Talk:Heinkel He 280

NPOV
Some serious speculation included without reference to an authority GraemeLeggett 12:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * -- Would you please indicate precisely what you speak of? I mean, what is seriously speculative or lacks an authoritative reference here?
 * It would be my pleasure to contribute, but though riddles are fun, they waste time and energy.
 * Kind regards,
 * Zack Holly Venturi 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a single reference is a fact not a riddle. --Colputt 23:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Too much speculation in the article. Especially the 150mm Nebelwerfer idea is off and I don't remember having seen it anywhere else. The aerodynamic drag would have ruined the speed, the turbojets were unnecessarily vulnerable to bomber defensive fires in 1943 (when high fighter speed wasn't necessary due to lack of bomber escorts) and the use of the Nebelwerfer (which had a rather low effect on surface targets) against against ships is neither documented nor have I seen it being suggested anywhere.
 * The article has really too much speculation in it, not only facts. Btw, the Fw-190 didn't gain air superiority in late '41, but merely technical fighter superiority. Its numbers were marginal till mid-42 and were always marginal in the West. Lastdingo (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations-needed
I edited this article as best I can with the one reference I have that even mentions the aircraft. I added fact tags on the statements that I believe need citations. Its a Start class, have fun. --Colputt 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He-280
The 650KM/H speed for the He-280 is unrealisticly too slow i read in a book that a modified version of the aircraft flew above 880KM/H and that the V3 version of the plane flew with 776KM/H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.135.131 (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He-280
The speed 776km/h is quite a right speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razor900 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nebelwerfer
The Nebelwerfer was not a "recoilless 150mm artillery piece", they were rockets and the 210mm version was used on aircraft. 209.244.31.35 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo Caption
The photo caption reads: "fuel tank leak". According to Bill Gunston, in his book "Fighting Aircraft of World War II", the He 280 was flown without engine cowls "to avoid a build-up of dripping fuel". This does not necessarily mean that the fuel tank was leaking. Turbine aircraft require some kind of dump or drain valve to prevent residual fuel in the manifolds from dribbling out the nozzles on shut down. It seems most likely that this component was absent or ineffective on this primitive jet airplane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grendel1976 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Development
This section is written as if it is opinion. I may or may not be, I don't know. There are no citations. Removing it would leave a gaping hole in the article. Had Udet approved development, Heinkel would have received the extra funding which they needed. This might have led to a rectification of the problems they were having with the jet engines. This was the case across all jet engine development in Germany; government funding was lacking at the critical stage that of initial development. A contest flight in 1941 comparing an He 280 with a Focke-Wulf Fw 190 had the He 280 completing four laps of an oval course before the Fw 190 could complete three. Ernst Heinkel designed a smaller jet fighter airframe for the He 280 that was well matched to the lower-thrust jet engines available in 1941. The maximum weight of the He 280 was 4,296 kg (9,470 lb), compared to 7,130 kg (15,720 lb) for the Me 262 (which did not get an adequate thrust engine until late 1944). The He 280 could have gone into production by late 1941 and maintained the air superiority which the Fw 190 had established, and filled the gap between the Fw 190 and Me 262. Initial problems with the HeS 8 engine would have likely been ironed out as production of the fighter began. Some of the resistance to the He 280 would make little sense today. The tricycle landing gear was considered too frail for grass or dirt airfields which were common at the time especially in Russia and North Africa. The Me 262 was originally designed as a tail-dragger, but this configuration makes it difficult for a jet to become airborne. Test pilots had to tap on the brakes to get the Me 262 tail off the ground while trying to take off. Pioneered on its fifth prototype with fixed gear, and made retractable on the sixth prototype and afterwards, the Me 262 emerged with its redesigned tricycle landing gear. One benefit of the He 280 which impressed the political leadership was the fact that the jet engines could burn kerosene, which requires much less expense and refining than the high-octane fuel used by piston-engine aircraft. The He 280 might have been more easily "sold" if Heinkel stressed the possibility of using it as an attack aircraft for anti-shipping. While the R4M rockets were not available until 1944, the Germans did develop the Nebelwerfer in 1941, which was a 150 mm (5.9 in) artillery rocket launcher. These tubes could have been mounted underneath the wings of a jet. German pilots complained that bombs dropped by the Me 262 had little chance of hitting their targets. A forward-firing recoilless weapon would have been much more effective.

My suggestion is that it is time to hit the books. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 07:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of the text is both OR and non-encyclopedic - much of it probably should be trimmed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the offending text was added by an IP in Feb 2011, per this diff. We should probably just cut all of it as uncted OR. - BilCat (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem from my viewpoint is that a lot of this looks probable. If things worked the way that the text states it is important information. But is it documented? If it is documented, it needs to be included. The problem is of course that a lot of information from the Third Reich was destroyed during the bombing campaigns of 1944-1945. That makes me suspicious. But a lot of information did survive. My own interests run mostly naval history. I was looking at the articles on early jets for a short story I am writing, when I spotted the problem. At this point, I'll step back and let you folks work it out :) UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This section has been tagged for almost two years. I deleted the unsourced speculation and the hypotheticals. There is no reason to dwell overlong on the might-have-beens, especially if no one has an introduced source on the subject.Sacxpert (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

it needs a drawing badly. I will try to produce an accurate drawing but need publishing rights — Preceding unsigned comment added by FockeWulf FW 190 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Drawings
were in the world is a drawing of the Heinkel He 280. I would like that the Article would have one. if you agree with FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC) place your comment here Thank You