Meteor / Meteorite ?

What are the differences between a Meteor and a Meteorite? (not the obvious one!)
They're both land-based Merlins. But was the conversion the same on each one? Did they both have similar changes to things like sumps, wheelcases, oilpumps and ignition?

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:57:06 +0100, Andy Dingley
  Quoted Text Here  
Didn't Rover do a Meteorite, maybe dual fuel?
Cheers Tim
Dutton Dry-Dock Traditional & Modern canal craft repairs Vintage diesel engine service

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:57:06 +0100, Andy Dingley
  Quoted Text Here  
The Meteor was the detuned V12 as went in the Centurion tank and the Meteorite was the V8 version that went into the Antar tank transporter.
http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/vehicles/ttt/vehantar.htm
I served my time at 38 base workshops REME, Chilwell which had overall lines for both these engines
-- Regards,
John Stevenson Nottingham, England.
Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk /

Well, yes and no. Certainly the Meteor (usually IVB's) was *derived* from the Merlin aero engine, but there were lots of differences from stud sizes to materials. The most important and obvious one was that the Meteor was normally aspirated and all Merlins were supercharged, the later civil series 612 (for instance) having three stages of supercharging and triple intercoolers. A fuel injected engine, it was capable of a sustained output of 1,627 BHP.
I'm unsure of the output of a Meteor, but memory indicates 750 BHP.
The Meteorite was indeed an almost literal cut down of the Vee 12, arranged by lopping off four cylinders!
regards,
Kim Siddorn.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

John Stevenson wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Khaki presumably? The overall lines, I mean.
Tom

  Quoted Text Here  
Sorry Tom no, Everything in the workshops was painted that puce green colour called Eau de Nil much loved by the forces, khaki was reserved for vehicles.
SOP was if you could move it, you moved it. If you couldn't move it, you painted it. If it moved by itself , you saluted it -- Regards,
John Stevenson Nottingham, England.
Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk /

John Stevenson wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh dear! I heard a whoosh as I sent it, raced right over your head, obviously! :-)
Tom

  Quoted Text Here  
Obviously
-- Regards,
John Stevenson Nottingham, England.
Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk /

Hi all, very interested in this thread, I have read that you served in the workshops for both these types of engines, how much do you know of the maintenance of them as I have a MkIII Rover Meteor out of a Cromwell tank. As has been said they are a de-tuned version of the merlins mine should produce 650 HP and 1250 Lb foot of torque at 1500 RPM, it is normally aspirated with 2 Zenith 56 up draught carbs. Also for reference there is no such thing as a land based Merlin all engines for tanks were Meteor's made under license to Rover, if you see one with Rolls Royce on the rocker covers these have been taken off a proper Merlin.
Rich
  Quoted Text Here  

No land-based Merlins? Well, OK, but there were any number of Vosper-marinised Merlins & Griffons used in a variety of craft. One of my earliest memories is watching an MTB off Chesil Beach doing slam-dunk turns. Shut throttle, hard a starboard (or port), slam throttle wide open & the stern digs itself a hole from which the MTB emerges at some speed. It is possible to pitch up to such an extent in some sea states that the craft will not recover and fall over backwards. Ouch ...........
My dad said "See that boat, son? It's got three Spitfire engines." I suspect this was 1946 & I further suspect the young man in charge of all that power was having fun on his last day in the Navy!
regards,
Kim Siddorn.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!
  Quoted Text Here  
no
covers

Ah, maybe they were used in a marine application, but as far as I know all carbed versions of the Merlin used in a tank situation were Meteor's made by Rover, I know that the MTB's had 3 engines of this sort and some people have referred to them as fitted with Merlins, but I don't know, with 3 in a MTB what power no wonder they went like the clappers, interesting all the same.
Rich
-- To reply remove " spam "
  Quoted Text Here  
the
tank.
made

I'd stand to be corrected, but I believe they were capable of fifty two knots ;o))
regards,
Kim Siddorn.
  Quoted Text Here  
should
is
overall

Kim Siddorn wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I visited with a ex RN chap last night, who spent the last two years of the war in MTBs and claimed that they were good for 60 mph which is 52 knots give or take an inch. Always faster on a cool night. I don't know what the Navy had in for him, as he had 3 ships sunk beneath him before going to MTBs, the first being the Barham in the Med.
BTW, getting back to Meteors, I have a distinct recollection of the Meteors in the NZ Centurions having Morris Motors on the engine plates. I did have the misfortune to have worked on most of them..
Tom
Tom

Hi Tom, when you worked on them can you remember how the starter motors were fitted to them, just under the water pump on mine but am missing a coupling between the starter and engine I think.
Rich
  Quoted Text Here  

Rich wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
From memory, the starter had a co-axial 3 lugged drive which engaged on the crank extension. That's about as far as the memory banks go. I did have a full set of manuals but little brother traded them off to school mates last century.:-(
Tom

Doh ..
Rich
-- To reply remove " spam "
  Quoted Text Here  
fitted
between

Rich wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Jerk
Tom

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:34:54 GMT, "Rich"
Thought I posted this a few days ago, but it seems to have fallen out of the pipe....
The Meteor began as an idea with Robotham, an under-occupied R-R engineer. As R-R themselves were too busy making Merlins, he had Leyland build the prototypes. These were so successful (compared to the WW1 Libertys they were replacing) that in a famous test in April 1941, a Crusader hull re-engined with a Meteor went so fast that the timekeeper forgot to press the stopwatch.
After this though, Leyland got cold feet. They thought that a water-cooled engine of this power couldn't possibly work in the confined space of a tank hull, without over-heating. So the first production order for them (1,000 for the new Cromwell tank) went to R-R. Meadows might have been involved at this point, although they were also building their own less powerful opposed 12 for the much slower Churchill tank.
The Rover connection didn't come in until 1943, when R-R swapped their tank engine work for Rover's gas turbine work.
As far as I can tell, every possible variant of Meteor and Meteorite was tested, if not produced, although I'm having trouble identifying which were actually Meteors and which were Meteorites. I've found references to turbocharged, supercharged, diesels and fuel-injected petrol, even a marine version. There's even some talk (I'd love to know if this was actually built) of a "Packard Meteor" with the simplified cylinder liner seals of the Packard-built Merlin.

Ah well I knew about the Rover come R R swap to do with the gas turbine work of Whittle, My Meteor is plated as built by Rover and is a Mk III and as far as I know these were fitted to Mk VI Cromwell's. All the people I have spoken to regarding these engines refer to the Mk IVB and they have not heard of the Mk III, and so the quest goes on..
Rich
  Quoted Text Here