Gloster Meteor C of G

It has always puzzled me why the NF12 is shorter than the NF14 as they were fitted out with the same equipment, the only notable difference being the excellent teardrop canopy on the 14 as opposed to the old T7 birdcage.
As a minor aside there was no difference in length between the NF13 and NF11 because the 13 was simply an 11 with some different gimmicks for the Muddle East, where there was no Gee coverage. Navaids for the 13 were a Marconi radio compass and BABS/Rebecca.

It seems there is some disparity between even reputable sources: the following lengths are noted in appendix 4, in Bryan Philpott’s book, Meteor;

NF11 – 48ft 6ins
NF12 – 49ft 11ins
NF-13 – 48ft 6ins
NF14 – 51ft 4ins

Span and height was the same for all four versions.

Anon.

You suggest that the nose ballast weight exceeded the weight of two guns and ammunition – was this the case? If so then yes: they got the aircraft balance wrong anyway.

The additional length placed into the fuselage of the Mk.14 was an accepted part of the history of the aircraft which gained specific interest in modelling circles with the release of the Matchbox kit. John Adams went to existing aircraft in museums and measured a number of Meteor night fighters, finding that the Mk.14 had no further fuselage extension. (The comment on possible differences in radome length was a qualification of mine to cover any minor difference – but not 17 inches.) Records on paper, even official ones, have been known to be wrong.

The decision to go from six guns to four was largely driven by George Carter’s concerns about access for the two lower guns in a six-pack and the fact that, at that stage, he/Gloster’s were unsure of how much thrust would be available from the early engines and thought the weight reduction might be beneficial (Meteor/Philpott). It entirely defeated the objective of reducing weight if, in the process, even more weight would have to be added just to balance the aircraft.

Quite why the Meteor 4 was so tail heavy – and accepted so – has, so far, evaded satisfactory explanation. Maybe it was just tolerated and it was one of the factors that drove progress which culminated in the Mk.8.

Earlier, the Meteor 2 went some way towards alleviating the tail-heaviness by increasing the ammunition from 480 to 780 total rounds. However, it seems that even though the redesigned Meteor 8 almost solved the problem, the depletion of fuel and ammunition from the forward fuselage again caused problems, alleviated only partially by the new rear fuselage design.

The Meteor had many shortcomings but represented an aircraft on a par with its contemporaries. It was a simple and rugged aircraft but, however, its high wing loading, thick wing section and instability problems eventually saw it easily outclassed and any combat ventures were, largely, embarrassingly one-sided.

NF-11 is recorded as 48 ft 6 ins long, NF-14, 49 ft 11 ins (Aircraft of the RAF/Thetford).

Anon.

I agree with Flankerman that the Meteor was designed for six Hispanos and the decision to only fit four was taken too late to rebalance the aircraft at the design stage. It would have required moving the wing in relation to the fuselage and hence redesigning the tail to restore stability, but the centre-section design was well advanced and not conducive to this major configuration change.

With the guns in the wings they were nearer the cg, longitudinally. Moving them there would require the longer nose on all nightfighters, to rebalance as stated. The longer nose then required extra fin area. Despite several comments to the contrary, the Mk.14 did not have a yet-longer nose, as confirmed by measurements on museum examples. (OK, maybe a bit on the radome itself, I don’t know.)

That scenario is a new one on me, Vega. The most likely one I have heard is that the design of the early Meteor was very tail heavy though I know of no reason why this should have been so. OK, perhaps 20 or 30 lbs might have been needed but the Mk.4 needed half a ton in the front end to make it balance correctly. Not all of the weight needed could be accommodated in the nose area, which is why the lead intake noses were required. It may be, as Flanker_man has said, that it was due to the design having been for six cannon but one would have thought that at the time a decision was made to fit four guns instead of six that they would have had sufficient time to redesign the structure and layout to accommodate the weight distribution changes.

The F.8 was a redesign and is seen as the Definitive Meteor, with two major flaws corrected: that of tail heaviness and the other of lack of directional stability. Of course, the new tail more or less solved the latter and the former was cured with the addition of a cockpit section extended by 30 inches. With the guns further forward (four “twenties” with ammo were around half a ton), the space between the centre section and the ammo bay was utilised for an additional fuel tank to help offset the high fuel consumption of the Derwent engines.

Night fighters needed the radar to have an unobstructed view and well clear of any malign influences – which was why the guns went into the outer wing roots. With the guns nearer to the CofG then the nose would have had to be longer to help correct the lack of forward armament weight. NF14’s were just shy of 50 feet long.

Anon.

The lead was placed into the intake lips to act as a mass damper for the engine nacelle intake structure. Early in the Meteor developement at high speed a dynamic pitching/dilating oscillation (or buzz) was found in the necelle structure (not the engine) which resulted in airflow instabilty on the compressor face and bits of the intake broken off by sonic fatigue passing into the engine.

This makes more sense. Like why put additional weight at the nacelles when less weight would have been required further forward on the nose if it were only a matter of CG/WB problems?

The lead was placed into the intake lips to act as a mass damper for the engine nacelle intake structure. Early in the Meteor developement at high speed a dynamic pitching/dilating oscillation (or buzz) was found in the necelle structure (not the engine) which resulted in airflow instabilty on the compressor face and bits of the intake broken off by sonic fatigue passing into the engine.

Sounds feasible. Worked on F.8 and T.7 and don’t recall any lead, just lots of wood and fabric around the intakes. Aside from their aerodynamic philosophy, there is a great deal to separate the Meteor from other jets of just a few years later, such as the F-86.

Off-topic, I recall a great deal of lead in the nose of the ‘Bournemouth’ Swift when it was being restored.

The weights were removed with the introduction of the F.8 – with its longer, redesigned tail
Ken

Wouldn’t a longer tail have made it more tail heavy?

I always understood that it was due to it being designed to carry SIX 20mm cannon.

When the armament was reduced to just 4 cannon, lead was used on the intake lips to counteract the reduced weight forward of the CG.

The weights were removed with the introduction of the F.8 – with its longer, redesigned tail.

At least that’s what I remember reading…

Ken

When dismantling Meteor F.4 EE531 at Lasham for the first (of many) time in 1972 or 73 us amateurs got quite a big surprise.

Attempting to remove the first of the engine intake cowls we had undone all the screws around the perimeter and put a strop under it suspended from a small crane. Wriggling it free the cowl unit suddenly made a dive for the ground – thankfully no one was underneath it at the time. Once on the ground we discovered how heavy the unit was – the whole leading edge of the intake ring was formed from lead.

In addition we came across steel weights in the nosewheel bay so it became obvious there had been a Centre of Gravity problem with the aircraft.

I’ve read a bit on the Meteor over the years but I don’t recall seeing what the cause of the problem was – was it a serious error in design or, more likely perhaps, something to do with the positioning of the powerplants? Anyone know?

I have always presumed that the longer noses on the T.7 and NF/TT versions compensated for this?

Roger Smith.

Hi Roger,
Having worked on TT20 and T7 versions of the Meteor, I can say that yes they do have nose weights, although on these longer variants there weren’t any in the intakes.

The TT20 had weights in the nose to compensate for the radar that had been removed, no nose guns, and the additional target drouge shoots in the rear fuselage.

I believe that both of these versions would have had a small amount of nose weights anyway, to balance out any additional equipment that would have been added to the aircraft over time.