jet fighter with any decent range available in numbers until a newer generation could be developed...which Britain didnt fare too well at, until the suberb Hawker Hunter, or the Vampire at its blossom, the Vemon

Aussie pilots in Korea wanted thier Furies back in a bad way, after discovering how lame thier new Meteors really were

Too slow for other jets, not manuverable enough, underpowered, suspect airframe strength in the tail, directional instability, particularly when firing guns, all in all not a great plane

But it gets my vote, next to the Vought Pirate, as #1 cr@p plane of the jetset

berg417448
12-02-2004, 01:12 PM
Here is some interesting Meteor history that a lot of people don't know about.


http://www.avhub.net/MI_u2meteorpr19incirlik.htm

..."Eventually the first PR19, W5761, made its first flight from Baginton on March 19th 1956, in the middle of the night. The flight was made using J-57-P-31 engines. These were special hand-built high altitude versions, and as soon as €˜761 was flown to Boscombe Down to start its full flight test programme, the capabilities of the remarkable engine/airframe combination became apparent. Offering twice the thrust of the U-2, with a larger wing area and only a little extra weight, the British aircraft was soon putting up performances that outstripped even "Kelly€s Angel". The U-2s had been routinely breaking the then current World Altitude Record of 65,890ft, held by Walter Gibb in the Olympus Canberra since August €˜55, in their flight tests. The PR19 annihilated it."

Aaron_GT
12-02-2004, 02:39 PM
"The Meteor was always a sad sack...."

Not entirely. It did actually see service in WW2, did creditable service as a night fighter in the 1950s and the last examples were converted to PR12 configuration, taking over from the U2 after Powers was shot down (and could fly higher than the U2, using cast-off engines from the U2).

"Aussie pilots in Korea wanted thier Furies back in a bad way, after discovering how lame thier new Meteors really were"

Being pedantic, the Aussies never had any Furies. Only about 30 Furies were produced and all were shipped to middle eastern countries (mostly Egypt). They might have had Sea Furies, but what they would be doing flying a jet in place of a naval fighter I don't know.

Aaron_GT
12-02-2004, 02:39 PM
OOps PR19 not 12.

Aaron_GT
12-02-2004, 02:41 PM
berg,

I'd read that the engines the PR19 used were ones that had been previously used in the U2. Were they rebuilt, or am I incorrect?

Control_Damage
12-02-2004, 03:19 PM
Hello,

If your interested, Martin Baker still use 2 Meteors for in-flight ejection seat testing. Not sure of the mark or serial numbers but I'm sure someone on the forums would know.

Regards,

Control Damage

darkhorizon11
12-02-2004, 03:28 PM
Yup. The only jets that saw air to air combat were variants of the 262, the He 162, and the Ar 234. Well, and the Me 163, if you count rocketplanes. The Meteor came close, but never engaged any enemy aircraft. Two YP-80s were sent, one in England and one in Italy for combat trials, or lack thereof since they never saw any action.

berg417448
12-02-2004, 03:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
berg,

I'd read that the engines the PR19 used were ones that had been previously used in the U2. Were they rebuilt, or am I incorrect? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hmmm...from the website I posted earlier:


"When the dispersed operation ceased in early €˜62, and most of 13€s fleet arrived back at its Norfolk base, the RAF started to look at an alternative powerplant for the PR19. The main idea behind this effort was to lessen the dependency on the US service team, and to use some of the RAF€s own resources. However, just as in 1954, no suitable engine could be found, even though a specially modified Avon seemed to be a front runner for some time.

However, salvation was at hand as Lockheed had already been re-engining the original U2As with the more powerful J75, the military version of the P&W JT4 engine. This programme had been continuing since late €˜58, and the big-engined aircraft amounted to about 75% of the U2 fleet by now.

This left a large surplus of unused, high altitude J57s, which were offered to the RAF. Having a substantial pool of engines to hand meant that they could be rotated back to the USA for service, and still leave a useful number in the UK for operational use. Thus the first attempt at re-engining the PR19s came to an end, and the P&W service team returned home."

k5054
12-02-2004, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If your interested, Martin Baker still use 2 Meteors for in-flight ejection seat testing. Not sure of the mark or serial numbers but I'm sure someone on the forums would know.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They occasionally fly over my house, MBs test field is about 5 miles away. They are Mk7s with Mk8 tails.

Funny that Mk19 stuff was in the April 1st edition of the magazine.......

BerkshireHunt
12-02-2004, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
The Meteor was always a sad sack....

It was Britains first op jet fighter, but sad performance

Its longevity was only due to fiscal restraints, it was squeezed into every concievable role based largely on that it was britains only jet fighter with any decent range available in numbers until a newer generation could be developed...which Britain didnt fare too well at, until the suberb Hawker Hunter, or the Vampire at its blossom, the Vemon

Aussie pilots in Korea wanted thier Furies back in a bad way, after discovering how lame thier new Meteors really were

Too slow for other jets, not manuverable enough, underpowered, suspect airframe strength in the tail, directional instability, particularly when firing guns, all in all not a great plane

But it gets my vote, next to the Vought Pirate, as #1 cr@p plane of the jetset <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against such a wall of ignorance it's hard to know where to begin chipping. Here are some fascinating facts:

The Meteor was the only Allied jet to see service during WW2.
The first version, the Meteor F1, was supplied to 616 Sqn in July 1944 to counter the V1 menace over England and achieved several victories against it, both by shooting them down and by wing tipping them over.
The F1 was a 'technology demonstrator' designed to give the RAF some experience of using jets (for tactical development). They were never intended to be the finished article
Despite their low- power (some 100 mph slower than a Me262) they were sent to the continent in January 1945 to participate in ground attack operations.
In April 1945 they were replaced with the Meteor III which had a strengthened airframe and higher- powered Derwent engines (max 495 mph). These flew with 616 and 504 Sqns as part of the British Second Tactical Airforce (2TAF) from Nijmegen, Holland. The Luftwaffe by this time was practically non- existent so the 262 and Meteor III never met.

But get this: On 7th November 1945 (just 5 months after the War's end) a Meteor IV recorded a World Speed Record of 606 mph. That's faster than any Me 262 or Arado 234 ever went.

The Meteor was not Britain's only wartime jet fighter, it also had the De Havilland Vampire which first flew in 1943. It was single- engined, lighter and much faster than the Meteor F1 (in excess of 500 mph). It was not introduced into service during the war because Germany was pretty much beaten by late 1944. There was no need.

The Meteor was an outmoded design by the time of Korea- but both the Sabre and Mig 15 used centrifugal compressor engines based on Britain's Rolls Royce Nene- not Germany's axials.

Britain did not have the resources to pour into aircraft development that America had in the 1950s- it had to re-build its factories and housing whereas America had never been bombed. The USA received enormous technology transfer from Britain and Germany in the 1940s and was able to exploit it thereafter.
Two thirds of the Soviet Union was untouched by German bombing whereas EVERY major British city was heavily bombed. Britain had to re-build AND develop cold- war weaponry. That is why it did not put much money into next- generation jet aircraft.
Germany was not allowed to spend anything on weapons for 10 years after the war- hence it was able to concentrate solidly on re-construction. German miracle? Not really.

pourshot
12-02-2004, 04:34 PM
A little back ground on RAN Sea Furys (http://www.gunplot.net/aviation/aviationnavy2.html)

SkyChimp
12-02-2004, 04:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:

The Meteor was an outmoded design by the time of Korea- but both the Sabre and Mig 15 used centrifugal compressor engines based on Britain's Rolls Royce Nene- not Germany's axials.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MiG did, but the Sabre didn't. The Sabre's engine was an American designed axial (and not based on any German design, either).

I agree with your assessment that Britain development establishment was starved for funds and aircraft developement suffered. The lack of funding prevented in-depth examination of German designs that provided the United States and the Soviet Union with valuable short-cuts towards the developement of transonic and supersonic planes. The lack of research and the inability to produce a competitive design may have been behind the RAF's decision not to send fighters to Korea in 1950. Certainly, they had nothing to match the MiG-15 at that time, and didn't really come close until the introduction of the Hawker Hunter, which entered into service in 1954. IMO, the Hunter, at best, only matched the performance of the F-86 and MiG-15, both of which had been in service for nearly 5 years and had fought an entire war over Korea.

BerkshireHunt
12-02-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:

The MiG did, but the Sabre didn't. The Sabre's engine was an American designed axial (and not based on any German design, either).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I just checked and you're right about the J47.
But I was right about everything else. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sorry for pissing on your patriotism.

SkyChimp
12-02-2004, 06:34 PM
Not patriotism, rather a proactive effort to "stop-before-it-starts" the inevitable claim that Americans copied a German engine.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 09:14 PM
lol , exactly SkyChimp

& wasnt the Hunter as fast or faster than the F-86F but not the F-100 ?

wasnt the Hunter considered less manouverable than Sabers ?

SkyChimp
12-02-2004, 10:08 PM
It really depends on the rating of the Hunter's engine. The early Hunters (Mk Is delivered in 1954) with Avon engines with R.A.7 rating were very comparable to the F-86F. The Hunter had only the slightest advantage in speed - Mach .92 (F-86) to Mach .93 (Hunter) at sea-level. The MK I Hunter's climb rate was a little better, but not as good as the MiG-15. I've read that the Sabre was significantly more agile than the Hunter, being better in turn and much better in roll-rate. The F-86F could roll at 270 degrees per second.

While you can compare the first Hunter to the last Sabre, the comparison isn't really a comparison between contemporary fighters. The first Hunter entered service in 1954. The first Sabre entered service in 1949.

IMO the proper comparison, as you suggest, would be against the F-100A Super Sabre, which was first delivered in November 1953. The F-100A was much faster than the Hunter at all altitudes. The Initial climb rate of the F-100A was a little over 23,000fpm. The first Hunters went to 45,000 feet in around 9-10 minutes. Even the most performant Hunters went to 45,000 feet in 7.8 minutes.

WUAF_Badsight
12-02-2004, 10:48 PM
they didnt call it the Super-Saber for nuthing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
12-03-2004, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
The Meteor was always a sad sack....

It was Britains first op jet fighter, but sad performance

Its longevity was only due to fiscal restraints, it was squeezed into every concievable role based largely on that it was britains only jet fighter with any decent range available in numbers until a newer generation could be developed...which Britain didnt fare too well at, until the suberb Hawker Hunter, or the Vampire at its blossom, the Vemon

Aussie pilots in Korea wanted thier Furies back in a bad way, after discovering how lame thier new Meteors really were

Too slow for other jets, not manuverable enough, underpowered, suspect airframe strength in the tail, directional instability, particularly when firing guns, all in all not a great plane

But it gets my vote, next to the Vought Pirate, as #1 cr@p plane of the jetset <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against such a wall of ignorance it's hard to know where to begin chipping. Here are some fascinating facts:

The Meteor was the only Allied jet to see service during WW2.
The first version, the Meteor F1, was supplied to 616 Sqn in July 1944 to counter the V1 menace over England and achieved several victories against it, both by shooting them down and by wing tipping them over.
The F1 was a 'technology demonstrator' designed to give the RAF some experience of using jets (for tactical development). They were never intended to be the finished article
Despite their low- power (some 100 mph slower than a Me262) they were sent to the continent in January 1945 to participate in ground attack operations.
In April 1945 they were replaced with the Meteor III which had a strengthened airframe and higher- powered Derwent engines (max 495 mph). These flew with 616 and 504 Sqns as part of the British Second Tactical Airforce (2TAF) from Nijmegen, Holland. The Luftwaffe by this time was practically non- existent so the 262 and Meteor III never met.

But get this: On 7th November 1945 (just 5 months after the War's end) a Meteor IV recorded a World Speed Record of 606 mph. That's faster than any Me 262 or Arado 234 ever went.

The Meteor was not Britain's only wartime jet fighter, it also had the De Havilland Vampire which first flew in 1943. It was single- engined, lighter and much faster than the Meteor F1 (in excess of 500 mph). It was not introduced into service during the war because Germany was pretty much beaten by late 1944. There was no need.

The Meteor was an outmoded design by the time of Korea- but both the Sabre and Mig 15 used centrifugal compressor engines based on Britain's Rolls Royce Nene- not Germany's axials.

Britain did not have the resources to pour into aircraft development that America had in the 1950s- it had to re-build its factories and housing whereas America had never been bombed. The USA received enormous technology transfer from Britain and Germany in the 1940s and was able to exploit it thereafter.
Two thirds of the Soviet Union was untouched by German bombing whereas EVERY major British city was heavily bombed. Britain had to re-build AND develop cold- war weaponry. That is why it did not put much money into next- generation jet aircraft.
Germany was not allowed to spend anything on weapons for 10 years after the war- hence it was able to concentrate solidly on re-construction. German miracle? Not really. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wall of ignorance?

"The Meteor was the only Allied jet to see service during WW2."
That it was the ONLY allied jet to see service is debatable...those infamous 4 yp80s (2 in England, 2 in Italy were allied...and in service...service test, at least...and the Airacomets were, if not in the same league as Meteors, in service during WWII as XP, (AFAIK) YP, and P 59s...sure, used for training, but still production examples in squad service

Wall of ignorance indeed...you reiterate many of the things I said in my post and you quoted them and seemed to infer to it as "ignorance"

I called them underpowered....
You said, "despite their low power...etc"

I said, "Too slow for other jets, not manuverable enough, underpowered, suspect airframe strength in the tail, directional instability, particularly when firing guns, all in all not a great plane"...
You said, "The Meteor was an outmoded design by the time of Korea"...even before Korea, Sabres and Mig 15s were flying, and outperformed the Meteor in all respects

I said "Its longevity was only due to fiscal restraints, it was squeezed into every concievable role based largely on that it was britains only jet fighter with any decent range available in numbers until a newer generation could be developed...which Britain didnt fare too well at, until the suberb Hawker Hunter, or the Vampire at its blossom, the Vemon"...
You said, "Britain did not have the resources to pour into aircraft development that America had in the 1950s"

Seems to me Your asessment of my post being "ignorant" is either incorrect, or that your post is equally or even more ignorant...

BTW, "
Britain had to re-build AND develop cold- war weaponry. That is why it did not put much money into next- generation jet aircraft." is a strange statement...wasnt "cold-war weaponry" one and the same as "next generation (relative to the Meteor) jet aircraft"?...besides, Britain simply did not HAVE any money to put into next gen. types, it wasnt a matter of not putting much in...there was no choice...what they did with what they had was commendable, however


I like your post, was very iinteresting, however, quoting my post then stating "Against such a wall of ignorance it's hard to know where to begin chipping." mystifies me....explain, please?

Arm_slinger
12-03-2004, 06:43 AM
There were 9 YP-80's sent to Italy, 4 of them were scrambles to try to interpect an Arado recon/ bomber thingy. Thats all the action they saw i believe.

Now the Meteor was used to intercept V1's and used in ground attack operations in Belgium. The v1 interceptors belonged to 212 squadron i belive- which was under the command of Vice Air commodore (?) FRANK WHITTLE, a fitting tribute i think to see ones machine in action http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Abbuzze
12-03-2004, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Not patriotism, rather a proactive effort to "stop-before-it-starts" the inevitable claim that Americans copied a German engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need for the Americans to copy a german jet engine, they got some british, cause they had no own.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
12-03-2004, 01:51 PM
In the history of aviation people stand on the shoulders of the people who went before.