Talk:Gloster Meteor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

NF Meteors[edit]

This article is completely lacking information on NF Meteors as well as Meteor variants. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Gloster Meteor vs. Messerschmitt Me-262[edit]

In both articles about the Gloster Meteor and the Messerschmitt Me 262 it is claimed that the particular plane was the first operational jet fighter. Both can't be true. From the articles I got the following first flight dates:

  • Me 262: 18 July 1942
  • Meteor: 5 March 1943

I suggest to change the leading section of the Gloster Meteor article to reflect that the Messerschmidt was the world's first operational jet-powered fighter and the Gloster Meteor was the first UK and Allied jet-powered fighter. Any thoughts about that? MikeZ 16:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have watched several programs on the Military channel/history, have studied it, and know for a fact that the Me-262 was operational before the Meteor. This must be changed. Signed, LWE Student.

Per the respective Wikipedia pages and other sources (Profile publications, Green's Great Book of Fighters), both aircraft became operational in late July-August 1944. The difference of a few days/weeks sounds like a tie to me. I have written it as a tie in both articles unless some can present (and cite!) very credible evidence otherwise. - Emt147 Burninate! 21:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had a discussion with another user about the Me 262 being the world's first jet fighter, prior to the Meteor. Putting together the dates from both articles, I came up with to following.

Maiden flights:

  • Me 262: 18 April 1941 with piston engines, 18 July 1942 with jet engines
  • Meteor: 5 March 1943

Introduction to the troops ("going operational")

  • Me 262: April 1944
  • Meteor: June 1944

So, the Me 262 was flying earlier than the Meteor by quite a big margin of several months, and additionally being given to the troops earlier (although by a rather small margin of some weeks). I propose to keep both articles consistent with this information. Thanks. MikeZ 07:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done some research and found the very first flights as follows

  • Me 262: April 18th 1941
  • Meteor: May 15th 1940

I think we need two, good reliable sources that agree, preferably not Internet. Finalreminder 16:39 13th October 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Some dates of various Me 262 Versuchs (prototypes) and variant first flights here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Another view[edit]

Michael Shrimpton wrote: (John W R Taylor, Aircraft Aircaft, Hamlyn, 1974,. 4th ed., pages 104-9, see also the standard reference works on the Gloster Meteor listed below, which give the delivery dates of the first aircraft in June 1944 to 616 Squadron). The German Propaganda Ministry claimed that the Me 262 was first, but the most recent research by the RAF Museum suggests October 1944 at as a the most realistic date for service entry (conversation with the author). The Museum publicly claims a 'combat' in July, but this turns out on inquiry to have been a chance encounter by an Me 262 prototpye on test, which does not seem to have been armed. There is no reliable record of it opening fire, although it may have entered into a mock dogfight with the unarmed Mosquito. On any view this was scarcely operational service.

The Meteor first entered service with 616 Squadron the preceding month, but several weeks were taken for work-up.

There are Nazi era records suggesting combat with the USAAF in August 1944, but Nazi era records are vulnerble to falsification for propaganda purposes and no one appears to have done a reconciliation with USAAF records.

The respected Editor of Janes All the World's Aircraft John W R Taylor, with the aid of respected researcher Charles Gibbs-Mith exhaustively analysed RAF and Luftwaffe records in the mid-1960s and published their conclusions in 1967 (Aircraft Aircraft, cited supra, the book was aimed at a general readership but is well-written and researched by the world's most published aviation author at that time). They place service entry for the Gloster Meteor Mk 1 as July 27 1944. The claim that the Me 262 was first has been endlessly recycled but is simply untrue, indeed it could even be said that the Me 262 was never truly operatoinal, as the Germans lagged behind Great Britain in advanced nickel alloy research and were never able to make a reliable turbojet engine. Moreover the Me 262 was unstable in engine out conditions, which it experienced fairly often, since the Jumo 004 was normally good for about 12 hours (and that included the delivery flight). In practice the Me 262 was a single-mission airplane, which would normally be expected to remain operational after an intensive day of combat.

This whole line of argument belongs here not in the article. See Wikiguides as to appropriate use of the encyclopedia. Bzuk 012:34 31 January 2007 (UTC).

More of the continuing argument[edit]

Michael Shrimpton wrote: "Although the German Me 262 flew first, many commentators have been confused by the fact that the first prototype had piston engines, and the first jet engines, a BMW design, were unreliable, contributing to the lengthy delays in bringing the 262 into service. It did not enter operational service until October 1944, although there are German claims, unconfirmed by Allied records, that the trials and development unit engaged in air combat in August 1944. Either way the British Gloster Meteor, although slower and aerodynamically less advanced, was the first into service. It was produced in quantity and in F Mk. 8 configuration became a sucessful ground attack fighter during the Korean War. " Bzuk 23:34 3 February 2007 (UTC).

..Look Michael Shrimpton, here are some dates for you:

  • 1.) Me-262 prototype first flight: Powered by Jumo 210 prop engine: April 18th 1941
  • 2.) Me-262 with both BMW 003 and Jumo prop engine first flight: March 25th 1942
  • 3.) RLM/Luftwaffe order for 15 pre-production fighters May 1942
  • 4.) Me-262 with only Jumo 004 jet engines first flight: July 18th 1942 (or EIGHT MONTHS before the Meteor's first flight)
  • 5.) Me-262 squadron forms in April 1944, Erprobungskommando 262 at Lechfeld in Bavaria


World War II Fighting Jets, Jeffery Ethell & Alfred Price ISBN 1-55750-940-9 German Jets 1944-1945, Manfred Griehl, ISBN 1-85367-356-0

The FIRST recorded flight of a Meteor was by the fifth, Halford H.1 engined, prototype DG206 at Cranwell on 5 March 1943.

ANY flights before that were by the G.40, (the firs of which was W4041, out of Cranwell on 15 May 1941). The G.40 IS NOT the Meteor.

Quite frankly I'm getting sick of Shrimpton's revisionalist false histories.

--Evil.Merlin 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Air Facts and Feats (Mason and Windrow) 1970:

"The Me 262A-1A entered operational service on 3rd October 1944; a test unit was expanded and renamed Kommando Nowotny under the command of Maj. Walter Nowotny - and became operational on that date"

"The first two aircraft were delivered on 12th July 1944 to the squadron (616 Sqn).... The first combat sortie was flow from Manston by the squadron on 27th July 1944 against V-1 flying bombs but was unsuccessfull owing to gun-firing difficulties.

Strange the book states the Me 262 as the first jet to enter operational service with any air force and then gives a first combat date of July 44 for the Meteor !! MilborneOne 22:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More reverting[edit]

the article says: No. 616's Meteors saw action for the first time on 27 July 1944, when three aircraft were active over Kent. The Meteor accounted for 14 flying bombs. These anti-V1 missions of 27 July 1944 were the Meteor's (and the Royal Air Force's) first operational jet combat missions. After some problems, especially with jamming guns, the first two V1 "kills" were made on 4 August. What does "The Meteor accounted for 14 flying bombs" mean in this context, since the next sentence says that the first kills came a week later?

Meteors shot down 14 over the war.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
IIRC, some of the V1's were destroyed by tipping their wings up by positioning the Meteor's wing under the V1's wingtip and then disrupting the airflow. So some V1's weren't actually 'shot' down. IIRC, several V1's were destroyed this way of necessity before the early Meteor's gun installation had been made reliable.
Tipping the wings of the V1 had been used earlier with Spitfires, Mustangs and Tempests, usually when they had run out of gun ammunition.
On reflection, I phrased my answer above wrongly and should have said "brought down" rather than "shot down" and that what the text says is that it was nearly two weeks after beginning flying operations that the first V1 was taken out by a Meteor. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Gloster Meteor and Me 262 claims[edit]

Michael Shrimpton- stop these constant revisions on the article pages, it is considered vandalism. I asked you to take the issue to the relevant discussion pages. That's the place to hash out controversies. Bzuk 12:34 6 February 2007

Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument in view of: a. Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany , summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable. The reasons: 1. Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted. German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences to render them complicit. In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documetation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ?

regardsOpuscalgary 20:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Me 262 v Gloster Meteor[edit]

Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY. Fellows, Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\ Opuscalgary 17:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael, having been tagged teamed by these guys this month, they re not pro German, just CDN's who believe everything written. Innocence!. At the AVRO ARROW site, you will see what I mean. Caio Opuscalgary 02:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Meteor v 262[edit]

The April and June dates are both wrong.

First flight dates for Meteor and 262 (with a Jumo piston engine, don't forget) are correct.

April 1944 is correct for deivery of pre-production airplanes (Me 262A-Os) to III./EJG2 (Alfred price,, as part of the test and training program, but query how reliable the pre-production Jumos 004s were - even when 'operational' in October the engines could barely take a day of combat, when delivery and test flights are added in.

It is far from clear the EJG planes were armed. Those big 30 mils were heavy, as was the ammo, and, the Jumo 004 was grossly underpowered - not much mroe than 500 horsepower equivalent, and even that could only be delivered for short periods. With unreliable and underpowered engines, and no trained jet pilots, it would make sense to cut weight, and fly unarmed. It would also stretch engine life.

June 1944 is correct for delivery of the first production Meteors to the RAF (616), but they were not operational until July 27th.

There were initial problems with the British Hispano 20 mils, which were an improved version with a higher rate of fire. They did tend to jam.

Price claims 26th July for this mysterious unarmed encounter with a Mossie. If it happened (British records do not appear to support this claim, which presumably is why no RAF crew can be named) it was an unared PR Mossie stooging over Lechfield for a looksee. The 262 was clearly an A-O, and very clearly unarmed, but I doubt whether a Mossie was encountered at all. The date (one day before the Meteor went operational) is highly suspicious, and this encounter only features in books after the Janes' research in the 1960s. (Michael Shrimpton 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)).

Usually if a Mosquito PR aircraft encountered an Me 262 it just manoeuvred to prevent the fighter's guns being brought to bear, or dived and entered any cloud cover, until the jet ran low on fuel and had to head home. By all accounts, this did not take long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


Quoting from a number of websites

In April 1944, Erprobungskommando 262 was formed at Lechfeld in Bavaria as a test unit to introduce the Me 262 into service and train a core of pilots to fly it. Major Walter Nowotny was assigned as Commander in July 1944, and the unit redesignated Kommando Nowotny. Kommando Novotny was essentially a trials and development unit, however it still holds the distinction of being the worlds first jet fighter squadron.

and also:

  • Price, Alfred. "Sleek and Deadly: The Messerschmitt Me 262." Flight Journal, February 2007. p. 36-37. Quote: "In April (1944), a service test unit, Erprobungskommando 262 was formed at Lechfeld in Bavaria...On July 20 (1944), after a short training, the 3rd Staffel, Kampfgeschwader 51 moved to Chateaudun in France with nine Me 262s... on July 26, Lt. Alfred Schreiber had a turning fight with a Mosquito of No. 544 Squadron."
  • Smith, J. Richard. Messerschmitt: An Aircraft Album. New York: Arco Publishing, 1971. ISBN 0-668-02505-5. p. 103. Quote: "On 25 July 1944, a Me 262 from EK262 recorded the world's first interception of an enemy aircraft by a jet fighter. A photo-reconnaissance Mosquito from No. 544 Squadron RAF was flying over the Munich area when the observer, F/O Lobban spotted an enemy aircraft in the distance. The pilot, F/Lt Wall, quickly accelerated the machine, but was surprised to see that the enemy was still closing rapidly. After evading five firing passes from the Me 262, Wall managed to dive into a cloud bank, eventually crash landing the Mosquito back at Fermo, near Venice." These are reference sources that should not be dismissed.

Probably more indicative of historian's views are the latest reference sources on the Gloster Meteor:

  • Ashley, Glenn. Meteor in Action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications Inc., 1995. ISBN 0-89747-332-9.
  • Bowyer, Chaz. Gloster Meteor. London: Ian Allen Ltd., 1985. ISBN 0-7110-1477-9.
  • Butler, Tony. Gloster Meteor. Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom: Hall Park Books Ltd., 2001. ISBN 1-85780-230-6.
  • Caruana, Richard J. and Franks, Richard A. The Gloster & AW Meteor. Kingsway, Bedford, United Kingdom: SAM Publications, 2004. ISBN 0-9533465-8-7.
  • Jones, Barry. Gloster Meteor. Ramsbury, Marlborough, Wiltshire, United Kingdom: The Crowood Press Ltd., 1998. ISBN 1-86126-162-4.

None of these sources or authors makes the claim that the Gloster Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Bzuk 22:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

"Service conversion of the Me 262 was placed under Hauptmann Werner Thierfelder's Erprobungskommando 262 at Lechfeld, to where the unit moved on 21 December 1943, with pilots drawn from 8. and 9./ZG 26. The EKdo 262 was given a batch of pre-production Me 262A-0 aircraft, and finally got into the swim of operations in the early summer of 1944. Thierfelder was killed in combat with 15th Air Force Mustangs over Bavaria on 18 July, and his place was taken by Hauptmann Neumeyer." Donald, David: World Air Power - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe, Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1994, 254, ISBN 1-874023-56-5, p.236 --MoRsE 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this information finally settle the dispute over operational introduction of the Me 262 and Meteor? Bzuk 01:14, 14 February 2007(UTC).
I found a little more too from the same source:
"The RAF brought back its first confirmation of the Me 262's existence on 25 July, when a de Havilland Mosquito of No. 544 (PR) Squadron was intercepted near Munich, Flight Lieutenant A. E. Wall and his navigator Flying Officer A. S. Lobban escaping with difficulty. Equipped with Messerschmitt Me 262A-2a fighter-bombers, the Einsatzkommando Schenk (Major Wolfgang Schenk) was formed at Lechfeld in July, before posting to the Normandy invasion front. The unit was based at Châteudun, Etampes and Creil, before pulling back to Juvincourt, near Reims, in late August. It was on 28 August 1944 that Allied fighter pilots downed the first Me 262 to be lost in combat: near Brussels, Major Joseph Myers and his wingman, Lieutenant M. D. Croy Jr, of the US 78th Fighter Group bounced Oberfeldwebel Lauer's Me 262 to force it down in a field."Donald, David: World Air Power - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe, Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1994, 254, ISBN 1-874023-56-5, p.236 --MoRsE 01:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now to the Meteor: "The first operational jet fighter squadron was No. 616, based at Culmhead, Somerset, which was equipped with Spitfire VIIs when its first two Meteor F.Is arrived on 12 July 1944. On 21 July the Squadron moved to Manston, Kent, receiving more Meteors on 23 July to form a detached flight of seven. The first operational sorties were flown on 27 July, and on 4 August, near Tonbridge, Flying Officer Dean destroyed the first V-1 flying bomb to be claimed by a jet fighter, using the Meteor's wingtip to tip it over into a spin after the aircraft's four 20-mm cannon had jammed. On the same day, Flying Officer Roger shot down a second V-1 near Tenterden." Mondey, David: "British Aircraft of World War II", Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1994, 239, ISBN 1-85152-668-4, p. 120. --MoRsE 01:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the British had known of the Me 262's (and the Me 163's) existence for some time due to RAF PRU photographs of Rechlin - both aircraft left tell-tail scorched burn marks on the ground - and due to ULTRA intercepts.
The Meteor's advantage over the piston engined fighters when it came to chasing V-1's was that the Meteor could fly flat-out for long periods with little strain on its engines, whereas with the piston-powered types doing this caused accelerated engine wear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gloster Trent-Meteor EE227.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gloster Trent-Meteor EE227.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


It is an error with values of the Climbing rate in the is the section Specifications:

New Infobox image?[edit]

how about this picture for the infobox?. Sorruno (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I do like the dynamic image, but IMO it's less representative of the type: late radar & 2 seater. The current pic strikes me as more typical, if less visually interesting. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Test Pilots[edit]

Obviously it offends your sensibilities, Trekphiler, but why shouldn't John Grierson get a mention when Michael Daunt does? (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC). Sorry, forgot to log in Lexysexy (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Three reasons. One, he didn't make the very first flight, which deserves a mention; two, it looked like it was only mentioned because it was the first U.S. flight; & three, it looked like it was only because he was American. These last two don't rise to notable, IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, mate, you're just showing the narrowness of your research. I agree with your first reason; two, it certainly was the first US flight, but by a TP intimately involved with the Meatbox development; and, three, JG most certainly wasn't Yank, he was a pioneer Brit (Scots) aviator, which you would have seen had you followed the link to his mention. I think he deserves recognition in this article.Lexysexy (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll own to not looking further. And I wouldn't squawk to mention of JG's involvement in the project. It appears, tho, he was more concerned later, so his mention, by name, at such an early stage for such a trivial reason remains unwarranted IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to support treks position the pilot of the first US flight is not really notable to the Meteor, more importantly EE210 the first flown by Daunt which is not mentioned. Griersons E.28/39 flights were probably far more important. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Why, thank you. (I love being right. ;p) Lex, if you've got anything on JG, why not put it on his page? It looks a bit thin on this subject, so it wouldn't hurt. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks as tho' I've been suckered into yet another 2v1, with predictable results. BTW, thanks Trek for your work on JG's page. I believe he had significant input to the development of the Meteor, but at the moment I'm stuck because I can't find a copy of "Jet Flight" - I'll be back when I do. As a matter of interest, you blokes aren't ginger beers, perchance? Lexysexy (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't a suck, I didn't see him in the sun, either. ;p No worries on the add, he seemed to have earned it, & I did suggest it. ;D "Ginger beer"? (Should I be offended? ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Offended? - hope not! Engineer of the aviation or flight persuasions.Lexysexy (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Offended? No, just never head the term. (Brit milspeak, I presume?) And no again, just a longtime aviation buff (who somehow managed to miss your cmt til now... Clearly my vision isn't fit for flying. ;D ) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Grierson's flight of the Meteor in the US is notable because it was the first flight of a 'proper' - despite the Meteor I's limitations - jet fighter in North America, the Bell P-59 Airacomet being nowhere near a usable combat aeroplane. As such, it was actually a fairly significant event, as it showed US observers what the potential of a jet-propelled fighter was, which, without being unkind to Bell, the P-59 didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Under this head we say there are four aircraft flying in the UK, not counting WA 591 though it should be airborne this year. Three of the four are the two M-B T.7s (WA638 and WL419) plus the T.T.20 (ex N.F.11) WM167. What is number four? I've done a quick trawl through Wrecks and Relics, but haven't spotted it. Anyone know its identity, owner, base etc?TSRL (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question only G-BWMF/WA591 and G-LOSM/WM167 are currently registered, as you said WA591 is still being restored and WM167 has a permit to fly and the two Martin-Baker machines, so that makes three! MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Meteor vs 262[edit]

I am sure someone will correct me if I have got it wrong ? I have always understood "operational" to mean ; Accepted into routine service by the operator ( RAF or Luftwaffe ) as being ready to undertake the role they have specified . It is clear that the Me262 flew first by a margin of more than a year , but , the Gloster Meteor was declared operational by the RAF on 27th July 1944 and the Me262 was declared operational by the Luftwaffe on 4th October 1944 . Regardless of first flights , training and developement squadrons , unarmed encounters etc etc , the Meteor was the first operational jet fighter in the world ! SM527RR (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

See extensive background on this subject in the archives. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

The Meteor was the first jet fighter to enter service with a regular line squadron and the first to score kills, beating the Me262 in both respects by a matter of months. (Although the Me163 Komet rocket fighter scored its first kills, three P-51s, on 5 August 1944, the very day after the Meteor killed its first two V-1s.) The 262 was the first to fly operational sorties of any kind, but these were with a trials unit, which was not squadron strength and did not fly regularly (because most days they hadn't even got one jet working), and the trials were unsuccessful - the object was to bring down a PR Mosquito and the unit never achieved this. Claims of kills by the 262 in summer 1944 are fictional and do not match any actual Allied losses (whereas Allied fighters did shoot down a number of 262s in that time). For instance the claim that Schreiber shot down Mosquito MM273 of 544 Sqn on 25 July is imaginary, and the fact that you'll find it in the Wikipedia article on the 262 means nothing. MM273 escaped - see C. Martin Sharp & Michael J.F.Bowyer, Mosquito, Crecy 1995, p.142. Even by October, Kommando Novotny only had about three 262s available on a given day - see Alfred Price, Battle Over the Reich, Ian Allan 1973, pp.168-9. On 8 November, the unit put up four and lost all of them including Novotny's, making 26 lost out of 30 delivered in just five weeks of operations (the first actual regular operations by 262s) - many of those losses were crashes, because of the 262's alarming aerodynamic vices. The unit was withdrawn and 262s didn't reappear till 1945. So the whole thing about the 262 being 'the world's first operational jet fighter' falls into that all too large category of information which is true, but misleading. -Hugo Barnacle, 3 February 201287.112.48.104 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Mosquito PR.XVI MM273 was being flown to photograph Copenhagen and then on to Stettin on 24th February 1945; [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Full stop[edit]

Can we get agreement on how the marks are to be identified? I'm seeing F 1, F.1, & F1 in the various incarnations... (I hope this isn't also happening on other Brit fighter pages. 80) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the source they all can be right! the modern version is F1 but it is not contempary with the Meteor. Problem is it is a short form of F Mark 1 which can also be F Mk 1, F Mk.1, F.Mk.1, F.1, F1, Mk 1, Mk. 1 and sometimes just Meteor I depending on who shortened it! although the version used in this article with a gap is not one of the normal contractions. I prefer to use the current format which would be F1 but not everybody agrees! MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm happy to accept any of them, I'm just wondering if there isn't (or should be) a guideline or something on which to use, or at least an agreement to use the same one on any given page. (I default to F.1, for it being an abbreviation, myself. ;D) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

NF14 Dimensions[edit]

The article states "the NF 14 was based on the NF 12 but had an even longer nose to accommodate new equipment pushing total length to 15.5 metres". I believe this is incorrect. Buttler and Buttler (Gloster Meteor: Britain's Celebrated First-Generation Jet) quote 15.21m / 14' 11" as a recent actual measurement. The 1955 Observers Book of Aircraft also states 14' 11" for the NF14. 15.21m / 14' 11" is the same length as the NF12. Buttler and Buttler explain the apparent extra length as an illusion.

15.5m is about 50' 10.25", a figure I've never seen referring to any Meteor. I have seen 51' 4" and 52' 4" (15.62m and 15.92m) given as the length of the NF14. Sir smellybeard (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mason's The British Fighter since 1912 gives 51 ft 4 in for the NF14, as does Derek James in Gloster Aircraft since 1917 (although James does quote 15.5 m for the metric conversion). James gives NF.11 as 48 ft 6 in, and the NF12 as 49 ft 11 in. The 1955 Observers may need caution as the actual length would have been classfied.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I do realize that the 1955 Observers may not be the most reliable source (for a few reasons). There is so much unreliable stuff out there (and so many awful drawings) that I think a set of pilot's notes for the NF14 would be the right kind of source to try. Regardless of the actual length, "15.5 metres" is the kind of wooly language that illustrates why metric really should not be used as the primary statement of a dimension in this kind of historical context. Sir smellybeard (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wing Area of Early Gloster Meteors[edit]

DIdn't the F-Mk.1 have a wing-area of 374 square feet, with the F-Mk.4 having a wing-area of 350 as shown on the page? AVKent882 (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Good catch - certainly according to James' Gloster Aircraft since 1917 - and Quest for Performance - which is quoted as one of the sources for the specs gives specs for the Mk IV, not Mk I.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Further comment - the specs were changed by an IP editor in March 2008 from an F.8 to a F.1 - without changing the references cited - which is why the specs have the strange decimal feet rather than feet and inches. Does anyone have any opinion about what mark of Meteor we should have specs for? It may be worth having specs for more than one mark (say the Mk 1, Mk 8 and one of the nioght fighters - pehaps in a table as used in some airliner articles?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Either the F 4 or F 8 were dedicated "day" fighters and representative of the entire clan. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC).
I'd suggest that as the F.8 was the "definitive" and main production version, it should be the "main" one - with perhaps a note with the dimensions and area of the (larger) wing of the early variants (and night fighters)??--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've restored the specs to the F8.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Number that Saw Combat In WW2[edit]

This article is quite confusing. Can you answer a question I have? How many Meteors (of any type) saw combat in World War 2.
Thanks - Heaney555z (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The number was obviously small. 616 squadron was effectively what the Germans would have called a trials squadron (erprobungskommando), at least until they exchanged their Meteor Is for the first Meteor IIIs in December 1944. 504 squadron is the only other unit I know of that flew Meteors before the end of the war. So the answer may be as few as two squadrons (at any given moment, say 36 aircraft). Large scale employment of jet aircraft by the RAF was a post-war thing, for all kinds of reason. But you're an editor here - not a casual "looker-up" - why not try to get the exact answer to your question yourself? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No.616 Sqn was in no sense comparable to a Nazi Erprobungskommando. It was a normal Spitfire squadron which in July-August 1944 converted completely to the Meteor I, receiving 16 aircraft, with some thirty pilots available to fly them. Even though the Mark Is were pre-production aircraft, Y-types in American terms, they functioned as proper service machines and they were up every day, during the cruise-missile attacks on London, when it mattered. Erprobungskommando my hat. -Hugo Barnacle87.112.48.104 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course 616 weren't any kind of "nazi" squadron(!) The analogy with a luftwaffe erprobungskommando is inexact and approximate, but the fact remains that 616's main function during its initial use of the very first Meteors was "proof and trials" of this new and revolutionary aircraft. In a sense they were not once more a normal fully operational squadron until they received the very much more combat-worthy Meteor III. The very small number of V1s they actually shot down (at a time when piston engined aircraft were knocking them down in considerable numbers) is indicative of this. In the same way, the Meteor Is weren't literally "pre-production" types - there was no precise British equivalent to the American "YP" designation they would undoubtedly have bourne if they had been developed in the United States. But your analogy is none the less a good one. I know we're aviation buffs and therefore officially a little crazy, but there is a time and a place for this kind of thing. On the whole it's best to at least try to be objective. Imperfect analogies can be very useful, in fact in comparing different types employed by different services (and, for instance, deciding which "came first") they are all but obligatory. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Report on the disadvantages of the Meteor I and expected improvements in the Meteor III in a Sept 1944 report here: [3] - more here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
BTW, if anyone's wondering why the Meteor was chosen over the Vampire for use as an RAF interceptor it was because the Meteor possessed "excellent" rate-of-climb and acceleration figures for a first generation jet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The Meteor I was known by the Air Ministry to be effectively obsolete when 616 converted to them, the Meteor III being the planned main production Mark, but the I's were introduced as a stop-gap until the III's were ready, the III being delayed by production of what became the new Derwent engine which Rolls-Royce were still testing and tooling-up for. So few Mark I's were built because Gloster's had already started re-tooling for the Mark III. The early use of the Mark I was also very useful in familiarising pilots and ground crew with flying and handling jet aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
JFYI, the Meteor was designed with a nose armament of six 20mm Hispano Mk II cannon but at some time during the design process it was discovered that because of poor access the two bottom cannon would not have been able to be unloaded on the ground, hence for any work on them after an operational flight the armourers would have had to have removed these two guns while they were still loaded. This was deemed unsafe, and so the bottom two cannon were deleted from the design. The missing weight of these two cannon is the reason nose ballast was subsequently required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Gloster's civil Meteor F.4 demonstrator G-AIDC was the first civilian-registered jet aircraft in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


M1 and Trekky, shouldn't we be talking about Engines (plural) in this para?Lexysexy (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, changed to engines. MilborneOne (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Date Typo[edit]

Could someone with access to the sources, please fix a date typo? Specifically "DG209/G was used as an engine test-bed by Rolls-Royce, first flying on 189 April 1944". At least last I checked April only had 30 days. --J Clear (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


The article contains this text "Argentine Air Force ordered 50 F.4s in May 1947, comprising 50 ex-RAF aircraft and 50 newly built." referenced by note 36 (James 1971, p. 262.)

Obviously 50 != 50 + 50. Can someone with access to the reference or equivalent please correct the entry.

Thanks Kiore (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted - fixed!Nigel Ish (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Nigel Kiore (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

NZ T3[edit]

Ref New Zealand use, what was a T3?Lexysexy (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

An F.3 in disguise. See here. Moriori (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks. Doubtless to fool the enemy.Lexysexy (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Bang Seats[edit]

There seems to be (unless I am very much mistaken) a no doubt well-intended move by one or two folk to clear up what they perceive as grammatical errors. Unfortunately, it seems that they have no knowledge of the aeroplane itself (whatever their quality of parsing might be). Can I have an authoritative input about which marks had bang seats and which didn't? My long-term understanding is, for instance, that the 7 certainly didn't have bang seats, but every time I try to get the mission back on track, somebody retrospectively fits them! Lexysexy (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick nose through the backissues of Flight at the archive. "Characteristics that distinguish the Mark 8 from the Mark 4 ....a Martin-Baker ejection seat is standard equipment" (1949), [ "In June 1947 it was decided to standardise the Martin-Baker

ejection seat for installation"] (1965). Nothing on the Mark 7 yet, save it was the test vehicle for MB. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you read The Chalgrove Meteors at: <> it is quite clear that the Mk7s (except for the MB owned a/c) were not built to have ejection seats.Lexysexy (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that the Mk 7 used by Folland for their ejector seat design was not one of the MB Meteors. But I have yet to find any reference to general refitting of the 7 for ejection seats. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────A test prototype, the T.MK 7 1/2 (WA634) was fitted with a Martin Baker Mk 3 and Mk 4 ejection seats. The rest of the series utilized a F4 cockpit enlarged to a two-seat configuration. No ejection seats were fitted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I shot down the law[edit]

This page says 14 V-1 kills by Meteor. John Christopher, The Race for Hitler's X-Planes (The Mill, Gloucestershire: History Press, 2013), p.109, says 13. I have some doubts about Christopher's accuracy, but... Can anybody clear it up? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"incidents were reported of pilots on both sides mistaking one aircraft for the other"[edit]

(see also this thread [5] on Talk:Messerschmitt Me 262)

This article states that "The Meteor shared a similar basic configuration to its German equivalent, the Messerschmitt Me 262 (although the latter aircraft had swept wings); incidents were reported of pilots on both sides mistaking one aircraft for the other", and that it "faced more problems through misidentification as the Messerschmitt Me 262 by Allied aircraft and flak than from the Luftwaffe." Only the former has a citation - to Sterling Michael Pavelec's The Jet Race and the Second World War, p. 120-121. The source however only states that "Interestingly, the F.9/40M Meteor carried the axial-flow turbojets underwing, the same basic configuration as the German Me 262. It is uncanny how similar the two look from head-on views." [6] Not an assertion that the aircraft were ever misidentified in practice. As I have stated at Talk:Messerschmitt Me 262, I think that we need strong sourcing for claims of misidentification - and as of now, we seem to have none at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and the source is referring to the Metrovick-engine Meteor, which only flew in test form, and not the production Meteor with the Whittle engines mounted mid-wing which would look less similar (this vs this) notwithstanding their different profiles from the side or overhead. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yup - there is a photo here [7] showing the MetroVick prototype. Certainly easier to mistake for a Me 262 than the production versions, but again only head/tail on, and as a prototype not relevant anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Might one have the temerity to suggest that it is eminently possible that an even stronger cause of misidentification/confusion might have been due to the very different noise a jet (even a 1944/45 vintage one) makes when compared with a piston engined aircraft? The first thing ground troops or light flak units buzzed by either type would have noticed (surely) was that distinctive turbine whine. A jet (even the underpowered and comparatively slow early Meteor) also seems to be (and often is) moving much faster than most piston engined aircraft. So an aircraft (with a generally similar layout) passes overhead "like a bat out of hell" and making a most unusual noise - someone tells you "That's a Meteor", or "That's an Me 262" as the case might have been - might one be excused for making some assumptions when the same happens again? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, the article currently states that "pilots on both sides" mistook the aircraft, as well as ground troops. Anyway, we need a source for this supposed misidentification, and we don't have one. If one isn't found soon, I'm going to remove the statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
At the time Allied ground troops on the Continent and other forces may well have heard rumours-of or actually seen Me 262's going overhead. The Meteor OTOH was secret (which is why initially it was only allowed to be used over the south east of England against V-1's) so most would not have been aware of an Allied twin-engined jet of the same basic configuration. Thus they would likely assume any such aircraft was hostile. That's why the Meteors were painted white overall, it being fairly simple to issue orders not to fire at any white jet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Frank Whittle[edit]

The article currently refers (third line under Origins) to Whittle being an RAF flying officer at the formation of Power Jets. The words are linked to the article that clearly defines Flying Officer (the rank). According to his article, Whittle was a Flight Lieutenant at the time. There are several options - unlink the reference, replace the words with pilot, replace the words with Flight Lieutenant. I'm not sure what the author intended by the term. Ideas?Lexysexy (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not a F/O and as you say at the time a Flt Lt - it is not really important to the Meteor story so I just removed the incorrect statement. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Roger -OutLexysexy (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

B58 Melsbroek Deployment[edit]

I have edited the caption of the 'Melsbroek' imageto reflect that the four Meteors deployed to Airfield B58, Melsbroek, Belgium on 20 January 1945 were type F.3s.

Their serials and codes were: EE235/YQ-P, EE239/YQ-Q, EE240/YQ-R, EE241/YQ-S

EE235 is sometimes erroneously referred to as EE225 which was an earlier F.1 a/c.

The four a/c were over-painted white (apart from their serial 3 digit number) as an aid to Allied ground forces familiarisation with the new Meteor type. This was the primary function of the deployment prior to the full squadron deployment to the Continent.

A good reference for this information is on p.71 of [1]

Further more all images of the white 'Melsbroek' Meteors clearly show them to be F.3s (most easily identified by the canopy shape)


Dave Daveyblade (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, B58 Melsbroek was an Advanced Landing Ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Meteor I Vs V1 Flying Bomb: 1944 by Donald Nijoboer


OK, the Yanks don't like it (see the correction offered by Wiki) but Fowler does, that's good enough for me.Lexysexy (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)