Talk:Messerschmitt Me 264

message: From the picture, it does appear to be very similar the B29 Superfortress. Just take a look at the picture used for the B29 article and you'll se what I mean.
:It's much smaller however. Actually many German bombers of the era looks similar, the Heinkel He 177 for instance. The "round nose" design for large-diameter aircraft was hardly unobvious. Maury 17:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B-29 ?

message: This was dumped in the middle of List of military aircraft of Germany. It seems worth keeping, although I'm not sure where it belongs.  --Stephen Burnett 02:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  264 history 

message: Article should be corrected - the Me 264 was primarily aimed at long-range reconnaissance.  Someone with an expertise in Luftwaffe product development needs to edit this entry.  As it stands now, it just reinforces old myths.
Andreas 15:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I have now done many of the required corrections myself. Look forward to discussion of them/corrections of mistakes I may have introduced. Andreas 14:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This was a reconnaissance plane, not a bomber

message: "comparable planes such as the B29 Superfortress with 337 kg/m² wing loading at three times the payload or the Ju 390 at 209 kg/m² wing loading had a better design"
I cannot understand this statement. It seems that the B-29 has much worse wing loading than the Me 264, right? The fact that it was carrying more load isn't that interesting, the plane is also much larger. And that last part is very confusing as well, who had a better design of what?
Maury 18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry, what does this mean? 

message: capable of attacking New York City from bases in Germany
It was from France or the Azores islands, not Germany.
--ThePro (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range 

message: Did I remember wrong, or did Target: America, stated as one of the page's sources, state that the Me 264 was Hitler's personal favorite for the Amerika Bomber contest? I've read it a couple days ago. AirplaneProRadioChecklist 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  From ''Target: America'' 

message: If my information is right, the most spectacular design of the Me 264 were the fuel tanks which were constructed inside the wings. It was the first plane/design with that construction which is standard today. Referring to the German site of wiki that design should result into a 30% plus of fuel capacity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.75.126 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: according to this wet wings were trialled pre-war, and searches suggest the DC-4 was designed for integral tanks but the sealant wasn't up to the job. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The wet wings on the DC-4 apparently arrived with the C-54B variant, which entered service in March 1944. This means that the Me 264, which first flew in December 1942, was still ahead of it. However, I would also like to point out that another Messerschmitt design, the Me 261, is also claimed to have integral fuel tanks and first flew two years to the day before the Me 264. –Noha307 (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innovative fuel tank design 

message: "The Me 264 was the first aircraft in the world with integrated wing fuel tanks, a standard for most modern aircraft."
Uh, no. Just no. Here, a picture of a P-38J cutaway diagram with labelled parts: https://i.imgur.com/QREh93Z.jpg Yeah, look at #19. And even if this was a new addition for the J variant (I'd be willing to bet it probably wasn't), this was early in 1943. I'm willing to bet that there were pre-war (maybe even inter-war) aircraft with integrated wing fuel tanks. In any case, it sure as hell wasn't the Me 264. Unless you're referring to something else that aren't commonly referred to as wing fuel tanks and it's worded strangely or... the Germans invented time travel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.29.54.21 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No - that's not the same thing - different terminology.  The outer wings of the P38J's had tanks fitted into the space vacated by the intercoolers.  That's not "integral tanks".  Integral tanks are where the wing surfaces are teh top and bottom panels of the tank, and the other walls of the tank are spars and ribs - see https://aviamech.blogspot.com/2011/04/integral-fuel-tanks.html.  The P-38 tanks were self-sealing "cells" - ie essentially rubber bags pushed into the space in the leading edge.Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These are called "wet wings." I've never heard of them referred to as "integrated wing" or "integrated tanks." Mainly because that does a terrible job at explaining it; because a conformal fuel tank, rigid and bagged/bladder, and wet wing are all "integrated" and can be into the wing. Referring to it as a "wet wing" lets you know that the wings are carrying fuel (and sometimes literally leaking fuel and are thus wet, but that's besides the point.). 198.29.54.21 (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First aircraft with integrated wing fuel tanks? Not a chance.