Talk:Heinkel He 219
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Heinkel He 219 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
[edit] "Mythical" status?
By my reckoning, this is by no means one of the "famous" aircraft of WW2. It has not been widely heard of by the public, and only aircraft like the Spitfire, Mustang, Flying Fortress, Focke-Wulf (190) and Me-109 deserve such a description. This article reads as though it is describing one of the most important aircraft of the Second World War. In fact, the Uhu was merely another german might-have-been late war project that made little to no contribution to the Axis war effort. Like many such weapons, its reputation is based on sparsity of evidence - the 219 was no wonder-weapon, and was not remotely equal to aircraft like the Mosquito. Clearly, this article has been heavily influenced by a bias towards the He-219, and we should tone down the praise that's being so librally heaped on an undeserving and unremarkable aircraft. --Corinthian 11:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Production numbers
Does anybody have verifyable sources about production numbers ? I found in a german discussion board the following info:
- 106 A-0 with DB 603A
- 15 A-0 with DB 603AA
- 89 A-2 with DB 603AA
- 210 A-7 with DB 603E
- 5 D-1 with Jumo 213E (prototypes), engine installation tested in A-2 fuselelage
Source is stated as Ernst Heinkel AG delivery plan from December 15, 1944 with deliveries as of December 11, 1944. --Denniss 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
It appears that a lot of the text has been lifted and simply paraphrased from the Smithsonian site [1]. That page has a copyright notice on it. What is the correct approach? Plagiarism isn't acceptable obviously. The source should at least be referenced. Any ideas?
