Talk:Heinkel He 343

Relation to Il-22 aircraft
What was the exact relation of He 343 project to Ilyushin Il-22? If the specifications are correct, it seems that these aircraft are only superficially similar?--78.128.177.172 (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover - no turret and/or tail gun position on He 343, while Il-22, although quite similar to He 343 (albeit visibly larger), was to posses both dorsal gun turret and tail guns.--78.128.177.172 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

- Il-22 seems to be quite similar to He 343 aerodynamically and in over-all layout, but the paramatres (length, wingspan etc.) differs dramatically, and after all, He 343 was to be high speed bomber with crew of two and no defensive armament (with exception of proposed He 343B twin-tail variant with remotely controlled tail gun(s)), while Il-22 had crew of five, and both dorsal turret and manned tail gun position (judging from drawings, Il-22 tail gun position was quite similar to B-29's one, but clearly unlike anthing that would fit into He 343).
 * Hi, what is the problem, that needs clartification??? The He343 and the Il22 are not the same plane. The article states, that the Russians studied the plans, and then made their development based on this. They used some ideas, but chose another size etc. And to be honest, the armament is an attribute that was so often changed even within different versions of one type, compare for example the first version of the Boeing B-17 and the later ones.
 * Another topic: Why don't you find much material in earlier publications? The Russians opened their archives just a few years ago. --JuergenKlueser (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He 343-Il 22 relation - I believe that current phrasing (found plans and used them as base for the development of the Ilyushin Il-22.) is much better than original wording (found plans and finished the work. One aircraft was build and flown, the Ilyushin Il-22), but still it's not clear what the relationship between He 343 and Il 22 exactly was. I think that your explanation here ("Russians based their research on German plans and ideas, but chose different size") would be worthy of incorporating into the article, because it gives much better impression what the relation was like.
 * I mean - the differences are significant enough to be worthy of some more thorough explanation - it's a bit misleading to say that "He 343 was finished as Il-22" (which is what the article originally said). --78.128.177.172 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear IP, I asked you politely, what needs clarification. What you are doing is tending to get an edit war. Why don't you answer here? Then we can find a solution. Best regards --JuergenKlueser (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Jürgen, I've been answering. --78.128.177.172 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. Here's a new proposal. Best regards --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

slight discrepency between articles?
This is a pretty minor point, but in this article it says at the end of the first parsgraph "By the end of 1944 work was nearly finished by the Heinkel engineers, when the order was cancelled due to the Emergency Fighter Program." This stronly implies (although not actually stating) that that was the end of work on the machine.

Yet at the Emergency Fighter Program article, the end of the first paragraph states "...Heinkel He 343 were worked on fitfully in the last months of the war."

So if the Emergency Fighter Program article is correct, I think the operative sentence in this article should be amended. But I don't know if it's correct. Herostratus (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)