Warbird Information Exchange

Can someone explain to me why the Gloster Meteor is no more than a footnote in the history of the 2nd World War?

It was onhand days before D-day, seems to me that the Meteor was in the right place at the right time to have contributed even more to the war effort than V-1 interception, armed recon and the few instances of ground interdiction.

I realize that the Meteor was restricted from engaging the Luftwaffe, especially over German-held territory due to intelligence concerns. It just seems odd, to me, to have a potentialy Me262 competitive weapons platform and not take advantage of it. Not to mention the lesser examples of the Luftwaffe.

Can anyone shed any light?

Thanks



Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

The early ones were not any faster than the piston engine a/c of the time, they handled poorly as well.

The Mk III eliminated some of these probs. and in Jan. 45 one flight of Meteors from 616 squadron operated out of a base in Belgium in hopes that they could tangle with 262s. I guess this never happened with any enemy a/c?????....????? Rest of the squadron transfered up there and did some armed recce and ground attack work toward the end of the war.

Hi Shay,

That's a very good question. I don't know much about the Meteor other than it being the RAF's first jet airplane.

You raise a very good point about how under-told the story of the Meteor is. One question I have is "How come they held the Meteor back from direct contact with Luftwaffe aircraft? Meanwhile the Luftwaffe didn't seem to shy away from using their secret weapons." Maybe there's someone on here that can help us learn a little more about this special part of aviation history.

Cheers,

David McIntosh

This link has some interesting info on eary Meteor ops.
http://www.vectorsite.net/avmeteor.html#m3

_________________
If the first casualty of war is innocence, the second is sobriety - Hawkeye.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws - Plato.
Lies get halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on - Churchill
If you are going through he11 - keep going - Churchill

Whew, tough question!

Let's see. First: It was better than the Gloster E28/39 and the Bell Airacomet, both the first jets of the respective nations, both theoretically intended to be front line fighter types when on the drawing board, but in actual performance far too low to fulfil the role with any chance of success. However, the early Meatboxes weren't that good, and they did suffer, as Cripes A Mighty's stated, from poor performance due to the primitive jets.

Second: The British believed that it was hot stuff - too hot to risk losing an example over enemy territory and the dastardly Huns copying it and sending back German copies at us. Rather like the first tanks of W.W.I (We didn't really realise that the Germans were already well ahead.)

Both the Meteor and the Spider Crab (renamed Vampire, an improvement but still as name that ~um~ sucks) were first generation types that improved rapidly in development; the alternative the Gloster E1/44 was a dud.



The Lockheed P-80 was slightly later generation, with a better wing and without some of the early, poor, choices made by Gloster's team. (Remember, in 1940 - 45, we didn't even know what a jet engine really looked like, nor how it was best used.) Successful as the P-80 was, it begat the T-33, one of the greats, and flown by WIX members, so it's all good.

The Italians went off up an even blinder alley with the Ciampini Caproni CC.1; a piston engine running an afterburner, and slow.



Incidentally, Gloster did a spiffing sales job on the Meteor, and that's why it was so successful post-war, as well as holding the air speed record, thanks to some dedicated work by the RAF. IIRC, It was Canada, Australia and New Zealand's first jet type, as well as Britain's, the Aussie and Canuckian loaners sent to test cold weather and hot weather conditions. I guess the Kiwi's got one in case they sulked, or to test sheep ingestion risks.

HTH.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

JDK,

True, the Meatbox was the RAAF's first jet fighter, but it wasn't our first choice. We wanted the Sabre, but with the USAF embroiled in Korea, there weren't going to be any available (there was also, I believe, a bias toward "Mother England" in the decision). Hence 77 Sqn had their Mustangs replaced with Meteors instead. Without swept wings, they were probably always going to be a few paces behind the MiG-15s.

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

Not actually the point I was making. The RAAF were loaned a single Meteor Mk.III (EE427) in 1946. The Sabre wasn't an option then, as it wasn't even in the air until 1947...

It got bent coming down at high speed into Darwin, where the cockpit glazing fogged up, and the pilot busted it as a consequence. Was A77-1 by that time.

At RAAF Laverton.


Busted at Darwin.


Photos via RAAF Museum.

(See Flightpath magazine 18/1 Aug Oct 2006, for '60 Years of RAAF Meteor Ops' by...)

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

James,

I wasn't really leaping on any particular point. Only to suggest that after getting A77-1 (and any others after?) our mob still wanted the Sabre five years later. It leads me to believe they weren't impressed with the Meteor. Do you have any insights as to how A77-1 came up in the evaluation?

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

No sweat I think we've got two things muddled here, simply because the feature the same type (but different marks).

In 1946, before the Sabre had flown, the RAAF were given a Meteor Mk.III partly for hot and hot and wet trials for British and Australian interests. That was the main reason. I'm sure the type was evaluated, but primarily against the Vampire, and, arguably perhaps the P-80. The Sabre wasn't in contention, and I don't think overseas purchases were a very serious consideration, as we'd just finished fighting, and were scaling back and refocussing on CAC Mustang and DAP Lincolns - nice cutting edge stuff probably wasn't going to happen quickly, and wasn't the priority, being much lower on the shopping list, IMHO.

Five years later was a completely different story, with a hot war and an urgent need where CAC Mustangs weren't going to cut it. The F8 Meatbox was a significantly better aircraft than the Mk.III but the Sabre was probably the world's best at the time. I can't see any five year old leisurely, non-specific task Mk.III evaluation would have anything to do with F8 or Sabre choices. Waiting on the (Empire Preference) Hunter (IIRC) was the Menzies choice, if it'd been possible, as well.

Does that make sense?

Coming back on topic, the Mk.I Meteor was a new airframe, engine and concept in one package. Tidied up we got the Mk.III, but like the P-51A (say) or early Curtis Hawks, they were far from developed designs or at the most effective of the series. As we now know, while the Meteor was a solid, workmanlike, tough aircraft, there were other types that were better, although some, like the 262, while significantly better in concept than general performance than the Meatbox, are over-rated today because of looks and mythology as well.

Cheers,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com