Talk:Heinkel He 178

Comments

There is a descrepancy between this article and others that support the idea that the Messerschmitt 262 V1 was the first ever built turbojet aircraft. Someone should REFERENCE so that we know which to beleive.

First flight of the 262 was in 1941. Where's the problem? Greglocock 08:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Heinkel He 178 - First flight of a turbojet powered aircraft August 27, 1939
• Heinkel He 280 - First flight of a turbojet powered fighter aircraft March 30, 1941
• Messerschmitt Me 262 - First operational turbojet fighter aircraft 1944, prototype first flight 18 April 1941 --Colputt (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that the He 178 was displayed in the German Museum of Technology in Berlin and destroyed in an air raid in 1943. This museum opened in 1982, so this claim doesn't make sense. If someone has information about the fate of the prototypes of the He 178, please add it to the page; with a reference please.Tdaddato (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Smith & Kay's German Aircraft of the Second World War(Putnam, 1972, p. 292), The He 178 (along with the He 176) was displayed at the Berlin Air Museum, where it was destroyed in a 1943 air raid. Presumably this was the Deutsche Luftfahrt Sammlung, wrecked on the night of 22–23 November 1943.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Intended improvements

There are a few problems (constructive criticism) and the latest edit causes confusion.

• Previous:

The main landing gear was retractable, but remained fixed in "down" position throughout the flight trials.

• Current content:

The main landing gear was intended to be retractable, but remained fixed in "down" position throughout the flight trials.

The word "intended" (to be retractable), as an adjective, denotes it was planned to be raised (retracted) but for some unexplained (unsupported by source) reason was not. The previous edit does not make any supposition concerning intent. Maybe "The landing gear was designed to be retractable..." (not questionable evidenced by the image) would be better.

If the source states that "only" the main landing gear remained fixed in the down position then alright otherwise that is questionable without reference. What would be the reason for quotation marks around "down"? Current and previous edits state fixed in "down" position. Leave out the quotation marks and add "the"; fixed in the down position (grammar), reads better.

Without going into a lot of reasoning supported by policy there are too many fragmented paragraphs (structure) which diminishes the flow of reading. An example is the second paragraph introducing "He", obviously meaning Hans von Ohain, and since there is no change of theme, point, or idea (not actually introducing a new unnamed person), this should be part of the first paragraph, so the article needs some consolidating. It may look longer with fragmented paragraphs but that should not be a goal but rather readability.

I noticed the article is being checked and passed (glancing at the project improvement template) for criteria to elevate to "b" class for WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft. This is just an observation but I think it is a good idea to ask for a second "pair of eyes" to help proof read on such things as structure as well as grammar and style. This will help scrutinize content against criteria for a correct "passing grade" which will insure the integrity of the project. I admonish editors to seek out references as this will help with the "Referencing and citation" as well as "Coverage (added content) and accuracy" criteria. Otr500 (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The undercarriage was designed to be retractable but for some reason the landing gear was instead fixed in the down position and the wheel apertures in the fuselage faired-over.

Initial attempts at flight were unsuccessful until a new wing of larger area was fitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)