« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Meteor III  (Read 1377 times)

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Meteor III
« on: May 01, 2006, 04:16:34 AM »






graphs from http://www.spitfireperformance.com

Quote
The Meteor III is superior to the Tempest V in almost all departments. If it were not for the heaviness of its ailerons and the consequent poor maneuverability in the rolling plane, and the adverse effect of snaking on it as a gun platform, it would be a comparable all-round fighter with greatly increased performance.
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
Meteor III
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2006, 04:28:16 AM »
Hmmm, the figures for the Hornet are much more impressive, it spanks the Mustang and Spit performance wise and outclimbs the Meteor! Sadly it isn't a WWII aircraft.
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Meteor III
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2006, 04:33:07 AM »
Yeah, if i remember correctly, the Hornet was the fastest prop driven aircraft to see service with the RAF (472mph).  Was basically a smaller, lighter, single seat Mosquito.



Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Pooface

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2520
Meteor III
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2006, 06:43:38 AM »
did they ever put griffons in the hornet? man that thing is a major crotch rocket lol, quite amazing
Logged

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Meteor III
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2006, 10:24:03 AM »
lol is it flying with one prop feathered in the top pic?

Bozon
Logged
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: Meteor III
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2006, 10:29:47 AM »
Hi Furball,

>"The Meteor III is superior to the Tempest V in almost all departments. If it were not for the heaviness of its ailerons and the consequent poor maneuverability in the rolling plane, and the adverse effect of snaking on it as a gun platform, it would be a comparable all-round fighter with greatly increased performance."

Quite interesting, I didn't know about the poor roll rate before! This quote doesn't appear to be from the Spitfireperformance site, though?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Re: Re: Meteor III
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2006, 12:48:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Quite interesting, I didn't know about the poor roll rate before! This quote doesn't appear to be from the Spitfireperformance site, though?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


quote is from here http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Meteor III
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2006, 01:48:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pooface
did they ever put griffons in the hornet? man that thing is a major crotch rocket lol, quite amazing


Nope.

They used two late model Merlin 130/131 @ 2080HP each (double the HP of the original Merlin II in spit I's) , props rotated different directions, hence 2 different engine model numbers.

Protoype exceeded 480mph in level flight.

Compare to a Spiteful with a 2420HP Griffon 101 - 494mph.

Highest ever HP for a Merlin -
Rolls Royce ran one at 2640HP for 15 mins in 1944.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2006, 01:57:07 PM by Kev367th »
Logged
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Pooface

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2520
Meteor III
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2006, 02:24:53 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Nope.

They used two late model Merlin 130/131 @ 2080HP each (double the HP of the original Merlin II in spit I's) , props rotated different directions, hence 2 different engine model numbers.

Protoype exceeded 480mph in level flight.

Compare to a Spiteful with a 2420HP Griffon 101 - 494mph.

Highest ever HP for a Merlin -
Rolls Royce ran one at 2640HP for 15 mins in 1944.



:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


lol, those are some mighty fine engines lol
Logged

Offline Kev367th

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5290
Meteor III
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2006, 02:51:18 PM »
All down to Rolls Royce quality control.

They would randomly pull a engine off the production line, and run it to destruction.
Find out what part failed and redesign or strengthen it.
Repeat as neccessary.
Logged
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T
Asus M3N-HT mobo
2 x 2Gb Corsair 1066 DDR2 memory

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Meteor III
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2006, 06:45:53 PM »
I think it was in the med that one pilot ran on panic boost for a good part of his flight. (30 mins plus). Engine was checked properly - no damage at all.

Anyway, the Merlin IS one fine engine and the sound.oooohhhh :)
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Meteor III
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2006, 07:09:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by bozon
lol is it flying with one prop feathered in the top pic?

Bozon


Looks that way to me too :eek:

To save fuel for long ops?
Logged

Offline Debonair

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3488
Meteor III
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2006, 01:08:01 AM »
i dont think you save any gas running single engine.
asymetric thrust probably adds a lot of drag & you give up half of your propwash over the wing bonus lift.
i'd bet demonstrating single engine performance.
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Meteor III
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2006, 03:11:45 AM »
yeah, he likely feathered one to show off.  they did that a lot in the mossie too.
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline hogenbor

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
      • http://www.lookupinwonder.nl
Meteor III
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2006, 03:34:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Debonair
i dont think you save any gas running single engine.
asymetric thrust probably adds a lot of drag & you give up half of your propwash over the wing bonus lift.
i'd bet demonstrating single engine performance.


Have to look it up but I do believe they actually did this in the Hornet to save fuel. Besides stupefying performance Hornets had an enormous range as well.  They had the same high speed airfoil design as the Meteor too. Again form memory, will dive in my library tonight.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »