Why a Meteor?

I was at RAF Northolt yesterday and noticed one of the MB Meteors over on the civilian side of the airfield. Still visiting or resident??

It may well be that the meteor was used because it was available…but it would not have been used for long if the aircraft was not suitable,I would say that the fact MB have used the same airframe type for such a long time would suggest it is the perfect layout for such tests.
The original test a/c was a defiant…but it was too slow 😀
The widely spaced twin engine layout is ideal for coping with hot gas/pressure wave problems viv a vis jet intakes and the canopy/fuselage planform are also ideal for having a big ‘ole cut in the canopy without incurring massive buffet !!

rgds baz

http://www.martin-baker.com/getdoc/5c088294-6cc9-44b3-9968-50f9c90f1a6a/The-Chalgrove-meteors-_2_.aspx

Thanks for that Edgar, pure and simple reasoning.

I’ve checked, today, with a recently-retired manager, from Martin-Baker, and the explanation is perfectly simple; nothing to do with the type of airframe, or aerodynamics, like Everest, it was there. It needed to be tandem-seating, and there was one available, so they got it up and running.
It’s only used for low-speed (max about 250) and low-level ejections; high-speed use a rocket-sled. The aircraft are owned by the MOD, and the “Seven and a half” designation is official, not a joke. The pilot was having difficulty with directional control, when trying to position, exactly, for the cameras, so Gloster were approached, and they recommended fitting the F.8 tail unit, since it had been devised due to problems with control. They’re likely to continue for some time, yet, since there are four new Derwent engines still in stock at Chalgrove.
Edgar

Indeed it did Pagen. And you were indeed correct! Should have mentioned that, but was too busy being impressed at Asterix, one of my favourite childhood characters, appearing on a Meteor!:)

Actually Blue that pic Brian has posted should help answer your canopy queries:)

Quality! 😀

Apologies the original was/is painted/applied on WL419.

http://vectaris.net/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://napoleon130.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/estw4.jpg&target=tlx_new

Now that I like very much! Meteor wouldn’t be very good for his comrade Obelix though- a Herc would probably be more apt 😉

And not forgetting that you can paint Gaulish warriors on the side of your MB Meteor

Cheers Pagen, thought you’d know! 🙂
Good to see they keep the old girls working hard.

The canopy frame is modified from standard to have a large cutout in the rear section, almost open cockpit style. On WA634 the whole thing hinged to stbd as it would on a standard T.7 canopy, this was seen with at least two differing canopy arrangements. With EE415 it looks like the rear seater litrally climbed in through the gap in the rear canopy, aided by a small hinged side door (Spitfire style).
The current two have the individual sections hinging to stbd with only the pilots part having a full canopy, I’m guessing the rear is infequently used though, as used for just firing empty seats aswel.
There is a solid metal screen/structure between both cockpits. I would assume this was required to prevent rocket and other forces of blast and wind from interferring with the pilot.

Worth noting that MB have used a total of nine Meteors for seat trials.

This may be a couple of silly questions, I’m guessing the cockpit canopy/frame is a specially built item- how does it open? And I take it it’s totally blanked off between the front and rear cockpits?

😀

This is a link to Pen Pushers excellent MB Meteor shots at Northolt, which caused the start of the topic, http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=101039

Blimey, apart from the ejection, he did well to keep the aircraft going after hitting major electricity lines, even if he shouldn’t have been there!
I like the way the scottish Electricity billed the Mod for the damage.:rolleyes:

Hello, they’re Scottish…..! 😉

Great photos!
I was really surprised and delighted to see soot marks from recent ejection tests – I had no idea they were still being used for this purpose…

Blimey, apart from the ejection, he did well to keep the aircraft going after hitting major electricity lines, even if he shouldn’t have been there!
I like the way the scottish Electricity billed the Mod for the damage.:rolleyes:

The problems of using the Hawk are probably best illustrated by the rear seater abandoning XX227 over Scotland on 21 Apr 1983.

If you punch the date and a/c serial into google it should give you a link to the Military Aircraft Accident Summary (I have a PDF copy but have no idea how to upload).

It appears the engine did flame out and had to be relit, so perhaps the Hawk isn’t suited to testing rocket assisted seats?

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8C17A310-5186-4E29-85EF-94151A0EF63D/0/maas83_07_hawk_t1_xx227_21apr83.pdf

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/AirSafetyandAviationPublications/MAAS/

TJ

The problems of using the Hawk are probably best illustrated by the rear seater abandoning XX227 over Scotland on 21 Apr 1983.

If you punch the date and a/c serial into google it should give you a link to the Military Aircraft Accident Summary (I have a PDF copy but have no idea how to upload).

It appears the engine did flame out and had to be relit, so perhaps the Hawk isn’t suited to testing rocket assisted seats?

I think that aircraft of those days were generally not built to a specific ‘life’ such as today’s jets and airliners are. This means that if you keep maintaining and repairing them you can fly them on for a long time. Usually research is used to retroactively set a life limit on certain parts as the aircraft does age but as these Meteors are well over-engineered you’ll have a lot of leeway here.