Early VTOL aircraft based on Gloster Meteor T.7 (!)

[Monkeyfume]

I found this... real or fake?

Seems to be an experimental blueprint-only VTOL aircraft based on Gloster's Meteor T.7 two-seat trainer.

Predates the Hawker P.1127 by a few months (although a lot uglier).

 

[GregP]

Looks like it would have the roll rate of a glacier.

 

[fubar57]

Though not like your drawing, RA490 was used for jet deflector trials from 1954-57. An 8ft. extension was added to the forward section of the nacelles to accommodate the Nene Mk.3 engines. A Mk. 8 tail was used for stabablity and Mk.10 outer wings were added for a span of 44'4" making the largest span of any Meteor. While it was a success of lowering full power speed by 11mph, the extra weight penalty wasn't worth the trade off and the aircraft was used for fire fighting training. Still looking for info about your plans.

Geo

 

[Monkeyfume]

Interestingly enough, it has a similar weight compared to the P.1127 but has more thrust...

 

[Monkeyfume]

Though not like your drawing, RA490 was used for jet deflector trials from 1954-57. An 8ft. extension was added to the forward section of the nacelles to accommodate the Nene Mk.3 engines. A Mk. 8 tail was used for stabablity and Mk.10 outer wings were added for a span of 44'4" making the largest span of any Meteor. While it was a success of lowering full power speed by 11mph, the extra weight penalty wasn't worth the trade off and the aircraft was used for fire fighting training. Still looking for info about your plans.

Geo

I have never heard of this Meteor RA490, but after a quick Google search I don't see how it is related to the drawing in OP.

Still, interesting.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Was the extra thrust to carry the fuel lorry needed to keep that thing in the air for more than 2 minutes?

 

[GregP]

The airframe looks like a pretty stock Meteor and the fuel supply that used to feed two jet engines now feeds 18.

I'm betting the range was on the order of 3,000 feet in any direction or 2 miles if conventional takeoff was used. The up side was likely to be a startling rate of climb with the down side a correspondingly rapid rate of descent when the fuel was gone.

We had a volunteer at the museum who used to fly Meteors, F-86Ks and F-104s for the Dutch Air Force. He said a Meteor was a pretty good-flying plane as long as both engines were producing thrust. On one it tried to kill you unless you were on your game. I wonder at the flying characteristics of the above aircraft with, say, 5 engines out ...

I see you beat me to it, Capt. Vick! We're saying the same thing, but I like your phrasing better.

 

[fubar57]

I have never heard of this Meteor RA490, but after a quick Google search I don't see how it is related to the drawing in OP.

Still, interesting.

As I said, not like your drawing but it did feature the down thrust nozzle

Geo

 

[GregP]

Every time a designer churns out a good-flying, good-handling airframe, some hot-rodder hangs engines and ordnance all over it so it turns into a toad. If you line up those engines one behind the other, they look longer than the airframe!

 

[Monkeyfume]

Wikipedia says that each Rolls-Royce RB108 produces 2,340 lb of thrust at maximum. There are four of them mounted horizontally. 2,340 * 4 = 9,360
Normally, two Derwent 5s would power the Meteor T.7, with 3,500 lb of thrust each. 3,500 * 2 = 7,000. So this thing has more horizontal thrust than a normal T.7, in theory.

However the drawing claims that the fourteen vertical engines combined produce 26,320 lb of thrust, and 26,320 / 14 is only 1,880. 1,880 * 4 = 7,520, which is still more than normal, in theory. But, there is the fact that this aircraft will have more weight and drag than in its stock form, which will probably negate the small thrust advantage. The fuel supply would have to be very complicated and would reduce available fuel storage space in a craft that already guzzles way more gas than the twin-engine T.7.

Then, of course, the entire system of controlling all those engines would need to be very complicated. I would have to agree with Vick, GregP, and fubar that the aircraft is just not practical and it's a good thing it didn't get anywhere.

 

[GregP]

Maybe if they had incorporated flapping wings?

 

[nuuumannn]

The problem with direct lift engines is maintaining thrust whilst transiting to forward motion. The P.1127/Harrier had moveable nozzles, the Yak-38 and German VAK-191 had a combination of both, as did the Dornier Do 31. The Short PD.17 jet lift platform proposed to GOR339 (Canberra replacement - eventually morphed into the TSR.2) was to be fitted with 60 of these engines, but some were canted diagonally and some laid horizontally.

The French Mirage III-V Balzac used direct lift and horizontal engines without moveable nozzles, but fatal accidents put paid to its brief testing career. Not the most efficient way of achieving VTOL; in flight you are carrying around a lot of dead weight. The Brits should have built the P.1154.