Just a note:

Previous versions of this article have featured photographs of this historically significant aircraft. Unfortunately, all of those photos are copyright, and we have not had permission to use them.

If somebody has, or can take a photograph of an Me 262 and submit it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright, that would be wonderful. There's a restored one at the USAF museum in Dayton, Ohio. There is also one at the War Memorial in Canberra, Australia, but it's currently in pieces unfortunately. I presume there must be one or two in Germany somewhere. Finally, there is a group in the USA building replicas of them, which may be cheating a little but have the advantage that we might get a photos of one in flight. --Robert Merkel 01:06, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Another problem with the jet engine is..." seems out of place. It's the only paragraph in the article that's written in the present tense. I'd rewrite it, but I'm not sure if the problems described were characteristics of the Me-262 engines specifically, or if they're typical of all jet engines. -- Ortonmc 16:41, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is any body in the world still flying a maintained Messerschmitt 262 jet fighter?

Gugilymugily, would you please explain why it was necessary to change this wording? I really hope it wasn't because "immortalized" sounded too POV, because it means you've got a lot more editing ahead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I figured that in this case, immortalized just wasn't the right word. I think that the plane is remembered more for its role than for the song. --Gugilymugily 04:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you can suggest an alternate wording that doesn't leave it as a form of "to be", I'm not stuck on my original. "To be" is so offensively, aggressively bland that it should really not be used when an alternative can be found. (JMHO.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about something like this, same basic part, just with a bit more about the song:

"The Me 262 was the subject of a song by the heavy metal band Blue Oyster Cult named "ME 262", found on their third album, Secret Treaties. The song was told from the perspective of a German pilot of an Me 262." I've been trying to come up with an alternate wording, but every thing comes out as either the same thing I had or a synonym of immortalize.--Gugilymugily 05:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about "The heavy metal band Blue Oyster Cult paid tribute to the Messerschmitt as the "prince of turbojets" with their song "ME 262", found on their Secret Treaties album"? 'paid tribute' does not have the problem of 'immortalize' in implying that the fame of the subject comes from the tribute; it has a little more information about the song; and finally it avoids the "to be" problem. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like it, and I changed it to pretty much that. I think it's better than either version, and it only took us 2-1/2 hours to get there.--Gugilymugily 06:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's see "Jane's Guide To Fighter Planes" produce that kind of turn-around time! ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the Gloster Meteor (the initial variants thereof were known as Gloster E.28/39) was the first jet aircraft. I'd like to see some substantiation of the claim of "1st" on the 262's behalf. While it is romantic to think of the ME 262 in special terms, those terms must be accurate. The ME 262 was not the "first operational jet powered aircraft." This sentence is simply wrong and must be corrected. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 22:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, you are incorrect, that'd be either Heinkel He 178 or Heinkel He 280. GeneralPatton 23:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are correct, (but I question if you are), "operational" must be defined or the sentence wording (rv, even meteor wasn't the first one, however Me 262 was the first *operational") somehow changed to make it more accurate to the lay reader. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 00:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)