This is an example of the accuracy in reporting we have all come to expect from Fox.

Aaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooo, Jet!
Aaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooo, Jet!

impaler: Did Fox fix their headline, because it doesn't say anything about a jet.

However, the sun article they link to does.

Link (new window)

If they fixed their headline, the url is stuck now.

I think the history channel did some special on a stealth jet they had developed and were testing. Scary stuff if they had perfected it sooner.

A Do 17 is not a jet.

Has anyone mentioned that the DO wasn't a jet? Thought this should be cleared up...

That is one ugly plane. It looks like a regular plane eating a VW bus the same way a snake eats a rabbit.

Yes they had jets, but didn't the p-51 eat their lunch anyway?

El Freak:
This is an example of the accuracy in reporting we have all come to expect from Fox.

...as in "someone linked a story from The Sun and didn't catch the mistake in the headline."

So your complaint about Fox is that they make really minor mistakes that about one person in 50 might catch?

impaler: Did Fox fix their headline, because it doesn't say anything about a jet.


Impaler is (check all that apply)

☐ Drunk
☐ Blind

imbrial: Yes they had jets, but didn't the p-51 eat their lunch anyway?

Sorta. The ME-262 was a vastly superior plane to the P-51, but by that point in the war the Luftwaffe was short on good pilots, fuel, and numbers of airframes and Hitler was more interested in using it as a tactical bomber anyway.

The Allied pilots tried to avoid fighting with the 262 on even terms because it was so much faster and so heavily armed and instead tried to shoot them up on the runway or as they were taking off and landing.

Gordon Bennett: Old PC gamers have known about this for years.

I see that's got the much more ridiculous rocket powered ME-163 Komet on the cover. Now THAT was a dangerous plane.

Jet powered Nazi bomber:

:

Meh, let me know when they find this

you have pee hands: imbrial: Yes they had jets, but didn't the p-51 eat their lunch anyway?

Sorta. The ME-262 was a vastly superior plane to the P-51, but by that point in the war the Luftwaffe was short on good pilots, fuel, and numbers of airframes and Hitler was more interested in using it as a tactical bomber anyway.

The Allied pilots tried to avoid fighting with the 262 on even terms because it was so much faster and so heavily armed and instead tried to shoot them up on the runway or as they were taking off and landing.

...and in the vertical dive. P-51s loved to dive from above and pick up speed to compensate for the ME 262 jet advantage.

The few that were used against the allied bombers did horrific damage and would have been a HUGE deterent had they been used as they were designed.
Hitler really helped the allies by being a micromanaging tard.

Jet?

Any survivors?

cirby: El Freak:
This is an example of the accuracy in reporting we have all come to expect from Fox.

...as in "someone linked a story from The Sun and didn't catch the mistake in the headline."

So your complaint about Fox is that they make really minor mistakes that about one person in 50 might catch?


There's a PICTURE right there. It's not hard to catch. In fact, if you're correct and only 1 in 50 people really would know the difference between a jet and a plane that has propellers on it then maybe it's time we seriously stated discussing some eugenics. Sheesh.

Two_Noodles: That is one ugly plane. It looks like a regular plane eating a VW bus the same way a snake eats a rabbit.

With its' mouth?

Two_Noodles: That is one ugly plane. It looks like a regular plane eating a VW bus the same way a snake eats a rabbit.

Hoo haff you been talking to? Hoo gafe you zee zeekret plans?

dittybopper: impaler: you have pee hands: imbrial: Yes they had jets, but didn't the p-51 eat their lunch anyway?

Sorta. The ME-262 was a vastly superior plane to the P-51, but by that point in the war the Luftwaffe was short on good pilots, fuel, and numbers of airframes and Hitler was more interested in using it as a tactical bomber anyway.

The Allied pilots tried to avoid fighting with the 262 on even terms because it was so much faster and so heavily armed and instead tried to shoot them up on the runway or as they were taking off and landing.

+1. you have pee hands knows is air-warfare history.

Yep. They were pretty superior in the air, having the advantage of higher speed and rate of climb, but they did have disadvantages: They engines were still unreliable and had to be replaced after something like only 10 or 20 hours of use. Plus, the pilot had to have a light touch on the throttles, because the engines were prone to 'flame out' if the pilot moved the throttles too quickly.

They've built a couple new ones with modern GE J-85 turbojet engines, and apparently they fly really well:

The Me-262 Project.

That always amazed me. The germans(and the british for that matter)advanced so quickly in jet engine technology, yet apparently fuel delivery was an after thought.

The 262 was a work of military art, though, and still is. Though i do recall reading somewhere abotu P51 tactics(which were generally "see that thing that has swallow wings? Yeah, avoid that, it's faster and has bigger guns than you)and diving down on them. I can't recall it and it was a book, not internets i read it in. Maybe someone can clarify that, cause now it's botherin' me...

cirby: So your complaint about Fox is that they make really minor mistakes that about one person in 50 might catch?

Anybody who cares about the subject and would read the article would know that the first operational jet, fighter or bomber, was the 262.

/"as if angels were shoving you, LOL!"

The correct answer is...: Aaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooo, Jet!
Aaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooohhhwaaaaoooo, Jet!

Want you to always love me.

JET

Kar98: Hoo haff you been talking to? Hoo gafe you zee zeekret plans?

Headline has been fixed but I am curious if the old article said "jet" and had pictures of the obviously prop-driven aircraft.

Zombalupagus: Headline has been fixed but I am curious if the old article said "jet" and had pictures of the obviously prop-driven aircraft.

mongbiohazard:
There's a PICTURE right there. It's not hard to catch.

You're assuming a lot more editorial control of a website than you're normally going to find. Most of these secondary "interesting but not important" stories have an intern sitting at a computer, who tags the story for inclusion on the main site, then types in a little bit of code to make it link.

In other words, some low-paid intern linked the story, might have noticed the airplane picture as they linked it (but didn't look too closely, since about 3/4 of the population doesn't care about this sort of thing at all), and wasn't bothering with counting propellers. Then they fixed it pretty quickly (it doesn't say "jet" now), and the folks who are still seeing "jet" need to clear their browser cache.

It's like the people who whine about news captions that "intentionally get the party wrong." Most graphics operators have templates set up, with one or the other party as the default, and sometimes forget to change the (D) to (R) or vice versa. Easy mistakes in a high-volume news day.

Nice to see that we've gotten so caught up in "the big win" that most don't understand that, apart from some tactical errors, the Nazis might have won -- they had the technology.

El Freak: This is an example of the accuracy in reporting we have all come to expect from Fox.

It never fails that comments about "DURR FAUX NEWS IS STOOPID" are comments about stories reprinting from another news org or the AP itself.

I will grant, though, that this was from The Sun, and Murdoch owns both, but still...