Talk:Gloster Meteor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  890 RAF meteors lost: source ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Only post war performace for the Meteor

message: 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  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:
----
----
;References
;Citations 
;Bibliography 
* Bowyer, Chaz. Gloster Meteor. Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allen Ltd, 1985. .
* Ethell, Jeffrey L. & Price, Alfred. World War II fighting jets. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1994. .
* Jackson, Robert. Aircraft of World War II: development, weaponry, specifications. London: Amber Books Ltd, 2003. .
----
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mk summarised in the specifications section

message: The article is vague as to what the plane did during WW II vs. after those years.
* Messerschmitt Me 262 was the world's first operational fighter aircraft and "the only jet fighter to see air-to-air combat in World War Two".
Peter K Burian (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this part of the thread above or a new section? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled