Jump to content

Talk:Messerschmitt Me 262/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Why just P51's?

"12 enemy fighters in the Me 262, 10 of them American P-51 Mustangs. Other notable Me 262 aces included Georg-Peter Eder, also with 12 enemy fighters to his credit (including 9 P-51s), Walther Dahl with 11 (including three Lavochkin La-7s and six P-51s) and Heinz-Helmut Baudach with 6 (including 1 Spitfire and 2 P-51s) amongst many others."

what were all the other fighters which were shot down, surely that is also of interest?

It may also be better to change it to which mark of P51 (for example P51D or P51K)

(Fdsdh1 (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC))

Operators

I just watched an old History Channel documentary on advanced Soviet aircraft in WWII, and it noted that the first Soviet pilots to fly jets operationally were volunteers to the so-called Free Russian Air Force recruited by Germany, flying the Me-262. See here for the clip. If a suitable ref can be dug up, shouldn't this be included in the article? Parsecboy (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Apples and oranges

Why exactly are we comparing the cost to that of a Volkswagen? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To avoid inflation conversions which are uninformative? Since so much has changed since 1940... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This article forgets that allied did shoot several 262:s down with piston-engined fighters e.g Adolf Galland, Walter Schuk got shot down flying it.Noseball (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Read again. Shootdowns are mentioned, and it´s vulnerability in approach is known. 212.23.103.74 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Removable sections

I saw a show from history channel. It explains that the nose is able to be removed as a single part. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardtofindausername (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

White 3

Flight International has a story about 'White 3', a Me 262, that completed a 4,000 km flight from Paine, Washington, to Suffolk County Airport, Virginia. They also give a video link to YouTube. Maybe worth updating the survivor list. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That´s no survivor. That one is new. 212.23.103.87 (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, replica then? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Me 262A-1b variant

We seem to have a dispute about the nature of the A-1b version of the Schwalbe, which many sources say was a rocket-armed variant. Some users claim that it simply the standard fighter propelled by BMW 109-003 turbojets. When I changed this, Denniss reverted it. I changed it back again, with two sources cited. This is what I've found to back up the change I made:

  • Cain, Charles William. Fighters of World War II. 1979. "The Me 262 A-1b had the standard four-cannon nose armament boosted by a battery of 24 x 55mm R4M folding-fin..." (p. 24)
  • Flug-Revue. Volume 22. 1970. "Auf Vorschlag von Major Rudi Sinner (III./JG 7) wurden bis März 1945 ca. sechzig Me 262 A-1 mit einem Schienenrost für zwölf 55 mm R 4/M-Bordraketen unter jeder Flügelhälfte ausgerüstet. Diese Maschinen, deren Erprobung von Major Sinner und Fritz Wendel gemeinsam durchgeführt wurde, führten die Typenbezeichnung Me 262A-1b. Die R4/M Orkan, die sich als äusserst wirkungsvoll bei der Bekämpfung von amerikanischen Bomberpulks erweis, war eine sehr einfache Rakettenwaffe mit acht faltbaren Leitfläschen." (p. 126) Roughly translated: 'At the suggestion of Major Rudi Sinner (III, JG 7), from about March 1946 about 60 Me 262A-1 were equipped with a rail for twelve 55 mm R4/M on-board rockets under each wing. These machines, jointly tested by Major Sinner and Fritz Wendel, carried the type designation Me 262A-1b. The R4/M Orkan, which proved to be very effective in the fight against American bomber aircraft, was a very simple rocket weapon with 8 folding control surfaces [fins].'
  • Gunston, Bill, and Iain Parson. The Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft. 1976. "(A-1b) as A-1a plus 24 spinstabilized R4/M 50mm [sic] rockets." (p. 150)
  • Heaton, Colin. The Me 262 Stormbird: From the Pilots Who Flew, Fought, and Survived It. Minneapolis: Zenith Imprint, 2012. "Me 262A-1b: The same as A-1a, but including twenty-four spin-stabilized R4/M 55mm rockets." (p. 43)
  • Pritchard, Anthony. Messerschmitt. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1975. "For bomber-interceptor purposes the Me 262 was fitted with the R4M air-to-air rocket missile which had been designed by Kurt Heber. Two wooden launching racks, one beneath each wing, each housed twelve missiles. All twenty-four missiles could be launched in a thirtieth of a second and scattered out over an area that would be occupied by a four-engined bomber at 600 yards. This version was known as the Me 262A-1b." (pp. 161-162)
  • Smith, J Richard. Messerschmitt: An Aircraft Album. New York: Arco, 1971. "The Me 262A-1a/U3 was a photo-reconnaissance variant with provision for two Rb 50/30 cameras and the A-1b could carry 24 R4M rockets underwing." (p. 102)
  • Wilson, Stewart. Aircraft of World War II. 1998. "The A-1b was fitted with 24 air-to-air underwing rockets." (p. 123)
  • Winchester, Jim. Jet Fighters: Inside & Out. Rosen, 2011. "Armament: Four 1.18-in (30-mm) Rheinmetall-Borsig Mk 108A-3 cannon with 100 rounds per gun for the upper pair and 80 rounds per gun for the lower pair, and aimed with a Revi 16.B gunsight or EZ.42 gyrostabilized sight. Provision for 12 R4M air-to-air rockets under each wing (Me 262A-1b)." (p. 8)

I'm not saying it's impossible that every one of these sources is wrong, especially if one source copied another, but if they are, then someone needs to post ironclad proof with multiple sources of their own, since I've posted eight separate references in two languages here, published over a forty-year span. Sacxpert (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have the time to gather and present a similar large list of sources, so I do not change it in the text. But anyhow Dennis is right. All those authors of the 70s were very good in copying ;-) --JuergenKlueser (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts of Walter Nowotny's last mission ?

This article states : "He claimed two P-51Ds destroyed before suffering engine failure at high altitude.[34] Then, while diving and trying desperately to restart his engines, he was attacked by other Mustangs, and forced to bail out.", The article Walter Nowotny states : "Nowotny radioed that he had downed a B-24 Liberator and a P-51 Mustang before he reported one engine failing... Many witnesses observed Nowotny's Me 262 A-1a Werk Nummer 110 400 (factory number) "White 8" dive vertically out of the clouds and crash..." - no mention of bailing out. I don't what what is correct, but Wikipedia articles need to be mutually consistent. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Survivors

Me 262 A-1a/U3 W.Nr.500453 Is at http://www.gosshawkunlimited.com/ Casa Grande Municipal Airport in Arizona, United States. It was seen without engines.

Greetings, I was in Berlin in 2010 and don't remember seeing a complete or reassembled Me 262 at the Luftwaffenmuseum in Gatow. Even the archived talk page on this subject has a photo at http://www.bredow-web.de/Luftwaffenmuseum/Historisch/Me_262_A1/me_262_a1.html which shows the plane in the Auto- und Technikmuseum Sinsheim und Speyer. The German Wikipedia page also says the plane is in that museum, and I can vouch the photo is not of Gatow. There was one reconstructed and one crashed engine at Gatow which I can post my own photo of if you'd like. Thanks! Joel J. Rane (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"The Me 262 was often mistaken by observers for the Gloster Meteor, the first Allied jet fighter aircraft, due to similarities in their appearance, leading to numerous friendly fire incidents on both sides."

I have tagged this as needing a citation, as frankly it seems implausible. Given the short period that Meteors were in active service during WW2, the restrictions concerning flight over enemy-occupied territory placed on both aircraft types, and the obvious differences between them, any suggestion that they were 'often mistaken' is going to need a strong source. Who 'mistook' them? Under what circumstances? Our Gloster Meteor article claims that it "faced more problems through misidentification as the Messerschmitt Me 262 by Allied aircraft and flak than from the Luftwaffe" - but again cites no source. And even if it is true that Meteors were shot at in the mistaken belief that they were Me 262s, that is no evidence that the converse was true. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed! The Meteor was little-seen. It would hardly be the source of mistaken identity over Germany. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also started a thread at Talk:Gloster Meteor, [1] as that article supposedly cites a source for misidentification - except that the source makes no such assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't get that. The Meteor was much slower-the mk 3 variant could go only 490 mph and the me 262 could go over 540 miles per hour. Also the Meteor's wing tips curve forward meaning they are longer out facing forward than facing back. The Me 262's wings were the opposite.

If a strange-sounding aircraft flying at 100 ft goes over your head at over 400 mph you will have no idea what it is, you will just shoot at it.

Petrel engined?

I hope that the edits I made to the Sturmvogel link are acceptable. It took me some messing around via this wiki and the de and a couple of dictionaries to get to that. It might be improved on, but discussion would be appreciated. If on the other hand you see what I've done and why then it will cost me a lot less in tea and paracetamol if you just say "well done old chap" so I don't have to use my brain any more today. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't the dictionary, & none of the Wikilinked pages mention "stormbird" (tho Googletrans gives "petrel"), so absent a link directly to petrel(which isn't an ideal choice either IMO), that looks good. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Lovely, thank you! :) DBaK (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
The common English name for the bird is 'Stormy Petrel'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Me 262 prototype with Jumo 210 engine

On this website (http://www.meteorflight.com/wps/meteor.nsf/pages/jet_age-me262), there is an image of an Me 262 with a Jumo 210 and 2 BMW 003 mounted. Should this image be added to the page?

Hardtofindausername (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be a copyright violation --JuergenKlueser (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of engines, the Jumo engines had a short operational life- in practice they lasted 24 hours but most of the time they only lasted 10 hours without having to be fixed. They, in short, were very unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.7.235 (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

C of G and jet engines

As the engines (regardless of their weight) were mounted pretty much on the center of lift, it is very unlikely that the change in wing sweep had anything to do with their increased weight. The amount of sweep change is however more consistent either with the removal of the piston engine used in the prototype, or a reduction in equipment mounted in the nose. - NiD.29 (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If the engine mounting points on the Jumo 004 were further back along the engine than the BMW then sweeping back the wings would be a way of countering this, and its effect on the designed CofG. If the Jumo's front compressor section was longer this would also require the engine to be mounted further back on the wing.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messerschmitt Me 262. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Blue Öyster Cult song "ME 262"?

I see a discussion in the archives about the Blue Öyster Cult song "ME 262". However, I see now that the article doesn't mention it at all. Is there any way for me to see which previous versions of the article included the mention and an explanation of why it was removed? --Lance E Sloan (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why was it removed? At a guess, because this article isn't about Blue Öyster Cult songs. And because Wikipedia aspires to higher standards than it did in 2004. Of course, if you can point to credible sources on the Me 262 that suggest that Blue Öyster Cult's music is in any way of significance to the history of the aircraft, we might consider it worth mentioning. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
IMO, you're better advised to mention it on the band's page & link here; the significance to the aircraft of the song is zero. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There's probably no interest among this article's editors in re-opening the question, but, as someone who just happened by, I'll add that I think the song should be included. That an article subject inspired a song is often considered worth including. The first example that occurred to me of a song about a specific historical subject was "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night" and there it is in the Influence and tributes section of Hill's bio. Not every labor organizer or every aircraft has been memorialized in song, so the fact is worth including.
ETA: I happened by because I read an article about the aircraft that mentioned the song. In at least one person's opinion, "Goes to show just how groundbreaking this thing was if it was inspiring songs 30 years later. It was truly a triumph of German engineering." JamesMLane t c 19:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
And, as said before, this page is about the aircraft, not the song; the influence of the 262 on the song is for the song page (or the band page). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you've misconstrued my argument. I believe that the existence of the song is information about the aircraft. Prompted by your post, I checked a few more examples. Not at all to my surprise, Springhill mining disaster#Representations in popular culture includes multiple songs about that article subject. Rescue of the Danish Jews#In music lists a song about that event. If you want to look specifically at World War II German military equipment, the article German battleship Bismarck mentions the song about it and links to the song page.
Not everyone who reads the Me-262 article will care about the song, but not everyone who reads the Bismarck article will care about that song, either. Editors who are very knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the aircraft should consider that the readership will include people with varying interests. JamesMLane t c 19:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The song may be information about the a/c. It's trivial information, & that's why it doesn't rise to the level worthy of inclusion. If it was a Beatles song, it would: the Beatles' cultural importance is high enough, independent of the a/c or the song. Or if there was more than one Me-262 song... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a guideline for this topic: WP:MILPOP, which generally discourages lists of pop culture references. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Y'know what, I've changed my mind. If Pokemon characters can have their own pages, why not song references? If I'm going to be on the wrong side of every single issue, & page I create can be deleted without even discussing it, go ahead & ignore me. Nobody gives a damn what I think anyhow. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Messerschmitt Me 262. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Engine mounting "podded"

Is there a reason for using "podded" and "underwing pod" instead of "nacelle?" The former seems rather clunky.

If it is to be kept, perhaps a bit of rewording is in order? **** 

Hometheatercalibrator (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Rather than creating a deletion discussion I am proposing that the article Stephen C. Ananian be changed into a redirect to the section Messerschmitt Me 262#Counter-jet tactics, with relevant information added to section which the redirect will target. I propose this cause the significant coverage that relates to 1LT Ananian is primarily about his single aerial victory, which was the shooting down of a ME262. Therefore, the First Lieutenant is not notable himself, but is notable only for a single event, which we know here as WP:BIO1E.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I was only thinking a brief mention of the individual's solo aerial victory, as verified here and here, of no greater than a sentence. Then again, I am unsure as I am not a SME on the subject, on how many Me 262s were shot down in aerial combat. If shooting down a Me 262 in aerial combat is significant, than those events should be given some mention. If multitudes of Me 262s were shot down, then I can see why mentioning single successful aerial engagements would be excluded (unless it already involves individuals who are notable for other reasons (such as Chuck Yeager)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I had a GoogleBing at the internet. Info seems vague but seem to be in the order of 100 Me 262 shot down. Any consideration re notability of a shoot down would need confirmation of course GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not noteworthy enough for inclusion and an unlikely merge candidate, would suggest it is not noteworthy for a stand-alone article either and perhaps an AfD is the way to go. MilborneOne (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stephen C. Ananian meets notability as a Wikipedia article because he is one of the few pilots to shoot down Me-262 and as pilot of Armenia hertiage, is entitled for notability like other Armenian-American USAAF officers like Carl Genian and Ray Melikian. Bookish Worm (talk) 10:20 AM, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned about the notability of Carl Genian. Subject of that article, unrelated to this discussion, is sourced to only two sources, one being an autobiography. The subject has not received significant coverage in any other reliable sources (outside of archived obituaries). I will tag this article accordingly. Thanks for bringing this article to my attention.
As for Ray Melikian, individual according to the Wikipedia page was awarded three Silver Stars, however I can only find reliable sources verifying a single Silver Star awarding. Therefore I will start a discussion there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, where's the autobiography here? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet:: I was not thinking his entire biography, only a mention of his aerial victory over a Me 262, with the biography article turned into a redirect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
His one aerial victory was fairly routine, that is, it did not occur under unusual circumstances, or set a pattern for others to follow, or kill a notable enemy pilot. I am having difficulty imagining where to fit it in to the Me262 article. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

POV edits, masquerading as mere formatting.

In what way is this no more than, "ce, fmt" ? It's deliberately removing (new and contested) content, with a supporting ref to specifically support it.

@John:? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you think "ce" stands for, Andy? --John (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Copyedit. Not "change the facts contained therein". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Très fort. Do you ever get into an argument with your reflection when shaving, Andy? --John (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Czech variants

Are there any differences from the Me 262 and the Czech built variants? Hardtofindausername (talk) 18:25 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't find statement in reference 23

The statement in Origins:

"Although the Me 262 is often referred to as a "swept wing" design, the production aircraft had a leading edge sweep of only 18.5°, too slight to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number.[23]"

seems to cite "Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft", but skimming through the source seems to indicated just the opposite. "Some increase in critical Mach number, however, probably resulted from the 18.5 leading-edge sweepback." is what the source indicates. (Chapter 11 part 2) 18.5 degrees is a fair bit of sweep, am I missing something?

JKBodylski (talk) 06:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Then please correct the statement to summarize the source. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Then it shall be so JKBodylski (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Unnecssary (and disruptive) development as a bomber

Is it worth mentioning Hitler's insistence that the Me262 should be used as a bomber? - rather than as a fighter (for which it had been designed). This decision (ignoring the advice and reservations voiced by experts) led to a significant reduction in the number of Me262 fighters available.

This was mentioned by Nazi Armaments Minister Albert Speer in his book "Inside the Third Reich" (pp. 488-493, 594), by Andrew Roberts in "The Storm of War (pp. 586, 446, 595), and by General Adolf Galland in "The First and the Last". --DLMcN (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This is already discussed in the article, to some extent. We certainly shouldn't cite Speer's self-serving account as remotely authoritative though, and much the same can be said of Galland's memoir. Neither of them was a disinterested observer, and both were clearly motivated to portray themselves in as best a light as possible - which frequently involved trying to pin defeat on Hitler's decisions alone. It is my impression (admittedly based on only limited reading) that the consensus in recent historiography is that the decision to build a bomber version probably had relatively little consequence, given the chronic issues over lack of adequate resources that made Nazi Germany's defeat inevitable, and which delayed the program much more than the relatively minor changes required for the conversions. I've also seen suggestions that Willy Messerschmitt was always aware of the possibility of a fighter-bomber version being required, and made allowances for this from the start - I'm not quite sure where I read this though. Maybe someone more familiar with recent sources can chip in here, and point us in the right direction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Andy ... Looking at your: "the consensus in recent historiography is that the decision to build a bomber version probably had relatively little consequence", Andrew Roberts would certainly disagree with that.
In any event, would you agree that it was pressure from Hitler which led to giving priority to the bomber version? DLMcN (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The article seems to imply that, as it currently stands. It follows by stating that "It is debatable to what extent Hitler's interference extended the delay in bringing the Schwalbe into operation, because it appears the engine vibration problems were at least as costly, if not more so". Citing sources. Anyway, as I said, I think this discussion would benefit from input from others, who may be more familiar with a broader range of recent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Some extracts from the "Stormbird" source:
".. mostly, new [Me262] designs tendered had to use th[e new BMW004 engine ...] in order to alleviate Junkers already stretched demands for the 262 design. This, coupled with the insistence by Hitler that the new design should be used offensively as a bomber, instead of defensively as a fighter, caused severe problems to the already burgeoning project. Hitler, even under extreme pressure from Messerschmitt himself, Generaleutnant Adolf Galland, and Hermann Goering, could not be reasoned with and as a result Galland fell from favour with Hitler.
"Ignoring the insistence of Hitler, most airframes were completed as fighters instead of bombers, and when Hitler was informed of this he flew into a rage, grounding all current 'builds' in order that they may be continued as bombers. If the aircraft was allowed to be produced as a fighter, there may have been some time bought by Germany, as the Me262 would have been used to stave-off allied bomber formations which were pounding Germanys industrial heart.
"Altogether between 1400 and 1500 Me262's were built, or in some form of construction at the close of the war. Out of this number, only about 300 saw active service. The remainder were grounded due to either fuel shortages, conversion to bomber status at Hitler's command, spare parts, or more importantly-trained pilots". DLMcN (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, so here is my suggestion - [depending on comments from other readers, of course]:
1. Remove the words: "It is debatable to what extent..."
2. Reword the rest of the sentence:
"Hitler's interference helped to extend the delay in bringing the Schwalbe into operation; (other factors contributed too; in particular, there were engine vibration problems which needed attention)".
3. We should retain the 'Stormbird' source-reference [which is quite consistent with the proposed new version], and add the one by Andrew Roberts, which I mentioned above. DLMcN (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The delay in bringing the 262 into service was due to engine development problems. Hitler's interference is a bit of a myth. The 262 couldn't have reached operational service any sooner anyway, because of the engine problems. Frank Whittle chose centrifugal-flow power as a 'quick and dirty' solution for the Meteor because he was aware of the greater difficulty in making axial-flow engines work. The Germans went for axial-flow when their resources weren't really equal to it. The Meteor F3's engines had a life of 125 hours, with one mid-life overhaul. The 262's engines had a life of... 12 hours.Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

+1 JuergenKlueser (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
take a view -->. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyjxpxyhnXE HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Unrealistic Aerial Victory Claims

The claims of aerial victories previosly mentioned in this article are outdated and at best unreliable. Initially cited was a book published in 1970, 50 years ago, well before scholarly debate on the topic had reached its height. The Luftwaffe was well known to over sell its aerial victories. When the ME-262 entered the war things were looking very grim for not just the Luftwaffe, but for Germany as a whole. The opportunity presented itself for pilots and for officials of the Luftwaffe to over state their successes at a point in time in the war in which hope was quickly dwindling. The claim of 542+ aerial victories is among the highest claims made and is not backed up by strong empirical evidence. Further work needs to be done on this article in order to make sure that a more reasonable number which is backed by contemporary sources is put in the article. Until that point this number should not find its way back into the article due to the laack of evidence supporting it and the circumstances that could have lead to its creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17Cbake (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Numbers are not outdated. Unless there is an accepted, published work that includes contradictory numbers, the original numbers are fine. Age alone does not disqualify any published material. Neither does "scholarly debate" - whatever that means. What does scholarly debate have to do with overturning long-accepted stats? Does that mean if a couple of academics decide something is wrong, that everyone should then defer to their "new and improved" revision of history? No, I think not. We've seen quite enough revisionist history lately methinks. If you have a better, more credible source that contradicts the figures given, then please produce that evidence. If anything, contemporary sources are likely to be LESS reliable. After all, are we going to believe the people who were there at the time, or someone who has "studied" an event that happened long before they were born? There is no compelling evidence to believe that a recent revision is more accurate than the original numbers. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, Luftwaffe numbers weren´t "well known to over sell (its) aerial victories." It was absolutely the opposite - no witness, no victory was the rule. It was the allies that fell flat on their nose with their overclaiming, eg the catastrophic attack on Schweinfurt in 1943, where the bombers´ gunners claimed a laughable 288 victories (that´s MORE than the number of defending german fighter planes involved! - actual number was 23...). 2003:DC:F734:700:D88D:A04C:D330:B2D4 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the 262s only operated regularly and in significant numbers for about the last 60 days of the war, and since even then the numbers were in the low dozens at a time, those victory claims look a bit on the high side. Not physically impossible, but... a bit on the high side. On The Hardest Day of the Battle of Britain, 18 August 1940, the RAF flew about 400 day-fighter sorties against the three major German raids and shot down about 70 of the attackers. Pro rata, the Germans would have had to put up 60 jet sorties a day, every day, scoring 10 kills a day, every day, for those 60 days of operations, to meet the total of victory claims made by the article. Did they? Did they really? Or was the 262, being an invincible Nazi superweapon, so superior that that startling result could be achieved with a much lower sortie rate? The 262's advantage was its high maximum speed, but it had to slow down to engage prop aircraft, and then it was vulnerable, particularly because its acceleration, as with all early jets, was very poor in comparison to prop fighters. In addition its armament, though heavy, was short-ranged, allowing the pilot next to no firing time before he had to break away to avoid collision with the target. And Dr Alfred Price, in Late Mark Spitfire Aces 1942-1945, Osprey, Oxford, 1995, ISBN 1 85532 575 6, p.71, remarks, 'Allied fighters shot down an average of more than two German jet fighters for every Allied fighter or bomber destroyed by the jets.' So the 262 had a kill-to-loss ratio of about 0.5 to 1. (The Spitfire XIV had a kill-to-loss ratio of about 20 to 1.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I call b/s on that, and cite Adolf Galland: "Verteilt sie unter den Armen", when there downed allied planes without claims. (Literally translated: "Distribute them among the poor" - second (derogative) meaning: "Smear it under your armpits!", meaning "I don´t give a ****!".) Go figure. 2003:DC:F734:700:D88D:A04C:D330:B2D4 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
German fighter pilots at that time were no exception to the general rule of massive overclaims. On 15 August 1940 the RAF claimed 185 German aircraft, against an actual loss of 75. The Germans claimed 111 British aircraft, against an actual loss of 34. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Meteor

User:BilCat reverted me saying "it's the second jet fighter, and first allied one, so naturally itll.be compared"

I think that's a pretty weak argument for reverting my change that was well explained without going to the talk page or contacting me. There are several problems with that. One is the fact it was second is irrelevant, another is most readers of that page will have never even heard of the Gloster even if they are relatively well versed in the air war over Europe because it makes no contribution at all. There's no combat footage and no combat stories. Another is that it looks like it was tagged on to the sentence that was trying to make the point that the 262 was faster and outgunned the fighters that it actually faced in combat which doesn't include the Gloster.

"The Me 262 was faster and more heavily armed than any Allied fighter, including the British jet-powered Gloster Meteor."

Does a "fighter" that doesn't fight deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the legendary Me 262? The Gloster Meteor was a fighter in name only. It was not used in air to air combat at all. It has no air-to-air combat kills. It saw no combat over Europe and would never have seen a ME262. In fact, flying the aircraft over the continent was forbidden because they didn't want one falling into German hands. It no more deserves mention than the Bell P-59 Airacomet or the Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star which were both operational and deployed but never saw combat. When I read the article and saw it mentioned I thought "Gloster,? what's that doing here?" so I ended up in the British national archives looking at Gloster squadron daily reports. I was not used as a combat aircraft. The same can be said for the P-59 and P-80. It's an interesting side note that they destroyed maybe a dozen buzz bombs include some where the pilot used his wingtip vortices to upset the airflow over the wingtip of the bomb and spun them out of control. But that is not air-to-air combat. They trained for combat but didn't do any, not even over England. I find no evidence they shot down a single piloted aircraft. What is the argument for including it? The point being made on the page was that the 262 was faster and more heavily armed than any allied fight that it faced in combat. That did not include the Gloster. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're reading far too much into what is just a general statement in the lead section, which is about Allied fighters in general, not just those it faced in combat. If you want to change the statement to say that, then propose doing that, along with reliable sources. You seem to have some objection to even mentioning the Meteor, or "Gloster" as you call it. The Meteor, unlike the Me 262, went on to have a long and relatively successful career with the RAF, and was also exported to several countries. So the fact that it was the first Allied jet fighter of the war is important to note, whether or not it ever faced the Me 262 in combat. BilCat (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The Meteor was operational in Belgium. 88.98.205.213 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The Meteor was in Belgium and Holland, hoping the 262s would attack them. They destroyed 46 planes on the ground.
The Meteor was too advanced to allow the Germans to get hold of a crashed plane on their territory. 88.98.205.213 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
It is not important to note here. You're not reading enough into it. The page and its lead are NOT about Allied fighters in general, it is about the ME262 in particular. I'm pointing out the glaring lack of relevance. It is no more relevant as a combat fighter than the P-59 and P-80. I'd be making the same argument if someone had tagged them onto that sentence. I don't object to mention of the Meteor, I object to it being mention here. This is not a page about the Meteor. It is notable as the first but f you want to note it put it on the Gloster Meteor page or put it somewhere other than the lead on the 262 pages. "The Meteor, unlike the Me 262, went on to have a long and relatively successful career". Unlike the Me 262? Seriously? That is an absurd thing to say. It did not have a long career as an air-to-air combat fighter but even if it did that doesn't make it relevant here. It is not a comparable aircraft. No combat in WWII and here is the first encounter of Meteors with Mig 15s in Korea. " 1 December (1951 )when twelve Meteors were engaged by over fifty MiG 15s over Pyongyang. For the destruction of one MiG, the squadron lost three Meteors with a further two damaged. This encounter highlighted the MiG's superiority in aerial combat, and as a result, the Meteors were confined to ground attack operations." In WWII it was not a fighter. That's what is relevant here.

https://www.airforce.gov.au/sites/default/files/minisite/static/7522/RAAFmuseum/research/units/77sqn.htm 

Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The article mentions the Meteor several times in its main text, this is because reliable sources on the Me 262 also tend to mention the Meteor. The lead of the article is a summary of the main body, so it naturally briefly mentions the Meteor. This is how Wikipedia works - it reflects what is in reliable sources. (Hohum @) 02:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
No, it does not get mentioned several times in the text. It gets mentioned twice in the body and I can understand the relevance there especially in the second mention in the body about post-war testing which goes on to mention the Lockheed shooting star. That is different than putting it in the lead. Obviously, everything that's mentioned in the article doesn't get mentioned in the lead anyway So there's nothing natural about it. I have been editing for 15 years so I don't need to be told how Wikipedia works. The obvious and Central point being made in the lead is that it was faster and more well-armed than any of the planes that it flew against in combat and was a dangerous aircraft that could have had serious consequences had it been developed earlier in the war. The Gloster jet was not an aircraft of consequence. It's like a false equivalency to be mentioning it in the same sentence in the lead as the 262. It did not fly against the Gloster meteor in combat, it flew against propeller-driven aircraft. The planes never met each other in the air so tell me again why it should be in the lead. Nobody yet has made that argument. The citation that comes after that line is to a book that's merely a directory of aircraft. So using that as a source you could also include two United States jet fighters that never saw air-to-air combat. Certainly, you wouldn't want me to do that to the lead just to prove a point. In fact, that would be so absurd that it makes my point for me. The Source in the lead merely proves that the aircraft existed. I'm still waiting you're somebody to argue why it belongs there. It did not shoot down a single German-manned aircraft. Jackhammer111 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
It has has been pointed out why, multiple times, by different people. (Hohum @) 02:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
You Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Meteor is naturally mentioned as a comparator because it was the only other jet fighter to see operational service during the war, and indeed entered regular squadron service in late July 1944, shooting down enemy cruise missiles that August, while the 262 did not reach regular operational status until 1945 (serving only with a trials unit in 1944, and notably failing in its primary assigned task, to shoot down an RAF reconnaissance Mosquito). The Meteor and the 262 never met in combat for several reasons: only one squadron of Meteors was deployed to the Continent, they were forbidden to fly over enemy territory for the first few weeks and Me262s were by then tasked almost exclusively to intercept American day-bomber formations, which Meteors did not escort. By that time, Allied fighters not engaged in bomber escort seldom encountered German fighters. It did happen on the odd occasion, and RAF Tempests and Spitfire XIVs did destroy German jets, but it never happened to the Meteors, which like the Tempests and Spit XIVs were assigned to 'armed reconnaissance' at low level and mostly involved in ground attack. Ground attack was the principal task of Allied fighters at the time, since the Luftwaffe was a shrivelled husk and did not do very much except harass American bomber formations to remarkably little effect. The Meteor is not comparable to the P-59 or P-80 since neither of those machines saw service in the theatre of operations during the war. The Meteor and the 262 were the only jet fighters to achieve this, the Me163 being a rocket and the Ar234 being a bomber and reconnaissance aircraft. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. Operational is when the plane has a trained ground and flight crews, with spare parts and ready to be deployed anywhere. The 262 was with a testing unit until Nov 1944. The first operational jet plane was the Meteor by a number of months.
  2. The 262 did not shoot down a Meteor in July 1944. The Meteor landed in Italy. A fuselage door was blown off in a quick evasive action that was all.
  3. The Meteor at the war's end was faster than the 262 with improved engines.
  4. The Meteor was flying operationally until the 1980s/ Still flying today by Martin Baker.
  5. After WW2 no one took up the 262s design which was based on a 1938 propeller air-frame.
  6. The Meteor was an all new air-frame for jet engines - forward pilot position, high tail so as not to obstruct jet thrust flow, tricycle landing gear, etc.
  7. This article is full of overt errors, written by fanboys.
88.98.205.213 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
If you have WP:Reliable sources to back all that up, then you can fix it. (Hohum @) 22:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, the article's claim, under 'Introduction', that the 262 'could accelerate to speeds over 530mph, about 93mph faster than any Allied fighter in the European Theater of Operations' is cited to an American source and only in fact applies to US fighters, specifically the P-51 at 437mph (the British Spitfire XIV being about 10mph faster), while the Meteor F.3 operational with 616 Squadron RAF on the Continent from March 1945 was tested to 493mph at 30,000ft (William Green, War Planes of the Second World War: Fighters, Vol.II, Macdonald, London, 1961, ISBN 356 01446 0, p.56). This is fairly academic, since the Meteor and the 262 never met in combat, but still. The Meteor went on to set two world speed records of 606mph and 616 mph just after the war, while flight test (and bitter German experience) had established that any 262 attempting to go anywhere near that sort of speed would suffer a fatal rearward shift of the centre of pressure, putting the aircraft into an irrecoverable nose-dive, which is why so many 262 pilots died in crashes. The 262's airframe had severe high-Mach problems and its critical limit appears to have been inferior to the Spitfire's. (Spitfire PR XI PL827 was regularly and safely dived to Mach 0.85. PR XI EN409 achieved Mach 0.92. As the article notes, Messerschmitt was aware that the 262 could not reach Mach 0.86 and survive, and nor could its pilot.)
Additionally, the article's claim, in the lede, that the 262 influenced the design of the F-86, the MiG-15 and the B-47 is again odd, since a mere glance at the respective aircraft shows that they were swept-wing, which the 262 was not (its mild degree of sweep, done purely for centre-of-gravity reasons, does not amount to a swept-wing design). And the Soviet jet had a British-designed centrifugal engine (the Rolls-Royce Nene, reverse-engineered by the Russians), while the axial engines of the US types derived from the British Metrovick engine and not the German pattern.
The article isn't altogether bad, but it does suffer from the problem that the 262, because of its stylish appearance and its association with the Third Reich, has become a cult object which attracts fanboi claims. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Messerschmitt_Me_262/Archive_2&oldid=1245839207"