Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Messerschmitt Bf 109. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

109 F variants

According to Prien and Rodeike Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G, & K series. 109 F variants didn't include an F-2/trop, nor were there any F-5s or F-6s mentioned in any of the source material they used; eg: Luftwaffe Loss Reports, and factory and RLM records. The F-4 reconnaissance variants, which have been called F-5s and F-6s, are listed as:

F-4/R2 1x Rb 20/30 no radio.
F-4/R3 1x Rb 50/30 no radio.
F-4/R4 1x Rb 75/30 no radio.
F-4/R8 1x Rb 50/30 or 1x Rb 75/30 with radio...

These findings are different to 109 F variants listed elsewhere. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

F-2/Trops did indeed exist. The Osprey title provides colour plates of all the Bf 109s of the major Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean. Aces like Eduard Neumann, Albert Espenlaub, Gerhard Homuth are known to have flown F-2/Trops. Homuth flew an F-2 as late as February 1942.Dapi89 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems any "F" variant that included extra equipment was designated as an upgraded model. I caNt't find any literature that explains why. In deed the F-5 and F-6 were F-4 airframes plus and minus bits of equipmentDapi89 (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC).

F-5 and higher did not exist although it seems F-6 and F-8 were at least planned. F-5 was to be a recon but only one prototype in unknown configuration was built. F-5 to F-8 may have been unofficially reused for some special 109Fs like Galland's F-2 with additional cannons (reported as F-6/U). The F-2 trop may have not existed as a production model but they

for sure existed as conversion. --Denniss (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There were one or two F-2s with tropical filters, but none were built as such. Prien and Rodeike did an extensive search of all sorts of records, including factory and RLM reports and Luftwaffe loss records, as well as searching through 22,000 photos, and found no evidence of factory built F-2 trops. I would rather believe information based on in-depth primary research than some illustrations in the Osprey book (as good as they normally are).Minorhistorian (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just using this as an example to say that they definitely existed, as I thought this fact was being questioned, not to claim that F-2 Trops were factory variants or indeed were production examples. Dapi89 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not my intention to reopen this (highly interesting) issue, but a quick search of Bf-109 F2/Trop on the Internet (maybe not the most trustworthy source) brought some "hits" related to this (inexistent?) subvariant, just list here those I believe are more "serious" to me:

what IMHO seems to indicate that at least the designation F-2/Trop does exist and is widely used (maybe incorrectly?). Probably this subvariant was not factory-produced, but only a field modification?
Of course, I still need to go through more documented sources (ie: books), other than the book mentioned above (which seems to be a quite thorough one!). Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

109 G section

I'm trying to tidy this up a little; some of the information is dubious (I have strong doubts about the "armoring of the radiators") and the writing's convoluted, plus there are some details missing in describing the sub-types.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speed records

It is staden in the article that 755.14 km/h was the world record for a propeller driven aircraft until 1969. Was it really? Or was it just for single engined aircraft? And perhaps piston engine driven? I'm wondering because for example hte Dornier Do 335 article states higher speed, as does Tupolev Tu-95. These are both multi-engined and the tupolev is a turboprop, but propeller driven all the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The record attempts were made under controlled conditions over a set course and set altitude (I'm not sure of the exact conditions so I'll look them up some time); it's true that there were faster aircraft; the Supermarine Spiteful and XP-47J to name another two, but none of them attempted an official world record. And you're right, the CLASS C, GROUP 1 record is for Landplanes with piston engines rather than propeller driven. (Jane's All The World's Aircraft).Minorhistorian (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"RLM Nr�" :
- RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 10, 01.01.1939 (Deliveries up to 31.12.1938)
- RLM Lieferplan Nr. 18 Ausgabe 3, 01.11.1940 (Deliveries up to 31.10.1940)

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wing armament and records

The reason for the deletion of these entries:

which, contrary to popular belief, did not induce any greater drag or weight penalty than a wing-housed armament,...

Is that no evidence has been shown to back this information up. Adding new information "contrary to popular belief" without citing a source comes under Wikipedia:No original research. It may well be that there was no added weight imposed, that has not been proven by any cited source. That the addition of the cannon gondolas "accentuated the fighter's tendency to swing pendulum fashion" and reduced manoeuvrability indicates that there was an aerodynamic penalty.

In a serial production Bf 109G-1/R2 with GM-1 injection, R. Klein had achieved 680 km/h at 12,000 m and a ceiling of 13,800 m. Hermann Graf with another serial Bf 109G achieved 14,300 meter altitude.

Again this in new, un-sourced information which comes under Wikipedia:No original research. The other records described have cited sources, and there should be no reason for this additional material to be added as fact without some confirmation.Minorhistorian (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: wing armament: Again, it has not been claimed it did not add weight or drag. It did. The claim is that it did not give any greater weight or drag. I think I have noted that once already. You should read the sentence. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: altitude achievements: This one comes from one of the Schiffer volumes IIRC. I will try to find the exact source, and make you happy. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no practical way for an added weapon pod housed in the wing to NOT have extra drag. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It has. It just do not have any more than wing installations. Kurfürst (talk) 09:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From the adverse effects the weapons pods had on the flight qualities of the Bf 109 there might not have been added drag, but there must have been some interesting changes to the airflow.

Also, the records section, from my read, deals with records set and recognised as records by the FAI, so any unofficial records, set while testing aircraft, for example, don't really belong here. One another thing; a lot of material in this article is based on information from:

self-published sources whose reliability has not been established (spitfireperformance.com and aboutwarfare.com)websites: if contributors to these articles can find reliable, secondary sources...

As I have explained elsewhere, I have deleted citations based on Spitfire Performance and have replaced it with reliable, secondary sources. Material from aboutwarefare.com is also considered as unacceptable on Wikipedia and should also, in all fairness, be removed. And would you Kurfürst please NOT interleave your comments with other people's? You've been asked to stop several times.Minorhistorian (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, I've taken Kurfürst's additions and pulled them from out of the inside of other editor's talk page entries. This is getting very tiresome! One last time, Kurfürst, I am asking you to place every single portion of your response below the signature of the editor whose talk entry you are replying to. Further violations of established Talk page flow will be considered purposeful disruption and will be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurfürst you are still using material which is self-published sources and, as you well know is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More Detail on the Engine Centerline Cannon, please

I believe the following entry to the main article to be physically impossible: ""It was to be armed with either a single high-performance 20 mm MG C 30 cannon firing through the engine shaft...."" I believe that is correct to say that he cannon is mounted in the upside-down "V" of the engine, and the muzzle is at the center of the propeller hub. I believe this is accomplished with a gear drive, the propeller thus rotating in the opposite direction of the engine crankshaft. At other places in the article, there are references to how the wings can be removed and no additional support is needed for the fuselage, as it can rest on the main gear. The upside down "V" is also a design to ease maintenance procedures. The "overhead" valve gear is thus the closest to the ground of any engine part. This high maintenance area is accessible to mechanics standing on the ground. Thus cylinder head, sparking plug, and valve lash setting can all be performed without the complexity or danger of ladders. HomeBuilding 75.37.224.235 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review-Pass

Looks good. If you want to take this article any farther, here are a couple of notes. First of all, the prose is lacking references. Also, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). Next, watch out for weasel words, such as the following.

- it has been
- allege
- apparently

Also, please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Next, there are some one or two sentence paragraphs. These should be merged together. Otherwise, it is a very good article, and will make FA quite soon. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note reads as

This note

Bf 109 mythsRetrieved: 24 April 2008 Note: Quoted from website: Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-E, Development - Testing - Production" by Willy Radinger & Walter Schick. In the foreword it states that work on the book was begun in 1994 and Walter Schick died in 1995. It states he is writing the book to correct the many errors that have crept into aviation books over the years. Several Messerschmitt employees helped out in the book, one of which is Lukas Schmid who began working there in 1934 and was group leader on the project in 1937 and subsequently a flight test pilot. The book lists many statistics, even the Werknummer of the prototypes and types of aircraft produced in low numbers.

reads as a review rather than as a citation for a published source. The book has been cited in the bibliography so there must be a page number.Minorhistorian (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Bf 109G-10 remanufactured airframes; myth or fact?

I realise that there may be some confusion over whether or not G-10s were remanufactured airframes or new built; the problem is that Prien and Rodeike, who have apparently studied factory and Luftwaffe records in detail, were persuaded that this was the case at the time of writing their Bf 109F, G & K series. I'm not trying to denegrate anyone in this, but so far no reliable published evidence has been cited to show that they are wrong. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They did not provide any fact (aircraft images, production sheets or other docs) for old/recycled airframes being remanufacturerd as G-10. The only known G-10 series with two fuselage ID-plates are from the initial, these used airframes initially assigned to late G-6/G-14 production but they were diverted to G-10 production. This G-10 was one of them if the shown are really from the same aircraft . --Denniss (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Although they did not provide production sheets or other documentary evidence, that was not the purpose of the book, which is called "An illustrated study". Has there been any contrary evidence such as production sheets or other documents provided by other authors? You say that the only known G-10s with two ID plates are from G-6/G-14 airframes diverted to G-10 production yet there are at least three photographs showing the two ID plates on three different G-10s in Prien and Rodeike's book (pp.161, 162, 165). One of these (p.165) has the W.Nr. 770224 (WNF); batches starting with 770--- do not appear listed under either G-6 or G-14 production. Come to that, W.Nr 610937 which also has two ID plates, doesn't appear under G-16 or G-14 production lists either. According to the webpage cited it was rebuilt from a G-14. According to the list by Prien and Rodeike (p.157) 610937 was one of the first G-10s built/converted by WNF, yet 770224 seems to have come from a much later batch. Does this indicate that there were more than just a few early G-10s converted from older airframes? Does this indicate that remanufactured aircraft were given new W. Nr.s? Is it possible that WNF G-10s were rebuilt from older airframes while the other factories, Messerschmitt Regensburg and Erla, built new G-10s? Pure speculation, but the slim evidence suggests that possibility.

There are also photos of G-10s without two ID plates (156, 157, 163). Prien and Rodeike may well be wrong in stating that all G-10s were remanufactured G-6/G-14 airframes, but so far there does not seem to be other definitive evidence to the contrary. Minorhistorian (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed researchers seem to disagree on the subject. Janda and Poruba in their more G-10/U4 is on the other opinion regarding these double ID plates. Personally I am inclined towards JaPo's view, who state the double plates are not indicative of being a conversion, well at least all the production evidence and listing gained from the German primary sources indicate that the G-10 were all 'Neubau' - new production. While it could occur, and even likely that they used up existing G airframes of stopped production runs (G-10 practically replaced G-14 in the production centers in late 1944), surplus semi-finished airframes, that is something very different than the more traditional meaning of conversion, ie. rebuilding existing finished products or damaged aircraft that received an overhaul. Not to mention, the G-10 and G-14 are pretty much the same airframe, a 109G that is, difference is largely limited to the type of engine fitted, not to mention in practice 'pure', 'standard-like' 109Gs were theory at best. Whatever wing, cowling tail unit was available - it was used.

Perhaps the best solution would be to note the uncertainty surrounding the issue, with brief reference made to Janda/Poruba and Prien/Rodeike, without undue weight placed on it. It is not a major question IMHO. Kurfürst (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Like a lot of things to do with the Bf 109 there is always new material being found and new facts are being uncovered; my feeling is that, as you say, all available airframe components were used along with the DB 605D to create new aircraft, as well as rebuilding older airframes to bring them up to near K-4 performance standards. I have no problems about noting the uncertainty; not a major question, but, without references it comes across as an opinion piece. Cheers! 22:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Descriptive captions

The MOS encorages the use of descriptive captions. In aircraft articles, this often includes the location of the aircraft in the image, especially if the location is a notable museum. I see no reason why "National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton, Ohio" should be removed from an image caption. It's certainly not a lenght issue here, as many captions are more than two lines long. "The caption only needs variant info" is not in any guideline on English WP, so I don't see how that makes me "disagreeable just for the sake of it" to follow the general usage of other aircraft articles. - BillCJ (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the Edit summary: It would seem so. Well this is a turn around isn't it? First you delete descriptive captions because they are too cumbersome and the information is on the "image", and now you have decided detailed captions are a better way of presenting images. The whereabouts of the 109 is not important in the lead image, there is a 109 survivor section for that. So why don't you stop spending all your time on wikipedia reverting, and being my arch irritation? Dapi89 (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, I support descriptive captions of a reasonable length. That has not changed. - BillCJ (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BillCJ on this one. There's really no point in providing less information if the caption is of reasonable size and not a small essay on its own right. Its almost a standard way in books as well, at least I haven't seen any book that would have loads of photos of 109s and then caption it 'G-10', 'G-6' 'destroyed E-4' etc. Though personally, I don't get this 'real 109' purism thing either - the restored G-6 was a perfect illustration as well. Kurfürst (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a surprise Kurfürst. If there is reason to have a descriptive caption there is reason to have a real 109 in the image!!!! Why would one want a fake? Dapi89 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Buchons are not 'fake' 109s. They were German manufactured export Bf 109G airframes, sans engines, that were fitted with whatever powerplant was available to the Spanish. Then the restored examples got the engine they were always meant to be - the DB 605. Personally I found the image of the restored G-6 an excellent piece of photography and more expressive one than the picture of the US G-10. Kurfürst (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Kurfürst. A good example of a fake is an AT-6 made up to look like an A6M. There no connection between those two airframes, they just happen to be similar in overall size and shape, and there were plenty of T-6s available. - BillCJ (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you are right. Kurfürst's reasons for disagreement with me are as obvious as the dogs proverbials. The "Bf 109" in the image was not German built - it did not even fly with a DB engine. Which brings me back, yet again, to my orginal point; the machine is not 100% authentic. How many more times? Hispano's and Bf 19s are not the same aircraft. I think perhaps this is not a forum for discussing encyclopedic values at all. Dapi89 (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My only point is that the Buchon is not a fake Bf 109 in the manner of an AT-6 made up to look like a Zero. Whether it's used in the article Lead or not is a matter of consensus, not individual definitions of "encyclopedic values". There are few good flying images of BF 109s available for our use, but if the consensus is to not use them, then fine. So far, only 3 editors have even bothered to comment, so it's not that important an issue overall. Article talk pages are for discussing the articles themselves, and as such the issue of the caption falls within its purview. Again, with only 3 editors commenting, no one else seems to care. However, talk pages are not for negative comments and personal attackes, and those such as "as obvious as the dogs proverbials" are straying very close to that line. I think we've beaten this horse to death long enough. - BillCJ (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

But still not the same aircraft! I think your right, we are both past caring. Well I am anyway. I am satisfied that a German built Bf 109 is in the image, and that is how it should be. Dapi89 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GA status

This should be reassessed. It has over 20 fact and verification tags. Dapi89 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Dapi89

A rather simple complaint - the article has over 20 fact and verification tags (mostly fact tags). I don't think this is acceptable in a "Good" article. Dapi89 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of them being added by yourself, if I may add. Kurfürst (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant nonsense. Dapi89 (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement preceding Hartmann Quote

The article states that "Erich Hartmann, the World's top scoring fighter ace, claiming 352 victories, flew only the Bf 109G..."

It is not true to state that Hartmann only flew the 109G. The Hartmann book The Blond Knight of Germany by Toliver and Constable states on page 310 of my copy, "Hartmann flew all of his combat in various models of the 109, including Bf-109G-7, G-10, G-14, G-16, and ME109K-4. In addition, he has flown the Bf-109-B, C, D, E, F, and, of course, all the G models listed above." 67.67.196.33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)cas4j

There were simply no G-7 and G-16 - these appear only in some old secondary publications - the authors are definietely wrong in this. As to Hartmann flying the 109K version, its seems to be a matter of continous debate; B/C/D/E/F variants, maybe during the training (those were removed from service by the time Hartmann saw action) I would suggest to re-write the sentence just saying 'Bf 109' without specifying which subtype exactly, and perhaps give some thought to the issue in the Hartmann article. Kurfürst (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

There is a (small) problem with the intro:

The Messerschmitt Bf 109 was a German World War II era fighter aircraft designed by Willy Messerschmitt in the early 1930s and used in the Spanish Civil War^[1]. It was one of the first true modern fighters of the period, including such features as an all-metal monocoque construction, a closed canopy, and retractable landing gear.

I should point out that "World War II era" is way too loose as a description. It was developed before WWII. The designers and pilots had no concept of "WWII era". Saying that it was used in the Spanish civil war after the mention of WWII further confuses the issue.

Trying to make references say something they don't.

Prien and Rodeike p. 167 says absolutely nothing about the propeller used on the K-4, yet Kurfurst has quoted this as a scource; furthermore there is no mention on p. 169 of the same book that the propeller was "optimized for high altitudes then converted this output into thrust. Nor is there any mention of how much power the DB 605s generated, which then becomes an unsourced statement. By using p. 167 of Prien and Rodieke Kurfurst is falsly representing this cite as being applicable to unscourced information. Minorhistorian (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All editors take note that Minorhistorian is in an edit dispute with me on an other article, where he tried using primary sources from unreliable references, and to reach conclusion using synthesis. The root of 'problems' with the article are rather easy to see, but its easy to find reliable references to to statements in the above article - save for that propellers create thrust, but I believe nobody in the right of his mind would require a source for that. Kurfürst (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst:

You are not going to deflect attention (poorly so as well!) from the issue
You have just admitted to falsifying a citation

No other editor is ever going to believe a word you say from now on Kurfurst. Dapi89 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

With these agitated, surreal personal attacks you keep trumpeting on the talk pages of various articles, is there any editor left who would take you seriously, Dapi89? I don't think that this kind of disruptive behaviour is going to impress anyone. Kurfürst (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You're failing to bait me Kurfurst. Stop repeating the words of others and throwing them (erroneously) back them. Deal with the issue Kurfurst. Your "defence" is becoming more and more fanciful as time goes on. The community is on to you Kurfurst - your edit history is testament to that. Dapi89 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued use of self-published websites.

In spite of his avid rejection of the use of self-published (and rival) websites (to his own) in other articles Kurfurst continues to use similar scources in this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is clear on this;

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=38 is clearly such a site. Unless this information is backed up by secondary, published information or material from this website has been published by a reliable, third party publication it should not be used. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. This editor engages in disruptive, bad faith edits because his copyright violations were removed in another article. Both authors he removed are established experts of their field, with publications.

If you continue your transparent, disruptive style of editing, you will be reported. Kurfürst (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst should read the rules;

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. If these well respected authors have had their material published by reliable third party publications then why persist in using a self-published website? Kurfurst is insisting that other editors follow the rules and yet fails to do so himself. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: on the homepage http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1 of this website;

What is not permitted or was disabled

Direct linking to the content of this website.

The website owners themselves do not permit direct linking to their website contents. Were they asked if their website could be direct linked to Wikipedia? Minorhistorian (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any direct linking to this website. I do not think you understand the term 'direct linking'. I don't see any merit in your arguments, and it is fairly obvious your edits in this long-stable good article only serve some sort of personal vendetta of yours because your edits were not accepted in another article (in which there is little surprise, you have been breaching copyright, using sources that were unverifiable and were previously agreed and told you by administrator that it cannot be used). Also, stop spamming the talk page with posting over and over the same thing. If you have any specific, meritful objections, it can be discussed. But I don't see that you'd have any. Kurfürst (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Minorhistorian: don't repsond to this untruthful screeching. Dapi89 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Kurfurst site has original documents, right? So it is not a real 'original research'. Why we should omitted a site with original documents? It's a nonsense. Let's use the 'common sense', please. If someone put in internet sites documens NOT made by him but scanned by him, what's the point to ignore them? What matters is that: these documents are true or not? If yes, they should be considered. Not for the sake of Kurlfurst, but for the sake of the truth!--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Kurfurst site has got transcripts of original documents, translated to English, plus some excerpts scanned from the documents, which is completely different to scanned original documents. The beim-zeugmeister site has got scans of original documents; however, elsewhere, Kurfurst protested about me using a similar (rival to his own) website as source material on the grounds of possible copyright breach of the scanned original documents; "common sense" says such material should be acceptable - Kurfurst himself has protested against such material and, through his protests further discussion , has established that it is unacceptable in Wikipedia. He then continues to cite the same type of material? Minorhistorian (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This saddened me, thus we loose very important -and few- sources of info, because there is a 'faida' between editors? I suggest to think for the sake of the project, and bury the axes. Maybe i will not taken in consideration, but i liked his site, and found nothing really umpleasible. Strangely enough, when rougly the same is done with 'Allied' documents, then there is usually no problem at all to accept them. After all, who bothers if a Hien fighter is found just capable of 540 kmh? Nobody i'd say, while in the same documents the Hellcat is found capable to fly almost as fast (650 kmh) than a F4U. Bah...--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bf 109 specifications

I am intending to include a table for a rough overview of all main production models, with specifications etc. The current one only has the G-6, which is not really representative for the whole series. Below I will make the proposed table, before added to the article, any comments are welcome. Kurfürst (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We dont normally include more than one aircraft variant in the specification section, perhaps you should consider a sub-article on variants which would give more room for extra detail. MilborneOne (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. In the meantime, I had made some progress on the table, I will post it here until we figure what to do with it.

General characteristics

Kurfürst (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Table removed see the section with latest table below --Hiens (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea but I would leave out the crew field - obvious that it was only designed for one. I'd split the cruise speed into two field, the maximum cruise speed and the eco cruise speed. The very low range myth usally comes from always using the max cruise speed. --Denniss (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree the crew field is probably odd an unneccessary - I was following the original Wiki specs layout. It would be perhaps better to rewrite it as a 'Role' like 'Single-engined, single-seat interceptor'. BTW, is there any possibility to merge several cells into one in Wiki, as in Excell? It would come quite handy, given the DB 605A / DB 605D was used in more than one type. Good idea on the eco/max cruise speed, but here's the problem - this sort of information would almost certainly require to me to reach into that large sack of primary sources I have, and I am not sure if its OK with wiki. What do you think? Kurfürst (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW if you noticed I rather try to follow the logic and layout of the GLC datasheets. Fortunately, these have been published in several secondary sources, ie. Monogram, S-S, JaPo etc. Kurfürst (talk)

Just added a colspan as a demo of a merge into your table MilborneOne (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I am not greatly happy with the empty blocks in the table although it is useful!! And the table is big to be fit within the article! I suggest! we split the variants of BF 109 from A to K in sections with breif outline of why and when this varient was introduced - as it is right now But each section has its own specifications of each type in side bar like this one ; however we can remove the info which exist in the side bar from the table and keep the table at the end with the additional specs/info ; I guess the readers would like to see those specs immediately on the right side --

--Hiens (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

-- I don't see any response I hope Kurfürst is not giving up his good work ; or other Editors lost interest in the Article ! If the ideas of side bar is not favorite then I suggest to reduce or short cut the table ! we also can collaporate on filling up the empty blocks within the table. --Hiens (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless the length, wingspan, wing area and aspect ratio changed significantly between models I'd drop those rows too. The inch conversion of the guns is also largely superfluous in this table.GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No references have yet been given. "Booster?" Power boost system. Armament can be simplified by listing the basic armament fit for (eg) Bf 109 F-4 to G-4, G-6 to G-10 noting only where there are changes to the basic fit, such as the G-6/U4. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New Table Bf 109 specifications

I agree the table must simplified; it contain a lot of valuable industrial data which unnecessary for users of Encyclopedia - I suggest the table to be shortcut into that one If the table is Ok then we need to collaborate and fill up all the empty boxes otherwise remove the empty/semi empty row
--Hiens (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Table removed see the section with latest table below --Hiens (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for repeats of crew or armament; calibre of weaponary is usually expressed in mm and there is no need for the inch conversions. Heights should be converted to feet at least and speed should be in one standard format, not several, eg;

Table removed see the section with latest table below --Hiens (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

crew is superfluous, units should be in m for height, precision on conversions, linebreaks control the wrapping , critical altitude will need clarification unless it just means speed at that altitude.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, no crew unless G-12 used. Critical altitude simply means height at which the supercharger is most effective; two stage superchargers have two critical heights. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope y'all don't mind but I've introduced a few more linebreaks for further wrapping control, and to improve (IMHO) the appearance and consistency of the table. There were also a few errors/typos that I've addressed. You can always revert these changes if you think they don't improve the table - no worries. :-) --Red Sunset 16:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree crew would be of no importance since all BF109 fighter class have a crew of only one Unless the trainer specially built.
I think we can limit the units system to either metric or British rather than both ! it is unncessary crowd and we can simply insert above the table or below the conversion factor ! If the idea is ok then I think Metric units will serve most of users and keep the conversion above the table. We also need to collaporate for filling the empty blocks and metnion the sources of the data. --Hiens (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I added the 109B - not complete it was all the data in the same source Luftwaffe Squadron . --Hiens (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense to split the engine into two rows - the engine itself and the engine power. This would aid alignment and hence reading. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

--
I didn't see any body filling the table! I had no time to do it but perhaps in amon th time I can do a much more . --Hiens (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest Table Bf 109 specifications

Model	Bf 109B	Bf 109D	Bf 109E-7	Bf 109F-1	Bf 109F-4	Bf 109G-1	Bf 109G-6	Bf 109G-14	Bf 109G-14/ASM	Bf 109G-10	Bf 109K-4
Length	8.51 m (27 ft ll in)	8.64m	8.74 m (28 ft 8 in) ^[3]				8.95 m (29 ft 7 in)
Wingspan	9.87 m (32 ft 4.5 in)	9.87 m					9.925 m (32 ft 6 in)
Height	2.28 m (7 ft 5 in)	2.28m	3.40 m (11 ft 2 in) ^[3]				2.60 m (8 ft 2 in)
Wing area			16.16 m (174 ft²)^[3]	16.05 m² (173.3 ft²)
Powerplant Power	Junkers Jumo 210D	Jumo 210	DB 601Aa^[4]	DB 601N	DB 601E	DB 605A-1	DB 605A-1	DB 605AM	DB 605ASM	DB 605DM (early production) DB 605DB DB 605DC	DB 605DM (early production) DB 605DB DB 605DC
Empty weight			2,014 kg (4,440 lb)^[3]	2,010 kg	2,083 kg	N/A	2,268 kg (mid-1944 state)	2,259 kg	2,284 kg	2,318 kg	2,346 kg
Equipped weight				2,248 kg	2,349 kg	2,546 kg	2,679 kg (mid-1944 state)	2,654 kg	2,679 kg	2,704 kg	2,754 kg
Normal takeoff weight				2,728 kg	2,890 kg	3,042 kg	3196 kg (mid-1944 state)	3,247 kg	3,272 kg	3,297 kg	3,362 kg
Max takeoff weight			2,767 kg (6,100 lb) ^[3]
Maximum speed at critical altitude	470 km/h (292 mph)	520 km/hr (323 mph)				660 km/h (410 mph) at 7,000 m (22,965 ft)	640 km/h (397 mph) at 6.600 m (21,653 ft)	665 km/h (413 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)	680 km/h (422 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft)	690 km/h (428 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft)	715 km/h (444 mph) at 7,500 m (24,600 ft)
Maximum speed at sea Level						537 km/h (333 mph)	530 km/h (329 mph)	568 km/h (352 mph)	560 km/h (348 mph)	562 km/h (349 mph)	607 km/h (377 mph)
Max. cruise speed			578 km/h (359 mph) at 3,750 m (12,300 ft)^[3]							628 km/h (390 mph) at 8,000 m (26,000 ft)	645 km/h (400 mph) at 8,000 m (26,000 ft)
Range with drop Tank	650 km (450 miles)	650 km	1,094 km (680 mi)^[3]				850 km (528 mi) 1,000 km (621 mi)				585 km (364 mi)
Service ceiling	10,500 m (34,450 ft)		11,125 m (36,500 ft)				12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Rate of climb			16.8 m/s (3,300 ft/min)^[3]				17.0 m/s (3,345 ft/min)
Wing loading							199.8 kg/m² (40.9 lb/ft²)
Armament	3 x 7.92 mm MG17	2 x 20 mm MG17		2 x 7.92 mm MG 17 (1,000 rpg) 2 × 20 mm MG FF cannon (rpg)	2 × 7.92 mm MG 17 (500rpg) 1 × 20 mm MG FF/M cannon (60 rpg)	2 × 7.92 mm MG 17 (500 rpg) 1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon (200 rpg) Optional armament 1 x MG 151/20 with 135 145 rpg (F-4/R1)	As per F-4	2 × 13 mm MG 131 with 300 rpg and 1 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon with 200 rpg (Motorkanone) or G-6/U4 variant: 1 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon , 65 rpg. Optional 1 x MG 151/20 with 135 rpg (G-6/R6)	As per G-6 or G-6/U4 respectively	As per G-6 or G-6/U4 respectively	As per G-6 or G-6/U4 respectively	2 × 13 mm MG 131 (300 rpg) 1 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon (65 rpg). Optional 1 x MG 151/20 with 135 rpg (K-6/R4)

Hi Guys I moved separately the latest table in order to simplify the editing ; later the other tables would be deleted unless some one care to keep it then we can discuss. --Hiens (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, get rid of the other things, its total chaos as it is... Kurfürst (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the old tables and shortcut machine Gun to MG to reduce the cell size in the table I will do some filtering to the table in order to be ready for implementations --Hiens (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole presentation of the armament in the table needs to be trimmed down for readability. I'd suggest dropping the location of the guns - the information will be in the variants section. So
"2 x 7.92 mm MG 17 MG with 1,000 rpg (cowling) and
2 × 20 mm MG FF cannon with 60 rpg (wings)"
could be rewritten as:
"2 x 7.92 mm MG 17 (1,000 rpg)
2 × 20 mm MG FF (60 rpg)"

I also suggest that if there is an alternate weapon configuration that this is added as a note to the table rather than within the table. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
agreed --Hiens (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Development into a featured article

Citations

^ http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/drnash/model/spain/did.html
^ The Spellmount Aircraft identification Guide -Luftwaffe Squadron
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Donald 1997, p. 205.
^ DB 601N on E-7/N

Kurfürst's edits

Today Kurfürst embarked in a huge rewritting of the article. While some of his changes are improvement many others are clear POV pushing to make the Bf 109 better than it was. I'm therefore forced to revert his changes and ask him to innitiate discussion on the talk page before the changes. Loosmark (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the other editors doing some serious work here to get this article to featured article state and expands its contents buys any of your stuff, its rather too transparent. You wish to carry over your edit warring to this article, and threaten us with disruptive editing. Cease it immediately and go trolling elsewhere. Kurfürst (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfust i request you withdraw your accusations. You made some controversal changes like for example you wrote that the many ground accidents were more of a problem with rookie pilots. Nope it was a problem for all pilots, the German designers just got it wrong. Please asume good faith. Thank you. Loosmark (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark, it would be easier to assume good faith, had it not been for your long and passionate anti-German edit history, the fact that I have seen you behaving the same way in half a dozen other articles justifying your constant reverting and feuding with others with a rather generic and stereotypic 'POV pushing,' 'controversial' comment, and the fact that while you complain here about a the removal of a unreferenced sentence about ground accidents that somebody else already fact-tagged long time ago, you choose it wise to go into no end of trouble to delete all of my today edits, including a lot of well referenced new additions to the article about the G-14 types etc.

So what I am going to do, being of an extremely sceptical nature from birth, is to let the other editors decide if they support your complete revert of all recent my edits and addition, or whether they consider it just a rather blatant example of disruptive editing. Kurfürst (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst please don't launch these untrue accusations, it's not nice. i'm sorry to have reverted all of your edits, some of them were definitely good, however you machine-gunned 16 edits in less than an hour and frankly on the whole the article did not improve i'm afraid. Now i've to go to sleep i'll try to address some issues in more detail later. Loosmark (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the edits and i think that overall they're fine, and certainly well referenced. If there is a specific issue then you discuss that here, but until a problem is presented, I'm going to bring Kurfürst's edits back. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is too bias around Bf-109; strangely enough, Spitfire had an even tighter undercarriage and it's not so biased. History is written by winners, after all..--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the difference is that the Spitfire had a much lower wing loading and could land at a lower speed. Loosmark (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Spit's undercarriage was quite weak. And if you bother, Bf-109T was much better to land than Seafire.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Riiiight. I suppose you have the sources to support your claim. Loosmark (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a discussion forum... Kurfürst (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Spitfire's undercarriage track was indeed even narrower, but that was not the only problem. To allow the fuselage to stand on its own wheel with the wings removed, the Bf 109's main legs were attached to the fuselage, at a complex anchor point that was also used by the lower engine supports and the front spar of the wing. But combined with the nose-up stance of the Bf 109, this implied that the front wheels touched the ground relatively far forward in relation to the centre of gravity, giving the aircraft a strong tendency to ground-loop if the pilot did not keep it perfectly straight during landing. If it did ground-loop, the attachment at the top of the landing gear leg would break easily --- and it could damage the wing spar attachment and engine bearer in the process, rendering the aircraft a write-off. This was a fundamental weakness of the Bf 109, known well enough to its operators, and incurable without major redesign. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think we should add this to the article. Loosmark (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Split Operational history into a new article

The article as it is seems to be a bit too long (also as per the FA review recently). It needs to be trimmed down a bit, and the most appealing solution to me seems to create a new article from the existing Operational history. Several editors, with considerable work, expanded this section (it would seem to me that they would like to extend even more) and it would be a waste to just throw all the valuable work out of the window. So I suggest to create a new article from it ('Messerschmitt Bf 109 operational history' or something along these lines), with a brief summary of the operators, entering service dates, notable battles, aces etc, with a link to the main articles. Thoughts? Kurfürst (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that much is an obvious solution. When and if (really when) this is agreed, I think it would be an idea to split the op history into sections based on period and variant. The BoB already has an article on aircraft so the main focus of an op histoy on the 109 should focus on Eastern front, North Africa, Defence of the Reich and The Med. theatre rather than pre June 41 events. I recently did the same on the Fw 190 article, which is getting ignored and is in line for a big improvement. Dapi89 (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Makes good sense. Its been done for other articles. The only issues will be keeping sufficient content in th emain article to give a good overview and watching out for orphaned references. After that I'd consider doing the same for the variants section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Goodie then, when I find time I will start moving the stuff and leaving a shorter overview for a, Initial entry to service b, Operators c, Major operations d, Notable aces. It will be covered in more detailed manner in the 109 ops. article, as discussed. OTOH, I am strongly against doing the same splitting with the variants as well - what would be the main article about then? Its the core of it... also I wish to avoid the article being too fractured, and the variants section is unlikely to grow any further anyway. It pretty much covers all of them already, in sufficient detail for an encyclopedia.. Kurfürst (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant marking the variants according to the theatre. For example "Eastern Front" as a main heading, broken down into sub sections via variants. This gives a good sense of order about which variants served and when they ceased serving. Something like:

Eastern Front
- E
- F
- G

..and the same for each period. This would be easy reading for people. They can scan the start and end for any particular variant though without being confronted by a mass of information which they have to go through. It might be better for the articles rating too - a possible future GA. Dapi89 (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think when constructing new operation article for BF 109 it would be normal and better for readers to see the variants and operation’s history according to the Design model, E, F, G, and K etc the same way as it is now but with more organized details. And of course in each variant should mentioned When it starts, why and the necessity for that design to be initiated, the faith of the design and in which theatre it is implemented etc . (Some of these designs never saw production and operation) That’s how online articles and chapter’s in Historian’s references dedicate the work to BF 109! Some books categorized the Luftwaffe Aircraft by theatre but that is when they talk about the entire Luftwaffe aircraft not specifically BF109 At the end of this article we can use the table for the comparison specifications
--Hiens (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Messerschmitt 109D wreck

There is a wreck of a 109D at a depth of 26 meters just outside the port of Hersonissos in Greece. The aircraft is upside down, the tail is missing and the propeller is a bit further away, but it's a popular dive site for local divers and tourists alike. Well, here is a pic, let me know if you think that it could be used in the article.

P.S. No, there's no skeleton with pilot goggles :p PervyPirate (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate in the List of Messerschmitt Bf 109 survivors article! Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look much of a survivor to me... I've climbed inside, but I'm sure it didn't take off or anything! Seriously though, I don't have any other info on the plane (like Aircraft Number, Markings, etc) so I can't add it to the article. To be honest, I'm not even sure it's a D, I've just been told that by some dive leaders. PervyPirate (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bf 109 D powerplants

There seem to be a conflict between various authors regarding the engine type used in the Bf 109D-1 type. Please discuss it here, with the proper sources cited, before making any further edits. Kurfürst (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't be bothered. It isn't the first time I've been reverted on Dennis' 'say so' rather than what the source says. And there are plenty of sources that have agreed the 600 was operational in the D-1. Furthermore the revert has now restored wording that the Feist in no way supports. So the article and its information are erroneous. I'm reverting back this once only. Dapi89 (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Multiple books have this claim but not a single evidence is given, neither per official document nor per image. Thus this "information" can't be trusted. --Denniss (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Chill out a bit... from two books I checked (SS's 109 in Action, Part 1, and Hitchcock) it seems that indeed there were some D-1s with the DB 600, some photos were included. However, it seems that it was a propaganda act, with only a couple of aircraft being so modified and then 'dressed up' in operational colors, and photographed for the press from different angles. So its a bit like the propaganda stunt of those He 100/112s as it would appear. Currently I am away from these sources, but I will try to dig up something on that. Unfortunately, IIRC I only have the manuals for the 109B. Kurfürst (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
--Denniss " Multiple books have this claim but not a single evidence is given”
I agree it is better to mention the source rather than wide statement " there are plenty of sources that have agreed ..."
the only source in hand talking about the D variant is mentioned above [2] in 109 Specification section and it did mention that the D-1 was powered was DB600A Engine 12 Cylinders inverted V. --Hiens (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The V11 and V12 prototypes were published in propaganda photos with the claims that this aircraft was in production as the Bf 109D with the DB 600 engine. That was just propaganda, and in reality all production Bf 109D-1 had a Junkers Jumo 210Da, the same engine as the B-2. The D series may have been intended to have the DB600 engine, but this engine was neither fully developed nor available in sufficient numbers, so it was never operational with it. Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is missing and confusing point here! BF 109 V1 , 2, 3, 4,up to... are pre-war protypes produced of the BF 109.. and some of it registred under D-IUDE and indeed it has Jumo 210 engine but this is not the Bf 109D "Dora" and I guess that was the confusion

The BF 109 D are different and it has DB600 ; I have here another source which explain that.

War planes of the Luftwaffe By David Donald Barnes and Noble Books New York
PAGE 197 " Three further prototypes (the Bf 109 V2 registered D-IUDE, Bf 109 V3 D-IHNY and Bf 109 V4 D-IOQY) were flown in 1936, powered by Jumo 210A engines and with provision for two synchronised MG 17 machine-guns in the nose decking. However, rumours abounded that the British Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire were to be armed with four guns, so that by the time the Bf 109 V4 prototype flew a third MG 17 was planned to fire through the propeller hub."
And the same source also in page 198 mentioned
“BY the beginning of World War if in September 1939, the Luftwaffe had standardised its fighter Geschwader on the Bf 109. The Bf 109D series, although produced in fairly large numbers and still in service, was already giving place to the Bf 109E (widely known as the 'Emil'). Ten pre-production Bf 109E-0s appeared late in 1938 with two nose-mounted MG 17 machine-guns and two in the wings, and powered by the 821-kW (1,100-hp) 1) DB 601A engine, which promised to solve the reliability and other problems of the DB 600 which was to have been used by the 'Dora'.” So it is clear the BF 109 D “ Dora” has DB 600 engine --Hiens (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

And another book without proper research, writing from other authors, and/or taking the german propaganda. Mutatis posted the facts, anything other is wrong. Again, there's no evidence in documents or images that production 109D were equipped with DB 600 engines but there are lots of 109D images with Jumo 210 engines instead. Do the math. --Denniss (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't reject the idea of Jumo 210 was originally attached with the early production V 1,2,3,4 and finally replaced by DB600 ! Editors Dennis and Mutatis would help if they mentioned published sources! it is hard to say from a photo it is Jumo 210 or DB 600 unless you have cutaways photo and still not a prove ; because as I mentioned in the source above both Engines were implemented.--Hiens (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairly easy: Jumo 210 had two-blade props while a DB600 would have have required a three-blade prop. A DB 600 would have required a supercharger air intake on the left side of the 109, the Jumo-engined 109 had it on the right or on the top right. Exhaust pipes would be different (larger in diameter, longer proably) although Jumo-engines Bf 109 were sometimes retrofitted with pipes similar to those from the 109E, the oil and water coolers would have had to be enlarged for the more powerful engine. A huge collection of images is available at http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/ --Denniss (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see your words are genuine and correct in terms of Engineering. I checked some web sites which I trust about the BF 109 Adlertag and BF 109 which you mentioned and they support the fact that BF 109D has Jumo 210 engine ; I just wonder how the hill two references I have mentioned otherwise !! may be propaganda as you said or perhaps one of the variant D implemented the DB600 but then the idea abandoned to reverse the production to the BF109/DB601! I agree to leave the BF 109D with Jumo 210 Engine. --Hiens (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that like many other errors and red herrings about Luftwaffe aircraft, the story that the Bf 109D was powered by the DB600 was spread widely because it had crept into William Green's reference works, above all "Warplanes of the Third Reich" of 1970. This is no reflection on Green, whose work is important and valuable, and who corrected his description of the Bf 109D soon enough -- Apparently he did already so in his 1972 detailed study of the Bf 109, "The Augsburg Eagle", which unfortunately I don't have. Hitchcock in his 1973 "O-Nine Gallery" was also convinced by the evidence that the Bf 109D was powered by the Jumo 210. But nevertheless, at least for the next 35 years, authors who did not study the subject in any detail have continued to repeat Green's handy encyclopedia: A useful warning to Wikipedians! Mutatis Mutandis (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mutatis , let us continue improving the article

Production and More photo

I would like to suggest bringing more sources talking about the total number of BF 109 produced before during and after the war.!
" U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Aircraft Division Industry Report" is good but more assessment sources would be better.
- Also we need some additional photo if possible for each variant - perhaps two for the latest models.
--Hiens (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should replace the first photo, that one looks a bit ugly. Loosmark (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For one, I find myself in agreement in Loosmark. The first photo is just horrible.. and a shame since we have those heaps of wonderful Bundesarchiv photos to use! Kurfürst (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What about using some of the pictures from the German version of the article? It has plenty of decent images from commons on there, including ones of many variants. Fallschirmjäger 10:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is OK. as long as from Commons. but I always like real photo ; perhaps I would find some times to extract good quality screen shot from newsreel posted on the national archive.

--Hiens (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

There are two giant problems with this article. Firstly, nearly all of the web-based sources are dead links. Those that are not, are either self-published or only related to periphery elements of the article. These citations must be updated, before this article can pass GA review. Secondly, the section on Variants makes up most of the article, does not follow the criteria for Summary Style , and needs to be made into its own article, with a much reduced summary put in its place. Due to the large amount of work to be done, and the fact that the work needed to be done to make this article worthy of being a Good Article would almost certainly take longer than the On Hold process can give, this article has failed its GA Review. Should the changes I have outlined be put into place, then this article will be worthy of Good Article status, and I would happily review it again myself. --DraconianDebate (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, DD. It seems to be long road ahead. Kurfürst (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that I would have to agree with that assessment, the Bf 109 interests me greatly but it's not easy to find what I'm looking for. I see a split/discuss tag for the variants section that has not been opened yet (how long has that been there?). I really don't see the need for discussion as it is very obvious that a split is needed (to me anyway). The current article is a whopping 132 kb, the variants section takes 80 kb of that (and that does not include the refs). If it were split that would leave the main article with 52 kb. Both the articles that I successfully nominated for FA were almost exactly 60 kb by coincidence. Quite willing to help if this is too painful to do! This article was on my watchlist briefly but I had to take it off due to too much 'wikilove', perhaps I can re-add it? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that it has in fact been split to Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants but the full text and split tag remain? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been daring and ommitted the bulk of the variants section which, as Nimbus has pointed out, now has its own article. The short intro can no doubt be improved but it's a start. Lots of work on the house to catch up on...like painting (*sigh*) Minorhistorian (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, but aren't you a bit too bold in throwing out half the current article to which you contributed next to nada, and then leave the whole section with a grossly underdeveloped, unreferenced draft...? I agree with Nimbus that the variants section grew so much that it needs an new proper article, but currently what we had instead an informative, well referenced and accurate if perhaps too long article is two half assed articles, one that that has a next to useless section, the other which has no proper introduction at all. Opening a sandbox before instead of moving the whole thing and then leaving the whole mess for the rest of us to clear up while you gone painting your house would have been a far more civilized solution, don't you think..? Kurfürst (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I contributed next to nada to the 109 article? Oh really? If Kurfurst wants to delude himself, that's his business. Now, lemme see he's narky because I cut out a section that was copied verbatim to the newly created 109 variants article, while adding a redirect to the existing article plus adding the newly introduced drawings to it as well as making other small changes. Ooops, I didn't do a good enough job with an intro? Interesting then that KF hasn't bothered to add an intro to the Messerschmitt Bf 109 operational history, which he created, nor has he cleaned up a couple of dead cites when he cut and pasted the BofB section to the same article, nor has he bothered to add to the intro to the operational history article. A case of a word starting with h? BTW, I didn't know I needed KFs permission to paint the house, not that I'll ever bother to ask. Happy New Year. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only 'through' contribution you have made to this article was to systematically litter it with about a dozen or two fact&verify tags (several times), in order to de-nominate from its former Good Article stations. I believe this has to do with your irrational hatred towards the aircraft, and you are probably also motivated to wage your little personal feud against a fellow editor. I think you understand, that with your disruptive history with this page, we would happily do without your so-called 'contributions'. Kurfürst (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems the article is making good progress. The two most criticized aspects, the dead links and the undue length of the variants section seem to have been fixed, or at least swept under the carpet and was cut&paste to the new 109 variants article; and with a properly developed shorter summary of the variants I feel the article is now mature enough for another GA review. Thoughts, comments? Kurfürst (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of cited material?

I just noticed this diff [3] and was concerned as we don't normally remove well referenced material from articles. Is it because it portrays the Bf 109 in a different light? I personally like to see balance in articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down how we define 'normally' - some editors and articles appear to be the exception from that rule. Some editors even went great length to add as many fact tags to this article to denominate it from its good article status. I am more concerned about that personally.

As for the Brown-quote was a pilot who's only experience with the Bf 109 was logging an hour of flight into a captured Bf 109G-6/U2 in the second half of 1944. It may be his personal opinion, but I'd very much doubt it is based on any kind of solid historical research on the German decision making during the war. It is also highly doubtful Hitler was in any way connected to the decision, which was most likely decided by Erhard Milch, who de facto ran the RLM and discussed these matters daily in the GL meetings - and who was not exactly a fan of Willy Messerschmitt I might add.

Personally I doubt that a highly subjective opinion of a fighter pilot would add 'balanced view' to an article, when its obviously based on nothing solid about who made the decision and why.. especially not in the lead section. Perhaps it would have some better use in the production section, but I really don't know.. 'over-vaunted' - definietely an opinon. 'Hitler choose it because it lent itself to mass production' - the latter is easily confirmed by the comparative man hours given by the RLM (ie. 109s could be built in about 2/3s time than 190s during the war), but for that Brown is unneccessary; as for the connection with Hitler, as noted it seems fanciful. Last but not least, the sentence as it was was horribly written - 'but' (POVish), then the lenghty listing of Brown's medals to add weight to what is essentially the guesswork of an otherwise very experienced test pilot - but definietely not a historian. Kurfürst (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Eric Brown's credentials or opinion, the fact is that he has recorded his thoughts in a verifiable, reliable source and an editor has added this along with the cite for the source entirely within WP guidelines. The sentence was in quotation marks, so they are presumably Brown's own words. It might be 'horrible' but we are not allowed to correct quotes for spelling or grammar in quotes. I don't care about his opinion either way just the WP established ways of writing articles. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Parking the quote here because there is nowhere to put it in the article, it should not have been in the lead. There is no section on handling or flying qualities which would be the best place for his. But according to Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight, “the 109 was a much over-vaunted aircraft, chosen because Hitler wanted a mass production of fighters and the Bf 109 lends itself to a mass production. ^[1]

^ Thompson with Smith 2008, p. 230.

Perhaps he had more useful stuff to say on the flying on the Bf 109, and this was a bad quote to pick? His qualifications in flying aircraft probably puts in him in a reasonable place to comment on its flying if not its production. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote is not useful—"over-vaunted" (praised too much) is incendiary and inaccurate, and Brown would have to be a scholar to determine this. If Brown is quoted here, it should be about things he experienced directly: the flying characteristics of the fighter. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with production numbers

I refer to the introduction where it's stated -

The Bf 109 was the most produced warplane during World War II, with 30,573 examples built during the war, and the most produced fighter aircraft in history, with a total of 33,984 units produced up to April 1945

- whereas on the IL-2 Sturmovik page intro it states -

In combination with its successor, the Ilyushin Il-10, a total of 36,163 were built, making it the single most produced military aircraft design in all of aviation history

Which one is correct?--Anoctris (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The last Il-10 was built in 1954, most of the Il-10 seem to be built post-WWII. --Denniss (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

E-3 armament - please help

According to other sources, the photo in the Armament section should be a Bf 109E-3. However, when I tried to verify the armament of this sub-type, I found three different combination:

3 MG FF + 2 MG 17
2 MG FF + 2 MG 17
1 MG FF + 4 MG 17

All of them came from various publication, including Warplanes of Luftwaffe, Wings of Fame and German Aircraft of WW II. Anyone could help on this and perhaps some correction is needed for the caption. Thanks.-Cobrachen (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The only scource which has it right is #2 MG FF (wing mounted) + 2 MG 17 (mounted in the forward fuselage, above the engine) for the E-3; the E-4 and E-7 used 2 x the newer MG FF/M and 2 x MG 17, while the E-1 used 4 x MG 17; no Bf 109 from the B through to E series flew operationally with a third engine mounted cannon firing between the cylinder banks and through the propeller hub, although there were probably test aircraft. Books such as: Messerschmitt BF 109 A-E (Radinger and Schick), The Augsberg Eagle (Green) and numerous others, including official 109 E series handbooks, will confirm this. Also read Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants. Experienced editors will tell you if you have conflicting information it is better to ask for help before editing. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and help. I am looking for a base line here: you said the only source which has it right, what is this based on? I did find the same description you mentioned from various books or web pages I searched earlier, how do you compare them and decide this one is correct?. Your help is much appreciated.-71.191.55.92 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A loaded question - how does one evaluate and compare sources? Primary documentation can be the most reliable eg.: Bf 109 manuals, written at the time for the benefit of pilots and ground crew; one specific handbook, for example, describes the operating specification for the armament of the...LDv 229/3, Entwurf einer Bedienungsvorschrift für die starre Schusswaffe, gültig für Bf 109 E-1 mit vier MG 17 und E-3 mit zwei MG 17 und zwei MG-FF, ...Bf 109 E-1 with four (vier) MG 17 and Bf 109 E-3 with two (zwei) MG 17 and two MG-FF. If you compare this with armament handbooks for the Bf 109 F, further down you will see that two Bf 109F books specify "zwei Rumpf-MG 17 und ein Motor-MG-FF/M" two fuselage-MG 17 and one Motor (mounted)-MG-FF/M; if the E-3 had had an engine mounted MG FF this would have been specified in the LDv 229/3 handbook. So, by being able to refer to a primary source document, it is possible to confirm that the E series did not have an engine mounted cannon. Authors who have referred to such primary documents (eg listed in a bibliography, or in a preface) can usually be trusted to be reasonably accurate.

Secondary sources can include combat reports included in books, or accounts written by pilots for books, such as Spitfire vs Bf 109E. Pilots of 109Es may describe switching from the wing cannon to the fuselage mgs to conserve ammunition or because the cannon have run out of ammunition - none of them will talk about using a 'motorkanone'.

Photos of 109E cockpits will also confirm that no motorkanone was carried - the cannon was mounted behind the engine and fired between the cylinder banks of the inverted vee-12 engine; as a consequence any cannon mounted like this would have protruded into the cockpit (which was just behind the engine), between the rudder pedals. The floor of the 109E under the instrument panel and between the pilot's legs was flat; from the F series on a casing was used to cover the motorkanone, and this is conspicuous in cockpit photos. These are just some of the ways that cross-referencing information can be used to decide how accurate a source is. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)