The Journey through my Heart and Soul to Creating a Manifesto

 

Have you ever created a manifesto? I searched my soul to create mine and the discoveries I made came out like music. So, what is a manifesto in the first place? Well, my definition comes from the emotional journey I embarked on to construct mine. I believe a manifesto is everything we pull from our hearts to construct a positive message to the world. Throughout this blog, I will discuss what I found when I looked inside myself and the meaning of the words, colors and designs spread across the canvas.

My journey was sparked by a simple graduate class assignment. I Found myself sitting in front of my computer trying to figure out how to yet another assignment. But after some time, it went from an academic task to something a little more abstract that involved being honest with myself and soul searching. I discovered that I would have to reach deep inside my heart and pull out everything and convert it all into words. The closest metaphor to this project is how a guitar player plays a solo during a concert. There are no music sheets in front of him/her and no memorized notes. The guitar player absorbs the energies from the environment, reaches into the deepest depths of his/her heart and just plays. You might say at this point that creating a manifesto is a way of synthesizing our ideas, feelings and beliefs into colors, shapes and words.

So, let’s begin by following the order of steps which I took to create my piece. First, I chose to set a background texture of violent red and orange flames consuming the page. For me fire symbolizes raw passion and anger. These virtues are unstable in nature but for me they represent how deeply and intensely I care. In terms of what this means for me as an educator, I will push my students to succeed and to learn. It makes me angry to see where the values have shifted in our younger generations. For example, video games are the scourge that all educators have to contend with. The reality is that educators are fighting a two front battle every single day we enter the classroom; the battle to teach our students and the other against video games. As an educator in training this is a clear source of anger which I believe will motivate me during my career to show children that if they can turn off their game consul, they can learn something practical and real. I went through my first fieldwork experience as a graduate student and I quickly learned that as long as I was involved with the students, I was competing with their interest in video games. It seems that educators have long embraced technology by using games to make learning more fun. Here’s the truth! Learning IS fun. Educators should not have to make it fun or enjoyable because it should be rewarding enough to learn a new skill. I believe that video games have stolen the thunder of educators and we MUST take it back! My anger toward that very problem will be what motivates me to do something about it.

There are other things that have been a cancer to all classrooms long before video games ever arrived on the scene that also stokes the fire of my anger such as bullying. As an educator in training, I have a soft spot for children with disabilities and seeing them being battered, bullied and belittled makes my blood boil. I feel their pain therefore it’s almost as if myself and the student go through it together. For the sake of length, I will conclude my discussion of anger and how it is represented in my manifesto here. Although, rest assured it will play a positive role in my teaching career and it is my hope that it helps me give my students a true learning experience. Anger has been given a bad reputation but the truth is that when its power is harnessed correctly, you can do wonderful things with it.

Let us move on to the ideas spread across the page. For starters, the word “achieve” appears in bold, yellow font. Setting and achieving goals is very important to me as a person. I believe that setting out to achieve goals makes us all better individuals. Over the course of my life, I have set goals for myself and I haven’t been the same since. When I was in high school, my goals for my senior year were to achieve straight As, qualify for the National Honor Society, run a five-minute mile, date my best friend and be a successful Varsity track athlete. I am happy to report that I did achieve all of those goals. The interesting thing about goals and achievement is that it’s not the goal itself that changes you. Rather, it is the journey. To achieve the listed goals, I had to learn the skill of time management and how to prioritize my school work, athletic training and the time I could spend with my girlfriend. Time management and prioritization are two skills that still serve me well today as I learn to become an educator. I consider them things that I will model for students as a mentor figure.

By setting goals, we also discover what we are made of inside. For example, I discovered during my athletic training that I am a very patient and resilient person. If we fast forward to my time as a graduate student, I discovered that I was capable of earning a 4.0 grade point average. Now in-stead of aiming for a 3.5 grade point average, I want to see how long I can keep my 4.0. Maybe I will graduate from the education program with it. The important thing is that I have learned to collaborate and use the resources available to me. In other words, I know that I’m surrounded with teachers, former teachers and aspiring teachers who would be happy to help me on my journey. I have discovered the importance of asking for help. This is how I have developed the philosophy that there is no reason not to do well at anything you do. The answers to your questions can always be found somewhere. At this point, our discussion about goals and achievement is a great transition into the idea of winning. The word “win” appears even larger than most of the other words on the page. Rest assured winning here carries two meanings. First, the traditional definition of being the best of the entire pool of competitors at a given task, skill or job. Second, it means simply achieving a goal and achieving victory over yourself. The biggest personal example of this can be found during my college track career. In the sport of track, it’s always great to win a race by being the first person to cross the finish line. In my opinion, it is even better to complete the distance in a faster time than before. During a college race at Vassar, I finished second, but I broke my own Mount Saint Mary 400-meter school record by three tenths of a second. In life, it is far more important to better yourself than beat someone else. However, when someone else is better than you, it can be helpful by pushing someone else out of their comfort zone.

If we apply these ideas to the classroom, we will notice that it to can be a competitive environment conducive to self-improvement. I often find myself eager to achieve a higher grade than my colleagues. As I watch them teach, I am often consumed with the desire to be a better and more skilled teacher. Win or lose, I know that I will emerge as a stronger teacher by aspiring to be better than my colleagues. This is where some of the other ideas come into play such as “rise above yourself”, “dream”, “be a force to be reckoned with” and “don’t be afraid.” If we don’t’ get past our fears, we will never achieve our goals. The best personal example I can provide of getting past fear is how I am currently moving past my fear of failure. My abilities as a competitive runner have slowly eroded as life took its tole. On top of that, I became discouraged each time I failed to run a satisfactory time. Now, I have chosen to accept that the only way I can ever become as quick as I was is to accept that I’m not in the same condition. But, if I work hard, I can get there again. When I started college, I couldn’t accept that I wasn’t earning A grades as I consistently did during high school. I decided when I started graduate school, that I wasn’t going to be afraid anymore and now I have achieved even higher grades than I believed I could.

The next main idea present in my manifesto is subtly scattered across the page. The idea is to avoid becoming defined by your career. I do not aspire to become Matt Soltis the elementary school teacher. I plan to become Matt Soltis, friend, volunteer, artist, mentor, athlete, educator, husband and father. Having interests and hobbies that make me happy outside of a job make give me more to bring back to my classroom. For example, if I am an art teacher, I bring my unique skills as an artist/art conservator. It means that I will bring raw enthusiasm which will inspire my students to learn. You can’t be all about business as a teacher because the students will sense it and they will reflect the same attitude about learning. Also, employment by itself is no indicator of success. Rather, it is the love of your friends, students and family. This leads us into my final thought about how love is everywhere and binds all of us together.

Love is the key to everything. It is the energy that moves the circle of life and to make my point relevant to education, it is the reason children learn. It is also what educators put in to teaching. That is why only educators with a true love for teaching and their students will become a permanent fixture in the hearts of students even long after the professional relationship has ended. Only educators who put that kind of loving energy in to their classroom are remembered. We choose to become educators because we love the idea and the importance of education. If we reflect briefly back to my observation about how love powers the circle of life, we will notice a similar circle of wisdom turning in our classrooms. Our generation of teachers will pass on skills, knowledge, values and virtues. Next, our former students will attempt to pass on the same knowledge, skills, values and virtues. The difference is how each generation makes mistakes and teaches from a different perspective. Our careers as educators begin and end with love.

Being Direct About Sustainability

 

As an educator in training, I will be starting my fieldwork experience working with children in a virtual classroom space. I will share the responsibility with my colleagues of teaching elementary students about how to create a sustainable environment and what that means. Sustainability is arguably the most vital issues that can be taught because if the next generations fail to care for our planet, the results will be catastrophic. I believe at this point in time, educators have failed to adequately encourage students to be vigilant about caring for the environment. For my role in teaching my first students about the environment, I have chosen to use direct instruction. I will be thinking with the students and using empathy to help them understand how frightening the world would be if the environment was no longer conducive to human life.

Since I have been tasked with applying the civics aspect of social studies to instruction on environmental sustainability, I will be teaching about our responsibility as citizens for sustaining the City of Newburgh. I believe that effective instruction on this subject matter involves injecting a touch of fear into the lesson. For example, after introducing the subject, I will talk about what an inhospitable world would look like in detail. I will ask the students how they think air, land and water pollution is affecting their lives now and what it could mean in the future. By having them paint a picture of what the future will look like if we don’t act now, student’s will be far more encouraged to make protecting the environment part of their lives.

Key prerequisite concepts for my lesson involve understanding global warming, greenhouse gasses, the United Nations and the Green New Deal. I believe it is important to bring current events into my instruction about the environment since the debated Green New Deal is the current plan to solve the global climate crisis. During my discussion with the students about the Green New Deal, I will show them how to create their own plan outlining how to sustain the City of Newburgh. I believe it is also productive to have a debate between students about agreements like the Green New Deal. Moderating a debate will encourage students to think for themselves and choose a side about a given issue. It will develop and refine their critical thinking skills and possibly give them the insight to create an even better plan.

I believe that administering a democratic classroom is key to students having the ability to learn. In other words, As I deliver direct instruction through lecture, I would share a dialogue with the students to keep them thinking and make them feel important. The truth is if students are not actively engaged, they will not learn. Many instructors who use direct instruction fall into the trap of delivering a lecture without establishing a dialogue with the students. In my professional opinion, that is the main reason students retain a small amount of information from direct instruction. As time marches on, educators must continue to think about how to create students that will take the lessons we teach to heart. It’s not enough to have a class of students who perform well. They must apply what they have learned after leaving the classroom  and make a difference by actively taking care of their City.    

The Pedestal of a Socially Just World

 

As an educator in training, studying the social interactive model of teaching has empowered me with the knowledge to meet the challenges of today’s classrooms. Its pedagogical value is higher than ever before as we enter an era of diversity. The fact is that mixed cultural backgrounds, religions and races typically function as barriers between students which blocks learning. The social interactive model breaks down cultural barriers and cultivates an environment of acceptance and inclusion that is conducive to learning. By working together using different cooperative teaching methods and strategies, students can learn how to solve problems while learning about each other.

It is important to note that the social interaction model extends beyond academics by refining and developing social skills. As a graduate student earning a certificate for special education, I believe this model is vital for students with special needs. Many students with various classifications encounter difficulties with social skills therefore, by teaching them to work cooperatively, educators can help them develop skills they will need to be successful beyond the protected bubble of their school. On the other hand, I also believe that cooperative learning strategies must be diligently facilitated by the teacher primarily because they create opportunities for students to shut down and not contribute actively to the task. The cooperative strategy known as JIGSAW is one antidote to that problem. JIGSAW is method based on the concept known as positive interdependence which means that each student in a group is assigned a job or role. Every student in the group depends on the work of the others.

A strong example of the JIGSAW method at work is my own use of it. I was assigned to a base group where each group member was sent to an expert group to focus on learning a different cooperative learning concept or strategy. I was responsible for studying positive interdependence which I was then tasked with teaching to the members of my base group. JIGSAW is a metaphor representing that each group member is a piece of the puzzle. However, after experiencing the JIGSAW method for myself, I discovered it wasn’t air tight. For example, when I began working in my expert group to learn about positive interdependence, I didn’t have a role. Although my expert group had a clearly defined task, it was difficult to establish who was responsible for what part of the task. It would have been easy for a student to fail to contribute since individual accountability is lost at that stage. All students must still be engaged at some level while working with their expert groups in order to be able to teach the concept to their base groups.

The antidote for individual accountability involves Kagan strategies. One example of a Kagan strategy at work is a method called “shoulder partners.” A shoulder partner is usually two students who work next to each other on a task. One student coaches the other by keeping them on task and focused. The other student is responsible for completing a physical worksheet. Since there is a physical assignment the students must submit, I believe giving each student in a group a worksheet or task keeps everyone accountable. Without individual accountability, the positive interdependence concept simply falls apart.

In the end, the social interactive model of instruction equips students with the ability to self-educate. Although educators have used the social interactive model for decades, I believe now it is one of the most important tools teachers poses. By facilitating cooperative learning, students also learn about one another and develop respect and appreciation of all different backgrounds. If educators implement cooperative learning consistently and appropriately, it can be the foundation for a better tomorrow. 

APA Resource

Scorscone, J. (Director). (2013, November 27). Kagan strategies [Video file]. Retrieved March 14,                 2021, from https://youtu.be/t9H_pVwX-xY

Social Studies is not what you think

 

I have always thought of history when I heard the words social studies but the truth is that it encompasses so much more! According to Teaching Social Studies in the Elementary School, the National Council for Social Studies defines it as the “integrated study of the social sciences and humanities to promote civic competence” (Lyman, Waters, Foyle, & Lyman., n/d). I was surprised to learn that social studies is actually an umbrella term that includes four disciplines; history, geography, civics and economics. Learning the definition also came as a huge surprise to me primarily because of its association to history. I define social studies as the “story of our origin” but I see now that my definition is a far better fit for history than it is for social studies.

If we investigate how we define social studies even further, we will discover that across the United States the definition varies. This opens the discussion of “should there be more than one definition of social studies?” This would mean that students across the nation are learning different things which in my opinion creates confusion and disorder. Chances are that if different states define social studies differently then their curriculums are different as well. In-stead of spoon-feeding students dry and bloodless definitions of social studies, this would be a great opportunity to use inquiry by allowing students to reflect and use their higher order thinking skills to, with the guidance of the teacher, arrive at a definition. In my graduate social studies methods class, my colleagues and I were tasked with a similar activity. The difference was that toward the end we were given a politically correct definition already created. Going into the activity, I felt confident that my definition of social studies was going to be simple and correct. Since we were all given a one size fits all definition at the end, I experienced mixed feelings. On one hand, I felt enlightened because I learned how social studies is so much more than just history. On the other hand, I felt invalidated for myself and my colleagues. I would have used guided inquiry to form a class definition of social studies. I believe that teaching the lifeless definitions packaged and created by institutions such as the National Council for Social Studies robs students of opportunities to think for themselves. Now more than ever, we must investigate what social studies means to students since classroom diversity is a reality. One size doesn’t fit all especially now because social studies mean something different depending on the student’s background. As educators, we must adopt this philosophy in order to include all students.

If we look at the history of our education system, we will discover how the original five subjects evolved and grew into a far more diverse bracket of knowledge. Learning the history of our education system fascinated me for the very reason I love to study history, that is, how studying different times is like traveling to foreign lands. The way I know education is the only way I can every truly know it. In other words, it is hard to imagine learning alongside students of different ages and grade levels. It is even harder to imagine the use of corporal punishment as a behavior management tool. Learning the old ways of education really gives perspective and makes me appreciate my education more than ever before. For example, education after the birth of our nation was hard pressed to supply individuals with basic literacy skills. As a graduate student, I often think of Benjamin Franklin who was a self-educated founding father. Even though I belong to an educational institution, I find myself using my skills to educate myself as he once did. Home schooling is an institution from the days of antiquity that still survives however, parents    who home school their children must follow a curriculum and learn the same material as those in public schools. Now, they are all subject to standardized exams which were absent in the beginning.

Standardized tests are the scourge of educators. As I have asserted previously, spoon feeding students a fixed set of facts that everyone must memorize is counterintuitive to learning. For social studies instructors the challenge is worsened because new history is made each day. Therefore, as time marches on, social studies teachers are forced to rush through to cover everything in the curriculum. This robs students of vital learning opportunities where they could explore things about social studies that interest them. Our goal as educators is to foster a desire for lifelong learning. What we have done in-stead is create a collective of students who aren’t fond of school. We must measure our students by their enthusiasm and clear demonstrations of learning such as a multimodal project where the only criteria for success is “the more creative, the better!”. Here, I will step in as a future educator by following the curriculum and encouraging my students to think and research for themselves to find the truth. Maybe the State’s medieval rule over educators is here to stay but it doesn’t mean that I can’t also teach them to read and think on their own.                                          

Lyman, L., Waters, S., Foyle, H. C., & Lyman, A. L. (n.d.). Teaching Social Studies in the Elementary School: Communities, Connections and Citizenship. Retrieved March 1, 2021, from https://www.nsspress.com/php/startup_lyman_teaching.php5

Social studies department. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2021, from https://sites.google.com/a/ccsd.edu/social-studies-department/

Time to put on our thinking caps: Inquiry in Social Studies

 

As an educator in training, inquiry is a significant part of my vision for teaching. My philosophy is based on the use of objects primarily because objects are our most direct portal to the past. Therefore, my vision of what an inquiry based social studies lesson looks like includes objects and artifacts. Imagine using stamps or other small artifacts on the student’s desks and asking the students to “write down everything you can about your object and tell the class about it.” Here, the students would use their skills as observers to draw information to assist them in making discoveries. During this lesson, I would instruct my students to sketch their artifact. This type of inquiry-based activity is a great way to introduce a new subject and spark a lifelong love of social studies.

Inquiry is a method of instruction based on answering a question or solving a problem using evidence. This method of teaching builds and refines the student’s skills in observing, critical thinking and cross examination. To answer a question, students must learn to read and interpret primary sources. They must learn not to take every written word as law or fact. Over time, the truth gets lost and as class historians, students must learn to piece together answers. The point of the inquiry method is to show cause and effect. It can develop skills in chronological thinking for younger elementary school students. According to an article entitled “What is an Inquiry Lesson,” educators must begin by introducing a question and follow a structured set of subsequent steps (History Education Group, 2018). For example, the teacher must predetermine a set of sources the students will use to investigate and come to a reasonable conclusion (History Education Group, 2018).

 I believe that students should be taught the skill of searching for the correct primary and secondary sources to find answers. The study of history closely resembles investigating a crime scene. Part of the process is gathering witnesses (primary sources) and cross-examining them. Another skill is the ability to find leads that can bring the student to another book, record, document or artifact. By preselecting the array of sources students are able to peruse, educators are failing to train young historians in these vital skills. According to the article, students learn to form a hypothesis and revise it based on changes in the evidence (History Education Group, 2018). This effectively teaches students that historians aren’t always correct and that sometimes the accepted theory must be rewritten or altered. The best example of this idea can be found in the realm of art history. Many paintings and drawings have gone in and out of an artist’s accepted body of works primarily due to technological innovations. New ways of investigating paintings reveal things which discredit a previous theory.

Inquiry in social studies can also assume the form of a class debate. Here, students are responsible for finding evidence to support their position on a given topic or question. According to “What is an Inquiry Lesson,” it is important that educators use questions that require the use of historical evidence rather than moral discussion (History Education Group, 2018). For example, “Why did Teddy Roosevelt oppose segregation in California’s public schools?”, requires investigation of historic sources to come to a plausible conclusion (History Education Group, 2018). On the other hand, a question such as “Should the United States have used the atomic bomb?”, is far more of a moral debate (History Education Group, 2018).

One of my approaches to inquiry with social studies is the Gutenberg printing press project which I have discussed in previous posts. To build the press, my students and I would have to investigate together (guided inquiry) the basic function and design of the press. I would teach my students how to read technical drawings from the 18^th century as well as regular images found on google. I would show them how to visualize how a simple machine like the Gutenberg press works. From those drawings, books and images (and perhaps 18^th century documents created on the press), we could solve the problem of how to construct a simple example from safe tools. I could create a similar lesson to teach the first flight. In stead of a question, the students will have a task of creating a model airplane that flies. First, I would model how to find information from books as well as pictures of the first airplane. Next, through their own study, the students will learn the scientific forces (lift, drag, thrust) that cause all airplanes to fly. This way, they will learn by facing the same challenges pioneers like the Write brothers and Sam Langley faced. It is important to note that each student would be given their own set of materials to create an airplane and would be assessed on how high and far it flies! As a future teacher, I would assess the student’s creations during a contest!

As an educator in training, I feel that my understanding of inquiry in social studies has been strengthened. After reading and visualizing my own lessons, I conclude the inquiry method is among the methods with the most pedagogical value. By engaging students with tasks and thoughtful questions, they can learn actively with their hands and minds on. Unfortunately, the current covid19 health crisis has forced us to become more creative with inquiry. As social studies educators, we live in historic times in which virtual instruction has not only changed teaching temporarily but will echo far into the future. 

Reference

History Education Group (2018). What is an "inquiry lesson"? Retrieved February 22, 2021, from                       https://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/24123

Fatal Flaws of The Me-262

 

 Adolf Hitler considered the Me-262 to be a supper weapon capable of wiping out the Allies in a David verses Goliath onslaught. At the end of World War II, he believed in its ability to resurrect a retreating, war-ravaged Germany. Even today, the 262 is often idolized and overpraised. Luftwaffe enthusiasts frequently overlook the hazards and problems that made the jet merely mortal. The reality was that although Germany harnessed jet technology, they were unable to properly harvest its game changing characteristics.

The story of the Me-262 began in April, 1939 when Dr. Wilhelm Messerschmitt presented designs that addressed stipulations issued by the German Air Ministry for a jet aircraft. It was a truly promising design well ahead of its time featuring twin engines and a highly adaptable airframe. The airframe was designed around the new BMW turbojet engine. Messerschmitt’s brain child featured a Pflilflugel (arrow wing) which was a milestone in aircraft design. The swept back wing of the 262 yielded better control at the high speeds attainable by jet aircraft. In time, the design still had to be refined to address the constant stream of problems that popped up during testing and combat service.

By March of 1940, Messerschmitt was awarded a probationary contract to produce the first prototype airframes. One underwent wind tunnel testing on the aerodynamic integrity of the airframe. The others were built as full test flight prototypes. Wind tunnel tests revealed the BMW 003 engines were far too heavy for the wing to adequately support. As a result, the lighter Jumo 004, was chosen but certainly wasn’t without its own laundry list of problems. The hollow turbine blades cracked under intense heat and the turbine wheel was faulty. On 18 April, 1941, test pilot Fritz Wendel flew the very first Me-262 prototype coded V1 PC+UA without jet power. By the first week of November, the twin BMW jet engines were ready and attached to the prototype. It is important to note that the airframe was always ahead of the engines in terms of engineering. Therefore, it wasn’t until the following year that the first Me-262 prototype flew with jet power. 

On 25 March, 1942, Wendel attempted to takeoff with the BMW jet engines. It was definitely a clumsy looking contraption featuring a tail-dragger landing gear configuration causing the shark like nose to point skyward like a massive harpoon. Its two jet engines hung from each wing inside huge nacelles. The back-up Jumo 210 piston engine was housed inside the nose which spun a large wooden propeller that couldn’t possibly have looked more out of place. The back-up Jumo 210 engine was kept because many of the teething problems of the BMW engines still weren’t resolved even at this stage. In the event the jet engines failed, Wendel had the option of using the back-up engine to land the jet and prevent the loss of the prototype. In fact, both jet engines did quit when Wendel was barely of the ground. He was forced to use the back-up piston engine and barely saved the aircraft. Compared to his near-death experience with the BMW engines, the Jumo 004 powered Me-262 V2 PC+UB was a clear improvement. Wendel later praised the hybrid jet but he discovered that the Me-262 was a double-edged sword when it came to performance. He reported that takeoff was extremely difficult. The throttle had to be advanced slowly not to mention the high speed that had to be reached before the jet could lift of. It took a lot of runway to accomplish this, but once in the air, it was a pleasure to fly. That day Wendel reached a top speed of 541mph at 30,000ft however, his flight was cut short by engine failure forcing him to use his auxiliary piston engine yet again to land safely. The short-comings of that first prototype ultimately led to the improvements shown in the subsequent prototypes.

On 18 July, 1942, the piston engine was removed and the third prototype Me 262 V3 PC+UC finally had both feet in the jet age. It was the first prototype to fly on jet power alone. However, it still had that dreaded tail-dragger landing gear configuration. The landing gear made it difficult to lift the tail from the ground as the jet reached flight speed. The excessive turbulence from the engines rendered the controls nearly useless during take-off and landing. Wendel skillfully found ways to overcome some of these problems. On takeoff, Wendel discovered that as he accelerated down the runway and gently tapping the breaks, the tail rose up and the jet took off. It became clear that the Me-262 was not for the faint hearted and should not be flown by inexperienced pilots.

If we fast forward to 6 June, 1943, one year from the Allied invasion of Normandy, the Me-262 prototype evolved significantly and equipped with some new touches. The tail-dragger landing gear configuration which was common for piston engine fighters was altered. Instead, it featured a tricycle landing gear configuration and lighter but not so reliable Jumo 004A-0 engines. The new landing gear solved the previous problems but also created new ones. The nose wheel was flimsy and could not rotate which made it difficult to taxi the aircraft. To address the long takeoff distance, the new prototype was fitted with RATO (Rocket Assisted Takeoff). The results were promising and took 300yds off the jets’ takeoff run. Unfortunately, when Professor Messerschmitt appealed to the German Air Ministry to use RATO for all production Me-262s, they refused. Had they gone along with Messerschmitt’s request, one of the many weak points of the 262 might have been addressed. The lengthy takeoff run ultimately became one of the many unresolved problems that bled into the 262s combat career.  

The closing of 1943 proved to be a pivotal point for the Me-262. On top of the technical problems that slipped through the engineering cracks, the role of the jet was also in question. In December, Adolf Hitler attended a demonstration of the Me-262 at Insterburg. This is where many Luftwaffe historians like to point the finger at Hitler for single handedly murdering the Me-262. According to General Adolf Galland, who attended the demonstration, Hitler declared “For years I have demanded from the Luftwaffe a ‘speed bomber,’ which can reach its target in spite of enemy fighter defense. In the aircraft you present to me as a fighter plane I see the ‘Blitz bomber,’ with which I will repel the invasion in its first and weakest phase”. He believed that by implementing the 262 as a shnellbomber (fast bomber), its speed could allow it to penetrate Allied air-cover and repel the imminent invasion of occupied Europe.  However, Hitler was a layperson who had no business with military strategy and even worse, his tactical decisions clearly stemmed from his obsession with offensive, revenge attacks against England. Galland, on the other hand, had more tactical sense in his finger than in Hitlers entire body and was fully aware that the priority of the Luftwaffe was reclaiming air superiority. In fact, General Eisenhower remarked that the Normandy invasion would not have been possible without the success of the pattern bombing campaign. Albert Speer, who was also present, recorded in his memoirs that every effort was made to convince Hitler about the Jet’s tactical importance as a fighter to help thwart the relentless Allied bombing crusade. Speer recalled the more he and Galland tried to convince Hitler of that, the more he resisted. Was this the moment that murdered the 262? No, Hitler’s unilateral decision to use the jet as a bomber by itself did not delay its production. Rather, it was a variety of factors including that fateful decision. Operation Big Week resulted in the destruction of key 262 factories at Augsburg and Regensburg. On top of that, engine development was always behind the progress of the airframe and production had to wait for the engineers to catch-up. So, production of the Me-262 Sturmvogel (Stormbird) began with only a limited number of fighter variants sneaking off the assembly lines. Its future as the fighter Germany desperately needed looked bleak. So far…

KG-51 was the first bomber unit to transition from conventional aircraft like the Ju-88 to the Me-262 jets. Since the 262 was best suited as a fighter, the decision to use it as a bomber resulted in catastrophic losses. Galland recorded in his memoirs “Actually the ME-262 possessed no fixtures for releasing bombs or bombsights. According to its flying properties and its safety conditions it was highly unsuited for an aimed bomb release, diving or gliding were out of the question because of the unavoidable excess of the permissible top speed”. The pilots of KG-51 had no serious experience with aggressive tactics. Speed, their only saving grace, was stripped away by the ordinance they carried as the additional weight and drag reduced their top speed by 75mph. By now, production Me-262’s received by KG-51 were powered by the first mass produced jet engine in history, the Jumo 004B. Even though the new engine was a clear improvement over previous ones, reliability remained an issue. Engines only lasted about 10 hours before they required replacement and on top of that, fuel consumption was off the charts. The Me-262 was a flying, gas guzzler and its fuel consumption was so inefficient, it could only stay aloft for about an hour. The only good news was that jet engines burned a different type of low-octane fuel that was cheaper and far more abundant called kerosene. The 262’s of KG-51 were not deployed until shortly after the Allied invasion of Normandy. By then the Allies sank their teeth too deep into France to make a difference. It was too late for Hitler’s vision for the 262 to come to fruition. All they could do was carry out nuisance raids against Allied bases throughout France.

 On 26 July, 1944, an Allied fighter pilot squared off with a 262 for the first time. 2nd Leutnant Alfred Schrieber, encountered an RAF Mosquito fighter flown by Flight Lt. Albert E.
“Bert” Wall and navigator Albert Sinclair “Jock” Lobban. Schrieber pursued, opened fire and scored several hits forcing the “mozzie” to disengage and retreat to Fermo, Italy. Mosquito fighters were a major thorn in the side of the Luftwaffe primarily because its wooden construction and twin Rolls Royce Merlin engines gave it fantastic speed. It was fast, nimble and an ideal pathfinder during night bombing raids. But, Schrieber reported the encounter as a victory, when, in fact, the RAF fighter did manage to escape by out-turning him. The false news eventually reached Hitler causing him to believe the Me-262 was the answer to the “mozzie” scourge. The harsh truth is that it wasn’t, at all. The Me-262 had the speed advantage, but it didn’t have a prayer in a turning fight with any Allied fighter.

The first confirmed victory for the 262 was scored by the newly formed unit designated Kommando Nowotny on August 8^th. Coincidentally, the victim of the encounter was also an RAF Mosquito fighter. Kommando Nowotny was the world’s first operational all jet combat unit named for its leader, Walter Nowotny. It evolved from Ekdo (Test Command) 262 led by Captain Werner Thierfelder. Only the very elite Luftwaffe pilots made the cut to serve on its roster for obvious reasons. On July 18^th 1944, Nowotny’s predecessor, was killed in action over Bavaria. Since Allied records do not indicate that he was shot down, it is reasonable to speculate that a technical problem with his own aircraft may have caused his death. Thierfelders fate is further proof of the 262’s fatal flaws. Handicaps like the 262’s extremely touchy throttle, unreliable engines, flimsy nose wheel and lack of stability during takeoff caused about 200 pilots to die in training alone. Herman Buchner once recalled the failure of his jets nose wheel: “I slammed my 262 onto the landing strip doing two hundred sixty kilometers per hour and suddenly saw a wheel running in front of me. It had broken off the end of the axle during the hard landing and the wheel had now separated. The aircraft swerved to the left, but, with a great deal of effort and additional help from the left engine, I succeeded in keeping the machine going more or less in the right direction and steered passed a fuel truck. After a few frightening seconds I brought my jet to a standstill. All went well, and the machine only needed a new undercarriage.”

Every pilot that climbed in that cockpit had to nurse the throttle with extreme care. Any sudden movements could cause the engines to burst into flames and carene down the runway in an uncontrolled ball of fire. If a successful takeoff was achieved you had to be careful about tight turns and speed reduction when attacking. George Peter Eder described takeoff and landing with the 262: “The throttle response was slow, and if pushed forward too soon resulted in flameouts, so in combat we just set the throttles at full forward and only reduced power gradually as required, such as landing. To bleed off airspeed, we just raised the nose and left the throttles alone. We operated the throttle gently to prevent any quick changes to the engines. Later the automatic throttle regulator was installed on some aircraft, but it did not always solve the problem. The technology was just so new, and we were the guinea pigs, so that was the problem”. The chain that linked the 30mm rounds sometimes broke under the high stress caused by tight turns. Diving at 30-40,000ft where air is cool and thin was relatively safe, but diving at lower altitudes where air is denser meant almost certain death. Drag from the dense air at the edge of the sound barrier caused critical controls to freeze damming the fate of the aircraft. For the first jet fighter pilots, returning to base was also dangerous since they had to reduce their speed. Allied fighter pilots often stalked 262s from a distance waiting for them to land. As German pilots dropped their throttles and flaps lowered, Allied fighters dove out of the sun and shot them down. Unlike conventional fighters, a landing in a 262 could not be aborted because it would take too long to advance the throttle and pick-up flight speed again.

After the initial shock of the 262s debut in battle, Allied fighter pilots learned that the jet could be beaten. For instance, by diving, they could convert altitude to speed and catch the 262. Slower, piston engine fighters could also turn tighter and their ability to suddenly slowdown could force the jets to overshoot them in a dogfight. The primary causes for the meager success achieved by Kommando Nowotny was the position of their bases near the front lines. Allied fighters often circled above known Me-262 airfields waiting to strafe them during takeoff or landing. On 7 October, 1944, 1^st Lt. Urban L. “Ben” Drew and his squadron strafed the Nowotny base at Achmer. Drew recalled: “I watched them for a while and saw one of them start to taxi. The lead ship was in takeoff position for a formation takeoff. I waited until they were both airborne and then I rolled over from 15,000 feet and headed for the attack with my flight behind me”. Since it took several minutes for 262s to reach top speed, Drew was able to bag one only 1,000 feet of the ground. The Germans were supposed to have air cover patrols flown by piston engine Fw-109 D fighters from JG-54 but none were around that day. 262 airbases also attempted to cover landing jets with heavy anti-aircraft batteries. On November 8^th, the anti-aircraft batteries couldn’t stop Major Walter Nowotnys luck from running out when his port engine burst into flames during an interception sortie, forcing him to return to Achmer. P-51 pilot Edward R. “Buddy” Haydon sighted the flames and quickly closed the range on Nowotnys crippled jet like a shark that smelled blood. They both descended to just 100 feet from the ground putting Haydon safely under the umbrella of flack that erupted from the airfield. Nowotnys fate was sealed as he made his final approach. Since he was flying on one engine, Nowotny was losing speed fast and before Haydon could pull the trigger, the jet stalled and snaped to the left crashing in the forest below.

The 24 October, 1945 mission flown by the Tuskegee Airmen is yet another shining example of how Allied pilots adapted to the Me-262 threat. Not only was it the longest escort mission (1,600 miles) of the war, but it was also their first clash with the jets. They were tasked with escorting bombers from the 15^th AF targeting a Daimler Benz tank factory in Berlin. About thirty Me-262 jets from JG-7 arrived to intercept the bombers. Three jets were shot down during the mission by Charles Brantley, Earl Lane, and Roscoe Brown. Brown recalled shooting down Oberleutnant (Lt. Col.) Franz Kulp. “All of a sudden at nine o’clock I saw these streaks. I ordered, ‘Drop your tanks and follow me.’ I did a split S, went under the bombers, did a hard right, pulled up, shot the jet, blew him up and that was the first jet victory for the 15^th Air Force”. Earl R. Lane became tangled in a tight left turn with another 262 flown by ace Alfred Ambs. Lane was able to pull lead and open fire from about 2,000 yards. Lane recalled, “He did not quite fill my gunsight. I fired three short bursts and saw the plane emitting smoke. A piece of the plane, either the canopy or one of the jet orifices, flew off. I then pulled up and circled over the spot where he went down. I saw a crash and a puff of black smoke.” The Me-262 was clearly ill equipped to dogfight with piston fighters, but it was hardwired with the tools to bring down heavy bombers.

The pilots of Kommando Nowotny drastically altered their standard interception tactics around the speed of the Me-262. For the Luftwaffe, bombers were typically attacked head-on from twelve o-clock high but that approach would never work for jet pilots. American B-17s flew at about 280mph and the Me-262 knifed through the air at 540mph. The closing speed of the two aircraft in a head-on pass would be too high for any jet pilot to select a target, aim and score hits without colliding with their intended target. That is why the pilots of Kommando Nowotny transitioned away from frontal interception tactics. Instead, 262 pilots hunted American bomber formations from six o-clock high or streaking in from either side. Interception tactics had to be further refined to accommodate the limited range of the 262s armament of four, three-centimeter cannons. Three-centimeter guns only had an effective range of about 250 meters compared to the 800-meter range of .50 caliber guns on a B-17. The limited range of the jet’s cannons made it vulnerable to American gunners. The Luftwaffe patched up the jet’s Achilles heel by equipping the 262 with twenty-four R4M rockets. Since the rockets had an effective range of 900-1,200 meters, pilots could knock down bombers before flying in range of gunners.   

Yes, the 262 put a dent in the number of Allied bombers but the damage was already done. The pattern bombing campaign brought Germany’s war effort to its knees forcing the feared Me-262 into a dark, cryptic underworld. Since factories above ground were being destroyed at such an alarming rate, the Germans resorted to a cheap and haphazard solution by converting mines into underground factories throughout the Reich. The REIMAHG (Flugzeuwerk Reichmarshall Herman Göring) factory was a porcelain mine located in the Walpersberg hill near Kahla. There, gaunt prisoners from concentration and POW camps replaced trained workers Germany was critically short on. They constructed bunkers with steel-reinforced concrete up to 10 meters thick rendering the factory nearly bomb-proof. The components of the 262 were sent from the Messerschmitt Co. for final assembly at the REIMAHG. Assembly of main components (wings, fuselage and tail) took place above ground inside concrete bunkers along the base of the hill. Across the hilltop stretched a 3,300-foot runway for the factory fresh jets to be launched from for delivery to their combat units. Delivering the jets to their combat units was a daunting task. Since the runway was barely long enough for takeoff, RATO was required and there was no turning back. Use of unskilled labor should have caused significantly more accidents during delivery to the front lines as well as during combat. Surprisingly, the only known accident occurred on 23 February, 1945 resulting in the death of Feldwebel Otto Soltav near Calbe. It is reasonable to hypothesize that since the components of the 262 were manufactured at the Messerschmitt Co., the skilled work was already completed. By the time the preassembled components arrived, the prisoners were left with the final assembly of the aircraft. Since the 262 was a significant problem for Allied heavy bombers, 262 bases also became high priority tactical targets. Frequent bombing and strafing of 262 bases forced them to retreat to the shadows of forests and under bridges. The haphazard conditions surrounding the 262s late war production made it even more of a danger to its own pilots.

 Even though Germany’s fate was sealed in utter defeat, she certainly won the race to the jet age. The Me-262 was undoubtedly the most successful of the Luftwaffe’s experimental endeavors. By the end of the war, 262s shot down about 542 total Allied aircraft to the loss of only 100 jets in air-to-air combat. Although about 1,400 Me-262s were produced by the end of the war, only 300 ever saw combat. The 262 certainly instilled fear in the hearts of Allied pilots but it arrived too late to ever achieve tactical success. For Hitler, the 262 was nothing more than a pipe-dream and a last-ditch attempt to resurrect victory from defeat. One thing remains certain, the 262 changed air combat forever both technologically and tactically and became the aviation standard for all future conflicts.