Talk:Dornier Do 17/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
* During the tests, the single fin proved to be only marginally stable, resulting in the V1 being modified with a twin tail, being destroyed in a crash after an engine failure on 21 December, 1935. does the second "being" need to be there? Shouldn't it be replaced with an "and" to link the two clauses? * This is misleading based on the statement a paragraph earlier about the V3 being built with a twin-fin: This differed from the V3 in that the passenger portholes were removed and the single fin was replaced with two smaller ones. Spell out more clearly that the V1, V2 and V3 were initially built with a single fin. * The whole bit about the cover story is unclear. See if you can sort it out better; perhaps a simple statement about its provenance would suffice, I dunno. Keep in mind that Hitler didn't renounce the Versailles Treaty until sometime in '35. * The tests of the "twin—tailed" V4, V6 and V7 prototypes were positive and more prototypes like the V8 emerged as the forerunner of the long—range reconnaissance version, while the V9 was tested as a high-speed airliner. The machine was still flying in 1944. Which machine, the V9? * What kind of MGs? MG 15, MG 17, what? Provide a link if one is available. What was their caliber in English units of measurements? You might as well provide any missing conversions now. * Clean this up: The Autopilot-heading device was installed to maintain the heading only. Under the control of the Siemens K4Ü device, the aircraft could be directed using the rudders. * Did you know that you can shorten all named references like so: to ? Although personally I just use a simple g5 or something similar to name the reference, simpler that way.

• Please do a copy-edit; I've seen a number of minor typos and grammatical errors. Gotta run, more later. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

: I think I have corrected the major issues. Do I have to shorten the refs? Is this a requirement? Dapi89 (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. I just wasn't sure if you knew about it, that's all. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Conversions are needed for the range figures and the bomb weights in the basic design section. And 50 kgs doesn't equal 1100 lbs. Convert all of your range figures. However, once you've done on conversion you needn't do any others of that exact number.

* Watch your hyphens and dashes. See WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN for the proper usage. While not strictly necessary at this level, they'll matter a lot if you want to try for A-class.

• I cleaned-up the sentences about the autopilot and added the conversion for the machine gun caliber for you since it was easier to do than to walk you through it.
• I don't understand this: The introduction of the Bramo 323 was made for mass production purposes.
  • The replacement isn't much better The introduction of the Bramo 323 into ensured all future models would be equipped with this engine.

* No production fighter was fitted with the DB 600, all shortages were because of production difficulties. * The Do 17M could carry a bomb load of either 20 SC 50lb or two SC250lb bombs or 10 SC50lb and a single SC250lb bomb. SC bomb sizes were given in kg, not lbs. * You are citing too often. Only one cite per paragraph is necessary if you're using the same source throughout unless making a controversial statement or quoting something. * This needs to move later in the section: Due to a shortage of night fighters, at least one Do 17 P-1 was assigned to this role. A smooth metal sheet was installed in place of its glass nose and it was armed with three 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons. The machine operated under Luftflotte 1.[34 * Add a conversion from liters to gallons in the Z-6 section. * These sentences in the Z section are redundant with the S and U section. Delete or combine them: The type was modified as a result of combat experience during the Spanish Civil War. The forward fuselage was redesigned, with the cockpit area being "dropped", or extended further to enable a rear firing gunner position to be installed, and the canopy extended aft, until it was nearly parallel with the leading edge and wing root. To test the design, the Do 17S and Do 17U were produced, both to be powered by the DB 600 power plants. However, a call for all DB 600 series engines to be reserved for fighters led to the variants being fitted with Bramo Fafnir 323 A radial engines. The bomb load was increased to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) and a fourth crew member was added. It proved to be underpowered, so Bramo 323 P engines were then fitted. Only three Do 17S and 15 Do 17Us were built.

• These two sentences are redundant, combine them or delete one or the other: After bomber production ended in 1940, the Z model was modified with a "solid" nose from the Ju 88C, fitted with one 20 mm MG FF cannon and three 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns, to be used as night fighters. The main difference to the bomber variant was the replacement of the nose glazing with a solid nose with three 7.92 mm MG 17 with 3,000 rounds and a single 20 mm MG 151 cannon and 400 rounds of ammunition (although some Do 17Z bombers carried a single 20 mm for ground attack missions).

* Move the link to the MG FF cannon to the earliest mention in the Z section * Combine these two sentences: The Dornier Do 215B was later built in small numbers at Oberpfaffenhofen. Some 105 examples were built. * Provide links to those Kampfgeschwader that have articles when they're first mentioned. * You say: The Do 17 saw its usefulness diminish during the French campaign, but don't really explain why. The very next sentence says how the crews liked it. * This doesn't make sense as written. The bomber didn't get slower, the British and French fighters were faster than the Polish ones. It also fought with success during the Battle of France and losses were relatively light, although when facing modern fighters like the Hawker Hurricane, the bomber proved slower and more vulnerable. * Goss is correct both times as quoted. He wrote 4., 5. and 9./KG 2. 9./KG 2 means 9th Staffel since Staffel numbers were always written in Arabic numbers and Gruppen numbers were always in Roman numbers as you already know. So delete your notes. * Do you mean Kampfgruppen or Kampfgeschwader here?: Included in its strength were KG 2 and KG 3, the only Kampfgruppe in a force of seven equipped with the Do 17.

• You really need to clarify this by mentioning earlier that Do 17s were assigned as glider tugs when phased out as a bomber. During October 1943, the Do 17s of Luftlandegeschwader 1 helped resupply, and partially evacuate the German 17th Army from the Kuban. Some Do 17s were still being used by Schleppgruppen 1 and 2 ("Glider towing unit 1 and 2") in early 1945.
• Is this redundant with the variants section? This should be limited to operational information, not aircraft details. There were only two versions of the Do 17 night fighter, the Z-7 Kauz (Screech Owl), and Z-10 Kauz II. The glazed nose was removed and replaced with a solid nose containing three 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns and one 20 mm MG FF cannon. This proved ineffective. The armament was upgraded, and the crew could reload the 20 mm cannon internally. The Z-10 contained an IR searchlight (Spanner-Anlage) for the Spanner infrared detection system. A single Kauz II was equipped with and tested the Lichtenstein airborne radar.

* You're quite right to mention this, but you might want to add that this serial number doesn't match the RAF format. According to other sources 23 Yugoslavian Dorniers survived the April battles, and the RAF received a third machine which was given the serial 3363. * Did the Croat Air Force use the Do 17 against the partisans? How many did it get? How many did the Bulgarians get? These need to be added to the summary listings as well. Fixed most things. Some issues are technically incorrect. * The DB 600 was in operation on production variant Bf 109s.

* I know that 50 kg does not equal 1,100 lb, the text clearly said ten 50 kg.

• Roman numerals are sometime mixed up with numbers in English sources (incorrectly). The note I feel is needed to prevent confusion.

* The operational histories (Bulgaria and Croatia) are not complete. I have no information on partisan casualties. If I did I would gladly add them.

• I have reworded the NF section slightly. They are operational issues which were corrected in the field. Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

**No, it wasn't. The Bf 109 D had a Jumo 210. Only a couple of the prototype Bf 109 Es might have had DB 600s.

• • No, I meant how many Do 17s did the Croats receive? For the Bulgarians you might summarize the discussion that you've been having on the discussion page with comments that sources differ widely and present the case for both sets of numbers.
  • That would be fine except that Goss provided the designations properly so you have no reason to comment as if he did make a mistake.

I have pulled your comments out of mine to make the page easier to follow.

• Sorry, this is not right. DB 600s were used in the D series - the D-1 production variant used a DB 600Aa - so the statement is incorrect.
• I'm waiting for him to come back to me. I can't move that along any faster. But it is no major issue, and I don't think it is something that will effect GA? I'll have a look for Croat figures, but I am sure I don't have any reliable source.
  • It's a nice to have, not essential
• It is probably better if the note explains common mistakes? Dapi89 (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If Goss had made the mistake, then explaining it would be appropriate. Since he didn't, it's not appropriate here. Save it for an article on the Luftwaffe in general.

Its probably best to avoid relying on the Bf 109 article for information. I've correct the Fesit citation in relation to D powerplants. It had been messed up. D-1s did have 600s. Dapi89 (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your source for this allegation? Green is incorrect and the surviving Swiss D doesn't have one. Look at the cowlings of the C and D, they're identical. Something not at all true for the E. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your loss numbers for the Battle of Britian don't add up. The article states monthly losses of Do-17 as 70 (50 lost + 20 written off as unservicable) for August 1940, 50 for September 1940, October showed 36 more lost for a totla of 156 and yet two paragraphs later it says that their were only 132 Do-17s were destroyed. Which is the correct figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xatsmann (talk • contribs) 17:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Its from Feists The Fighting Me 109, p. 151. I'm not going to make a big deal of it, especially not on the Do 17 page!

I've taken out the website now - so there is no clash with Goss' figures. Dapi89 (talk) 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - any chance the typo in this image can be fixed? It should be "casing", not "caseing". Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it can. If not it will have to be removed. I'll ask the uploader. Dapi89 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No word from the uploader, so I'll delete the image. Dapi89 (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Check the uploader's talk page he said he'll fix it when he has time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It can be added back when its fixed. At the moment it is a threat to the GA review. Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Typo fixed, uploaded, reinstated (Was traveling at time). Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the images require the alt= paramter now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that for A-class and above?

• Correction Intro section (top), the Do-17 was NOT designed to specifically use a Radial engine, it just happened that way. The Do-17 (and its sister Do-217) frequently used V-12 or Radial depending on which was available (usually RLM dictates). --Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Latest comments

• I've struck through everything that needs to be fixed so deal with these remaining issues and we'll be done.
• Sometimes you italicize both the unit name and number and sometimes you don't. Decide which one you want and be consistent. Don't forget that this includes units are are only shown as a number when you're mentioning multiple units.
• I've reconsidered and you do need to at least approximate deliveries to Bulgaria and Croatia. Since figures are disputed for Bulgaria go with what you can cite and mention that sources disagree. If you don't have sources I'll do it just to get this puppy put to bed. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done the Croatian stuff, but I don't have good sources for the Bulgarian figures. I am waiting for the IP to direct me to page numbers for his Bulgarian figures (the conversation is on my talk page). Dapi89 (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) :You still need to clarify the use as a glider tug in the main body as shown above.

I missed this earlier: what's a BZA-2 aperture? Some kind of sight?

There are still missing conversions for weight and and range in the main Do 17Z section.

Fix these and we'll be done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorted. The GT duties are mentioned in the lead and info box. I'm not sure where else I can squeeze it in that would make sense. Dapi89 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed, where's the reference for Griehl (2005)? The only title you list is from 1991. I'm going to have to put it on hold until that's added. That will give you more time to get the Bulgarian data corrected.

I've added in a section on glider tug usage. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Finishing the review

User:Sturmvogel has gone on leave from wikipedia for three weeks and given the article is now finished and his latest comments addressed, I am hoping someone will complete the review. It seems unnecessary to wait three week to conclude formalities. Dapi89 (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added the material that I have on the Bulgarians and Croats. Check the page references to Ciglic as I have to break things up a bit. Make any necessary changes and then we'll be done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)