Talk:Gloster Meteor

890 RAF meteors lost: source ?

It should be given a source for that unbelievable high number (measured by modern safety standards) (and that number refers only to one, the main operator, nation). Thanks in advance, --88.217.113.132 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems about right, the 1950s were not a good time for flight training in the new fangled jets. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already referenced "Civil Airworthiness Certification: Former Military High-Performance Aircraft, Federal Aviation Administration, p. 2–40" here. (Hohum ^@) 15:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• These are the totals for all RAF types but it shows the high accident rate:
• 1946 - 1012
• 1947 - 420
• 1948 - 424
• 1949 - 439
• 1950 - 380
• 1951 - 490
• 1952 - 507
• 1953 - 483
• 1954 - 452
• 1955 - 305
• 1956 - 270
• 1957 - 233
• 1958 - 128
• 1959 - 102

We also need to remember the high loss of aircrew (and others killed). MilborneOne (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Meteor was flown in UK weather and winter bad weather almost certainly accounted for a large proportion of the losses. In some cases airworthy aircraft were abandoned by parachute because the only airfields within range were fogged-in and lacked GCA. Prior to the introduction of the Clean Air Act fog was much more common in the UK than it is today and was one of the reasons the BLEU at Bedford was formed which went on to develop autoland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.51 (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Only post war performace for the Meteor

Why is only the post WW2 era performace represented in the specifications? ME-262 had better performance than Meteor in WW2. So it can mislead the users.--Creator Edition (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It's because only one variant is permitted in the Specifications section, and that's generally a major production variant. Unlike the Me 262, the Meteor had significant post-war production, and thus a larger group of variants to chose from. BilCat (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But it somehow mislead the readers. In history forums/topics many people came with the post war performance of Meteors (based on this article) as a proof for its performance superiority (speed altitude etc.) over the ME262. WW2 era Meteor had worse poerformance than ME262.--Creator Edition (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

While I understand your objections, that's not really a good reason to change what's done on Wikipedia. Wikipedia assume a basic intelligence and competence of readers, and aren't geared towards the lowest common denominator of readers who don't or can't read complex ideas for comprehension. What's done elsewhere is really out of our control. All you can do at those forums is to try to inform them of their mistakes, especially since the marks used in the specs are clearly stated in each article, and the articles should already be clear regarding.the different timeframes involved. But none of that precludes anyone else on Wikipedia from disagreeing with me, and agreeing that the older specs should be used, for whatever reasons. That's how consensus works on Wikipedia. (For the record, a slew of new users suddenly showing up to support you would be suspicious. That has happened before, and Wikipedia has ways of dealing with that.) BilCat (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The place to cover the performance of the WWII Meteors (F1, F3) with respect to the Me262 (or any WWII era aircraft?) is in the text. Anyone who blindly takes a section out of a wikipedia article without checking context is "onto a loser" as the phrase has it. The F.4 is more typical of Meteor usage (looking at the list of operators) for the immediate post-war era than the handful or earlier models flown in 1944/45.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The Mark 8 that the specs are for is probably the most representative (and probably saw the most action - in the Korean War and for Egypt and Israel in the Suez war).Nigel Ish (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett has a great idea. There are other topics where comparisons with competitors exist (Some video cameras mobile phones , cars etc...) Why should be an airplane different in this regard? After all, it was also an industrial product...Wasn't it?--Creator Edition (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You should re-read my comment again. If a source discusses the performance of the F.1 relative to Me 262 then that text belongs in the appropriate section of the text. It's not carte blanche to create a comparison - which would be synthesis or OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

i'm thinking about making some changes to the page but i want to ask if everyone is ok with me doing it

the source is here https://www.bcar.org.uk/gloster-meteor#:~:text=The%20Meteor%20was%20initially%20used,accounted%20for%2014%20flying%20bombs. i did some editing on the spitired page that got undid because i didnt have a good enough source im just making sure first. Redrhuadri (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

oops, spelling error, it should say i did some editing on the spitfires page that got undid. Redrhuadri (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It would help if you actually told us what changes you are proposing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

A good question to ask if you're evaluating a source, is to start by thinking about who wrote the text. For your link, we have no author to the article, and if we look at the "contact us" page, we'll find that it's an informal project, online-only, self-published. A source like that site would be most relevant if the article was about the site in some way but this article is not. So check out that fact that you have in your URL, the 14 bombs bit. You can try searching "Gloster Meteor" and "14 bombs" and you'll find this site which is all user-submitted and still not a great source:

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Gloster_Meteor#cite_note-61

But we do have a citation now for a published article. There is even a link to a pdf of the article! If you click the Geoffery link you'll find that it's dead. The first step you should try when finding dead links for a valuable source is to check archives. The Internet Archive is the broadest and easiest to search and sure enough the published article is available below:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110722181406/https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945%20-%201397.html Rjjiii (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Mk summarised in the specifications section

Per WP:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Aircraft specification as the relevant style guide for this article, the variant of an aircraft summarised in the specifications section using {{Aircraft specs}} would "Usually ... be the most famous/noteworthy/numerous variant" of that aircraft. As the Meteor is most famous/noteworthy for being the only jet used operationally by the Allies during the war (the lead says it all), I contend the F.3 Mk should be so summarised, as it was the Mk that saw the most prolific wartime service. I have made a start on a template:

---

Profile views of the Meteor F.4.

Data from Aircraft of World War II: development, weaponry, specifications, Gloster Meteor, World War II fighting jets

General characteristics

• Crew: 1
• Length: 41 ft 3 in (12.57 m)
• Wingspan: 43 ft 0 in (13.11 m)
• Height: 13 ft 0 in (3.96 m)
• Wing area: 374 sq ft (34.7 m²)
• Empty weight: 10,542 lb (4,782 kg)
• Gross weight: 13,925 lb (6,316 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 325 imp gal (1,480 L)
• Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce Derwent Series I turbojet, 2,000 lbf (8.9 kN) thrust each

Performance

• Maximum speed: 458 mph (737 km/h, 398 kn) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
• Range: 980 mi (1,580 km, 850 nmi) internal fuel, 1,340 mi (2,160 km) with 180 imp gal (820 L) drop tank
• Endurance: 40-45 minutes
• Service ceiling: 43,000 ft (13,000 m)
• Wing loading: 34 lb/sq ft (170 kg/m²)

Armament

• Guns: 4 × 20 mm Hispano MkIII cannons

---

References

Citations

References

Bibliography

• Bowyer, Chaz. Gloster Meteor. Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allen Ltd, 1985. ISBN 0-7110-1477-9.
• Ethell, Jeffrey L. & Price, Alfred. World War II fighting jets. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1994. ISBN 1-55750-940-9.
• Jackson, Robert. Aircraft of World War II: development, weaponry, specifications. London: Amber Books Ltd, 2003. ISBN 1-85605-751-8.

---

The use of the F.4 line drawing is appropriate as the airframe and wings were not altered between the F.3 and F.4, just the engines and cockpit pressurisation; and later ventral and wingtip fuel tanks not depicted in the drawing. 122.150.82.214 (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC).

• Oppose The F.8 variant is by far the most numerous. Fame and noteworthy status is very subjective, as an aviation enthusiast (pilot/engineer) I wouldn't immediately associate the Meteor with WWII, more a 'fighter of the fifties' as its inclusion in Bill Gunston's book of the same name supports. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe Gunston agrees with you. In the aforementioned book Gunston says the Meteor "was really a fighter of the ’40s", saying it was the "First jet fighter to be developed outside Germany, ... and in fact was serving with a first-line RAF fighter squadron and destroying flying-bomb (V-1) cruise missiles two months before any Me 262, or any other German jet, had reached any regular Luftwaffe fighter squadron". He also provides extensive coverage of the Meteor in his British fighters of World War II, Fighters, 1914-1945, The illustrated directory of fighting aircraft of World War II and The illustrated encyclopedia of combat aircraft of World War II. Additionally, in his World War II German aircraft Gunston compares the Meteor to the Me 262 as a contemporary of the latter. In his The jet age, Gunston mentions the Meteor eleven times: one time about post-war experimental conversions, one comparison with a similar post-war design, one comparison with similar post-war engine design and eight times about the Meteor's wartime development and service, the first mention being the Meteor was "the first jet ever to go into operational service." 122.150.82.214 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Nimbus227, do you have any sources that state the Meteor was really a fighter of the '50s? Because Gunston has clearly stated otherwise. 122.150.82.214 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC).

User:Nimbus227, do you have any sources that state the Meteor was really a fighter of the '50s? 122.150.82.214 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support, agree with what it says at the top, "the Meteor is most famous/noteworthy for being the only jet used operationally by the Allies during the war" so this is an improvement. 86.25.109.156 (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Nimbus. BilCat (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Nimbus' comments highly apposite - unless the article is to be split (in the same way as the articles on the marks of the Spitfire the Mk 8 is clearly the definitive version. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, for more or less the same reason Grumman F-14 Tomcat features the F-14D, not the Vietnam-era F-14A. The Meteor's wartime service amounted to a footnote as an operational prototype, and the template above would need to account for the use of the Rolls-Royce Welland in the initial F.3, which would just complicate things. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)