This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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:
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 equipment Dapi89 ( talk) 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
for sure existed as conversion. -- Denniss ( talk) 17:02, 1 January 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)
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)
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)
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm in the process of listing additional books related to the Bf 109 and hence added to the article the Further reading section. I've used a template that took from another aviation wikiarticle, but the ISBN is not showing and I can't find out why. In addition, I don't know how to add the ISBN-13 to each book's information (and couldn't find online some details required, eg: location of the publisher for the "Osprey" series). Can anyone please help?
Thanks & regards,
DPdH (
talk)
08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think the template is a bit too cumbersome, so I have replaced with a normal list, as per the bibliography. The ISBN's have been added (I have most of the Osprey's). If you look here, you can type in a ISBN or title and get the ISBN-13. Dapi89 ( talk) 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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...
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This should be reassessed. It has over 20 fact and verification tags. Dapi89 ( talk) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
What is not permitted or was disabled
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
--
Crew 1
Powerplant 746KW
Engine DB600Aa 12-cylinder Inverted V
Maximum Speed 520 km/hr (323 mph)
Range 650 km (450 mils)
Dimensions
Span:9.87m Length:8.64m Height:2.28m
Armament 2 x 20 mm (.3 in) Rheinmetal-Borsing MG17 above engine
--
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)
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)
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)
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)
--
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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:
..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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks Mutatis , let us continue improving the article
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
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:
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 equipment Dapi89 ( talk) 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
for sure existed as conversion. -- Denniss ( talk) 17:02, 1 January 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)
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)
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)
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 :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 21:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm in the process of listing additional books related to the Bf 109 and hence added to the article the Further reading section. I've used a template that took from another aviation wikiarticle, but the ISBN is not showing and I can't find out why. In addition, I don't know how to add the ISBN-13 to each book's information (and couldn't find online some details required, eg: location of the publisher for the "Osprey" series). Can anyone please help?
Thanks & regards,
DPdH (
talk)
08:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I think the template is a bit too cumbersome, so I have replaced with a normal list, as per the bibliography. The ISBN's have been added (I have most of the Osprey's). If you look here, you can type in a ISBN or title and get the ISBN-13. Dapi89 ( talk) 14:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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...
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This should be reassessed. It has over 20 fact and verification tags. Dapi89 ( talk) 01:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
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)
What is not permitted or was disabled
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
--
Crew 1
Powerplant 746KW
Engine DB600Aa 12-cylinder Inverted V
Maximum Speed 520 km/hr (323 mph)
Range 650 km (450 mils)
Dimensions
Span:9.87m Length:8.64m Height:2.28m
Armament 2 x 20 mm (.3 in) Rheinmetal-Borsing MG17 above engine
--
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)
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)
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)
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)
--
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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:
..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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks Mutatis , let us continue improving the article
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |