Meteor F.8 use in the RAF

[Wez]

Having seen a question in the Rumourmonger thread regarding the markings options in the forthcoming Airfix F.8, it got me wondering about the wider possibilities.

We all know about the RAF and RAuxAF day fighter squadrons but the venerable Meatbox served outside of these units in Target Facilities roles and training units (which in itself throws up a treasure trove of possibilities).

One of the old Modeldecal sheets featured an F.8 in the markings of one of the Night Fighter Sqns, I understand the need for keeping T.7's on strength for Night Flying check rides (this is why the Sabre Sqn's had at least one of these aircraft on strength), but for normal continuation training you wouldn't necessarily need a two-seater, a couple of F.8's would fulfil this role nicely.

My question is this though, did the Meteor Night Fighter and Reconnaissance units have F.8's on charge as a standard part of their establishment e.g. 10 Night Fighters, 2 or 3 F.8's and a couple of T.7s on strength? I think it would be quite unusual to see more Day Fighters in Night Fighter Sqn markings.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Wez

[Mike Esposito]

Never heard the 'meatbox' reference before.

[Wez]

Never heard the 'meatbox' reference before.

The RAF, like most armed forces I should imagine, applies nicknames to its aircraft, the knack is recognising which nicknames are service given names and which are spotter given names (but that's a whole other thread in it's own right).

One of my old bosses was an ex-RAF Meteor Night Fighter Navigator/Radar-Operator, he always referred to the Meteor as the Meatbox.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Wez

[Work In Progress]

Yes, it acquired that name largely due to its absolutely horrific post-war casualty rate. 150 RAF Meteors were destroyed in 1952 alone

890 were lost in RAF service in total, with 436 fatal accidents for the type between 1944 and 1986.

For anyone interested in RAF post-war Meteor and other early jet ops, this is an excellent book:

http://www.woodfieldpublishing.co.uk/contents/en-uk/p6.html

Edited February 28, 2016 by Work In Progress

[Irish 251]

This book, though not cheap, would answer most questions on the RAF's use of the Meteor that people may have. It includes details of which aircraft served with each unit. http://www.coldwarshield.co.uk/books/one.html

[Work In Progress]

Except that it's out of print. Worth putting in a search for on the usual second-hand sources though.

[Graham Boak]

Well, the Oxford was the Oxbox, and the Halifax the Halibag, so I suspect the Meteor was the Meatbox long before 1952. That's not to deny the crashes. The safety record postwar of all RAF aircraft was horrendous by modern standards, up until the later 1950s when a more professional attitude came to rule. The Meteor had its own specific problem, known as the phantom stall, caused by using the airbrakes with the flaps down at low speed on approach.

Although perhaps deserving of another thread, I'm not sure that all other nationals did resort to nicknames for their aircraft, at least in WW2. The Germans spoke of Emils, Doras, Gustavs and Tonis, but that's just the phonetic alphabet for the variants. The US used their designations (P-51, F6F) rather than even the popular names (Mustang, Hellcat). The Marauder may have been called the Flying Prostitute and Baltimore Whore, but they don't exactly trip off the tongue as nicknames, do they? The use of "Jug" for the P-47 has been denied by veterans. From Nick Millman's new book, the Ki61 ("Tony" in Allied use) was simply called the six-one. The Russian I-16 was called the "Rata" (rat) by the Spanish Nationalists, and the "Mosca" (fly) by the Spanish Republicans, but "Chaika" (seagull) for the I-153 and "Peshka" (pawn) for the Pe2 seem to be genuine Russian nicknames.

Post war the US did have their Hog (F-84), Superhog (F-84F) and Thud (F-104), so perhaps attitudes changed.

[Selwyn]

Some interesting Meteor pictures on this site:

http://rafworksop.btck.co.uk/Photographs1943-Present

Selwyn

[Mike Esposito]

Very interesting stuff.

We, of course, had the same problem here in the US with the F-100a the infamous short tailed version.

Probably the cg problem I should think with the Meteor was the cause.?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Mike Esposito

[Wez]

This book, though not cheap, would answer most questions on the RAF's use of the Meteor that people may have. It includes details of which aircraft served with each unit. http://www.coldwarshield.co.uk/books/one.html

Thanks for that, I really wish I'd got this book when it first came out as it commands an arm and three legs 2nd hand prices!

Some interesting Meteor pictures on this site:

http://rafworksop.btck.co.uk/Photographs1943-Present

Selwyn

Interesting little site that, thanks for posting.

Very interesting stuff.

We, of course, had the same problem here in the US with the F-100a the infamous short tailed version.

Probably the cg problem I should think with the Meteor was the cause.?

Assymetric yaw caused by losing one of the engines at a critical moment like landing or take off. It would appear that the T.7s used by Sabre squadrons in Germany for night flying currency checks were particularly unpopular for this reason, the Vampire T.11 was preferred because it didn't suffer from this and was thus more akin to the Sabre in terms of action required in the loss of an engine.

[Black Knight]

Back to one one of the question in the OP.

As read it, the Meteor nightfighter squadrons usually used Vampire T.11s for training and check flying

[Meatbox8]

Never heard the 'meatbox' reference before.

Eh?

[Dave Fleming]

Can't recall the Modeldecal sheet but a couple of the NF squadrons had a later life as target facilities or shadow squadrons for OCUs. 85 for example(as in the new Airfix kit) use d almost identical markings on their later F8s as they used on their NF12 and 14s

[Wez]

Back to one one of the question in the OP.

As read it, the Meteor nightfighter squadrons usually used Vampire T.11s for training and check flying

Which doesn't make sense but is entirely consistent with RAF top-brass thinking back in the day...

"...let's give twin-engined Meteor T.7's to units flying single engined jets, whilst those actually flying Meteors can use single engined aircraft, the engine-out characteristics will be completely different but it will be character building stuff"!

Can't recall the Modeldecal sheet but a couple of the NF squadrons had a later life as target facilities or shadow squadrons for OCUs. 85 for example(as in the new Airfix kit) use d almost identical markings on their later F8s as they used on their NF12 and 14s

Just fished out Modeldecal 88, it gave options for F.8's with both 64 and 153 Sqn's whilst they were equipped with Night Fighters. One of the options for the forthcoming Airfix kit is in 85 Sqn markings whilst it was at Binbrook in the Target Facilities role. It was both of these things that prompted the original question really.

I can't believe 64 and 153 were the only NF units to use F.8's

[camper1]

I interesting comment by Wez my father flew Beaufighters and Mosquitos and had more than one engine failure through the years.No problems with these aircraft.

In 1953 he returned from Celle to attend a Canberra conversion course,started OK on the Meteor T7,failed the course on single engined approaches.

Said it scared him more than teaching people how to fly Harvards and stay alive while doing it.

[sloegin57]

Which doesn't make sense but is entirely consistent with RAF top-brass thinking back in the day...

"...let's give twin-engined Meteor T.7's to units flying single engined jets, whilst those actually flying Meteors can use single engined aircraft, the engine-out characteristics will be completely different but it will be character building stuff"!

Just fished out Modeldecal 88, it gave options for F.8's with both 64 and 153 Sqn's whilst they were equipped with Night Fighters. One of the options for the forthcoming Airfix kit is in 85 Sqn markings whilst it was at Binbrook in the Target Facilities role. It was both of these things that prompted the original question really.

I can't believe 64 and 153 were the only NF units to use F.8's

33Sqdn had a Meteor 8, WK941, during it's sort lived period with Venom NF.2a's (Oct.'55 - Jan.'57) and Meteor NF.14's (Oct.'57 - Aug.'58). When the Javelins came in, in July '58, they swopped it for a Javelin T.3.

[Wez]

I interesting comment by Wez my father flew Beaufighters and Mosquitos and had more than one engine failure through the years.No problems with these aircraft.

In 1953 he returned from Celle to attend a Canberra conversion course,started OK on the Meteor T7,failed the course on single engined approaches.

Said it scared him more than teaching people how to fly Harvards and stay alive while doing it.

Interesting, I'm sure I read some time ago that the Beau had some pretty viscous characteristics if it lost an engine at a critical point - particularly on take off I seem to recall, I think it was mentioned in Victor Bingham's book on the Beau.

33Sqdn had a Meteor 8, WK941, during it's sort lived period with Venom NF.2a's (Oct.'55 - Jan.'57) and Meteor NF.14's (Oct.'57 - Aug.'58). When the Javelins came in, in July '58, they swopped it for a Javelin T.3.

Thanks Dennis, that's the sort of thing I'm after, just need to find a picture now.

[Procopius]

Happily, my wife surprised me with a copy of Cold War Shield Volume 1 late last year, so I can contribute a little.

85 Squadron had T.7 WF876 and F.4 VZ416 for pilot training prior to delivery of its first three NF.11s.

141 Squadron, two F.4s and a T.7 in May of 1951.

151 Squadron had F.8 VZ508 for target towing in Spring 1953.

264 Squadron had an F.4, VZ413 for pilot conversion training, replaced in January 1952 with an F.8, VZ550.

[Graham Boak]

Most WW2 twins had pretty vicious characteristics if an engine failed just after take-off - the Mosquito certainly being no exception if not one of the worst. The problem is that the asymmetric thrust will overcome the restoring moment from full opposite rudder, unless the aircraft is flying above the minimum control speed. (Vmc). Take-off speed was well below Vmc, and a heavily-loaded aircraft accelerates slowly. Postwar the Mosquito had a severe cut in maximum take-off weight: that didn't improve Vmc but it did mean that you reached in a lot sooner.

The RAF discovered, late in the Canberra's career, that they were killing more pilots practicing single-engined approaches than they did from engine failures. Something of a minor scandal at times, IIRC.

[stever219]

The Mosquito could be pretty unforgiving below 135 knots with an.engine out too, IIRC.

Wasn't the Meteor's "phantom dive" due in part to the asymmetric lowering of the main undercarriage? Again, IIRC, this produced a yaw which blanked one wing as the jet started to side slip, the blanked wing dropped first.and the lowered flaps and open air brakes exaccerbated this effect. At circuit heights there was probably only going to be one outcome.

I have read that more Meteor, and Canberra, crews were killed practicing single-engined approaches than dealing with a genuine single-engined approaches which may go some way to explaining the horrific number of Meteor (and crew) write-offs.

[sloegin57]

Thanks Dennis, that's the sort of thing I'm after, just need to find a picture now.

That a hint ! hang about I'll root one out. they had a T.7 as well but I have no pic.

Yer 'tis :- (sorry it aint better but they were packed in at the time) :-

HTH

Dennis

PS This Photo also appears in his book.

Edited February 28, 2016 by sloegin57

[Work In Progress]

Most WW2 twins had pretty vicious characteristics if an engine failed just after take-off - the Mosquito certainly being no exception if not one of the worst. The problem is that the asymmetric thrust will overcome the restoring moment from full opposite rudder, unless the aircraft is flying above the minimum control speed. (Vmc). Take-off speed was well below Vmc, and a heavily-loaded aircraft accelerates slowly. Postwar the Mosquito had a severe cut in maximum take-off weight: that didn't improve Vmc but it did mean that you reached in a lot sooner.

The max AUW reduction would not have reduced the book speed for Vmc unless accompanied by other measures, but in real life ops reduced weight substantially reduces the likelihood of asymmetric Vmc related loss of control in several other ways:

1. Apart from the better acceleration it means you need less power on the good side to sustain flight and accelerate. At low speed, if the dead engine goes very suddenly you might be in a steep bank into the dead engine in no time, which is Bad News. If you are still below book Vmc,the lower your weight the greater the scope you have for throttling the good engine back temporarily to help regain control, and get about a five degree bank into the live engine before you open up again, without losing airspeed. (Banking into the live engine really helps a lot, and depending on type can enable you to maintain directional control for a given power setting a good five or 10 knots slower than with the wings level, so once you are in the right attitude you can open up again to continue accelerating, get the dead engine feathered, etc.)

2. Related to that, reduced weight *does* reduce the book Vmc if the POH is amended to derate the engines to reduced power settings on take-off at certain weights, which is modern twin jet practice.

3. Depending on the direction of engine rotation and which engine has failed, reduced weight may also reduce Vmc by reducing the uptilt of the thrustline in relation to the flight vector, which has a bearing on asymmetric blade effect (P-factor).

4. (and getting a bit tangential now) The lower the weight the higher you will be for a given engine failure shortly after take-off, so the more opportunity you have to descend to increase acceleration for a given power setting. In some parts of the Fens, for example, you can come right down into ground effect with reasonable safety, which helps everything

5. And not a Vmc point as such, but definitely an important safety factor: the lower the weight, the more runway you have ahead of you for a given height, and the easier it is to stop the aeroplane on the ground, so you have a much better chance of having enough room to throttle back both engines and land or stop straight ahead (always nice to have in your bag of tricks when departing in a twin).

[Wez]

Happily, my wife surprised me with a copy of Cold War Shield Volume 1 late last year, so I can contribute a little.

85 Squadron had T.7 WF876 and F.4 VZ416 for pilot training prior to delivery of its first three NF.11s.

141 Squadron, two F.4s and a T.7 in May of 1951.

151 Squadron had F.8 VZ508 for target towing in Spring 1953.

264 Squadron had an F.4, VZ413 for pilot conversion training, replaced in January 1952 with an F.8, VZ550.

Thanks PC, just the sort of thing I'm looking for.

That a hint ! hang about I'll root one out. they had a T.7 as well but I have no pic.

Yer 'tis :- (sorry it aint better but they were packed in at the time) :-

HTH

Dennis

PS This Photo also appears in his book.

Top Man!

Thanks Dennis.

I really do need to track down a copy of Cold War Shield at a reasonable price.

[GordonM]

Total aside (excepting discussing Meteor losses) in the memoirs of W/Cdr H R 'Dizzy' Allan he describes taking over command of a new squadron. Arriving at his base he's meeting his new staff when a cry of "he's gone in!" Is shouted and everyone disappears. Following them he finds a Meatbox resting between the rugby posts on the station field. Upon phoning Group HQ to announce the accident he's informed he's set a new record for losing a squadron aircraft by a c/o!