Talk:Messerschmitt Me 262/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Photograph

Just a note: Previous versions of this article have featured photographs of this historically significant aircraft. Unfortunately, all of those photos are copyright, and we have not had permission to use them.

If somebody has, or can take a photograph of an Me 262 and submit it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright, that would be wonderful. There's a restored one at the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio. There is also one at the War Memorial in Canberra, Australia, but it's currently in pieces unfortunately. I presume there must be one or two in Germany somewhere. Finally, there is a group in the USA building replicas of them, which may be cheating a little but have the advantage that we might get a photos of one in flight. --Robert Merkel 01:06, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

this source needs better citations

"The production version of the P-80 could not outperform the Me 262, as quoted during a formerly secret report which said: 'Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (907 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80A in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current [Army-Air Force] fighter."

I have never heard this ever and I dont' see where the citation is. I think this is likely a fabrication. Where is the citation?

I absolutly don't think saying "a formerly secret report" is sufficient or acceptable. I'm going to take it out until it can be justified.

• This information is CLEARLY given in 'Jets of World War 2'. I will be more than happy to post more information on the book once I get home. Till then the quote goes right back in.--Evil.Merlin 20:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• • the two sources used are: German Jets 1944-1945 by Manfred Griehl ISBN 1-85367-356-0 and World War II Fighting Jets by Jeffery Ethell and Alfred Price ISBN 1-55750-940-9. Comments on the 262 superiority listed on page 180 of World War II Fighting Jets, comments on the Meteor in both German Jets 1944-1945. Comments on the Meteor's visiblity listed on page 97, comments on poor gun platform page 99. I think thats enough of that. --Evil.Merlin 06:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

paragraph

The paragraph beginning "Another problem with the jet engine is..." seems out of place. It's the only paragraph in the article that's written in the present tense. I'd rewrite it, but I'm not sure if the problems described were characteristics of the Me-262 engines specifically, or if they're typical of all jet engines. -- Ortonmc 16:41, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Loaded weight

Could someone please fix this, the loaded weight is larger than the max takeoff weight, this would mean that the plane could never take off with a full load,...

Messerschmitt Me 262

Is anybody in the world still flying a maintained Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter?

I've heard that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen had one refurbished to airworthy condition, possibly using the same engines used in the replicas. Building up original Jumos to be reliable would be prohibitively expensive, even for a person that wealthy. A google for me 262 paul allen digs up http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=75029 plus some other hits. Should be included in the article as a flying survivor, if the restoration is completed. Bizzybody (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, immortalized

Gugilymugily, would you please explain why it was necessary to change this wording? I really hope it wasn't because "immortalized" sounded too POV, because it means you've got a lot more editing ahead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I figured that in this case, immortalized just wasn't the right word. I think that the plane is remembered more for its role than for the song. --Gugilymugily 04:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you can suggest an alternate wording that doesn't leave it as a form of "to be", I'm not stuck on my original. "To be" is so offensively, aggressively bland that it should really not be used when an alternative can be found. (JMHO.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about something like this, same basic part, just with a bit more about the song:

"The Me 262 was the subject of a song by the heavy metal band Blue Oyster Cult named "ME 262", found on their third album, Secret Treaties. The song was told from the perspective of a German pilot of an Me 262." I've been trying to come up with an alternate wording, but every thing comes out as either the same thing I had or a synonym of immortalize.--Gugilymugily 05:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about "The heavy metal band Blue Oyster Cult paid tribute to the Messerschmitt as the "prince of turbojets" with their song "ME 262", found on their Secret Treaties album"? 'paid tribute' does not have the problem of 'immortalize' in implying that the fame of the subject comes from the tribute; it has a little more information about the song; and finally it avoids the "to be" problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like it, and I changed it to pretty much that. I think it's better than either version, and it only took us 2-1/2 hours to get there.--Gugilymugily 06:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's see "Jane's Guide To Fighter Planes" produce that kind of turn-around time! ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's see Jane's mention Blue Öyster Cult, first. =D (Assuming anyone at Jane's knows who they are... xD) Trekphiler (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't shock you to learn that Jane's (and associated employees) has more than passing familiarity with BOC. As to mentioning it in print. . . Sadly, no chance.

First Jet Aircraft

It's my understanding that the Gloster Meteor (the initial variants thereof were known as Gloster E.28/39) was the first jet aircraft. I'd like to see some substantiation of the claim of "1st" on the 262's behalf. While it is romantic to think of the ME 262 in special terms, those terms must be accurate. The ME 262 was not the "first operational jet powered aircraft." This sentence is simply wrong and must be corrected. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 22:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, you are incorrect, that'd be either Heinkel He 178 or Heinkel He 280. GeneralPatton 23:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are correct, (but I question if you are), "operational" must be defined or the sentence wording (rv, even meteor wasn't the first one, however Me 262 was the first *operational") somehow changed to make it more accurate to the lay reader. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I believe the Me-262 is the first operational jet powered combat aircraft. The first flight of the Gloster Meteor is in 1943, but the Me-262 flew in 1942. All other jet aircraft before the Me-262 did not have combat capabilities. EisenKnoechel

Ah! perhapse a mis-understanding of the language. Operational does not mean working or able to do the job. It means when did the airforce receive the machine and have it in a state that it could fly a sorty (against an enemy). There is a specific date when this happens for all aircraft. For example the Gloster Meteor on July 12 1944 entered service with the RAF. It Saw action for the first time on July 27, 1944 against the V1 Flying Bomb. (see List_of_World_War_II_jet_aircraft) Philip Baird Shearer 03:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The V3 third prototype airframe became a true "jet" when it flew on 18 July 1942 in Leipheim near Günzburg, Germany, piloted by Fritz Wendel. This was almost nine full months ahead of the British Gloster Meteor's first flight on 5 March 1943" It's right in the article. Altough not the first jet, it was the first combat jet, as the E.28/39 was not used in combat. The Heinkel He 178 was the first jet aircraft. - W35M4N

The never ending discussion on every invention .. there MUST be an American who invented it. Envy? --84.141.24.116 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's "he"?

Who's "he" in paragraph 3? Presumably the designer? 129.94.6.28

I don't see any "he" in para3. Trekphiler (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Prague Aero museum?

Is that one of the two listed here? [1] -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.militarymuseum.cz/cz/cz/muzeum_expo_detail.php?id=6&id_muzeum=3&id_kat=3

Deutsches Museum

There is an ME 262 on display in the ground floor Aeronautics hall of the Deutches Museum, Munich, Germany (I have a poor photo of it).

You can vaguely see it in the QuickTime panoramic view on the museum website.

Too much g's or speed?

Consider these sentences: "[speed higher than mach0.86] would lead to a nose-down trim that could not be countered by the pilot. The resulting steepening of the dive would lead to even higher speeds and disintegration of the airframe due to excessive negative g loads."

So, at high speeds, the plane has a tendency to dive but I don't see how this creates negative g forces sufficient to destroy the plane. Excessive speed gained during the compressibility induced loss of control during the dive would be enough however. Maybe a very low level of negative g's (0.8g or 0.9g ?) would be felt at the beginning of the dive, but afterwards both pilot and plane would experience around 1.0g. Let's blame speed.--69.157.129.29 05:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Replica...

I deleted the mention of the replica from the first paragraph. It's mentioned at the bottom of the article; as I understand it there are a number of projects to build replicas of several different types of WWII fighters. Not that I'm knocking the project, mind you; but let's not overstate its significance. Claiming it as "new manufacture" seems a little bit silly, also. --Robert Merkel

Of interest, the group in Washington isn't just building a look-alike, they actually disassembled a real Me-262, used existing blueprints where possible, and Messerschmidt has recognized them as continued units in the production.

They are going to do a presentation of a replice this month in Berlin on the Ila 2006 and they will fly the machine!

These ARE new manufactures. Not replicas. They have actually been flying since 2005, and the unit delivered to Berlin for IIa had some incredible flights. Most people put the new Me 262's into the same category as Flug Werks new Fw 190A8/n's which are true FW 190's (with Russian or Chinese engines though as BMW no longer produces the 801's)

free Russian air force

I recall a History Channel program that spoke of the Me 262. One thing they mentioned was that Germany sponsored a "free" air force of Russian pilots who opposed Stalin's rule. They were reported as flying Me 262s. I haven't been able to find anything about this free Russian air force on the internet (or even what the official title of it was or if it was considered a part of the Luftwaffe), but I thought it might be a significant historical detail deserving mention on this page, or if not, at least it's own page. If anyone has information or a source to cite on this, I'd appreciate it being added or given it's own page. Thanks

If somebody can source some evidence for this, it's definitely worth noting, both in terms of its own page and a brief mention here. --Robert Merkel 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

seen it as well; sounds un-believable indeed, but it gets mentioned on following web pages: http://math.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/aces1/russia-roa.html http://sweb.cz/fremd/c25.htm and http://sweb.cz/fremd/c26.htm also http://bka-roa.chat.ru/luftwaffe_eng.htm also discussed on http://www.flugzeugforum.de/forum/showthread.php?t=2805 it appears that there was one Me 262 flown by Aufklärungsstaffel 3 another source of the info (in russian) is http://www.aces.boom.ru/all6/vvs_roa1.htm and finally from http://www.lwag.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=9228222&sid=93323939e0057fd523970ee1f794e59a "...The most authoritative reference to the existence of a Me 262 in VVS ROA ("Vlasov's Air Force) can be found in the standard reference handbok on ROA by Joachim Hoffmann (Die Geschichte der Wlassow-Armee, published by the German Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungamt, Verlag Rombach Freiburg, ISBN 3-7930-0186-5. On page 118 the equipment of the 3. recce escadrille (commanded by Hptm Artem'ev) is described (date referred to approx. February 1945): "die über drei auch als Kurierflugzeuge dienende Nahaufklärer Fi 158 (= Fi 156??) verfügte, für Zwecke der Flächenfotographie aber sogar ein Düsenflugzeug Me 262 erhielt..." Reference is made to documents from BA/MA. No further explicite references to the Me 262 is found. Photos of VVS ROA are extremely rare, and I have never seen any photos of this Me 262..." rgrds Chris

Fighter Emergency Program?

Was the Me 262 affected by the Fighter Emergency Program at all? Did it goose production? I just created the article as a stub; I saw one mention on the web of a jet aircraft produced as a result, but it couldn't have been the 262, seemingly. Tempshill 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's referring to the jet-fighter-on-the-cheap Heinkel He 178 and the "manned SAM" Bachem Ba 349 respectively. --Robert Merkel 13:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed the "Swallow" and "Blow Job" remarks obviously placed by some vandal

Blame your own dirty mind. Compare: de:Schwalben, swallows. --172.181.111.217 21:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is vandalism, actually. In a flight sim called Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, Yeager talks about the Me 262 and confirms that it was called "Blow Job" by the Allied pilots. I know it's a rather vague source, but then again it IS Yeager's own words. Should the statement be put back in, perhaps? --Grumpy444grumpy 15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote an American drunkard requires courage. --84.141.24.116 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

American airmen used the term "blow job" to refer to all jets in the WWII era. I'm pretty sure I've seen it used in all innocence in National Geographic, Time, Newsweek, Aviation Week, or the NYT (which implies to me the it meant jet before it meant fellatio). I'll see if I can dig up some references. 165.91.64.114 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)RKH

262 main airfields

Where were the main ME-262 airfields?

Urban myth

Contrary to what this article states, the delay in introducing the 262 was not exacerbated by Hitler's insistence on the plane being available as a bomber. Guinnog 22:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a reference to establish that? --Robert Merkel 23:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Last Year of the Luftwaffe: May 1944 to May 1945 by Alfred Price. Guinnog 06:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please fix it then, preferably with a specific refutation of the myth if available in the book. --Robert Merkel 06:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I already did. Guinnog 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Really an urban myth? Are there other sources that verify this? The Messerschmitt Combat Diary (Foreman, Harvey) is one of the sources that indicate otherwise.Niilo 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a myth. There were persistent problems with turbine failures & lack of durability that delayed the project more than Hitler. Trekphiler 04:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. All recent Me 262 books seem to agree with this analysis - the delay was caused by immature technology, not by Fuhrer demands.Bendel boy 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

None of these replies, nor the quoted source Guinnog provided, support his initial claim that "the delay... was not exacerbated by Hitler". The only conclusion from his source, and the consensus here, is that: Any delays caused by Adolph Hitler pale when compared to the immense delays caused by technical obstacles.75.88.108.52 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wing sweep

As noted in my referenced edit, the Me 262 wing sweep was not done for aerodynamic reasons but rather for the same reason as the DC-3 wing sweep -- to shift the center of lift aft and align it with the center of mass. There was probably some aerodynamic benefit but with a mere 18.5 degrees of sweep it was slight and certainly nothing that would dramatically alter the critical Mach number of the wing. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The wing sweep was a lash-up. The Me 262 should have used BMW 003 engines, which were lighter than the Jumo 004. The design used straight wings. When the BMW engines were running behind schedule, the switch to the Jumo's was made. This is when the wing sweep was needed.

What the edit says: "... the sweep was too slight to achieve any significant advantage ..."

What the reference [2] actually says: "Some increase in critical Mach number, however, probably resulted from the 18.5 leading-edge sweepback."

So the referenced author neither supports Emt147 nor does he have reliable information an the actual benefit of the Me 262's wing sweep. 172.179.73.174 00:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not how I read that, the quote is entirely consistent with Emt147's contention that it would not "dramatically" alter the critical Mach number. BTW, Please sign your talk. Bzuk 00:47 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The reference notes "probably some" advantage. The reference does not comment on the significance of the supposed advantage at all. The article claims that the advantage is insignificant. The reference does not support the claim in the article. --172.182.11.162 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of first jet powered flight?

Is the date of first Me 262 jet powered flight correct in the article? Other sources state July 18. Niilo 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I updated the article. Thanks for catching that! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help - not much but anyway :) I'm trying to expand the (tiny) Me 262 entry in the Swedish Wikipedia, so I'm kind of vacuum cleaning every useful bit of info I can find. My ambition is to build something other than a carbon copy of the other resources on the net, although quite a bit of the information will naturally overlap. Any ideas and "check here" suggestions are most welcome! Just read the German Wikipedia entry, btw - interesting.Niilo 18:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Me 262 vs. Allied jet fighters

P-80 Shooting Star lists the top speed of the P-80A, the initial production version, as 600 mph. This page lists the top speed of the Me 262 as 540 mph. If the Me 262 was faster, then one page or the other is wrong. TomTheHand 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'll dig out my copy of The Last Year of the Luftwaffe later and see what it says. --Guinnog 21:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This page lists the following figures for the P-80A:

Dimensions were wingspan 38 feet 10 1/2 inches (without wingtip tanks), length 34 feet 6 inches, height 11 feet 4 inches, and wing area 237.6 square feet Weights were 7920 pounds empty, 11,700 pounds gross, and 14,000 pounds maximum takeoff. Maximum speed was 558 mph at sea level and 492 mph at 40,000 feet. Initial climb rate was 4580 feet/minute, and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 5.5 minutes. Service ceiling was 45,000 feet. Normal range was 780 miles, and maximum range was 1440 miles.

Correct link: http://www.aviation-history.com/lockheed/p80.html

The Me 262 had some advantages but just does not seem dramatically superior, and had some severe disadvantages: short range, terrible engines, and cannons with a very low rate of fire. TomTheHand 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Never the less, the US Govenment tested the Me 262 and did find it superior one to one vs the P-80a. Check out page 180 of "World War II Fighting Jets" by Jeffrey Ethell & Alfred Price. The numbers I've seen for the Me 262(A1) are: Maximum Speed 514 MPH at sea level, 540 MPH at 20k feet. Range 300 miles at sea level, and 650 miles at 30k feet. Time to 20k feet was 6 minutes, 48 seconds, or 3940 feet per minute. Its VITAL to note that the normal range of 780 to 1000 miles with the P-80A was with two 137 gallon drop tanks... The engine fitted to the P-80A (the I-40 or later the J33) was also notoriously unreliable, especially for the fuel pump which killed Milo Burcham and Dick Bong--Evil.Merlin 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got that book! It's excellent. In any comparative description of the Me-262, it's important to bear in mind that it was really the only jet to play any meaningful role in WW2, even though it only just qualifies.

If I remember rightly, the Me-262 trounced the early P-80 and Meteor in tests after the war. All early jets were unreliable, as you say, but the 262 was certainly the best of the first generation, and the only one that saw combat. --Guinnog 22:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is, very informative, lots of information. I just wish ALL of the planes in it had the wonderful cut-aways (I think they are done by Arthur Bentley (http://www.albentley-drawings.com/main.htm). Most of the information in the book is still accurate today. I kinda get mad when people think the Mk III Meteor is the same as the Mk I or post information about the XP-80 thinking it flew the same as the P-80A (the P-80A was a dog compared to the XP-80) in fact LeVier (who took over after Milo was killed) commented that the original XP-80 was "... the most pleasurable of my flying career, The handling qualities were outstanding and the speed was over 500 MPH on the level... The original XP-80 was a real delightful little plane. THe Halford engine, although underpowered, was fairly well developed.". Commenting on the P-80A he said "I was in despair. That little "jewel" the XP-80 had turned into a dog".--Evil.Merlin 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Wasn't it substantially scaled up from the X? --Guinnog 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall I'm satisfied with the direction the Post-War article has taken; with increased detail has come a more neutral point of view. However, I went and looked at "World War II Fighting Jets" and it bothers me a little how you guys mischaracterized what the book says. It says the P-80 could not outperform the Me 262. It does not say the Me 262 was superior. Reading the whole paragraph, it seems the Air Force was proud of the P-80 and was bragging about it, but in spite of this it was not substantially superior to the Me 262. I've changed the article accordingly.

Your quote above, "I was in despair. That little "jewel" the XP-80 had turned into a dog," is also deceptive. That statement was made about the very first test flight of the very first production prototype of the P-80A, and the next sentence states that many of the issues were resolved before the next flight. You can bet that the very first test flight of the very first production prototype of the Me 262 was a harrowing experience as well.

The Me 262 had poor armament for dogfighting and terrible engines, with lifetimes somewhere around an order of magnitude shorter than Allied engines. It also had relatively high wing loading, making for poor maneuverability. I'm fine with factual comparisons, but I really don't like how you're interpreting sources to mean "the Me 262 was superior." It had its advantages as well as severe disadvantages. Again, though, I like how the article is shaping up. TomTheHand 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, though, the P-80 was an exhibition aircraft in WW2, while the Me-262 actually fought. The pilots who flew both after the war had the opinion that the German product was better. Sorry if you think we're POV-pushing here, but I think it is the POV supported by the verifiable facts. --Guinnog 22:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Yeager found them to be virtually equal, which you can read about in Yeager: An autobiography:

...but I did manage to get a few interesting jobs. One of them was comparison testing between the Shooting Star and a captured German Me-262 jet fighter. I was among the first Mustang pilots to shoot one down in the war, so I was fascinated to discover that the 262 and the Shooting Star performed identically the same range, top speed, acceleration, and rate of climb."

The source you guys quoted, "World War II Fighting Jets," makes a similar statement about the parity between the two that you guys twisted into a statement of superiority on the Me 262. Given that they had similar performance, and the Shooting Star had better dogfighting weapons and reliability, I think it's POV to state that the 262 was superior. I'll back off if you support your POV with verifiable facts, but you haven't done so yet, and I've shown you a verifiable dissenting opinion. TomTheHand 22:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think the P-80A had better dogfighting weapons, you are nuts. The Americans during WW2 were damn lucky they were only facing mostly single engine fighters and an occasional multi engined bomber or destroyer. .50 guns were not all that effective. I would be far more willing to go into the air with 4 well tested, reliable and powerful jackhammers firing 30mm rounds that with one hit could blow a small fighter into wee bits. Yes both the planes were stable and effective gun platforms... but the 30 mm Mk 108's were damn effective. Given the fact that that the P-80A didn't do much of anything during the war, it's a moot point. The Me 262 was more effective, it actually DID something during the war... --Evil.Merlin 20:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oof. No, you're incorrect. The 0.50, though a poor anti-bomber weapon, was a great dogfighting weapon with a high rate of fire, high muzzle velocity, and adequate firepower for anti-fighter work. The rate of fire and muzzle velocity of the Mk108s were too low for dogfighting, which was fine because the Me 262 was an optimized anti-bomber aircraft. The amount of deflection required to hit a fast-moving target with the Mk108 was very large and the rate of fire was so low that it was possible to aim a burst perfectly and have the enemy fighter fly between the shells by sheer luck. This was impossible with a well-aimed burst from six 0.50s. Note that the Allies were not "damn lucky they were only facing mostly single engine fighters and an occasional multi engined bomber or destroyer." Because they were facing mostly single engine fighters, they mounted the best dogfighting weapon they could; they intentionally chose the most effective weapon possible. By comparison, the Me 262 mounted the most effective weapon available for shooting down bombers. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future. TomTheHand 21:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First, lemme know where there were ANY personal attacks. If you think there were, you need to understand what a personal attack is, as nothing I said falls within Wikipedia's personal attack guidelines, please review Examples that are not personal attacks, bullet point 3. Second, if the .50 was a great dog fighting weapon, why were the American's phasing out the .50 in the later years of the war and replacing it with 20 mm cannons? Why were the English, who drew the brunt of the airwar for quite a while also quite smitten with the 20mm cannons? Because the .50's were not as effective as an air-to-air weapon as the 20mm, 30mm and other cannons used by various Air Forces. Which is exactly why more than 4 were typically mounted on combat aircraft in the heavy dog fighting times of World War 2. The M2's rate of fire was around 550 rounds/min, the Mk 108 was 850 rounds/min (in later revisions as deployed in the Me 262), even the initial version was 660 rounds/minute, which is a considerable amount MORE than the M2. The Mk 108 was also electrically primed, giving it a major advantage over the M2. We can also discuss the fact that the average M2 could fire approximately 2000 rounds of ammo before a barrel change was needed, unlike the nearly 10000 the Mk 108 could do. --Evil.Merlin 22:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack in question was "If you think the P-80A had better dogfighting weapons, you are nuts." As I had just said the P-80A had better dogfighting questions, your statement boils down to "you are nuts," which is a personal attack.

The P-51 did not mount the M2. It mounted the M3, an M2 modified for aircraft use. The M3 had a rate of fire of 1100 rounds per minute. Six M3s could fire 6600 rounds per minute, while four early Mk108s could fire 2600 rounds per minute and four late Mk108s could fire 3400 rounds per minute. That's a considerable advantage in volume of fire. The M3 also had nearly twice the muzzle velocity of the Mk108. I'm not sure how your barrel change figure comes into it, since that's far more ammunition than either fighter can carry. The US was not phasing out the 0.50 during World War II. It was still used well into the 1950s on front line fighters, including the F-86 Sabre. You could certainly argue 0.50 vs 20mm until you're blue in the face, but it's completely unreasonable to argue that the Mk108 was a better dogfighting weapon than the 0.50. Nobody says that, and I don't know where you're getting it from. It was fine for anti-bomber work, but a terrible choice for dogfighting. That's fine, since the Me 262 wasn't designed to dogfight. I understand that 30 is a bigger number than 12.7, but it's important to take into account other factors that make a good weapon. TomTheHand 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, read the ROC and you would have seen its NOT a personal attack. Anywas on to the good stuff... Technically you are right, the P-51D didn't mount the M2, it mounted the MG53-2's, or in other words, M2's. Not M3's. I've yet to see any reference of the P-51 with M3 machine guns, probably because IT DIDN'T ENTER SERVICE UNTIL AFTER THE WAR to be more specific 1948. Please don't attempt to spout un-truths. As for the F-86, yes, it had M3's, right up till they were replaced by 20mm cannons on the F-86H. Imagine that.... --Evil.Merlin 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you're correct about the M2. I was using a postwar source and I didn't realize the armament had changed. That leaves the P-51 and P-80 with just a ~50% advantage in rounds per minute to go with their large muzzle velocity advantage and much greater number of rounds carried. 20mm cannons eventually supplanted the old 0.50, but this had much to do with planes getting larger and faster. If the F-86H and F-100 had been fighting WWII fighters, they might have been well served with the 0.50. Since they were fighting jet fighters of the 1950s, they required a weapon with a greater rate of fire, muzzle velocity, and killing power.

You don't appear to understand the personal attack policy. I guess you're reading Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. Saying you disagree with me is a personal attack. Telling me that I'm nuts is. If you disagree, call me nuts again and we'll see what Wikipedia admins think about it.

Let's end this; it's not like we're having an argument about the content of the article. TomTheHand 01:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon disinformation Edits...

Tom and I are nearly daily updating the same Anon changes. Can we keep an eye open for this guy --Evil.Merlin 13:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Engine life?

I've never seen these figures of 50-70 hours of life from production Jumo 004 engines. The Junkers Jumo 004 page shows 10-25 hours, which is consistent with what I've read in reliable print sources. Where did the 50-70 hour figure come from, and can it be considered more reliable than the more common 10-25 hour figure? TomTheHand 16:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

10-25 sounds more like it to me as well. Change it if you like. --Guinnog 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll update, the typical 004 only saw 12 hours of life --Evil.Merlin 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of kills

An anon editor has twice changed the estimated number of kills from 150 to 750, citing only in an edit summary that "(According to Osprey German jet Aces book, the German jet divisions using me 262 shoot down more than 750 allied aircraft of any type.)". I have never heard such a high figure before; I plan to add a source or two to the estimate. It makes sense that different estimates will have been made, that's estimates for you. I'm pretty sure all my books list numbers around the 100-150 mark. Anybody else got a view on how we should present this? --Guinnog 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Try to get the book is really good, is narrated also the main sorties and air battles of the aces with many photos and charts.

---

Response: I am the guy who changed it at leats 3 times. I am actually an editor, but having problems logging in for some reason. Aparently, you are confusing "claims" for confirmed victories. There is no doubt that the german pilots "claimed" much more than 150 victories, which off course does not mean they were true. This is why you also have the information that they are "unverified". Indeed, 150 looks like a good number for the confirmed palnes downed, but the germans in fact claimed to have downed 750. Anyone familiar with WWII air combat noes this is very normal, due to confusion in combat. Look, if you count only the 3 aces cited in the article you already have more than 50 "claims"! From 3 pilots only! And yes , the 750 figure is mainly from Osprey, which is indeed a very goood source! Sorry, but the 150 claim figure just looks silly in the article. - Rathed - March, 2

... Every reference I have seen/read claim no more than 120-150 enemy aircraft shot down by the Me 262. I'm in agreement with Guinnog... it stays at 250. I have a bunch of Osprey books on the Me 262 and don't see any 750 kill figure in em...--Evil.Merlin 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

... This needs to be cleaned up again. Allied pilots and Axis pilots made wild claims of kills during the war. I don't think we should leave it the way it is now. Lets only leave it with "confirmed" kills. Agree? Disagree? --Evil.Merlin 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the contention of 750 claims even possible considering the short operational life of the Me 262? I think you should go with the original 150 figure and cite the source, that will end this contretemps once and for all. Bzuk 02:34 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, I'm not sure what the contention was, I had editied the kill section before and provide a reference to the 150 kills... I am dumping the 750 unless some concrete references can be provided. --Evil.Merlin 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the 100 air-to-air kills (losses) of Me 262, are they verified or claims by USAAF? If verified, how many were claimed? Maybe we could leave both values in, what germans claimed and really shot down and the same for "the other" side. --Denniss 20:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you dont trust the book, thats your problem, my information is sourced. Buy the Book or give me your email adress, i will send you the book if it enter in a mail, or an screenshoot of the appendix, page 74 to be more exact. The book is, Osprey Publishing, Me 262 Aces is from the 80s. The page crearly states that the aproximate number of victories is 745 including 10 of the me 163, and cincerly i really dont understand why this number could be high, if american losses and british ones in aircraft where aproximaytely over 60,000 planes lost. (40,000 RAF, 20,000 UASAf in the european theather)

• WHatever the actual number is, the 10 Me 163 losses is irrelevant. Besides, the 745 compared to 10 is one of the reasons the 745 is being contested. Please STOP adding in your figures, and allow someone to research this independently. And pleas STOP removing the {{vs}} tag - removing such tags is considered vandalism, and can get you blocked. - BillCJ 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Of cource the number of 10 kills by Me 163 are irrelevant. This is not the article of the 163, is the article of the me 262. My information is sourced and i just added than me kill information because in the book im citing it appears that small count kill of the me 163 allongside the me 262 kills of 735. Best wishes. Miguel

Post-war evaluation

To the contributor who provided the quote about 262 vs. P-80, please cite (inline) your reference for the quote. That will safeguard it from being removed by other editors as a dubious/POV claim. Also, please provide a reference for the 262 being a better gun platform than the Meteor. Meteor's true forte was ground attack specifically because it was a very stable gun platform (high-speed snaking was an unrelated issue). - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't just cite it in your reversion summary either, cite it in the article so that the readers have the benefit of your sourcing! --Robert Merkel 06:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. The postwar evaluation was performed before the widespread introduction of the P-80A in mid-1945 I think. It would have been the XP or YP model the 262 was being compared with. I have the book the quote is from and can check. Meantime I think it irrelevant to compare the 262 negatively with a plane that appeared some years later. I've removed the misleading comparison meantime. --

Guinnog 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But this keeps article in spreading the impression that Me 262 was better than P-80, plane that appeared some years later. It should be more useful meantime to let be the article according to my last edit.--Moby_D 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've tried to clarify this false impression, which also applies to the Meteor. --Guinnog 17:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The report was written and compared against the P-80 as it existed at that time. It did not mention which version they were flying against, but it DID say the Me-262 was superior to the P-80. We don't have to like it, but thats what the report said. Also the Meteor didn't become a good gun platform until the F4 revision--Evil.Merlin 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I hope you agree my amended wording makes this clearer. --Guinnog 21:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

May be, but it's always better to say the truth, nothing but the truth, and the WHOLE truth. The report said that Me 262 was superior to some early prototype of P-80 which you, which you seem not to like it, and therefore you're hiding the fact, and support misleading formulation. Moby D 07:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert the good-faith edits of others, especially when we are discussing the matter here. --Guinnog 10:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That what's I'm doing - I do not revert any good-faith edits of others. You are contributing misleading information not corrected by reality - something like Catch XXII - when "a P-80 is worse", it's OK to contribute, real specifications of P-80 can't be contributed unreferenced, and when referenced, there's no need for real specifications, and so you return to "(any) P-80 is worse". in your contribution there was NO mention of Me 262 being compared with some version of P-80. I think, when you want to let quotation P-80 was worse than Me 262 in article, it should be noted, that actual performance of P-80 was better then Me 262. Moby D 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Moby lets keep this simple, I have the reference material in front of me. I does NOT mention anything other than what was CLEARLY posted. End of story. As was said before, you don't have to like it, but they are documented facts. Right now you are simply adding weaselwords to the article. I posted WORD FOR WORD. And thats the end of that. If you can provide an updated document which goes into detail, then go right ahead. Until then, I'm going to keep putting the original back as it was. To cut this off once and for all Howard Hughes attempted to purchase one of the Me-262's the Whizzers brought back to the US (US Serial number T-2-4012) to fly it against the P-80 for both the Bendix and Thompson Trophy events. One doesn't have to wonder why Hughes would go for the 262 over the 80... --Evil.Merlin 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

While I cannot argue with Merlin providing a direct quote, the performance comparison discussion needs to have several qualifiers addressed:

1. Which Meteor are we talking about? The F.4 was far superior to the 262 in many aspects. The Meteor was also praised as a stable gun platform during its entire service life.
2. Which P-80 variant are we talking about? The Goblin-engined XP-80 would've been inferior, the J33-engined P-80A would have performed better.
3. Which Me 262 are we talking about? The FE-4012 was a Me 262A-1a/U3, an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft, that was fitted with a more aerodynamic fighter nose (but not the heavy Mk 108 cannon, as far as I can tell) and given a very smooth high-gloss paint job in preparation for the performance trials. The aircraft was also flown balls-out, destroying four engines in as many hours of flying time. I do not have a copy of the actual report (do you have a reference for it?) but it may be a performance comparison akin to Mach 3 flight in MiG-25 vs. SR-71 (speed at the extreme expense of durability).
4. I'm adding a comment on the reliability issue during the 262 vs. P-80 tests from another source.

The devil is in the details and given the rapid evolution of aircraft performance at the time, we need to be VERY specific about which variant is being discussed. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 06:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion. My posts to the article remain. Provide another report which claims differently, and you are free to change it.

--Evil.Merlin 21:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Modified a/c

The source I cited supports my contribution that FE-4012 was a modified Me 262A-1a/U3 with a fighter nose (from FE-4111, I believe). You are acting like you own the article and reverting supported and referenced edits without explanation. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we discuss here rather than reverting repeatedly? I just restored an earlier version, integrating among the other lost edits an interwiki link. --Guinnog 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to Merlin. I was merely restoring my cited and referenced addition that he nuked for no reason. I'm sorry your edits got lost in the shuffle. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There all nice and cleaned up. Now stop whining. --Evil.Merlin 03:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-propaganda addition

This is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This is not your private website for expressing opinions and editorializing. Stick to the facts supported by credible references please. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

.. Agreed, I corrected a lot of the stuff. Some of it was just plain wrong... --Evil.Merlin 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • can someone do something about Michael Shrimpton? His willy-nilly and quite flawed views of the world are really messing up some decent entries... --Evil.Merlin 06:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this recent article will be helpful for background and history. Tewfik^Talk 20:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Me 262

You need to correct your pro-German bias. After revision to reflect the true position (that the 262 was the world's second jet airplane to go into service) the site has been constantly vandalised by those pushing what is no more than warmed over wartime German propaganda.

They need to check their facts, like I have done.

If it is vandalism to spread German propaganda on the site, it is hardly vandalism to tell the truth. I suggest using your dispute resolution procedure, not dowgrading the truth to cpomments on the discussion page whilst the site gets it wrong ie you are not being objective.

There is quite a good article by Dr Alfred Price at FlightJournal.com, "Sleek and Deadly" whicb puts the best (untenable) case for the Me 262 being first, funnily enough on July 26th 1944, one day before 616 commenced operations against the V-1.

This is the story of the alleged, unarmed, enocunter with a Mossie, price gives the squadron as 544, which was a PR unit based at RAF Benson, where I sued to live as a matter of interest.

This squadron used unarmed PR Mossies only. It is uncertain that the German claim is matched by RAF records, but quite clear that there was no shooting. Why not, if the Me 262 was faster, even if a Mossie could turn inside it?

I have no objection to the site reflecting the dispute, whilst argument rages. I have every obejction to Wikipedia being inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Shrimpton (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

• Look I'm going to make it REAL simple.

What's the date of the first flight of the Meteor? What's the date of the first flight of the Me-262?

Since there seems to be some confusion for you:

1.) The Meteor's FIRST flight was July 10th 1942 (it wasn't powered by the production engines, rahter W.2B engines, by Flt. LT. Gerry Sayer. THat being said there were issues with this flight right from the start. It was a VERY short hop. Sayer found the plane to lack sufficent thrust for a safe climb-away. Sayer himself highly recommended that no futher flights be attempted until better engines were available. It wasn't till March 5th 1943 that the Meteor was really able to fly (on H.1's engines which still were not the production engines which were of course the W.2B/23's). At this time England put the Meteor on the back shelf because, while it was found to have better speed at low and high altitude, the newest Spitfire was far superior in the rate of time and that it didn't suck down petrol like the jet engines did. In fact it was highly recommended that the Meteor ONLY be used for short range daylight very low or very high altitude interceptions.

2.) the Me-262 FIRST flight was April 18th 1941. Yes, this was powered by a 690 HP Jumo prop engine. The next step was with both the BMW003's and the Jumo, on March 25th 1942. The first full flight under just jet power was on July 18th 1942 with it's production Jumo 004 engines.

Thus first flights on production engines were July 18th 1942 for the Me 262 and March 5th 1943 for the Meteor, the Me-262 was first by a considerable margin.

Thus the ME-262 was the worlds FIRST jet fighter.

If you wanna play semantics and call the first flights of either airframe regardless of engine type the Me-262 flew a full 15 months before the Meteor.

Either way you look at it, the Me-262 was the worlds first jet fighter.

Michael Shrimpton

He is still at it, adding his own views of world history that don't jive with information anyplace else --Evil.Merlin 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WA|DR, m.SHRIMPTON advances a very cogent hypothesis. As my daddy said, you had to see the place in Spring 1945 to believe it. Please read |robert Jacksons |Nurmeburg summary.

caio Opuscalgary 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellows this is silly stuff.

Maury, Bill, my Fellow CDNS, Relax.

Fellows,its spring. count the disputes you are in( I'm at one) & rack up for free play.

Look, the date of jet service entry is not that important. All WW2 records are incomplete, esp. in Germany.(Citation, Reg's Dad- , fluent in German & English, Cdn army sargent, Occ. forces, 1945!) Please note that over 80% of these "We will take action, Michael" edits come from my fellow Canadians. Given our tiny worldwide overall membership, this is SCARRRY.

Please break clean, before the rest of the world assumes we have been "winter bit by the Wendigo..!"\

[edit] posted with a mediator: Without drawing down 'Holy fire', Bill, please consider Michaels' argument in view of: a. Precise dates for events in Nazi Germany , summer 1944-spring 1945, are OFTEN not verifiable. The reasons: 1. Records were ALTERED to place, or remove, participants from events prosecuted. German military staff were ordered to attend, slave labour conferences to render them complicit. In order not to explain that someone was a powerless bystander at an event discussing slave labour, documetation ,is 'produced' that he was flying the Me262 on a certain date, for example.

I refer you to Robert Jacksons' Nuremburg summaries. Not only were the Nazis masters at altering fact, some records were altered to protect the truly innocent.

Michael, Bill, would you accept the Scottish verdict of 'not proven', given the nature of the evidence ?

Red,I posted this at "Gloster Meteor", as BZUK wants to have Michael Shrimpton 'executed on line':-')

Bill, can we just close some of these disputes without jurisprudence? Regards

Opuscalgary 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

More info on the operational history

Here's some info that might be worked into the operational history paragraph:

"Service conversion of the Me 262 was placed under Hauptmann Werner Thierfelder's Erprobungskommando 262 at Lechfeld, to where the unit moved on 21 December 1943, with pilots drawn from 8. and 9./ZG 26. The EKdo 262 was given a batch of pre-production Me 262A-0 aircraft, and finally got into the swim of operations in the early summer of 1944. Thierfelder was killed in combat with 15th Air Force Mustangs over Bavaria on 18 July, and his place was taken by Hauptmann Neumeyer." Donald, David: World Air Power - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe, Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1994, 254, ISBN 1-874023-56-5, p.236

"The RAF brought back its first confirmation of the Me 262's existence on 25 July, when a de Havilland Mosquito of No. 544 (PR) Squadron was intercepted near Munich, Flight Lieutenant A. E. Wall and his navigator Flying Officer A. S. Lobban escaping with difficulty. Equipped with Messerschmitt Me 262A-2a fighter-bombers, the Einsatzkommando Schenk (Major Wolfgang Schenk) was formed at Lechfeld in July, before posting to the Normandy invasion front. The unit was based at Châteudun, Etampes and Creil, before pulling back to Juvincourt, near Reims, in late August. It was on 28 August 1944 that Allied fighter pilots downed the first Me 262 to be lost in combat: near Brussels, Major Joseph Myers and his wingman, Lieutenant M. D. Croy Jr, of the US 78th Fighter Group bounced Oberfeldwebel Lauer's Me 262 to force it down in a field."Donald, David: World Air Power - Warplanes of the Luftwaffe, Aerospace Publishing Ltd, 1994, 254, ISBN 1-874023-56-5, p.236 --MoRsE 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Main Picture Change - any objections?

I have noticed the '262 in the main picture lacks a tail Swastika. I understand that such symbols in Germany are banned, but in the interests of historical fact shouldn't a 262 complete with this symbol be pictured. I have some great pics of an A-2 at RAF Hendon, I could put one of those on. It is a shame because this pic is great I think, but it lacks the aforementioned historical accuracy. It is a small point, and of course the Swastika is distasteful because of what it represents , but I feel it should be there.Dapi89 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Kill count

The article seems to indicate total kills of 150 in the first paragraph then 300 in the combat history section Alastairward 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that too. 150 kills seems a bit low, especially since almost 1500 were built. And there isn't even any source for those numbers. Latre 13:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i agree is a very low assasement conmsiodering that German Jet aces shot down more than 180 allied aircraft in the Greman jet fightters aces chart at the page pf the same name see here.

Somebody definitely needs to check their math. The list of jet aces (& associated bios) puts the number at 249, by my addition, & that's based on what look like confused & incomplete records in the bios. Trekphiler 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct number seems to be over 700 allied aircraft lost by units using only Me-262. See the Osprey Book about Me 262 Aces it have information about the Komet aces too. look at the append at the book end.

Perhaps you are correct, but who are you? Hiding behind an anonymous IP address is tantamount to sockpuppetry, not saying that you are but get a proper user ID and your arguments would become substantially reinforced. As well, use standard citation and referencing guides if you are submitting an authoritative source. There, did that sound like an old school teacher scolding a student? Sorry about that, I reverted to a former life for a second or so. FWIW Bzuk 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Watch you mouth, please. And if i sound like an old school is bacause of many people highly vaunted statements.

---

After a bit of "digging" at the Western Canada Aviation Museum library, I found that the following reference source is an authoritative (read massive) inventory of all German Second World War combat aircraft and their operational histories:

• Green, William. Warplanes of the Third Reich. New York: Galahad Books, 1970. ISBN 0-88365-663.

This source provides the victory total as 509 "claims". It was made up of the following:

1. "Kommando Nowotny was to claim 22 kills by the end of the first month (October 1944) ...and was withdrawn from operations, surviving personnel used as the nucleus of the first full Me 262 fighter Gruppe, III/JG7." (p. 636)
2. (Gruppe, III/JG7) "...was to claim no fewer than 427 'kills' including more than 300 four-engined bombers." (p. 636)
3. Ergänzungsgruppe, IV (ERG.)/JG7 "...basically a training unit, flew occasional sorties, as a result, it was to claim 30 'kills'..." (p. 637)
4. I/KG (J)54 "...based at Prague-Ruzyne claimed 10 kills." (p. 637)
5. JV44 "...scored some 50 kills." (p. 638)

FWIW Bzuk 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC).

Many thanks Bzuk, your information is releveant and importat for the article. Best Wishes, Miguel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.146.244 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's impact.

I've twice modified the wording in the "Development" section to indicate that Adolph had at least *some* impact on delaying 262 production.

Previous verbage indicated that, despite debate, Hitler's declaration the 262 would be an offensive bomber had *no* effect on it's eventual introduction into service. I beleive that is factually innacurate.

The two sources cited to support the "made no difference" argument are:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm This is an unsourced user-submitted survey on the website. A one-line anonymous over-simplification that I don't feel deserves any place on Wikipedia.

The second source, from a respected author (Price), states that Hitler's preference was "not... a major reason" for production delays. One can hardly interpret that as a statement that Hitler's edict had no consequences.

I would consider stormbirds.com a fairly reputable source for expert data. They are sanctioned by, and working with, the Messerschmidt Foundation. They are fabricating from scratch, and flying, Swallow reproductions. Their version of the 262's history has Hitler playing a huge role. http://www.stormbirds.com/schwalbe/history/history2.htm

Both of these following websites (and there are many more with similar "histories") list specific dates and attendees of meetings, as well as topics of discussion. All of these sources document Hitler's desire for an offensive weapon, and in varying degrees, attribute production delays as a result. http://www.2worldwar2.com/me-262.htm http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Messerschmitt-Me262/me262.php

I believe a book by Adolph Galland makes direct reference to Hitler's intervention in the 262 program. I will have to research that...

I don't believe anyone disputes Hitler's preference that the 262 should perform in a bomber role, or that he was not directly responsible for the Sturmvogel variant. I feel it is counter to the facts, and merely an injection of opinion, to state that Hitler's wish had NO impact on development.

I see a prior post in this thread titled "Urban Myth" where apparently the "made no difference" argument won out. Price's "not... a major reason" quote is balanced against a quote from The Messerschmitt Combat Diary (Foreman, Harvey), a quote that apparently places more emphasis on Hitler's role. That discussion somehow ended, although no facts were given, and the majoity of comments disputed it, with the premise that "Hitler had no impact". I've yet to see any valid source stating that. To repeat, Hitler sticking his nose into things was trivial, when compared to the immense technical obstacles required to perfect the turbojet engine. But concluding that he had *no* impact is dishonest.

PS - The two sentences regarding this debate, sentences that dealt with overall production difficulties, were embedded within the paragraphs detailing a timeline of specific modifications in the design and testing process. The initial paragraph in the "Development" section already contained a line stating that a lack of funding hampered bringing the 262 into service. Remembering the top-down approach from Journalism 101, I felt this first paragraph the more logical place to mention the great delays due to engine problems, as well as Hitler's possible impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.108.52 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Journalism 101? Some additional changes have been incorporated although a duplicate entry was removed that indicated the quote from Dr. Price. FWIW Bzuk 12:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC).

Well, it's all pretty much hosed now. Someone didn't read my "PS" and thinks general remarks about overall program development should appear in two places, as it did previously. Now we have redundant verbage scattered around. I think statements regarding overall production delays should not be stuck in the middle of a blow-by-blow chronological account of flight tests and design modifications. It should be at the beginning of the development section (where the "lack of funding" sentence has always been) or possibly a new para at the end of the section.

I did not remove the valid Price source, it is the "Great Aviation Myths" reference that has no weight, no validity. Unless webpages asking for anonymous user submissions to add to a list are considered legitimate. That source has been reinserted into the Wiki entry.

The "if at all" (Regarding Hitler's personal impact on the program) opinion is also back, despite all the contradicting data. I think the facts show that technical difficulties should be cited as the main problem (by a large margin), lack of support (which led to lack of funding) from Luftwaffe and ministry officials is also a contributing factor. Allied bombing is worthy of note. And... Hitler's role should be mentioned. Go ahead and debunk the "it was all Hitler's fault" theory, say he had little impact, but to state or imply AH had *no* effect is disingenuous.75.88.108.52 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Adolph Galland - in his book of WW2 memoirs The first and the last makes his position quite clear - his account states that Hitler's insistence was that ALL Me262's be modified for use as fighter-bombers and that Galland himself was dismissed from his position as General of the Fighters because of his insistence that the jet be considered primarily as an interceptor for the defence of Germany. Galland was no technician, so far as I can remember without rereading his book there is little mention of technical problems - everything is down to Hitler and his personal interference with the Me262 program. How much weight should be given to this contemporary source I am not sure - but currently we basically say he was more or less completely wrong - which frankly I doubt! Soundofmusicals 01:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In his memoirs, Albert Speer, Nazi Germany's Minister for Armaments and War Production during the second half of the war, stated the following: "To this day, I am convinced that substantial deployment of Wasserfall from the spring of 1944 onward, together with an uncompromising use of the jet fighters as air defense interceptors, would have essentially stalled the Allied strategic bombing offensive against our industry". That is well-sourced under the Wiki entry for Wasserfall, and there is no mistaking what his reference to using the jets defensively implies. So Galland, Speer, Messerschmidt Diaries, Stormbirds.com and most other publications contribute some level of production delays to Hitler's interference. It is fact that many fighters were refitted to the bomber variant, and therefore delayed from reaching operational status, at Hitler's insistance. It seems some here insist that even mentioning Hitler's impact at all elevates it to being "the" singular reason for delays. I don't think those pushing the "no impact" view have anything solid backing up thier view, nor are they adhering to Wiki policy when there are differing points of view. The one source they rely on, the quote from Price says "not a major reason". Firstly, how does "not a major reason" prove that Hitler did not have a minor or even moderate influence? Your source does not support your rigid stance. Secondly, there are enough sources (some mentioned above) that lean towards Hitler having a larger role to offset your particular interpretation of the Price quote, to at least allow for a looser wording regarding Hitler in this article. The current phrasing of "no significant impact" does not accurately reflect a consensus of the sources available. Paul 139.55.236.165 08:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with Paul's statements. "Not a major impact" is not the same as "negligable" or "no" impact. Downplaying the impact is as much a disservice as citing Hitler's interferance as the sole reason for delay. - BillCJ 18:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that a fact?

The article says, "Turbojet engines have less thrust at low speed than propellers and as a result, low-speed acceleration is relatively poor." From what I've read of early jets, it was a function of the need for the turbine to spool up to speed, & the piston engine responded immediately, where the turbine wouldn't. Can somebody who knows correct it? Trekphiler (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that might be what is meant, it might be that they mean low revs, rather than airspeed. But it would be good to get a reference, do you have one anywhere by any chance; a printed book or a webpage you can refer us to or anything?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the article is correct. The thrust from a prop reduces with speed, the thrust from a jet increases (up to a point). I'll try and find a reference. Greg Locock (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true to a degree, since there is ram effect at the air inlet of a jet engine that helps at high speed, but I doubt it's the main issue at very low speed; but I think it is one factor. I think spool time is much more important though, it takes *seconds* to go from low to high speed with a jet engine, and the thrust is a non linear function of revs with most of the thrust at high revs. With a piston engined propeller engine, the power is almost instant, and the engine can jump right up to its peak power band, and provide maximum thrust.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Spool-up time is a factor, but I believe this is mainly another case of the generality that reaction engines work best when the vehicle speed is about the same as the exhaust velocity. Then the rate of engine energy input (ie, power) gets transformed into the momentum (ie, push) that is output most effectively. A propeller moves a lot of air at a relatively low speed, and one can easily calculate that for a given power that yields more thrust at low speed, compared to the early pure turbojets that moved a smaller amount of air at a higher speed. Power delivered to the vehicle is P = F*v, if F is thrust and v is vehicle speed. Power in the jet is Pj = 0.5* Mdot*Vj^2, where Mdot is the mass of material moved per second in the reaction material (you would have to average somehow over different speeds in the propwash), Vj is its (mean) speed, Pj jet power. You can see that at low speed, large Mdot & low Vj buys you more thrust for a given engine power than the reverse, but at high speed you want Vj ~ v to optimize things. Wwheaton (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If you can source it, & leave out the math ('cause I'm not sure it's essential), you might include that; I'd bet other people have had the same Q I had. Trekphiler (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I think that the general point would fit better under engine or propulsion articles (eg, prop, jet, fan-jet, turbo-fan, rocket, ion drive) rather than being repeated for particular aircraft types. I think it is covered somewhat for rocket engines already, and that that would be the right place to beef up the physical/mathematical argument if needed. People with little understanding still think of "rocket cars" and such, a la Max Valier (a German enthusiast who killed himself in 1930). Bill Wwheaton (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Having written the Propulsive efficiency article, I can tell you, for sure, that that's not correct. Although it's true that jet engines are more efficient when the exhaust velocity and the vehicle speed are similar, that doesn't imply (in any way) that the acceleration at low speed is poor. The acceleration may be, anyway, for another reason, but it's not an energy thing.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The example I enjoy torturing jet and rocket people with is pointing out the true fact that the energy efficiency at zero speed is zero. At this point their head usually explodes; and so do they, until they've done the calculus, at which they go: "um, yes, you're right!". :-) It turns out that if the acceleration of anything is non zero (and not infinite) at zero speed, the kinetic energy and the rate of change of energy are both zero, always. :-) (Trivial to prove from P=F*v which you gave above).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes indeed, but propellers certainly had a larger diameter than jet engines, certainly in the early era. Ergo they could take in a larger mass flow rate of air than the small air intakes of the older jets possibly could. Of course I absolutely agree that at v=0, F*v = power to vehicle = 0; that's that, and all the engine power goes into noise, heat, and such losses. But at 10, 20, 30, (...? depends!) mph, I believe the prop does better than the pure jet, where both are essentially at full power. For a propeller, I think the thrust drops as the airspeed rises (I'd be interested to see some data on this) more rapidly than it does for the jet. Early jets had notoriously, agonizingly, slow acceleration (due to relatively lower thrust, a = F/M, clearly) early in their take-off roll, but I think they could maintain that thrust to higher speeds, due to the propeller's problems as its tip speeds get up towards mach 1. My impression is that the Propulsive efficiency article may not take account of the effect of airspeed on thrust for the case of propeller-driven aircraft? Have to think about that a bit more. Anyway, I'm certainly no expert on props and such.

"Often wrong but seldom in doubt", Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I think about it, I see there are a lot of factors operating together here. A jet pilot can hold and not release brakes until the engine spools up to near max thrust, but the old jets must have taken in more air than just their intake area ratio with the area of the prop, because the air flow through the jet was obviously faster. Prop pilots typically have to reduce power shortly after takeoff to avoid going over the engine red-line speed, as the RPM goes up at constant power as speed rises. And so forth. For a clear answer one would have to look at a specific case, like an Me 262 and a P-51 both at some given operating point, like average ground-roll speed (~1/2 takeoff V, maybe?). A 1942 designer would know instantly, but they're all dead now. Bill Wwheaton (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go - jet [[3]], comparison (haven't read it, probably says the right things) [[4]], props (look at the curve for thrust vs advance ratio) [[5]]. That doesn't deal with spool-up time. Conclusion: Props have max thrust at very low speed, jets don't vary much. Greg Locock (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Variants

Maybe I missed them. I'd love to see some pix, & some detail, on the Schnellbomber & recce models with the cockpits moved to the nose, the bomber model with a deeper nose & enclosed bomb bay, and the Lorin ramjet model. All are described by line drawings in Fitzsimons, Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare (London, Phoebus, 1978), V.17, p.1878. Trekphiler (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Schwalbe's unreliable engine

I have heard and read many times that the Me 262 had a very unreliable axial flow jet engine that failed and overheated frequently and lasted only about 50 hours running time which is about a week and a half's worth of sorties. Can anyone confirm this claim for me so it can be included in the article?

--Hornet94 ^talk 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Maximum Speed

Users have changed the maximum speed from that quoted in references (870) to that quoted in Flight airspeed record (1004). The speed is this article is of 262 A-1a variant and the speed record is quoted as a S2 - I presume a non-standard model. I would propose that the speed is not changed unless a source can be found that the A-1a variant speed is wrong. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are right -- A-1a maximum speed was of 870 km/h but variants were able to reach mach 0.84. "The RAE achieved speeds of up to Mach 0.84..." (from Wikipedia) 18:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The supersonic dive claim by Guido Mutke mentioned in the entry doesn't describe his claim accurately. It suggests he claimed to have flown supersonic because he experienced buffeting similar to that which other high speed pilots encountered. That is not the basis of the claim. Mutke suggested that after severe buffeting, his aircraft suddenly experienced a cessation of buffeting and return of control for a few seconds, then as it slowed it encountered severe buffeting again and loss of control untill airspeed significantly dropped. Although the claim is entirely a verbal claim unsupported by any evidence, the detail of the claim is misrepresented. He did not claim to have experienced supersonic flight because he experienced buffeting, he claimed to have experienced supersonic flight because the buffeting stopped and control resumed as speed increased which is significantly different. It also corroborates similar documented comments of the 1946 test pilots handbook of control and smoothness resuming above the speed of buffeting.GregOrca (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

PDF account {copyrighted}

• See [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.123 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy to fly

I removed an addition that I felt had two problems: it interrupted the logical reading flow of the section it was in, and it was presented out of context. Here's the bit:

“ The Me 262 was easy to fly and German pilots welcomed its entrance in service. To them was - as a survived Luftwaffe "ace" put it - "a life insurance", as the jet gave to German pilots a thin hope to survive in the Germany sky, dominated by Allied fighters. ”

These bits are from Gunston and Boyne, so they aren't "wrong", they are just not fully right. The aircraft was not easy to fly for all pilots—the engines were delicate and could not have their throttle settings changed very quickly. A number of pilots made their engines fail by revving them like a piston engine. The aircraft gave German pilots thin hope, yes, but it was not truly "life insurance" because of several factors: Allied fighters kept pressure on known bases and looked for weaknesses. Beginner pilots could be jumed by the enemy. The Swallow's landing speed was slow and it could be bounced at landing by Allied fighters. The aircraft's speed was so high that shooting down bombers was not easy; there was not enough time for aiming the guns and making the kill. The Swallow had to come from behind the bombers so that the closing speed was minimized, and this maximized the bomber defensive fire effectiveness at the same time as maximizing Messerschmitt's gun effectiveness. All of these reasons and more added up to a low survival rate for Me 262 pilots. Low survival does not equal "life insurance." Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have not taken the point, i'll try to explain it better (OTOH, i did not wrote that paragraph). Me-262 was really 'easy to fly' for many respect; agree, the unreliable engines, but still, an huge leap from the piston units that other LW aircrafts had; just think about the difficult to run a Bf-109 in the take off, as example, you was blind and in trouble to hold straight the fighter, and this with a narrow, fragile landing gear.. go figure, Me-262 had not 'blind point', not a torque force, not a silly undercarriage landing gear. Really, you run it and then fly it. While P-51s were more than able to fullow Bf-109s and FW-190s, once in the air the Me-262 was almost untouchable. Try to think it, Bf-109 with 650 kmh, a dozen of P-51 (700 kmh) that were pursued it; with a Me-262, bye bye (850 kmh). That's an 'assurance' i think. And finally, as agility, at high speed Me-262 was a dream, nothing similar to the afwul Bf-109G, almost immobilized while diving at 800 kmh. Galland was amazed by Me-262, that seemed to be 'pushed by an angel'. This is what LW pilots, in that sad day could hope: to fly a Me 262, and pray that its engines did not crash..--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Replicas

Amazing to know, but there are also replicas (surely not for poor clients =)); i wonder, J85 are 400 kg lighter compared with 004s, so the aircraft would be 800 kg lighter, not counting the 500+ kg armament. How so? Replicas are 1 t lighter, or there are ballasts inside? Anyone knows more detail about that Me-262, weight, performances? Apart that, (pseudohistorically) it would had been a dream for LW pilots, if they had at that time, a J85 engined Me-262, go figure about the climb and the acceleration, not to talk about reliability.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Replicas won't be lighter - but still J85 has greater thrust than Jumo 004 had.--78.128.178.220 (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, delightful. Such fashinating exercise in the aircraft projecting. 600 m take-off run instead of 900 (+ improved undercarriage and brakes), 1,600 km endurance vs 1,000, 1,000 (!) kmh vs 870 (airbrakes would be really needed), who knows how xx m.secs climbing vs 20, and the same for SEP and turn capability. And this with the less powerful J85's versions, not to talk about the 1,2-1,5 tons/thrust or even the A/B (2,270 kg/t) later models. Had the Me.262 been designed from the start with these engines (with the proper CG without 'fake' nacelles), it would had been a real rocket (climbing 100 m.sec?). Galland would had liked this Me.262 replicas, (especially with two or three Aden/DEFA/NR-30/GSh-301 guns, another example of 'design evolution'). Now, as for wikipedia's sake >_<, it would be really interesting to put these datas in the Me-262's replica article.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

They'd have liked the durability of the J85 even more: no need to rebuild after 20h, more a/c operational... An Allied nightmare. 8O TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the same would be wished for by any operator of the early jet fighters. Outside of an alternate history novel (one which I'd love to read - or write!) we'll never know. However, two close descendants of the P-80, with early-50s-vintage engines, just served as chase planes for an ultra-modern airliner's first flight! And btw (not directed to Trek), there is no Me 262 replica article, or there shouldn't be one now - it was merged here some tile back. However, I'd love to see it come back, if we fet enough sourced info to justify a variant article on it. - BilCat (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. And if there aren't already, on the scale copies of the P-47 & F4U. (Are they still around?) And how cool was it to fly chase in one of those P-80s? (I wish!) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I've read online, the T-33s that Boeing uses are well maintained. For some reason, companies like to keep chase planes around for a long time, especially if they own them. In the T-33s' cases, these T-birds are instrumented for tests, and have several cameras for chase work - most of the Boeing air-to-air-photos were probably taken from them. Yeah, it would be cool! Btw, supposedly oeing used an F-86 for some chase work up until the mid 90's! They also use a T-38, presumable for supersonic chase work. - BilCat (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've found web page from 2001 here about a test flight of cockpit displays on one of Boeing's T-33s. It's interesting, but it has no publishing info, so it appears to be a private web site, which is not a WP reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Achtung! Schwalbe!

"Allied bomber gunners found their electric gun turrets had problems tracking the jets." I take this to mean because of slow traverse. I'm not sure if "electric" has anything to do with that; I'd guess it's more to do with the gearing in the traversing mechanism. In any case, some clarification would be good. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

wrong

"In the meantime, a bomber unit — I Gruppe, Kampfgeschwader 54 (KG 54) — had re-equipped with the Me 262 A-2a fighter-bomber for use in a ground-attack role. However, the unit lost 12 jets in action in two weeks for minimal returns." this is a wrong the KG 54 was at time a jagd unit, also if had the original name--79.49.211.3 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source with the correct infomation? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Survivors

Propose relocating the second aircraft listed under, 'Survivors' — "the aircraft reconstructed from parts of crashed and incomplete Me 262s" — to appear under the 'Reproductions' heading. The information available here: http://www.museum-rechlin.de/html/body_me_262_in_rechlin.html (in German), mentions that this is a reproduction V9 model built by Holger Bull with the nose and engine shroud sections put together from a Me 262A unearthed during excavations in Neuburg/Donau (Germany) in 1983. FreiherrVonGross (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of this reproduction aircraft can be seen at: http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenmuseum/Historisch/Me_262_A1/me_262_a1.html

These were taken at the Luftwaffenmuseum der Bundeswehr in Berlin, Germany. FreiherrVonGross (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Title

Doesn't "Me" stand for "Messerschmitt"? Isn't it redundant as it is currently?—Smithx807 ^Talk 22:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Manufacturer name + manufacturer abbreviation + assigned model number = Messerschmitt + Me + 262 --Denniss (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wing's Turbulence?

In "Design and Development" I find the following sentence problematic: "The conventional gear, forcing a tail-down attitude on the ground, of the Me 262 V3 caused its jet exhaust to deflect off the runway, with the wing's turbulence negating the effects of the elevators in the tail-down attitude, and the first attempt was cut short."

I can see how jet blast deflecting off the runway would interfere with the elevators in a conventional (i.e., tail-dragger) configuration, but what does this have to do with the wings? Perhaps this should read "wind's turbulence"? DaveDaytona (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It's a combination. Flow off the wing is turbulent, exacerbated by the jetblast. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ten Mustangs for a single Me 262

Hi to all Aviations members. I wrote this sentence based on "Allied figther aces" by Mike Spick: According to some sources, it took eight Mustangs to neutralize a single Me 262, by continually cutting across the circle inside it. Against multiple jet attack, effective defence was simply impossible. , but our Binkesternet deleted it because he knows (where is the reference, please?) that there is a single case of a one-to-one kill. Now, I thought that single actions are ininfluent and that they --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)"don't make history" - of course that kind of single actions). But probably, if such an expert thinks differently, I am wrong? So please feel free to express Your opinions here. Regards, --Gian piero milanetti (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pointedly, yes, you are wrong. Regardless of one quote, many P-51 pilots such as Chuck Yeager took out Me 262s, one-on-one. The main fault of the Me 262 was that it could be caught in takeoff or landing where it had no speed advantage and Tempests, Spitfires, P-47s and P-51 often trolled German airfields, picking off the Me 262s with ease. (Yeager, Yeager: An Autobiography, 1986, p. 119.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But my sentence refers to air-combat, of course it is referred to Mustangs trying to neutralize an attack from a Me 262 bound for bombers, is it not clear? Shooting in the back to a jet at low speed is not that kind of air combat Spick was writing of, as soon after he writes: ""The best results were obtained by fighters patrolling known Me 262 bases."

All the best. Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeager shot down his Me 262 in combat at high altitude during an escort mission, as he had the advantage of height and was able to down the jet fighter with a long range deflection shot after diving on the enemy aircraft; and as mentioned earlier, this was not the only aerial "kill." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I would like to see a more informative reference with better context, only because by continually cutting across the circle inside it doesnt actually make sense. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the statement as submitted was that it was placed in the leading section, which gave it undue WP:Weight but I can certainly see it included in the combat evaluation of the aircraft, probably in Operational History. FWiW, it was certainly true that the Me 262 had a great speed advantage in interception of the bomber streams and that alone could allow the aircraft to decide the situation. The P-51 escorts were at first unable to counter the attacks by Me 262s but eventually were able to use height and the ability to dive down at the Me 262, utilizing their stability and a "solid gun" platform to shoot down the jets. Bzuk (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

I think that "cutting the circle" means that the Mustang did cut inside the turn of a Me 262 that was wider (the turn) than those of the Mustangs, so the Messer was faster but the Mustang could turn more tightly and so they had to "run" a shorter distance that neutralized the higher speed of the Messer, that had to run a wider circle. Anyway I produre the whole context: Late in the war, German jets posed an almost insoluble problem for the escorts. Too fast to catch, it was almost impossible to head them off. One American leader calculated that it took eight Mustangs to neutralize a single Me 262, by continually cutting across the circle inside it. Against multiple jet attack, effective defence was simply impossible. The best result were obtained by fighters patrolling known Me 262 bases. I agree with Bzuk that probably it should moved from the lead of the section.

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best course. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC).

Ok

--Gian piero milanetti (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Who mangled the prior version of this sentence into this?

In mid-1943 Adolf Hitler envisioned the Me 262 as an offensive ground-attack/bomber rather than a defensive interceptor, as a high speed, light payload Schnellbomber ("Fast Bomber"), to penetrate Allied air superiority during the expected invasion of France.

Someone is rather weak in their English skills, as well as their history.

"... as an ..., as a ..." what sort of grammer is that?

And if Adolph was still expecting the invasion of France in mid-43, he was on better drugs than I'd imagined. 75.88.83.74 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Paul

So fix it. (Hohum ^@) 22:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Willow Grove ME 262 now in Pensacola

I have seen a number of news reports that the Willow Grove Me 262 is now at the Navy museum in Pensacola. Could someone update this please. I fear I am unable to be NPOV on this. I grew up near the former location of this plane and visited it regularly as a child and was quite sad to find out that the Navy recently finally followed through and took the plane from the museum where it had been for over 60 years (excepting during the restoration)--especially as if the plane had not been rescued by a Naval officer with some foresight, it would be in the Pax River somewhere along with all of the other planes the Navy didn't want--but now does. Of course the Navy's POV is to criticise the facility for keeping the planes outside for decades--failing to menetion that they refused repeated requests for hangar space and museum space.Kgilbert78 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Postwar history and flyable reproductions

"This aircraft will be offering ride-along flights starting in 2008."

This is way out of date now (May 2011). I wonder whether the author could update it. I'm just a general interest reader here and rather in awe of the dog-fights that seem to be appearing in this discussion, so I hope I don't get torn to shreds if I've done this wrongly - apologies in advance.Dawright12 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Counting Schwalben

Since I haven't figured out where it might go, but think it deserves a mention, I'm adding here, in hope somebody can work it in. Stapfer, p.28, credits the 262 with Lorenz FuG-16ZY, Tel efunken FuG-25a Erstling IFF, & Revi 16B gunsight (a small number, the EZ-42 gyro gunsight, which was "extremely troublesome" & "disliked"). He also credits (p.27) the flanking windshield panels as 90 mm (3.5 in) armored glass, & heated. He says, p.33, the electrics were 24V, one generator per engine. He gives the main gear track as 254 cm (100 in), p.39, & main gear wheels 84 cm × 30 cm (33 in × 12 in), with Continetnal Buna-rubber tires & pneumatic drum brakes, p.40. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:55, 18:54, 19:47, & 19:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3