This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
An image used in this article,
File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
This article includes the phrase "glued by Aerolite, a casein adhesive."
But Aerolite is a UF adhesive. Was the Albatross bonded with Aerolite or casein? Either way, something is wrong and needs changing.
Dendrotek 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek ( talk • contribs) ed
I agree with the principal point that neither casein adhesives nor Aerolite are strictly relevant to Tegofilm, but as it stands the text in the section on use in aircraft is erroneous and messy. Would you like me to try and put it right? I know for sure that Mosquito adhesive was deliberately altered at a certain stage. Dendrotek 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article states (16 April 2013) that "Germany attempted to copy this aircraft [i.e. the De Havilland Mosquito, just mentioned in the text] as the Moskito, it used Tego film". The Ta 154 Moskito was a design very different from its British namesake. A statement like this undermines one's confidence in the entire article. Togifex ( talk) 21:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The twin-engine mid-wing formula was quite common, probably because of its soundness and usefulness. But a common basic layout is insufficient to establish a relationship, let alone one that justifies the word “copy”. The DH Mosquito, for instance, was not a copy of the Junkers 88, or the Junkers 88 a copy of the Martin B-10, or the Dornier 17. All these aircraft, and the Ta 154 also, were designed independently from the outset. One who concludes a relationship from a basic arrangement of essential components, and/or from the fact that aircraft may share principal building materials, would see this very quickly when looking at structural details, where they probably had very little, if anything, in common. 31.209.228.110 ( talk) 23:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be an instance of how easy it is to sink into pointless wrangling. And a matter like this - if deeemed worthy of being settled - should rather be settled on the Ta 154 talk page (in the unlikely event that somebody were to assert there that the Ta 154 was a “copy” of the DH Mosquito). The idea to make aircraft out of wood can occur to a person of any nationality. The Ta 154 was not a bomber. Locutus sum. Togifex. Togifex ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andy re the above and it is interesting that Bill Gunston supports it too. Janes WW II Aircraft does as well. I've been looking at it in the Reference Library this afternoon.Dendrotek 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Citing (No. 114) ↑Lutz Budraß: Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918–1945. Droste, Düsseldorf 1998, ISBN 3-7700-1604-1, S. 794. (Lutz Budraß: aircraft and air defense industry in Germany from 1918 to 1945. Droste, Dusseldorf, 1998, ISBN 3-7700-1604-1 , page 794) the German Wikipedia Article says that “Die Gründe für das Scheitern des Projektes waren nicht produktionstechnischer Art, sondern die Folge mangelnder Detailkonstruktion, gepaart mit der Ungeduld der Luftwaffenführung.[114]” (The reasons for the failure of the project were not production-technical, but the result of lack of detailed design, coupled with the impatience of the Air Force leadership.) Having read both the article and other published information about Tego film, plus with my own professional knowledge of timber engineering and adhesives, I feel that this is certainly correct. They needed a process comparable to Redux, which the Allies has, and which the UK applied successfully in the DH Hornet and to post-war civilian aircraft e.g. Fokker types. The German engineers and industrial chemists had the know-how and in normal circumstances would have had the ability, but in the chaos post fall of Stalingrad, it was impossible.
There is a list of crash causes in the German Article and one out of twelve was due to adhesive failure. Tego was being manufactured at the Goldschmidt factory in Ammendorf, which was less badly bombed than Essen and Wuppertal. Even in the war, Tego was also available outside Germany, even in the UK, an article in Flight Archive says so.
So, I’m sorry to say that both of the English Wikipedia Articles – FW Ta 154 and Tego Film, contain misunderstandings and some factual errors, as well as “citations needed” statements. But not many Wikipedians seem to visit these Articles, so perhaps people don
Thanks, Andy, for recent change. Article is getting better. I like the way "Tego is now a generic name" has been handled - like Hoover eh?) But still it needs to stress more that a) Tego was available to Germany from elsewhere besides Glodschmidt Ammendorf by the time of the bombing raids. b) It was not primarily for technical adhesive reasons that the plane failed to meet expectations, but for insistence to protect scarce experienced aircrews by surrounding them with metal (their concept of the issue, not shared by Mosquito crews); Combined with inability to bond metal and wood together (they didn't have Redux - admittedly this IS purely technical), plus general political incompetence and madness. (Might be hard to phrase that in terms acceptable for an actual Article!) - Without the madness though, we might not still be here!-- Dendrotek 11:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
An image used in this article,
File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
This article includes the phrase "glued by Aerolite, a casein adhesive."
But Aerolite is a UF adhesive. Was the Albatross bonded with Aerolite or casein? Either way, something is wrong and needs changing.
Dendrotek 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek ( talk • contribs) ed
I agree with the principal point that neither casein adhesives nor Aerolite are strictly relevant to Tegofilm, but as it stands the text in the section on use in aircraft is erroneous and messy. Would you like me to try and put it right? I know for sure that Mosquito adhesive was deliberately altered at a certain stage. Dendrotek 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The article states (16 April 2013) that "Germany attempted to copy this aircraft [i.e. the De Havilland Mosquito, just mentioned in the text] as the Moskito, it used Tego film". The Ta 154 Moskito was a design very different from its British namesake. A statement like this undermines one's confidence in the entire article. Togifex ( talk) 21:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The twin-engine mid-wing formula was quite common, probably because of its soundness and usefulness. But a common basic layout is insufficient to establish a relationship, let alone one that justifies the word “copy”. The DH Mosquito, for instance, was not a copy of the Junkers 88, or the Junkers 88 a copy of the Martin B-10, or the Dornier 17. All these aircraft, and the Ta 154 also, were designed independently from the outset. One who concludes a relationship from a basic arrangement of essential components, and/or from the fact that aircraft may share principal building materials, would see this very quickly when looking at structural details, where they probably had very little, if anything, in common. 31.209.228.110 ( talk) 23:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be an instance of how easy it is to sink into pointless wrangling. And a matter like this - if deeemed worthy of being settled - should rather be settled on the Ta 154 talk page (in the unlikely event that somebody were to assert there that the Ta 154 was a “copy” of the DH Mosquito). The idea to make aircraft out of wood can occur to a person of any nationality. The Ta 154 was not a bomber. Locutus sum. Togifex. Togifex ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andy re the above and it is interesting that Bill Gunston supports it too. Janes WW II Aircraft does as well. I've been looking at it in the Reference Library this afternoon.Dendrotek 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Citing (No. 114) ↑Lutz Budraß: Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918–1945. Droste, Düsseldorf 1998, ISBN 3-7700-1604-1, S. 794. (Lutz Budraß: aircraft and air defense industry in Germany from 1918 to 1945. Droste, Dusseldorf, 1998, ISBN 3-7700-1604-1 , page 794) the German Wikipedia Article says that “Die Gründe für das Scheitern des Projektes waren nicht produktionstechnischer Art, sondern die Folge mangelnder Detailkonstruktion, gepaart mit der Ungeduld der Luftwaffenführung.[114]” (The reasons for the failure of the project were not production-technical, but the result of lack of detailed design, coupled with the impatience of the Air Force leadership.) Having read both the article and other published information about Tego film, plus with my own professional knowledge of timber engineering and adhesives, I feel that this is certainly correct. They needed a process comparable to Redux, which the Allies has, and which the UK applied successfully in the DH Hornet and to post-war civilian aircraft e.g. Fokker types. The German engineers and industrial chemists had the know-how and in normal circumstances would have had the ability, but in the chaos post fall of Stalingrad, it was impossible.
There is a list of crash causes in the German Article and one out of twelve was due to adhesive failure. Tego was being manufactured at the Goldschmidt factory in Ammendorf, which was less badly bombed than Essen and Wuppertal. Even in the war, Tego was also available outside Germany, even in the UK, an article in Flight Archive says so.
So, I’m sorry to say that both of the English Wikipedia Articles – FW Ta 154 and Tego Film, contain misunderstandings and some factual errors, as well as “citations needed” statements. But not many Wikipedians seem to visit these Articles, so perhaps people don
Thanks, Andy, for recent change. Article is getting better. I like the way "Tego is now a generic name" has been handled - like Hoover eh?) But still it needs to stress more that a) Tego was available to Germany from elsewhere besides Glodschmidt Ammendorf by the time of the bombing raids. b) It was not primarily for technical adhesive reasons that the plane failed to meet expectations, but for insistence to protect scarce experienced aircrews by surrounding them with metal (their concept of the issue, not shared by Mosquito crews); Combined with inability to bond metal and wood together (they didn't have Redux - admittedly this IS purely technical), plus general political incompetence and madness. (Might be hard to phrase that in terms acceptable for an actual Article!) - Without the madness though, we might not still be here!-- Dendrotek 11:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)