# New built ME-262s



## Yerger (Jun 12, 2009)

anyone seen one fly, at a show or otherwise ? More photos ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 12, 2009)

There's a few posted here when it first flew.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 12, 2009)

It's a reproduction.

STORMBIRDS presents the Me 262 Project


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 12, 2009)

I'd love to see them flying in person. Perhaps someday I'll get up to thier factory there in Washington state.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 13, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> It's a reproduction.
> 
> STORMBIRDS presents the Me 262 Project



I'm fully aware they are new built, followed the project since it started

Info was the Collins Foundation was to get one but I never heard what happened regards the transaction


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

Yeah there are several threads on the new 262s. I posted some video back in 2006 when it flew over here at the ILA in Berlin.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 13, 2009)

I wonder if they will ever get down my way for an airshow ??


Wheelsup


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Jun 13, 2009)

According to a post card I received in the mail from the collings foundation, they do have one and it flies in the wings of freedom Tour with the P-51, B-17, and B-24. Unfortunately, Me 262 flight training costs $3,400 for 45 minutes!


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks doublewasp, I'll have to see if the Wings of Freedom tour is heading my way.


Wheelsup


----------



## r2800doublewasp (Jun 13, 2009)

Heres the schedule:Wings of Freedom Schedule - The Collings Foundation 
Oddly enough on the website it doesn't include the Me 262 while the postcard does.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 13, 2009)

Thanks again doublewasp it looks like I just missed a few shows that were in my area recently.
Nothing listed nearby so I will have to keep watching the schedule to see if it changes.


Wheelsup


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 13, 2009)

Didn't know the Collings Foundation had a '262. Would have been cool if they did, and they had brought it with 'em here to town last week 

No matter, got to see the P-51, B-24 and B-17 anyway!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Didn't know the Collings Foundation had a '262. Would have been cool if they did, and they had brought it with 'em here to town last week



It is one of the newly built ones.


----------



## imalko (Jun 14, 2009)

When you look closely at the cockpit conopy on this newly built Me 262s doesn't it look strangely shaped in comparison with genuine Me 262 conopy?


----------



## Yerger (Jun 14, 2009)

I'd love to see one of these fly, higher performance and a low pass must take your breath away. I looked at the Collins site, strange is isn't mentioned.

I also heard something regards a similar new built FW-190 project


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

imalko said:


> When you look closely at the cockpit conopy on this newly built Me 262s doesn't it look strangely shaped in comparison with genuine Me 262 conopy?



I think they look the same. I think it is just the angle the pic is taken at. The new 262s are built to the same specs as the original ones. The only difference is the avionics and engines.



Yerger said:


> I also heard something regards a similar new built FW-190 project



Yes here in Germany a company called Flugwerk has been building new Fw 190s for years now.

Flugwerk


----------



## imalko (Jun 14, 2009)

Probably you are right Adler, but still it looks different to me. More so because of what you said that new Me 262s are build to the same specs with difference only in engines and avionics. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that this new Me 262s reportedly can change from one seater to two seater configuration according to need and buyer's wish?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

imalko said:


> Probably you are right Adler, but still it looks different to me. More so because of what you said that new Me 262s are build to the same specs with difference only in engines and avionics. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that this new Me 262s reportedly can change from one seater to two seater configuration according to need and buyer's wish?



My understanding is you can order 3 different aircraft.

1. Me 262 single seater
2. Me 262 two seater
3. Me 262 convertable from two seater to single seater


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2009)

The Me262s are an exact replica, designed and built with the original plans with of course, the few mentioned upgrades.

It is so accurate, that the Messerschmitt Foundation has granted the new '262 actual production model assignments.

Me262A-1c - model based on the Me262A1-a

Me262B-1c - model based on the Me262B-1a

Me262A/B-c - convertable model, switches between the A1-a and B-1a

By the way, isn't Flugwerk making new P-51Ds also?


----------



## Sweb (Jun 14, 2009)

imalko said:


> When you look closely at the cockpit conopy on this newly built Me 262s doesn't it look strangely shaped in comparison with genuine Me 262 conopy?



I thought that too. The new canopy windscreen doesn't have the correct sweep angle of the original. It's shallower giving the appearance of being more upright. You'd have thought this was an easy mould to shoot. But, it may be accurate if the original armored front glass is removed. Regardless, it looks wrong.


----------



## Erich (Jun 14, 2009)

have seen the Chino Recon 262 years ago, and there was even talk behind the scenes of getting that thing operative.............no thanks !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> By the way, isn't Flugwerk making new P-51Ds also?



Yeah they just started making them as well.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 14, 2009)

Very cool!

It's great to have the originals flying, but I think that if they have more of the reproductions available, it'll lessen the chances of losing one of the originals to accidents.


----------



## Yerger (Jun 14, 2009)

I never saw details or an in person flight of one of the new built 190s either. I'm sure and expensive top. But I'd still like one. 

Dear Santa.........


----------



## BikerBabe (Jun 14, 2009)

Sweb said:


> I thought that too. The new canopy windscreen doesn't have the correct sweep angle of the original. It's shallower giving the appearance of being more upright. You'd have thought this was an easy mould to shoot. But, it may be accurate if the original armored front glass is removed. Regardless, it looks wrong.



There is definitely a noticeable difference, but I think that it might have something to do with how tall the modern day pilots are.
I mean: There isn't much point in being curled up and getting tucked into a plane where there isn't much space, especially if you have to fly for a while. Plus I guess that even though the pilot's strapped in, there needs to be a bit of space if he - by some reason unknown to me - gets to fly upside down.

I know from experience that no matter how hard you strap in, your body gives a little from gravity when you're suspended upside down (- no naughty thoughts, boys!  ), and therefore your body elongates a bit, demanding more space "topside".

Plus I think that there might be a little difference in height - from the pilots back then, who grew up in the 1910's and 1920's (The Great Depression/malnourishment) where ppl didn't know as much about the proper nourishment for babies and children, to today's men, who has grown up with proper food, care and under circumstances that might be lightyears better than what could be experienced back then, thus improving their growth, and therefore demanding a larger cockpit canopy.
I don't know, it just makes sense to me. *scratches head*


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 14, 2009)

When I saw it I thought the same thing about the pilot's height BikerBabe.

Wheelsup


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 15, 2009)

BikerBabe said:


> I know from experience that no matter how hard you strap in, your body gives a little from gravity when you're suspended upside down (- no naughty thoughts, boys!  ), and therefore your body elongates a bit, demanding more space "topside".



<Blank>

Wonder what'll be next a Arado 234, Heinkel 162....8)


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 15, 2009)

How about a Ta152?....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 15, 2009)

Horten/Gotha-229! HOW cool would THAT be!?


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jun 15, 2009)

If you go on Airliners.net and search for the Me.262 they have some pretty good pictures of this restored flying version


----------



## Stitch (Jun 15, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me262s are an exact replica, designed and built with the original plans with of course, the few mentioned upgrades.
> 
> It is so accurate, that the Messerschmitt Foundation has granted the new '262 actual production model assignments.
> 
> ...



Not only that, but they were assigned Messerschmitt _werknummern_ to each individual airframe that picked up where the original _werknummern_ left off in 1945.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 15, 2009)

Then they must be good!


----------



## Yerger (Jun 15, 2009)

If you want to be daring, build a Natter

A beautiful 1 to 1 scale Hughes H-1 was in the USA some years ago, but sadly crashed killing the pilot/owner.

A lot of these birds require major skills most recreation pilots lack


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jun 15, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> If you go on Airliners.net and search for the Me.262 they have some pretty good pictures of this restored flying version



Thanks for the tip Flyboy2. 


Wheelsup


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2009)

Yerger said:


> A lot of these birds require major skills most recreation pilots lack


Sorry Yerger, but you're dead wrong.

Many of the war replicas and warbirds you see are flown by highly experienced pilots, many of them have military backgrounds. For certain recips and jet warbirds you need a "type" rating specific for the aircraft, so there's a lot more training that goes into acquiring one of these ratings. BTW the Hughes H1 that crashed a few years ago was the result of a propeller that came apart when the pilot was flying it back from Oshkosh. 

As you say "recreation pilots," I could assure you that the lowest time pilots you might find say flying a T-6 might have 500 hours, so for the most part most of the pilots who fly these warbirds are far from "recreation" pilots. Sometimes many of these warbird owners have more money than brains and crash these aircraft by doing plain stupid things, but in the bigger picture many of these same guys have 1000s of hours and usually hold commercial, instrument, multi-engine and even ATP ratings.

Bottom line, it has nothing to do with skill, it has everyting to do with operating the aircraft safely.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 16, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Yerger, but you're dead wrong.
> 
> As you say "recreation pilots," I could assure you that the lowest time pilots you might find say flying a T-6 might have 500 hours, so for the most part most of the pilots who fly these warbirds are far from "recreation" pilots. Sometimes many of these warbird owners have more money than brains and crash these aircraft by doing plain stupid things, but in the bigger picture many of these same guys have 1000s of hours and usually hold commercial, instrument, multi-engine and even ATP ratings.
> 
> Bottom line, it has nothing to do with skill, it has everyting to do with operating the aircraft safely.



Just to back-up what FLYBOYJ said, you could say that I come from a "warbird family"; at one time or another, my family has owned and operated a Cessna O-2, several North American AT-6/SNJ's (most of which were rebuilt from the ground up by my family) and, most recently, a couple of Waco UPF-7's. My father got his A P rating back in the '70's, and my oldest brother followed him shortly thereafter (in fact, he now works for a company in Dallas-Ft. Worth that rebuilds gas turbine engines, both flight-rated models and gas turbine generators). Neither one of them had lot of money, but they never messed around when they were flying the 'birds, they always kept the a/c well within it's flight parameters (which is why they're still around). I don't know how many flight hours they both have, but it must be in the hundreds, if not thousands, of hours each (and that's not including all the rotary-wing hours my brother has).


----------



## gumbyk (Jun 16, 2009)

> Bottom line, it has nothing to do with skill, it has everyting to do with operating the aircraft safely.



I'll second that. Most of the NZ warbirds AT-6's have a minimum of 500 hours, with 25 tail-wheel time. But I can guarantee you that you would expect to do a 10 hour type conversion if you had those minimums, or if you were an unlnown pilot to the instructor. This isn't so much about teaching the skills, as assessing your attitude. 

Skills can be taught, but attitude is everything.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 16, 2009)

These new jets can fool me, a great aircraft reproduction. I'm sure it takes a lot of work.


I wish George Lucas would use them for his new film, not just CGI.


----------



## Thorlifter (Jun 16, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah they just started making them as well.



I'm curious Chris, since your in the same country and speak the language, could you get in touch with Flugwerk and find out why they are making P-51's and not something a little more rare? I mean, there are a over 150 flying P-51 and there are less than 10 of most of the other WWII planes in flying condition, sometimes not any.

I'm sure the answer is the all mighty $$$$, but you know if they can sell 262's, then they could sell 190D's or He-162's or a Do-335 or heck, make a Zero from scratch.

Sorry, it just bugs me that we have types vanishing from existance, but they make types that there are hundreds of. GRRRRRRRRR

Ok, I'm off my soap box.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 16, 2009)

Thor, there are a few outfits out there either planning or working on, some interesting reproductions.

I think it was the Texas Airplane factory that was building a rare japanese aircraft, Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar because they had restored a number of them in the past.

We had a thread about this a while back with some good points and counter-points regarding reproduction warbirds: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/world-war-ii-aircraft-new-production-17048.html


----------



## Stitch (Jun 16, 2009)

Thorlifter said:


> I'm curious Chris, since your in the same country and speak the language, could you get in touch with Flugwerk and find out why they are making P-51's and not something a little more rare? I mean, there are a over 150 flying P-51 and there are less than 10 of most of the other WWII planes in flying condition, sometimes not any.
> 
> I'm sure the answer is the all mighty $$$$, but you know if they can sell 262's, then they could sell 190D's or He-162's or a Do-335 or heck, make a Zero from scratch.
> 
> ...



I happen to agree with you; my personal favorite would be a Do 335, maybe a two-seater version. 

I'm wondering what they're going to use for propulsion in the replica P-51's; there aren't that many Merlins left anymore. Most of the recent of examples that people have been able to find were ex-airliner engines that weren't originally built for a fighter.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 17, 2009)

If I remember right, the 262s were built by doing a tear down of an existing original in the process of restoration. They aren't built from "plans", so there will be differences.

I believe Flugwerk has a pretty good approach to things. They were already building replacement components for Mustangs, so the step to a complete airframe isn't such a huge jump.

- Ivan.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 17, 2009)

Yeah, they are done really well. I hope they move on to rebuild other classic warbirds that are rarer and not so often thought about.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 17, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> If I remember right, the 262s were built by doing a tear down of an existing original in the process of restoration. They aren't built from "plans", so there will be differences.
> 
> I believe Flugwerk has a pretty good approach to things. They were already building replacement components for Mustangs, so the step to a complete airframe isn't such a huge jump.
> 
> - Ivan.


Actually, because of inconsistancies and subtle sabotage by the laborers, it was opted to stick to Willy's actual production blueprints and revisions to guarentee the aircraft didn't have any potential flaws.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 18, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> If I remember right, the 262s were built by doing a tear down of an existing original in the process of restoration. They aren't built from "plans", so there will be differences.
> 
> - Ivan.



Yes; the US Navy loaned a rare Me-262B-1a to the Texas Aircraft Factory so that they could dissassemble it and examine it on the condition that they restore it in the process, and return it to the Navy when they were done (which they did). A great website for this is the Stormbirds website at STORMBIRDS presents the Me 262 Project.


----------



## cco23i (Jun 19, 2009)

I know that the Collings has one but it's in major rebuild. Seems many problems in the systems of the "original" from the manufacturer so they have to do some major rebuilds.

Scott


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 20, 2009)

cco23i said:


> I know that the Collings has one but it's in major rebuild. *Seems many problems in the systems of the "original" from the manufacturer *so they have to do some major rebuilds.
> 
> Scott



Hmmmmm....... Like what????


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

Hey guys regarding the canopy: It's been made a slight bit taller because of the large flight helmets worn today, to keep the guy from budding his head against the canopy all the time. They didn't have solid flight helmets back in the day, it was just padded leather.

Other than that it is a perfect reproduction, even the CG is 100% correct. The engines are also of the exact same weight as the original Jumo 004B's because of the casted block around the GE engine to give it the exact same dimensions of the Jumo 004.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 22, 2009)

Soren said:


> Other than that it is a perfect reproduction, even the CG is 100% correct. The engines are also of the exact same weight as the original Jumo 004B's because of the casted block around the GE engine to give it the exact same dimensions of the Jumo 004.



Yes, I had heard that, also; they've also de-rated the J-85's so that Vmax wouldn't be exceeded in level flight. The only major "improvements" over the original Me's (besides the J-85's) are a stronger nose gear (through the use of better materials), and the addition of modern safety equipmenyt, such as IFF transponders and navigation lights.

BTW, does anyone know if the repro Me's are rated for IFR? I suspect that, due to their nature, they are a VFR aircraft only.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2009)

Stitch said:


> BTW, does anyone know if the repro Me's are rated for IFR? I suspect that, due to their nature, they are a VFR aircraft only.


Most experimental exhibition jets are issued an ops letter that will specify that. My guess the feds gave it "VFR Only."


----------



## Stitch (Jun 22, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Most experimental exhibition jets are issued an ops letter that will specify that. My guess the feds gave it "VFR Only."



That was my guess; the original Me's didn't have enough instruments to qualify them for modern-day IFR.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

Stitch said:


> That was my guess; the original Me's didn't have enough instruments to qualify them for modern-day IFR.


Actually it might but its the FSDO that are reluctant to give and former military or "homebuilt" combat type jet aircraft IFR approval, the liability is too great. If they are going to do it, the feds will make sure the aircraft is operated away from large cities.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 23, 2009)

Perhaps the engines were derated, b ut the thrust is still considerably higher than the originals. The you-tube film describes them as maximimum speed 560 knots "just like the originals" which isn't really accurate.

- Ivan.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 23, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Perhaps the engines were derated, b ut the thrust is still considerably higher than the originals. The you-tube film describes them as maximimum speed 560 knots "just like the originals" which isn't really accurate.
> 
> - Ivan.



Yes, they are; IIRC, there is a sticker on the dashboard that ADVISES pilots NOT to exceed 560 KIAS, even though the a/c is fully capable of hitting 600 KIAS. Here is what the official website of the Me-262's, Stormbirds.com, has to say about that:

"In purely theoretical terms, the added power of the J-85 should give the new production Me 262s a speed advantage of at least 75 miles per hour over any previous generation Me 262. 

The fact remains that the airframe was never designed to handle the stress loads encountered at speeds in the 600 mile per hour range. To push the aircraft into this environment simply because additional power "happens to be available" is a highly dangerous and ill-advised move.

In the interest of safety, the Me 262 Project will be placing a placarded airspeed limitation upon the jets in the vicinity of 500 MPH. The official position of the project is that there is simply no need -- or benefit -- in flying these aircraft any faster."


----------



## cco23i (Jun 25, 2009)

The last time I saw the 262 she was having her landing gear uplock system and motors worked on. I have some shots I will post below. The fellas are doing a lot of work to get all the bugs out so she will be a GREAT jet when she rolls out. 

Scott

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b12/cco23i/2621.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b12/cco23i/2622.jpg

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b12/cco23i/2623.jpg


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jun 25, 2009)

Hi Stitch,

My "isn't really accurate" was a comment on the 560 knots not being "just like the originals", so we are basically saying the same thing.

- Ivan.


----------



## snafud1 (Jun 28, 2009)

Stitch said:


> Yes, they are; IIRC, there is a sticker on the dashboard that ADVISES pilots NOT to exceed 560 KIAS, even though the a/c is fully capable of hitting 600 KIAS. Here is what the official website of the Me-262's, Stormbirds.com, has to say about that:
> 
> "In purely theoretical terms, the added power of the J-85 should give the new production Me 262s a speed advantage of at least 75 miles per hour over any previous generation Me 262.
> 
> ...



That last line is like having a rail dragster and limiting it to highway speeds. They may be right but wouldn't it be nice to go from point A to point B as fast as you could safely. I'm a racer so, I'm kinda biased to "let's go faster" attitude. Sorry guys. Um... I'll leave now.

*Snafud1 leave thread with hands in his pockets, head down , and shuffling his feet.*


----------



## RabidAlien (Jun 29, 2009)

It'd be interesting for someone to get ahold of the plans for the "Amerika Bomber" (Ho-18 ) that was in the drawingboard stages (nearing actual production stages, IIRC) when Germany surrendered. THAT beast would be a sight to behold!


----------



## fritzie 101 (Jun 30, 2009)

The collings 262 was supposed to be at the fly in I went to at the Heber airport in Utah. It even said in the newspaper it was going to be there. It was the main reason I went but it wasn't a total loss the B-24 was there and their B-17g also their TP51C Mustang.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

I wonder if they'll make a repo of the Go-229 ? That could be interesting! But also dangerous I suspect.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> I wonder if they'll make a repo of the Go-229 ? That could be interesting! But also dangerous I suspect.



Would be cool, but I doubt it. They already stated that they will not make a Ar 234, and that would be more practical.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 30, 2009)

There's a reproduction He162, though I don't have any specs on it and I'm not sure how well it performs, if at all...

It's at the Wings of Eagles Discovery center in New York.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> There's a reproduction He162, though I don't have any specs on it and I'm not sure how well it performs, if at all...
> 
> It's at the Wings of Eagles Discovery center in New York.



According to the website, it does not fly at all. It is only a display model.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> According to the website, it does not fly at all. It is only a display model.


Well...I suppose that's better than just looking at a picture of one...


----------



## Yerger (Jul 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Yerger, but you're dead wrong.
> 
> Many of the war replicas and warbirds you see are flown by highly experienced pilots, many of them have military backgrounds. For certain recips and jet warbirds you need a "type" rating specific for the aircraft, so there's a lot more training that goes into acquiring one of these ratings. BTW the Hughes H1 that crashed a few years ago was the result of a propeller that came apart when the pilot was flying it back from Oshkosh.
> 
> ...



Safety and common sense I'd assumed are obviously aspects of skill. Seems some who are "high rated" lack one or both traits. Just because you have a driving permit doesn't make you the right person to own a 200mph car.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 4, 2009)

You're original post...



Yerger said:


> A lot of these birds require major skills most recreation pilots lack





Yerger said:


> Safety and common sense I'd assumed are obviously aspects of skill.



What are you calling a "recreation pilot?" Some one who doesn't fly professionally, someone who doesn't have a lot of hours, or someone who holds a "recreation pilot's certificate?" Oh there really is such thing!

Skill is your ability to operate the aircraft. I've seen 200 hour pilots do precise landings and instrument approaches and master the aircraft they fly. I've also seen 5,000 hour pilots who are extremely skilled fly defective aircraft, buzz buildings and people, and push landing limits when performing instrument landings. Please understand the difference.



Yerger said:


> Seems some who are "high rated" lack one or both traits. Just because you have a driving permit doesn't make you the right person to own a 200mph car.


The term is "high time" and for the most part you are correct.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2009)

GrauGeist said:


> Well...I suppose that's better than just looking at a picture of one...



Very true, as there are only a few originals left. I got to see one in London a few weeks ago.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Jul 5, 2009)

According to the inventory page of Chino Planes of Fame they have a static He-162A-1 on display too.
I seem to recall seeing it and a static Me-163 Komet when I was there.

It hasn't been updated in a while but this is their inventory list of aircraft.
Museum Aircraft Inventory - The Air Museum ~ Planes of Fame

It says the Me-163 is a replica but just that the He-162 is on static display.
Not sure if that means anything.


Wheels


----------



## jimh (Sep 8, 2009)

The Collings 262 is powered by CJ610's...same engine that powers Lear Jets...not sure which model of Lear though. It was planned to have the aircraft join the tour in Dallas...that got pushed back to Long Beach...that got pushed back to Moffett...that got pushed back to next year. Sanders ( Sanders Aeronautics) is doing a great job of making this a "turnkey" aircraft that will be able to stand the rigours of touring. I shot these on a photo shoot we did a couple years ago out of Paine Field. Look for it next year.

jim harley


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 8, 2009)

Great photos, Jim...must have been awesome to be formed up on that '262!

Well, probably would have been even better if you were shooting photos from inside the '262... 

I always thought it would be cool if they built at least a single "Narwahl" replica (Me262A1/U4)

Thanks for the info, by the way!


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Sep 9, 2009)

That is a beautiful aircraft. 


Wheels


----------



## Wayne Little (Sep 9, 2009)

Great shots!


----------



## diddyriddick (Sep 9, 2009)

Beautiful, indeed! Where do I sign up for a ride?


----------



## Messy1 (Sep 9, 2009)

Great looking plane. It's a shame more did not survive.


----------

