Talk:Messerschmitt Me 262

Reference to "nose wheel" is nonsensical

This passage under "Test flights":

Its only major deficiency was that brakes could not be used until the nose wheel had touched down, because engaging them before would smash the nose wheel strongly into the runway, potentially destroying the nose wheel and even the aircraft.

Elsewhere (and just looking at the photos) the aircraft is described as using conventional landing gear, which does not have a nose wheel (such aircraft have, as pictured, a TAIL wheel). It sounds like applying the breaks too early could lead to the nose of the plane crashing into the runway, but no nosewheel would be involved in such a situation, as no nose wheel exists. I think this paragraph needs to be completely rewritten, but I'm not an authority on this. Kswoll (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The first few prototypes had conventional (tailwheel) landing gear, later revised to tricycle gear for production aircraft. The first paragraph in the 'test flights' section is at minimum therefore misplaced, in that it seems not to be referring to test flights at all. The reference to smashing the nosewheel clearly applies to later aircraft, is out of chronological sequence, and probably belongs at the end of the section, or elsewhere. And given that the paragraph is based solely on a single primary source - the debriefing of Luftwaffe test pilot Hans Fey - we should probably make it clearer that it is all his subjective opinion, rather than an authoritative independent assessment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I've removed the paragraph detailing Englander's debriefing of Fay entirely, for now at least. Not only was the paragraph out of place chronologically, but the way it was worded was misleading - describing it as "a report by Major Ernst Englander", rather than what is actually was: a debriefing of a Messerschmitt test pilot, Hans Fay. The comments on the attributes of the Me 262 are Fay's, not Englander's. And even if we take the source as legitimate (which it most likely is, though I'd rather see an alternative source for what is clearly a transcription - preferably one that actually stated where the original could be located) it is very much primary, and originates in circumstances where objectivity might very well be called into question. As I understand it, the general practice amongst the allies when interviewing POWs was to record what they said more or less verbatim, rather than immediately analyse it for veracity - intelligence was collated later, through cross-checking of sources. Accordingly, I don't think we should be using this debriefing in the manner it has been in this article - as an objective report on the handling of the Me 262. Such commentary is better left to secondary sources, and if we decide to include Fay's opinions at all, make the circumstances under which he expressed them clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Projekt 1065 Gratz

Why does the link in the origins section link to a YA author? 2600:1702:4B05:800:5575:827B:FABB:50EC (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Have removed it as an unlikely confusion. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The nickname "Schwalbe" may have been an allied invention

The nickname ‘Schwalbe’ (swallow) has not been found in any German WW2 documentation. It seems to have been an invention of British and American media, which captioned practically every photo of the Me 262 with ‘Schwalbe’. 83.250.69.156 (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)