Talk:Gloster Meteor/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Date Typo

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)

Argentina

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

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

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 Flightglobal.com archive. "Characteristics that distinguish the Mark 8 from the Mark 4 ....a Martin-Baker ejection seat is standard equipment" (1949), [http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1965/1965%20-%203023.html "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: <http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/The-Chalgrove-meteors-_2_.pdf> 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

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"

(see also this thread [1] 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." [2] 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 [3] 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 95.150.11.156 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Frank Whittle

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

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

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

Regards,

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

FYI, B58 Melsbroek was an Advanced Landing Ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.233 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Disassembly

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)

Nickname

With no mention of the "meatbox" nickname in the article proper, it does not belong in the lead.Primergrey (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

"Meatbox" was still the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gloster Meteor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131015440/http://www.enginehistory.org/r-r_w2b.htm to http://www.enginehistory.org/r-r_w2b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What actually was the top speed of the plane, and if the given specs are accurate why does the He 162 page contradict it.

According to this article the Gloster Meteor had a top speed of 965 K/PH. According to the He 162 article the plane had a top speed of 905 K/PH and was also the fastest plane flown in WW2. Which is right? Additionally, what armament the plane is using in the given situation must be specified for clarity. Fritz1776 (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Several different "marks" of Meteor, and it was in service for 12 years. Performance differed considerably between the early marks and later ones. Performance figures, incidentally, are for the main production model (Mk 8), which came out well after "WW2" - so comparison with He 162 are pretty irrelevant. Assume 4X20mm cannon standard armament. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Also bear in mind conditions at the time of measurement (if any), state of wear on the aircraft & engines, & countless other factors that influence actual speed. Any quoted number is a bit notional, on both sides. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)