meteor tailplane hazard

Typical warped forces humour.:D I speak from experience. Squaddies are the worst of the lot for I think. Mind you as a Pongo for 22 years I may just be a tad biased.

As a little light reading for this post, may I include a memory. Thanks, as you have no choice!

On 2 Sqdn RAAF, back in the 1950s, ‘Nashos’ (national servicemen) used to cadge a ride in our Canberras.

The pilots played on their fears when they were boarding, and would say “WHEN we are going to crash,” (not “IF”!) “you will release and kick out the side door. Then I will kick you in the back so that you don’t hit the engine and get chewed up – right?”

The poor young Nasho would be quite green by this time, and was wishing he had never asked, so sick bags were essential!

Bri :diablo:

PS: Our Canberras had only two crew and two ejection seats.

Thanks Ross. I’m becoming better educated every day, I’ll soon be a genius:D

Hi Mike,

For supersonic range 0 to 650 KEAS they use their rocket sled in Ireland.

http://www.martin-baker.com/Contact-Us/UK.aspx

Scroll down to Langford Lodge.

Fearsome bit of kit.

Regards
Ross

Dunno about the supersonic tests – I’m sure MB will give you an idea.

http://www.martin-baker.com/

They do an excellent little downloadable PDF brochure on the Meatboxes:

http://www.martin-baker.com/getdoc/075f013d-447b-4987-b2a7-1684d2d6bc9d/The-Chalgrove-meteors-_2_.aspx

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, a normal bale out would be a slightly worrying prospect I think. I never understood the thinking behind using the Meteor as a test platform but it makes sense when those criteria are mentioned. I wonder what they used as a test bed for supersonic ejections? When all is said and done the Meteor is hardly the fastest bird in the sky.

But the open cokpit would not solve any problems of the fin getting in the way-would it?

The issue is the vague way the original post was couched. As the Meteor is one of the few types to have been used without ejection seats and later fitted with them, some clarity over issues arising in ‘baling out’ i.e. without a bang seat, or ‘ejecting’ would have helped.

AFAIK, and from the research and discussion, ejecting from a Meteor so equipped and avoiding the tail was never a problem – it was all the other things that raised issues. A bale out from one of the non-ejection seat examples could be interesting, I’m sure.

Martin Baker chose and continue to use the Meteor for a number of reasons – the tail is simply not a factor in ejections I understand, but a twin-engine airframe with tandem seating and engine intakes well clear of any potential FOD from the seat is ideal, they say.

Cheers,

MB do have a Meteor T7 but the rear cokpit is open to allow unhindered seat ejection.

But the open cokpit would not solve any problems of the fin getting in the way-would it?
Pontius Nav, thanks for finding that. I must get on to that one fast as I desparately want my own copy of that. It’s a fascinating read.

Try Google:

http://biblion.co.uk/search.php?tid=0&auid=0&stage=1&author=Hay+Doddy&title=The+Man+in

thanks for the information ill try and get hold of a copy
regards victor:cool:

I wish you luck as I’ve been trying to get a copy for my library for years without success. Mind you I haven’t tried Amazon as I figured the book was a bit too specialised for them.

No bang seats in our NF14s.

Thanks for that,I said I stand to be corrected,:o

We are evidently talking about different systems here Scorpion. The early Canberra’s, the B2’s T4’s and the early PR’s all had manual ejection systems. The canopy and hatches had to be fired manually, nothing was initiated by the seats and the pilot had to initiate the control column detonator himself. There was no chance of the canopy doing as you stated, the slipstream lifted canopy with the help of the initial detonation and the canopy had to lift sixty degrees to seperate from the rear latch. I worked on all these marks at RAF Binbrook between ’51 and ’56.

Ken

Since my involvement with Canberras and the Martin Baker 2CA seat, which started in 1966, to the present day all Canberra assisted escape systems have worked as I stated. I strap my little pink body into a Canberra regularly and have done so for years, we train to escape and know exactly how to do it, or has our seat expert and training been wrong all these years? I’m still flying in Canberras so I do have more than a little knowledge of how the systems work. Some of our aircraft had dets and some didnt the consensus was that it was quicker and safer to go through the canopy and that is how we operate to this day. The pilots seat has cutters on the top and at the sides to cut through the canopy, the early Canberras had a frangible rear hatch and the navs seat went through also, that was replaced by the present all metal one.

To dispel your illusions on this score may I suggest you read Doddy Hay’s “The Man In The Hot Seat”. Doddy Hay was one of MB’s human guinnea pigs for many years. You may find the book hard to obtain as I borrowed it from the library about 20 or moore years ago. If you can get hold of it it makes very interesting reading.

thanks for the information ill try and get hold of a copy
regards victor:cool:

the problem being pilots couldnt eject safely because of its overall height and the mid set tailplane fins ?:cool: 😎 😎

To dispel your illusions on this score may I suggest you read Doddy Hay’s “The Man In The Hot Seat”. Doddy Hay was one of MB’s human guinnea pigs for many years. You may find the book hard to obtain as I borrowed it from the library about 20 or moore years ago. If you can get hold of it it makes very interesting reading.

Bang seats.

We are evidently talking about different systems here Scorpion. The early Canberra’s, the B2’s T4’s and the early PR’s all had manual ejection systems. The canopy and hatches had to be fired manually, nothing was initiated by the seats and the pilot had to initiate the control column detonator himself. There was no chance of the canopy doing as you stated, the slipstream lifted canopy with the help of the initial detonation and the canopy had to lift sixty degrees to seperate from the rear latch. I worked on all these marks at RAF Binbrook between ’51 and ’56.

Ken

If it was as difficult to eject from the meat box as has been suggested, perhaps MB have failed to notice these difficulties….afterall their test aircraft is still a twin seater Meatbox….;)

And they are not very secretive about it…..

MB do have a Meteor T7 but the rear cokpit is open to allow unhindered seat ejection.

With that many smileys, we’re talking Phil, not Ollie!

Adrian

But still not up to the standard set by Stormbird262!!!!!

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/member.php?u=4998

It would likely be a T7 or one of the early NF versions,I believe that other than the MB Meteors, the NF 14 was the only two seat type to have bang seats……but I could be wrong,maybe the technical minded among you could correct or confirm that one.:) 🙂

No bang seats in our NF14s.

Hi.

The early Canberra’s were fitted with two stage seats, the initiator was at the top and the main charge was uncovered by the internal slide tube moving up. The back crew had no problems, jetison hatch and pull! The pilot had a bit more to do, he would jetison the canopy, then pull up a wire locked lever, this would explode a ring charge round the rod going to the elevators, a spring would pull the control column out of the way of his knees and then he could eject!

Not totally correct but close.

The nav could either jettison the hatch manually, above 60 knots, ie in the case of an emergency landing where rapid egress was desirable or just pull the handle and everything is automatic it is not neccessary to fire the hatch seperatly.

When the pilot initiates ejection, the seat sequence starts, gas from the seat cartridge fires the seat up the rail, once the seat is travelling the main charge fires, a secondary charge fitted only to the pilots seat sends gas to the stick snatch unit, this in turn drives an over centre cam which allows the snatch spring to pull the control column forward clearing the pilots legs, at the same time the electrically actuated severence charge is fired cutting the elevator control rod in the cockpit.

However some Canberras where fitted with charges around the canopy to shatter it before ejection this was fired by the handle mentioned earlier, as it took time to fire manually the through canopy route was and still is prefered, the other problem was that the canopy could tilt front edge first into the airflow and decapitate the pilot if it folded under.

All 3 seats in the Canberra have the same number of charges but the pilots seat has an extra charge to provide gas to the snatch unit.

In the RAAF, we lost a navigator when the Canberra had a tailplane runaway. One fault the Canberra suffered from.

The pilot, struggling with the diving plane, caused by the incorrect tailplane incidence, told the nav to eject and the rear hatch was blown out (explosive bolts).

Sadly, for some reason the nav’s chute opened in the seat and he went down with it. I saw the seat later, not a pretty sight.

The pilot was luckier, as the wind hitting the rear bulkhead pulled the plane out of the dive and he managed to land OK.

There is a website detailing all RAAF ejections, will try to identify it.

Bri