Talk:Heinkel He 219 Uhu

"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)

All that counts (with your empire having gone) is that the much over-appreciated Mosquito keeps it "mythical" status, at any price, and might this be by backbiting one of the most sophisticated prop-planes of the whole war. It is sufficent already to watch the design of the Mosquito, which, much unlike the He-219, really does not look like something out of `close encounters`...In fact, its design betrays utter backwardness if compared with the Heinkel. Besides, the Mosquito, although its contribution to the allied war effort was considerable (something I do not deny, albeit much if not most of the `Mosquito-impact` was merely a psychlogical one - in fact, its bomb-load, resulting from the light-weight design of the plane, was everything but impressive, and for the very same reason, Mosquitos resisted poorly to enemy (german) fire), was NO `untouchable`plane at all. Losses of all Mosquitos due to enemy fire during the war add up to several hundreds, if not more than a thousand units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.228.165 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're wrong about the Mosquito, actually they performed similarly with some of the guns removed from the He 219. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.124.128 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

They're "wrong about the Mosquito" re: the six which the article claims were shot down in '43. Not even the Heinkel folks made that claim when they drew up their list of He 219 Abschuesse in July '44 - first claim for a Mossie was May '44. The original list is "out there" on the net, and reproduced in English in one of standard He 219 books - possibly Remp's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.4.94 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I believe those numbers are orders, not actual production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.100.120 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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?

Survivors

You should be aware that the Smithsonian's UHU, described as having been obtained by the U.S. Operation Lusty at "Grove, South Jutland, Germany" must refer to "Einsatzfliegerhorst Grove, Central Jutland, Denmark (current Karup Air Base)" - this seems to be important to fix since the error apparently has been lifted from the Smithsonian's site.