Much as I’m a fan of the type, why would the Smithsonian want one? It has no great US connection I’m aware of nor any great technical merit (over peer types, IMHO, but accepting it has a great export record, including to S America, but not Canada, tellingly.)
Or am I missing something?
One can make a reason for almost any aeroplane to be included in almost any museum 😀
I haven’t looked at NASM’s Collecting Policy but assume as it is a World class museum it does not collect solely US types or those that have a direct connection with the US. This is verified on viewing the listing of their collection.
The Gloster Meteor was, arguably, the first (some say second) gas turbine powered aircraft to enter service.
The Meteor took an active part in WW2 – NASM have large numbers of non-US types from both WW2 and WW1 that were built and operated by their allies and enemies. You could, perhaps, draw a direct parallel between the Meteor (end of WW2) and the Sopwith Snipe (end of WW1) in the collection.
The Meteor played a role in the Korean War which, although to be accurate was a UN led conflict, most Americans (I would say) think of as a US vs. communists war.
The Meteor was the first operational aircraft to utilise the Whittle jet engine – the engine which launched the US aero gas turbine industry. From what I remember of my only visit to the Smithsonian Von Ohain is given far greater prominence than Whittle largely, I thought, because of the inclusion of the Me 262 on display.
Look at some of the other types in the NASM collection and tell me which are more deserving than the Meteor:
Antonov An.2
Cierva C8.w
Dassault Falcon 20
Extra 260
Grunau Baby
Hispano HA-200 :confused:
MiG 21
SAAB J-29
Sukhoi Su 26 and Yakovlev Yak 18 aerobatic aeroplanes.
I rest my case 😀
Roger Smith.
Sign In
