Why the Meteor?

Not that I am disputing your third point, but if this was the case, why then did she earn herself the ‘Meatbox’ nickname? Typically British gallows humour?

‘Meatbox’ came from the visually solid construction and easy slide from Meteor name,
Never heard it in reference to accidents.

Totally agree withe Peter Verneys post as to widespread use of Meteor.

Not that I am disputing your third point, but if this was the case, why then did she earn herself the ‘Meatbox’ nickname? Typically British gallows humour?

I feel the main reasons why the Meatbox became a big exportee were:–

1 They were readily available, rolling off the production lines. In addition the government was desperate for exports and foreign currency and so were quite happy to see RAF aircraft diverted.

2 It was an early 1940s design, simple to maintain and run by inexperienced Air Forces, and with well tried technology.

3 It was easy and generally very safe to fly, well suited to inexperienced pilots. I heard it referred to as “a gentlemans aeroplane”, and as a totally untrained nav, was allowed to give it a whirl to the extent of barrel rolling it.

Not sure how much that would have to do with it, German scientists and their research ware embraced by the allies, the ‘Space Race’ being the ultimate showing of it.

Yes, the allies used German technology, and I believe V2s were used in research, but I feel that an entire German-designed airframe – even with British engines – as a major RAF type instead of a home-grown one would have met with disapproval at all levels. Of course I’m much too young to know exactly what people’s attitudes were then, but those are my feelings.

Anyway, all that just got me imagining air-to-air photographs of natural metal 262s in RAF roundels . . . oh yes!

According to Captain Eric Brown (who flew just about all of them) The Me262 was, (in his opinion) “The most formidable aircraft of World War 2”

..I think there would have been enormous ideological resistance to adopting an aircraft that had been designed by the enemy. I’m sure that anti-German feeling was still fairly strong at the end of the war.

Not sure how much that would have to do with it, German scientists and their research ware embraced by the allies, the ‘Space Race’ being the ultimate showing of it.

Regardless of how good the Me262 might have been, I think there would have been enormous ideological resistance to adopting an aircraft that had been designed by the enemy. I’m sure that anti-German feeling was still fairly strong at the end of the war. Ditching British designs in favour of ‘Nazi’ ones would have been unthinkable, wouldn’t it?

25 hours running time for the engines wasn’t exactly fantastic either.

We tend to over-rate Axis equipment for some unknown reason, an example being all the talk of Luftwaffe ’46 equipment and how superior it would have been without considering what the Allies would have had by then.

Thats not entirely fair if we are drawing a what if post-war comparison. German manufacturing was in a shocking state in the final stages of WWII and strategic materials were sub standard.
The Double Mamba axial flow ASMD.1 in the Gannet was only achieving 9 hrs when it first entered service, that was almost ten years later, and was being built with all the resources that could be chucked at it.
Sure the Chunky Wellands were tougher, but ultimately a dead end layout.

Evaluations did take place between the 262 and the Meteor and P-80.
Aparently it was better than both for speed, power, as a gun platform and for the pilots visibility and cockpit layout.
I’m not learned on the subject so I don’t know if there were any disadvantages or indeed any more advantages.

As a bystander though, youv’e got to admit the 262 just looks way more slippery than the other types around, and to my eyes wasn’t bettered until the second generation of Jets, ie F-86s and Hunters.
Look closely at Cosfords 262 and the finish is far more superior than the Meteor. You wouldn’t think that I’m actually a Meteor fan!

Has history proved that two engines are best in a fighter, ie Lightning, Eagle, Typhoon etc?

The swept wing myth keeps coming up when talking about the 262, according to at least one source the only reason the 262 had swept wings was to counter a severe c of g problem. (Me 262 Stormbird Rising -Hugh Morgan) They just got lucky with that one

which aircraft turned better? I’d rather get in a turning fight in one of Gloucester’s finest. Which one got hacked down at low speed when trying to land due to engine spool rates?

25 hours running time for the engines wasn’t exactly fantastic either.

We tend to over-rate Axis equipment for some unknown reason, an example being all the talk of Luftwaffe ’46 equipment and how superior it would have been without considering what the Allies would have had by then.

I would have thought that ‘why the Meteor rather than the P-80’ would be a good question too?

I was going for the twin-engine comparison.
But a 1945 Meteor (not a 50s variant) vs a 262 …which might be more advanced aerodynamically (swept wings) is a interesting question.

The Sukhoi Su-9 (the first time the designation was used) was a twin-Jumo fighter that looked superficially like an Me-262.

It had a slender fuselage, low set, unswept wings under which were mounted the jet engines.

It was as similar to a Meteor as it was to a 262 and was NOT based on the latter.

It was developed into the Su-11 and Su-13 – with two indigenous Lyulka TR-1 turbojets.

The Su-11/13 looked even more like a Meteor – because the engines were more mid-set on the wings.

Like you say, Sukhoi suffered from the influence that Yakovlev had on the Council of Ministers – it was he who spread the suggestion about the Su-9 being an Me-262 ‘copy’.

Ken

Sorry Ken I should have clarified, I was not suggesting that Sukhoi copied the 262, simply that the insinuation undermined the type therefore revealing a very strong distaste for anything overtly German that would explain why the 262 was produced in the communist bloc.

Interestingly I have seen references to Sukhoi developed fighters being abandoned in late 50s after it was suggested to Stalin that they were just warmed over 262’s

The Sukhoi Su-9 (the first time the designation was used) was a twin-Jumo fighter that looked superficially like an Me-262.

It had a slender fuselage, low set, unswept wings under which were mounted the jet engines.

It was as similar to a Meteor as it was to a 262 and was NOT based on the latter.

It was developed into the Su-11 and Su-13 – with two indigenous Lyulka TR-1 turbojets.

The Su-11/13 looked even more like a Meteor – because the engines were more mid-set on the wings.

Like you say, Sukhoi suffered from the influence that Yakovlev had on the Council of Ministers – it was he who spread the suggestion about the Su-9 being an Me-262 ‘copy’.

Ken

There were some minor issues with building 262’s after the Nazi collapse. German industry was being demolished and the distributed production tooling for the 262 made re-starting production difficult. Interestingly I have seen references to Sukhoi developed fighters being abandoned in late 50s after it was suggested to Stalin that they were just warmed over 262’s. Eastern Europe took what it was given by the new overlords and western Europe had no industry and took donations from Uncle Sam and Little Britain. Furthermore, 2-3 years passed after 45 before the Cold War really got cold during which time much of the German technology had been absorbed anyway- see F-86/Mig-15.

It is worthy of note the Tu-95 is essentially a combination of a highly evolved B-29 airframe with some Nazi designed turboprops in it.

I would have thought that ‘why the Meteor rather than the P-80’ would be a good question too?

Slightly off topic…but fun to think about…

In a Meteor vs Me 262 aerial combat, (all things being equal) which would you prefer?

The Meteor was “good to go” in terms of production lines set up, materials gathered etc. Reverse engineering the Me-262 would have taken a while even with every plan and blueprint to hand.

Design skill and exoerience overtook the general layout if you consider the single engined layout of the F-84, F-86, Mig-15, Swift/Hunter, Mystere and Oregan all “next in line” fighters.

Hawker did create a twin engined fighter with the same general layout but it got little further than basic drawings, single engined day fighters became the norm with the growth in engine capability.

I think you will find that the makers of the Me262 went out of business in 1945…

The Czechs used existing airframes and parts.

I dont believe it was in service for very long.

Bruce

Not to mention the 262 was more advanced as a type, ie axial flow engines, swept wing, superior finish and cockpit position.

I would think that the fact that Britains aviation industry, Glosters, and MoS were in a far better situation to supply Meteors (the one jet then readily available) to other airforces than either Messerchmitt or German industry could had a serious bearing on the post war-sales of Meteor.

It would be interesting to know more about the Czech 262s, did they just copy it, or did they officially licence produce it/buy it, if so from whom?

Imagine if one of the British firms were brave enough to produce the 262 and build it properly (the only downfall in German production), we might have seen 262s around for quite a while!