Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smoon126.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

PS power ratings

There seem to be a lot of PS power output ratings in the article. Are these supposed to be hp ratings, or actual PS ratings? Either way, aren't such ratings uspposed to include conversions to hp and kW? - BilCat (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair point, the conversion template supports it but inputting PS gives this output: 2,000-metric-horsepower (1,500 kW), no mention of PS and also no conversion into horsepower. I have seen some German engine articles with PS ratings and the resident editors will stick by using PS quite strongly. We could say that this is the english wikipedia so a German unit should not be used but I suspect that the reference source provides them, strictly it would be original research to apply a conversion as the primary unit. There is a small guideline on engine units at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/page content#Units and I think that there might be a similar one for the aircraft somewhere. I suppose that it does make comparisons difficult between German and other nationality aircraft as we don't use PS as a conversion (usually just horsepower or kilowatts I think). If it is a problem we could take it to WT:AIR and see if there is a way round it. Out of interest I checked what a couple of my references use, Gunston uses horsepower with no conversion for DB engines as does a contemporary (WWII) Jane's reference, noting that this book gives boost pressures in unconverted 'ata' or Atmosphere (unit)!! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

On looking at this article there is quite a problem with consistency of units, we have horsepower converted to kilowatts (should be the other way round), kilowatts converted to horsepower (the correct way), unconverted PS figures and in the specs table PS converted to both horsepower and kilowatts. Many of the references appear to be english language publications and I would think that PS was not used as the primary unit, I don't have the books to check this. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Please always use PS as the primary value as this was the value used by the original owners/designers or use the convert template to additionally show hp and/or kW values. A lot of sources mixed PS ratings 1:1 with hp and then incorrectly transferred them into kW, this applies to many english sources and foreign engines with a PS rating (not using the imperial horsepower, AFAIR french, italian, soviet engines are also affected) . --Denniss (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. PS is metric counterpart to imperial hp and kW accommodate itself in specifications pretty recently, if we could consider ~30yrs as recent. To ease the job to ourselves, we should follow MoS and use primary units (nominal), and that's PS to all countries using non-imperial units, in case products coming from above stated countries + Czechoslovakia, Netherlands, Sweden etc. And convert it thru {{convinfobox}} to kW and hp respectively. And optionally it's good to use |lk=in inside convinfobox, to link PS to its meaning, even for us aware of old and obscure units like this one, yet uncommon in everyday life. (btw. which Unit system was used in Japan, China before 1950s?)Aikenware (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement regarding NS rise to power is incorrect

The page says, "Two months after the newly elected National Socialist (Nazi) government were sworn to power on the 30 January 1933, the RLM published the tactical requirements for a single-seat fighter in the document L.A. 1432/33."

They did not get elected to power. Hindenberg appointed Hitler as Chancellor on January 30, 1933. 98.116.24.137 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately after the elections the Nazis were by far the biggest party in the new German Parliament so they were elected into power by popular vote (although their vote was declining); Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was as a result of political machinations which should not even attempt to be described in an article on the Bf 109. Personally I think it would be better to simply state that "in late March 1933 the RLM..." without needing to mention the Nazis at all; anyone who knows history knows that this was 2 months after they came to power. After all I don't see many other aircraft articles which state "X months after the Democrats/ Liberals/The Screaming Lord Sutch Party came into power..."Minorhistorian (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's true that the Nazi Party's high-water mark in free elections was 37.4 percent (in July 1932), and that Hitler was never "elected to power." He was appointed by age-addled von Hindenburg at the urging of various right-wing string-pullers.

However, I think it's relevant to mention that the RLM (hitherto officially a civil aviation bureaucracy) issued the fighter specification that resulted in the Bf 109 a bare two months after Hitler became chancellor. Evidently, this was an early indication that he intended all along to abrogate the Versailles Treaty's limitations on German armament, including the prohibition on an air force.

Sca (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding saying "Hitler was elected" in favor of the truth that the Germans failed to elect opponents of the Nazis is making a distinction without a difference. Hitler became Chairman of the Nazi party in 1921 and had been in that post for over ten years when the Nazis were elected to preeminence in the Reichstag in 1932; he was made Chancellor of Germany i.e. der Führer of all Germany in 1933 because he demanded the post and bestowed the title on himself at that time; he was effectively Germany's dictator from that point until his suicide in the Berlin bunker in 1945. It is therefore entirely accurate to say "The Germans elected Hitler to power", for they elected the Nazis to power in the Reichstag and he was the very prominent leader of the Nazis. BLZebubba (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis gained power more or less by default, as the refusal of the numerous centre and liberal political parties - none of which could hope to gain enough votes to win on its own - to recognise the danger and combine to create a single coalition centre party, and hence prevent the splitting of centre-left votes, left the German people with the effective choice of voting for the right-wing Hitler or the left-wing Communists. They chose what they thought was the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, they were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Me 109

I believe that the opening paragraph in the lede should make mention of the common name of Me109. There is even a redirect from the page Me 109 and plenty of references to back it up as here. Bjmullan (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is entitled Messerschmitt Bf 109 and has an entire section Bf 109 devoted to BF v Me. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But that largish section is not summarised in the lead which is perhaps what the commenter is indicating? It's a fair point, I call them 'Me 109s' even though it is 'wrong'!! No problem with the article title. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Added to lede. Bjmullan (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

REPLY IN SUPPORT The name Messerschmitt 109 is a misnomer. Prof. Willi Messerschmidt had no factory of his own when this was designed by him and Robert Lusser. They worked for the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, and the appellation was Bf109, never Me109. Later, Prof. Messerschmitt had his own company, so Me110, Me310, Me262 and Me163 are correct for these aircraft. The article should clear this up. Historygypsy (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

... but this article itself says that the Germans used the (supposedly) erroneous Me 109 on their own documents. Furthermore, it is wikipedia policy to use the name that was au courant in English at the time, and I'm guessing that at the time, Americans and English called it the Me 109. Try googling Me 109 vs Bf 109 today on the internet and you will see that Me 109 belongs in the lede, not to mention as the title. 71.190.65.235 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My goodness. The start of the article says the plane "often called Me 109 (most often by Allied pilots and aircrew)...". Really? The RLM had to issue edicts TWICE demanding that official reports NOT use the term anymore or risk not being accepted and they were unsuccessful. Willi himself always referred to the type as the Me109 (for obvious reasons). I find it interesting that this debate is still going on. WEll ... I was just passing through ... 50.131.79.211 (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Most Allied pilots would have called it the Me 109 however places such as the RAE would likely have known the correct designation simply because they would have received information from the aircraft data plates recovered from crashed aircraft, which would have included the 'Bf' designation. 'Me 109' was just informal RAF and later USAAC/USAAF shorthand for the correct term, same as the Luftwaffe was usually referred-to in Allied air force documents as the 'GAF' - German Air Force.

1939 Flight article on German aircraft including both the 'Bf 109' and 'Me 109' terms here: [1]

The 'correct' usage of these and similar such information were niceties that only became widely known to the Allies after 1945. All of these aircraft were 'secret' at the time, as were most Allied combat aircraft. So some information widely distributed among the Allies (and on the other side too) was wrong. The above-linked Flight article may well have errors in it - it was published in 1939 and the Germans weren't giving data away about their most secret aircraft, just as the RAF and Armée de l'Air wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.177 (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are reports from the factory and field units using the Me109 designation. This is exclusively on the German side, those who "should have known better". http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/bf-me/bf-me.htm JetMec (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Messerschmitt tried to have the type's manufacturer prefix changed to Me but that was denied by RLM. Thus use of Bf stayed the official prefix. What Mtt used in internal docs or for foreign sales is not relevant in this case. Even the units seem to be somewhat confused about official designation and sometimes used "Me" as short form of the manufacturer. --Denniss (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternate manufacturer designations are just as valid as officially assigned government designations, they just aren't official to the government. In fact, if "Me 109" were used more in reliable sources, then per WP:COMMONNAME, that should be the articles title, as WP doesn't give priority to official titles. As far as I can tell, Bf 109 is the commonly used designation. Even so, it's wrong to call "Me 109" incorrect, so I've changed that to unofficial in the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Both the Bf prefix and the 109 type number were assigned by the RLM so there is only one valid designation and that's Bf 109 (Mtt-original/internal designation not known). Mtt was not permitted to fiddle with the designation for official use, RLM saw obviously no need to extend this control over internal use. --Denniss (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

From a totalitarian government's point of view, you are of course correct. But that doesn't invalidate company usage either, even if it was "illegal" to call it anything else. And my point on common name stands. After all, even our article on Deutsches Reich is not at that title, but at Nazi Germany. So if Me 109 were the more common usage, that would be the WP article's correct title. - BilCat (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is revisionist history to say "sometimes incorrectly called the Me 109" (which is how I found the lede today). If people called the aircraft the "Squid 109" (or whatever) then the article needs to reflect accurate history.

The lede now says "sometimes called the Me 109 (most often by Allied pilots and aircrew, even though this was not the accurate German designation)".

My own opinion is that this statement should be strengthened further to communicate that the reality was that this was more than sometimes. A lot more. My effort here is hopefully seen to be a step in the right direction where we'll end up with an article that accurately reflects the story of the aircraft's official designation along with what people called it. [NOTE: Wording in lede now strengthened in latest edit (see below).]--Lexi sioz (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from that same Oct 5, 1939 Flight article (posted above):

"The Messerschmitt Me 109 was designed by Professor Willy Messerschmitt and is built by the B.F.W. concern (Bayerische Flugzeugwerke A.G.) which explains why the type is sometimes called the Bf 109." (emphasis added)

This is perhaps the most solid reference to show my earlier point that our Wiki article was communicating revisionist history. This vintage magazine is saying the exact opposite. The common designation, at least on the west side of the Atlantic, was Me 109.

In light of this 1939 quote, the lede has now been strengthed, as I had said was needed (above).--Lexi sioz (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Argument for switching the title to 'Me-109'

I just found this detailed explanation in the excellent book The Blond Knight of Germany: A biography of Erich Hartmann, by Raymond Toliver and Trevor Constable (1970). From the Glossary (p316):

"Me-109:  Officially known as the Bf-109, Germany's most famous single-engined fighter.  Originally designed by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke A.G. at Augsburg.  Called Me-109 in this book because it is so known by most Americans and is so referred to by virtually all German aces.  The term Bf-109, while historically correct, is relatively unknown in the United States."  [click "Look inside" to access this page on the amazon.com link above]

One confirmation of this assertion that German aces called their ride the Me-109 is The First and The Last, by Adolf Galland (1954). Click "Look inside" and you can see at least 8 times when the text is written in the first person and the aircraft is referred to as the "ME-109". Taken together, this presents a strong argument that the title of our article should be switched to 'Me-109' ...and then give some words about how the official name is 'Bf-109'.--Lexi sioz (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also:

Here is another article impacted by this discussion: Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s

I've made a note over on its Talk page.--Lexi sioz (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess it would help to be thorough. Yikes!--Lexi sioz (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. There are sufficient redirects from other name variants to this article.--Denniss (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal is that Messerschmitt Me-109 be the primary title for this article. I'm not seeing anyone suggest expanding on the quantity of redirects, just a shift to what the plane was called by some of the most important people involved with it. The revisionist history that this effort would help to correct is the currently prevalent attitude along the lines of "well the official designation of the aircraft is Bf, not Me, so let's erase the references to 'Me-109' and change them to say 'Bf'." It is not the most accurate reflection of history.--Lexi sioz (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

No again, common name is already covered by redirects. You can't change the fact that this aircraft was named Bf 109 - what other called/named the 109 is irrelevant for the page title as it's rather a slang or nickname. --Denniss (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Original RLM designations denoted the manufacturing company, however in the mid-war period this policy changed to denote the designer which is why Focke-Wulf's later designs, e.g., Focke-Wulf Ta 152, had the 'Ta' designation rather then the 'Fw' one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.132 (talk) 09:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Kermit Weeks unboxing some wreckage of a 1944 Bf 109G-6 and the maker's data plate says 'Bf' here: [2]

Max. speed discrepancy

"The fighter needed to have a top speed of 400 km/h (250 mph) at 6,000 m ..." while at Specifications (Bf 109 G-6) "Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) (at 6,300 m (20,670 ft))". I understand that this is version with Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1 liquid-cooled inverted V12 engine (1475 PS) instead Junkers Jumo 210 engine of about 522 kW (700 hp)^{(? are thes hp for real or yet again PS)} but still shouldn't Specifications or {{Aircraft specifications}} provide better insight on all models not just specific series? Some notes should be provided at the end stating that this aint specs for all models for those just lurking into specs w/o reading the whole article. It would be good that {{Aircraft specifications}} optionally offers to have table layout or plain layout as most of planes are produced with numerous variants. Also it would be good if there could be added |YEAR OF PROTOTYPE=, |YEAR OF FIRST SERVICE=, |YEAR OF RETIREMENT= options ...

And on Retirement section "1965, Spanish Air Force", how reliable is this because there's sources claiming that it went into retirement only in 1977, year-and-half after F.Franco was deceased.Aikenware (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardly confusing, if one reads the text properly; the specifications, framed in 1934, called for a fighter capable of achieving 250 mph; the original B, C and D series with Jumo 210 engines could achieve over 280mph. The 109G-6 series, built from 1942, was the most produced variant of the Bf 109 series and is one of the most representative verisons. It had a much more powerful DB 605 and a refined airframe so was capable of 398 mph. To add specifications for all models would be extremely complicated, lengthy and confusing and would debase the value of the article which is a general history of the Bf 109; you will find more specs in the

Main article: Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants

which details each variant. As for |YEAR OF PROTOTYPE=, |YEAR OF FIRST SERVICE=, |YEAR OF RETIREMENT= options ...? Take a look at the box to the right of the introduction, which does show the information. The issue of PS v Hp is confusing and needs to be sorted. Minorhistorian (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannon

I've always wondered how they managed to engineer a 20 mm cannon mounted on or as this entry says behind the engine, firing through the propellor hub. Must have been pretty complex mechanically. Also, one would think engine heat would cause problems with the cannon mechanism or barrel overheating. I've never seen anything in writing on these questions. Sca (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

See e.g. here. As the engine is inverted V12, the cannon barrel and a protective flame tube is located between the cylinder banks. At the front of engine, the crankshaft runs a reduction gear which turns the hollow propeller hub axle. The cannon barrel is shorter than engine + hub, especially with MK108 i.e. the protruding tube on propeller hub is the end of the flame tube. Shooting through the hub dispenses with propeller synchronization. The location is desirable at the longitudinal axis, compared to wing mounting, as it improves roll rate (mass nearer to axis). Furthermore, with a single larger-calibre hub cannon there's no need to consider divergence distance of several small-calibre weapons. (From Anthony G Williams site).

Inverted aircraft engine designs were used with the primary advantage of placing high maintenance items (sparking plugs and valve lash setting) closer to the ground to allow quick maintenance work without ladders. "Tail dragger" aircraft engines are substantially further from the tarmac, at rest, than are similar nose-gear equipped planes. It was thus easier for multiple mechanics to work on the "top" of the engine simultaneously, as it was now on the bottom. With the (center of propeller) cannon was "in the V" of the inverted engine, maintenance or quick removal/replacement could be done from below, as well. The lubricating oil sump was near the cannon, facilitating cooling of the weapon. (more on this engine/cannon design layout should be in the main narrative) 72.198.101.30 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sehr interessant. Thanks -- but I'm still wondering if heat was a problem.

Sca (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't find data quickly heat problems but recoil was a major factor with larger calibres. Operationally, a hub or nose cannon was used in Dewoitine D.520, Morane-Saulnier M.S.406 (with Hispano-Suiza HS.404, Yakovlev Yak-3/Yakovlev Yak-7/Yakovlev Yak-9 series and Bell P-39 Airacobra. The NS-37 used in Yaks, a short-recoil 37mm cannon, produced such a violent recoil that initial installation mounted on the engine itself produced a cracked engine block (Again, Anthony's good site). The NS-45 in Yak-9K just made things worse - see the Yakovlev Yak-9 article. Bf-109 with MK-108 probably was saved of the worst side effects due to the relatively slow muzzle speed.

For the really scary stuff on recoil effects check GSh-6-30 story at Anthony's site.

Btw, hub-mounted gun was tried in WWI with SPAD S.XII - a 37mm manually loaded one. Cheers, Rayshade (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The motorkanone wasn't actually perfected until the 109F got into service in late 1940, something the article doesn't mention. Although the E series were supposed to have motorkanone there were so many difficulties encountered (mainly the stress set up during firing which affected the engine's crankshaft) none ever got into operational service. Minorhistorian (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the 109B, C and D variants had a Motorkannone (some had MG 17 while others had MG FFs)

Hardtofindausername (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

No, they hadn't. They experimented with MG 17 in 109A-C and MG FF in 109C-E but it never worked reliably so they were removed or not installed at all. --Denniss (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, when during the Battle of Britain shot down Bf 109Es were examined by the RAE it was noted that whilst the engine and spinner had the facility for an engine-mounted cannon, it was never found installed in any of the aircraft examined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Most produced warplane?

The intro section has a part that says "the Bf 109 was the most produced warplane during World War II", but a look over here says that the Ilyushin Il-2 is the most produced combat aircraft. Someone want to verify this and maybe change it? —Masterblooregard (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is the list itself mostly lacks properly verified sources and, of course, cannot be used: however, the statement itself seems to be based on a US bombing survey which didn't survey Soviet aircraft production, nor does it make this specific claim, so the statement quoted by Masterblooregard needs verification as to its accuracy.◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 22:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this 36,000 figure really just the Il-2 or does it include the Il-10 as well ? If it's just the Il-2 then change the statement to most produced fighter aircraft in WWII. --Denniss (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

. Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War vol 2 says production of the IL2 reached "more than 35,952" (p. 43) and production of the IL10 reached 4,540 with production ending in 1948 (p. 57) so, unless someone can prove otherwise "Most produced warplane" is inaccurate.◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the true answer is we can't use other Wikipedia articles as a reference, it's a very easy trap to get snared in. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the most produced aircraft of WW II were (in order); the IL-2, the Bf 109, and the Supermarine Spitfire/Seafire.

Performance and specs seem a bit optomistic to be true.

Perhaps taken from a Messerschmitt sales manual? Wiki Adolph Galland: During the Battle of Britain, in a front line General Officer briefing on Luftwaffe tactics, Göring asked what his pilots needed to win the battle. Werner Mölders replied that he would like the Bf 109 to be fitted with more powerful engines. Galland replied: "I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron." which left Göring speechless with rage.[54] Other Bf-109 pilots. Data on other web pages. Gun camera footage that belies 109 superiority. Admittedly the lack of real life performance of the 109 may be from German lack high octane fuel. Shjacks45 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a very vague and off the cuff statement. He outlined in interviews that his comment to Galland was out of frustration and that although he believed the Spitfire to be a better defensive fighter than the Bf 109E, he still preferred the Bf 109 for its other advantages such as superior rate of climb, acceleration and armament and marginally faster top speed (RAF specifications were not as stringent as in the Luftwaffe and varied considerably for which there are many Royal Aeronautical Establishment (RAE) reports). For the inexperienced British pilots, having a tighter turn radius as an escape maneuver proved very useful in combat and a key escape route when engaging and disengaging enemy formations which contained German fighters. - Aurora Stealth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.143.105 (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

huh?

According to this article, one of the innovative features of this aircraft was "a closed canopy" - it is strongly suspected that all aircraft with canopies are designed to operate with them closed. Perhaps a fully enclosed cockpit (with the canopy providing that enclosure) is what is meant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.13 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How about some of the 109's drawbacks?

For instance, how well armored was the pilot in this aircraft? I knowit was superior in many ways to say the Hawker Hurricane, but the Hurricane could out-turn the 109 in a dive, causing the destruction of many 109's, or at least the escape of many Hurricane pilots/plane. Seems like Allied aircraft always are described with strength's along with their weakness, while most WP articles seemto only point out strengthson Axis equipment. Perhaps German pilots did not talk much outside their closed group about weaknesses of the Luftwaffe planes, so not much history exists except in an instance about the Hurricane described above where Hurricane pilots commented often about out-turning the enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.163.66 (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, the perceived main drawbacks of the Bf 109 were: No rudder trimmer that meant that the pilot's footload was high during a dive, as he had to keep increasing pressure on the corresponding rudder pedal as the speed increased. Automatic leading-edge slats that opened asymmetrically during tight turns throwing the pilot off his aim. Stiffening of controls in high speed dives, such that some became almost immovable - ailerons, IIRC. No crash pylon should the aircraft overturn on take-off or landing, meaning the pilot could be either trapped inside or injured - the height of the fin was short such that it did not keep the cockpit away from the ground if the aircraft turned over. Poor visibility from the cockpit, particularly to the rear, due to heavy canopy framing. Narrow undercarriage that made taxiing tricky in high winds, and the geometry of-which made it possible for the propeller to strike the ground if the throttle was opened too harshly - the latter also applied to the Griffon-engined Spitfires.

These drawbacks were relative, and in many cases would not have been noticeable (or important) to pilots used to the aeroplane, the main thing they would have been interested in was that the aircraft had the handling and performance to keep them alive against the opposition. The Bf 109 did, and like the Spitfire, through development it was still a first rate front line fighter when the war ended in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, on the slats, not only did uneven opening cause some adjustment to be made, sometimes they buffeted the plane when opening so a lot of beginners got scared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino6626 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Other variants

I think it would be a good idea to expand the specifications section to include another major variant (e.g. 109E(-4)s, 109Fs) Hardtofindausername (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is done, it would be better to be done in a sub-article like done for the Spitfire to avoid overwhelming he main article - see Supermarine Spitfire variants: specifications, performance and armament. Of course, all such specifications would have to be properly sourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A sub-article would not be a bad idea, as a rule we dont normally detail more than one variant in the specification section on the main type article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bf 110 seems to have two sections for specifications (C-4 and G-2 variant). Is it not possible to replicate that for this page?

Hardtofindausername (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Each aircraft type article should only have one set of specifications, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bf 109 was produced over a very long time, it wouldn't be wrong to have stats for the most produced early and late versions as there was a considerable performance delta between them. --21:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Can be done to death at Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants as it is not an aircraft type article. The reason for only one set of specs in the main article is to keep it encyclopaedic, following WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Point 3). Without this guideline we could have multiple specs sections in aircraft articles (24 in the case of the Spitfire), there has to be some common sense applied. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A think the page should include one of the derivates of Bf 109 which is currently missing. The RMI-8 was a Hungarian twin-engined push-pull fighter prototype built directly on the elements of Bf 109G-6 made in Győr (MWG) at late 1944. Gabor vasarus (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

With a second engine and a radically different twin-boom fuselage and empennage, the RMI-8 clearly crosses the sometimes blurry line between a derivative and a variant. Twin-engine versions of single-engine airplanes are fairly commonplace in the general aviation world, and the vast majority of these are considered separate and distinct types. Carguychris (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Unit cost

The unit costs of a little more than 40,000 RM is as far as I know at most possible for the airframe without engine, guns, compass, instruments and radio equipment:
I deleted "|unit cost = 42,900 RM
(G-6, Erla-Maschinenwerk, 1943)"
I've seen several figures well in excess of 100,000 RM for incomplete Bf 109, albeit prior to the use of (some) cheaper forced labour.
The German Wikipedia claims a price of 29,200 RM for a DB 601 engine (smaller DB 605) alone! https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_601
The unit price figure here is not sourced; I would like to see a source AND what exactly this price was for. Lastdingo (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Empty Weight Error

Since I have no handling on the source, it is listed in the specs:

"Empty weight: 2,247 kg (5,893 lb)"

But 2247 kg=4954 lb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrino6626 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Armaments" section?

It says that "the only place to fit a gun was between the wheel wells and the slats", which is the place where the Emil's MG FFs ended up mounted. But it also talks about the earlier MG 17s and how the location was "moved outboard" when they switched to the MG FF cannon. Coupled with the fact that I'm 90% positive that I read that the Clara and Dora had their MG 17s mounted in the wing ROOTS, like the Fw 190, this appears to be a contradiction. There WAS another place to mount a gun, or they couldn't have later "moved them outboard" when they installed the cannons. The original gun mount was in the wing roots, and the later one was between the wheel wells and slats, as seen on the Bf 109E (and while I'm here, no, leave the title as Bf 109. That's the accurate title, regardless of what people mostly called it. People will never STOP calling it "Me 109" if even Wikipedia goes along with misinforming them.) AnnaGoFast (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wing root armament was impossible due to wing attachment points. MG FF was mounted in the same spot/section as the MG 17, just a tad moved outboard either due to larger dimension of the gun or ammo feed. On some E-1s upgraded to cannon you may see the MG FF and nearby the hole formerly used for the MG 17 barrel patched-over. --Denniss (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943 Bf 109

Hidden Multi-article text dumping

Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943 ....................... Preparations Source, Ministerul Fortelor Aerului R56 02478 BIBLOTECA 11.834/4, hence ,public domain,Library of Air Ministry of Romania, books?Aristiderazu (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu Romanian Aeronautic in 1935-1941 Chief of Romanian Air Ministry of Air Secretaey was named Engineer Nicolae Caranfil.These proposes a daring program of reorganising of the Aeronautics which would suite the needs and real financial possibilities of Greater Romania.Before him Radu Irimescu .The new plan was to have a total of 83 Squadrons,aviation and 41 companies of aero-stations letter of Engineer Caranfil to the Prime Minister at the time .. MR.Prime Minister Following the discussions we had with Mr.General Paul Angelescu , Minister of National Defence , at yor Mr.home , in the day of 24th of December 1936, seeing once more that the connectionwhich must therefore exist between leaders of departments of National Defence and of Air thus, and Navy cannot take place , due to the permanent animozity which Gral Paul Angelescu had always towards me , and of which cause I have never seen and do not see a way of acomplishing my urgent program of organising the Aeronautics and Navy,our underlyning , I have the honor to present to zou Sir my resignation from Government . With this occassion I thank you ,Mr.Prime Minister , for the conqur which zou Sir have always given to me , in all circumstances and please have my deepest gratitude..signed .Eng.N.Caramfil ............... 40 Bristol Blenheim and 12 Hawker Hurricanes(for dog fighting role), have been aquired by Romanian Air Ministry from Great Brittain , of which 37 have landed safely in Bucharest .In 1941 in Romania Campaign to Stalingrad ,these were used for long ricconaisance purpose ,equiped with two Bristol Mercury engine, each, of 825 Hp, speed 418Km/h, ceilling 8130mAristiderazu (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu .The Huricannes have all landed safely in Bucharest. In those political circumstances ,initially , the British have refused to aacept the order by Romanian State , oficially .Has though interveened unoficially ,Commandor.Av.Nicolau Constantin , Aero -attache to London then,1939, .Through connections with certain pollitical factours , he succeeds tochange the decission of the British Government.The matter have been discussed in the Room of Communes , too.Finally has been approved the delivery towards Romania of a number of 40 Bristol Blenheim which have arrived in the country in three batches .The romanian pilots have left for England in two groups .,the first group at 17th of August 1939, made up of ten flying pilots crews under the command of Cpt.Cdor.av.Georgescu Laurentiu .The second group under the command of Cpt.Cdor.av.Alecu Demetrescu leaves at 6th of September 1939. At 14th of September 1939 , a formation of fourteen planes , having as head of formation Lt.Cdor.av.Cristescu P.Ioan have left towards the country on the intinerary ..Oxford -Bristol-Caen-Nantes Bordeaux.At 15th of September they have flown from Bordeaux to Marseille ,and at 16th of September they have arrived at Milano.At 17th of September with an escale at Belgrad, have arrived at Bukarest only 13 planes .Number 4.plane with the crew made out of Lt.av.Nicolae Mirescu and maister/master Petre Todica , due to a torrential rain and to a visibility almost nulle , enter in lossing of speed when landing .They crush to the edge of Bordeaux Aerodrome.The plane goes on fire , and the crew sadly perish in flames. The other formation ,led by Cpt.Cdor .av.Alecu Demetrescu , have left England at 27th of September with direction Bordeaux , from where on the same intinerary , on which have flown the precedent batch , have arrived in Bucharest/Bukarest/Bucuresti at 10th of October 1939, with an escale at Milano of nine days. The last formations of planes leaves England at 15th of October 1939, under the command of Capt .Cdor.avLaurentiu Georgescu and arrives into the country at 18th of November 1939, in extremly difficult atmospheric conditions . At take off on Bordeaux erodrome , the plane piloted by Cpt.av.Dumitru Popescu -Pufi is accidented .Luckily the pilot escapes unharmed. In the last stage of flight of the said formation , the number 14 plane , piloted bz Adj.Chief av.Vasile Mezin , having colleague of flight Maestru/Master Enache, due to the very dense fogg, engages and crushes at Orsova .The crew perish in Danube River waters. Have arrived in the country 37 Bristol-Blenheim , instead of 40. At take off on Bordeaux erodrome , the plane piloted by Cpt.av.Dumitru Popescu -Pufi is accidented .Luckily the pilot escapes unharmed. In the last stage of flight of the said formation , the number 14 plane , piloted bz Adj.Chief av.Vasile Mezin , having colleague of flight Maestru/Master Enache, due to the very dense fogg, engages and crushes at Orsova .The crew perish in Danube River waters. Have arrived in the country 37 Bristol-Blenheim , instead of 40. From Germany have beenaquired *Romanian petrol being the exchange coin* starting with 1940 , 30 Heinkel 112*dog-fighting* planes , 32 twin engined Heinkel 111 planes *bombers* , 20 planes Ju 87 ,,Stukas,, *dive bombing role* , 50 Messerschmitt 109 E3 and E7*dog-fighting role* As to the plan, from France have been aquired , special autovehicles for airfields and equipment, from Germany heavy tonaje transport trucks Henschel , from Switzerland 20mm Oerrlikon cannons,the necessary of ammunition for airplanes and wirst watches ,necessary for the navigant personel .From United States autotrucks Ford Marmon with double tracktion , destined to the units of anty air defence .From Italy ,silk for parashutes , Beretta hand pistols for the navigant personell , tractors and buldozers for the Aero Pioneers Regiment and shit /foil for the campaign tents. Obtaining of these materials was beginning to come more and more difficult after 1st of September 1939 ,once the second part of the Mondial War started, the situation became critical. England,Belgium,Holland ,France have definitivelly stoped the shipments towards the Greater Romania,Germany and Italy have drastically reduced them.The Romanian Aeronautical Industry was in great difficulty of primery matters and semifabricated ones, hence raw materials .The situation had become thus critical. With the order nr.11349 from23rd of March 1940, the General Staff of Romanian Army ,asks to the Romanian Ministry of Air and Navy to pass at the latest 1st of April 1941 , to the integral execution of hzpotesis 32.Thus 84 different Squadrons with a total of 834 planes mono and twin engined within the operative units , to which were added 338 reserve airplanes and 350 airplanes for interior for school and training of the navigant personell.Thus , a total of 1517 aiplanes. The value of 32nd Hzpotesis rose up to 32 milliards Lei , at 1938 value,. Material Staff 1941 For long range reconaisance and light bombardment,,Bristol Blenheim,Bristol-Mercury twin engined ,825Hp,418km/h,ceilling 8310m, Potez 63, equiped with Gnome-Rhone 14M of 670Hp,425km/h,ceilling 8500m. For observation , IAR 38 , BMW,132-700Hp,220Km/h and IAR 39, equiped with IAR K/14 engine of 870Hp,280km/h,ceilling 7000m.Also in this category were included SET 7K ,with an IAR K7-120 of 420Hp,250km/h. , For bombing role Savoia Marchetti S79b.which were aso produced under license in Romaniawhich (),twin engined Gnome Rhone K14 and 1000 A and starting with July 1941 also Savoia Marchetti 79 B manufactured at IAR Brasov after the Italian license ,modified at IAR Power Plant , equiped with 2 Junkers 211 E and 211F of 1200Hp engine each and 1350 Hp , 3350Km/h,ceilling 8000m,PZL planes P-37B Los,manufactured in Poland , equiped with two engines Bristol Pegasus XII and Bristol Pegasus XX of 918Hp,440km/h,ceilling 6000m. The planes IAR 81 ,equiped with IAR K 14-1000A , of 1000Hp,500km/h,used for divebombing role ,, Junkers Ju 87 Stukas ,Junkers Jumo 211 D.a. of 1200Hp for dive bombing role ,385Km/h,ceilling 8000m,,planes Heinkel He 111 ,Karas and Bloch. For dog-fight IAR 80 ,IAR K 14 engine ,510km/h,,Messerschmitt Bf 109E,Daimler-Benz,1250Hp,520Km/h,ceilling 10500m,, planes PZL P 11 ,engine IAR K 9,600Hp,380Km/h,9000m,,PZL P24 planes ,engine IAR K 14 ,870Hp,430km/h,9500m,,planes Hawker Hurricane , Rolls -Royce ,1200Hp,500Km/h,11900m,planes Heinkel 112 ,400Km/h,10500m. For Hydroaviation Savoia Marchetti S 62 bis, with one engine I.F.Asso 800Hp,225Km/h and Kant Z 501 , engine Asso I.F.833 Hp,265Km/h planes. For transport planes Junkers 34, the three engined Junkers 52 ,Potez 56, Lockheed 14 and Lockheed 10. For connection and school planes Fleet F-10G.ICAR,Nardi-PWS,ST,Klemm K1 35D and Me 108 Taifun. Hence in 1941 ,there were 50 squadrons/Escadrile to 80 ...The 32 PlanAristiderazu (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu ..................

List of Most Produced Aircraft needs citations

Howdy all Wikipedians! This aircraft appears on the list of most-produced aircraft but there is no citation for the production figure cited in that article. I respectfully ask your help in adding a citation, along with any necessary explanatory notes about the production figure (e.g. whether it includes licensed production and significant minor variants, and if so, which ones). Thanks in advance! Carguychris (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)