Granted, the Me-262 is not everything the myths would have us belive!

But just because you missed the TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE (T-2 AMC) statement, i.e.

That is no reason to equate the Me-262 to a Renault!

I wouldn't drive a Renault on 'slick' tyres either on a rainy day on a mountain road..

It did have 4x 30mm canon! Big low velocity rounds... ridicules fire power.
So it wasn't a sharp shooting sniper of a plane at high speed. The weapons they put on it did not need to be aimed terribly precisely I suspect.

Didn't Galland, who flew both the 262 and the Meteor F4, say that the 262 with the engines of the F4 would have made for the best plane?

262 was not alone, Meteor had snaking issue too, as had Lockheed P-80:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...-80A-85044.pdf

Most did at that speed, however the Lockheed's issue seems to stem from its hydraulically boosted ailerons.

There is a good reason nobody else in the world used hydraulically boosted controls at the time.

Lockheed pushed them but it was well into the 1950's before they technology worked even close to what was intended.

Isn't 'snaking' a horizontal movement?

The flying wings of the day all exhibited the "snaking" problem to an even greater degree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkrcGxDj278

Just felt like this would fit here perfectly.