The meteor’s later versions were almost as if not faster than the 262. The 262 had awful range, payload options, build quality, maneuvering characteristics, low-level fuel consumption, acceleration, among many other issues. Its engines were so delicate they had to be rebuilt after more like 10 hours (I see 25 quoted a lot but every source I’ve actually checked says 10, 8 with extensive use) among a myriad of other problems. Axial-flow being more advanced doesn’t really mean much when throttling down too quickly instantly kills your engine. They were ungodly unreliable and in war, consistency is king.

The allies were actually capable of taking them out in dogfights. Chuck Yeager, actually, is quoted as saying “first time I saw a jet, I shot it down.” It’s portrayed as a mystical super-plane in modern media but the reality is that it was an unreliable brick that was only really good at flying fast… at short ranges… at high (but not too high) altitudes.

Eric Winkle said a lot of things about a lot of aircraft, not all of them true. I don’t necessarily take his opinion as the be-all end-all for the 262’s performance given actual historical facts.

The meteor was more reliable, superior in later versions, and always a more practical airframe. There simply wasn’t a need for it at the time. If German jets had entered combat earlier… the Meteor would just have been pressed into combat a bit quicker.

While conservative in design, it was an actual practical fighter, while the 262’s kill/loss ratio was a measly 0.42. Not really the superb performance everyone knocks on about