Talk:Dornier Do 17/Archive 1

Typo
I believe there has been a typo on this page. At the article on the Do17-P1 there is a photo identified as a Do19-P1. It seems obvious that the designation should have been Do17-P1 instead.


 * Welcome to Wikipedia!. If you think there's a typo be bold and change it. Just click on the edit this page link and make the change. You might want to practice in the sandbox first.
 * Angela 00:10, Sep 11, 2003 (UTC)

The Lufthansa story is a cover
Do 17, Von Origional Zum Modell (German for "From original to model") says that, like the He-111 and Ju-86, the Do-17 was built with a duality, with an eye to be either transport or a bomber.

Airplane Enthusiast / 30 (1981 issue) is even more start, saying that the effort for a civil version is only to support the cover story.

From Joe Kudrna, maintainer of the Do 17 site listed on the page.

Maury 22:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Geez, these are secondary and tertiary sources. Who made up that cover story for what purpose? How was it disproved? (Was it disproved at all, or is it just an "it appears that ..." thing?) An airliner converted into a bomber was violating the Versailles treaty just as clearly as a purpose-built bomber, so why bother with an elaborate cover story involving a named Luftwaffe officer that fails to cover the main point of the issue? If you can, answer in the article, if you can't, at least use NPOV techniques to include both versions. --172.178.206.123 22:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to say, but the whole story of the genesis of Do 17 is a pure invention. The Air Enthusiast # 30 March/June 1986 (not Airplane Enthusiast, as user Maury writes) gives the true running of. This article is based on an other in three parts, which appeared in German magazine Luftfahrt International 1, 2 and 3/83.

The first sentence of Air Enthusiast, set off in a box, says: "It has been stated and frequently reiterated, that the Do 17 was conceived to meet a Lufthansa requirement for a high-speed mailplane capable of transporting six passengers, and, furthermore, that the first three prototypes were passed to the airline for evaluation, but rejected on the basis of the limited commercial appeal offered by their passenger accomodation. It has also been alleged that the prototypes after their return to Dornier by Lufthansa, languished at the Löwenthal factory until stumbled upon by chance by one Flugkapitän Untucht of Lufthansa, a former Dornier employee, who proposed to the RLM that the aircraft be adapted as a bomber. The researches of Karl Kössler (author of the German article) have proved, that this story is totally fallacious and that Lufthansa's involvement in the Do 17 development was purely peripheral."


 * And the last sentence of Air Enthusiast's article expresses:

"The editors wish to acknowledge their indebtness to Herr Karl Kössler for his research, published in Luftfahrt International, which clarified the early development history of the Do 17 series."


 * So I think, that somebody of the many users which had already changed or replaced parts of this Wikipedia article should rewrite it completely on the base of Air Enthusiast, or even better, using the German original. Corrector 12:30 8 November 2005


 * Ok, I know it's two years later, but here's the problem:
 * It is stated in the article that the RML sent out specifications with twin rudders in late 1933. It then goes on to claim that actual development started in April 1934.
 * Does anyone else see the problem here? If they sent out the twin-tail specification in 1933, why did they design it with one tail in 1934? That makes zero sense.
 * And how would the RLM know they should be ordering a twin-tail version in 1933, if they could not possibly know about the stability issues until much later in 1934? This makes even less sense.
 * And to top it all off, we also have ample photographic evidence that a single-tail version did indeed fly for Lufthansa. This is a problem. If these aircraft were actually part of a later effort to build a cover story, why the heck would they build a new single-tail version just for this purpose? That seems terribly expensive.
 * Now I should point out that the Untucht version of the story does fit these very same facts perfectly. The single-tail versions were not an elaborate cover, but really were the prototypes. The twin-tail version was then ordered after the prototypes were test flown. Again, all the documentary evidence suggests that the twin-tail version flew in 1935.
 * I have to say that I am very very skeptical of the version currently posted in the article. It just doesn't make sense. It is entirely possible this is a minor typo and the RLM requirements were from late 1934, which makes much more sense. But if that is the case, it actually strengthens the Untucht version, as it would be right after he flew it. I am increasingly skeptical that the version we have now is completely accurate.
 * I really need to see these articles! Maury (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay Having looked at the article again it is okay and accurate. The Ordnance dept. in ’32 ordered a mail plane which Dornier, Heinkel and Junkers competed to produce. The Do 17 was the designation given to their design which began in August of that year. The first design was a single fin. In March ’33 Milch gave the go-ahead for two production types. At the end of ’33 the RLM changed its mind and ordered a “high speed commercial aircraft with twin tail” capable of carrying “special equipment” – of course this is a requirement for an aircraft that can quickly be modified into a bomber ( I think this is where the mail-plane cover story comes from). The single tail flew in Nov. ’34. In April ’34 Dornier began project definition which involved design of the defensive armament and bomb release equipment – which is a form of development, so the article is accurate to say that development occurred in 1934. It was in 1936 that Untucht came across the Dornier which was largely redundant, and his test flights and favourable reviews reignited the Luftwaffe’s interest in the type and prompted Dornier to modify the tail unit. I'll tweak the language and make it clearer and add a couple more sourcesDapi89 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Aerodynamically, the twin rudder version would be more stable than a single central rudder of the same surface area. The problem is that the "greenhouse"-style cockpit created a chaotic wash aft, intefering with rudder effectiveness. A smaller, smoother bubble cockpit would have allowed a central rudder but the plan was for more than one person to have a 360 degree view in the aircraft. Also, a taller central rudder would have been able to bite into clean air flow above the line of the existing greenhouse cockpit but would have created more drag. The twin tail solution allows the two rudders to push against the relatively smoother air coming from the wings and engines. This NACA history page has some wind tunnel results that show the loss of rudder effectiveness for various WWII-era cockpit configurations in low-wing aircraft (scroll to the bottom of the page to see the side view drawings). Even with a high-mid wing twin-engine aircraft like the Do 17, I think going from single rudder to twin rudder seems perfectly logical as a developmental step--Dornier was simply solving the stability problem they found. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The new version still has a problem. If the twin-tail was specified because of problems with stability, how would they know this before it flew? Maury (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer to that question is that the Do 17V1 was the single tailed aircraft flown in Nov. '34. The twin tail was designed to correct these mistakes-the first flew in May '35. The chronology is out of place and is causing the confusion here, I'll correct these.Dapi89 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DoneDapi89 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Origin of the Dornier
I have reworked some of its original info as regards to Cpt Untucht and its original purpose as well as adding in the sources that I obtained them from. Dapi89 19:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

--Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Hello all. I am Joe Kudrna, the author of Do-17 research site. and "The Instigator" of this productive discussion. :) Nice job digging into all of this. From Karl Kössler, IIRC, their was concern of the single tail stability from the start, and I suspect it was being developed as a contingent even before the V1 flew.  Unfortunately a lot of history on the early LW has been lost, so its hard.

I only recently started to get serious of contributing to Wiki. I hope to be of great service. Cheers!

Oh, and on the story behind the origin of the 17, I read the book "the history of the LW", and it is obvious that powers where actively building a secret LW from very soon after the end of WW1. See for instance the Do-11/13/23 and Junker aircraft. Something else that strongly disproves the old cover story, no company on earth will spend huge sums of money (in the middle of the Great Depression!) on 3 new aircraft faster then just about anything flying, and then let them sit in a hanger for months gathering dust! I have yet to find where the cover story originated from, but more amazing is how, well, lazy some many book writers are not to go and do some research on the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightsoffancy (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Germany developed these aircraft during the "Great depression" because the economy was stablised through re-armament. Dornier was heavily subsidized (as were all aspects of military aviation) by the Nazi goverment to produce such aircraft, so they could afford to leave it gathering dust. The cover story makes sense, it was always a bomber, it was a useful smoke screen to claim it was a high-speed mail plane. Your theory isn't accurate Dapi89 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Well, Dapi89, you have a point, but even though they could afford it, it still seems odd to have a new airplane gather dust rather then evaluating and testing. Think about this, that pilot who happen to see it, how did he happen to find them, and how come when it was sitting around he could get some lineman to pull it out so he can have a little joyride?

One day someone will find out. (sometimes forget to sign, but not this time) --Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the context of what we do know, I think the answer is not all that complicated. There is nothing odd about the story. You make it sound like the Dornier was not tested at all!! The RLM asked for a twin tailed aircaft, Dornier did not deliver. Instead they produced the Do 17V1, with a single verticle stabiliser. The poor performance of the V1 meant that the Dornier was ignored. Untucht's chance flight, his reputation, and his comments prompted Dornier to redesign the tail unit. This led to the existence of a formidable medium bomber. Let's not forget, the Dornier was tested. It was only left for six months. In 1934-5, at the time of the Do 17 twin tails first flight, the Luftwaffe had its fingers in so many pies that it was not urgent. The Germans had not yet settled on any mass-produced bomber or fighter. These things happen when an air force is being rebuilt, especially with new age aircraft. Dapi89 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've managed to get hold of the Air Enthusiast article mentioned above. According to this article the twin tail was planned before the first prototype flew owing to worries about the conventional single fin arrangement in the first prototype, and was fitted to the second and third prototype.  It states that the second prototype was very briefly examined by Lufthana in October-November 35 before being passed back to the RLM.  The "six months" where the prototypes alegedly sat around untested was according tho the article to the V-1 beiing involved in a landing accident in Feb 35, which took until mid March to repair, and again in April, these accedents delaying formal testing at Rechlin.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The wording is misleading. The V1, 2 and 3 had a single verticle stabilser. After Untucht's flight Dornier was instructed to built the V4 with twin tail. I will ammend. Good spot. Dapi89 (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow your chronolgy. Did you mean Feb '36? Dapi89 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No - the article states that V1 (also designated Do 1c and registered D-AJUN first flew on 23 November 34, suffered undercarriage failure in Mid-feb 1935, which took till 14 March 35 to repair, and suffered a similar mishap in April 35. V2 (D-AHAK), which according to the article always had a twin tail, first flew on 18 May 1935. V1 and V2 were subject to comparitive testing by the RLM in June 35, which resulted in V2 being fitted with an enlarged vertical tail surfaces, with V1 being fitted with a twin tail in September 35.  The article also definately states that Kössler's researches show that the story of Untuchts flight is "totally fallacious".Nigel Ish (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is wrong to suggest the V1 always had a twin tail, I have a photograph of it, and it has a single fin. Goss states the V2 and V3 were identical to the V1. Goss states that the V 4 was the first to have a twin tail, due to Untuchts test flight. Untucht was the liason between Lufthansa and the RLM. According to Goss he convinced the RLM to have another look, and they gave the go ahead for the V4. Dressel and Griehl agree with the dates, but neither they or Goss mention the upgrading of the V1, 2 or 3 to dual fin status. Though, I am now thinking they lack detail, given they did not mention the accident. Dapi89 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Green and Swanborough V1 was first flown with a single fin (and there is a photo of it) - but V2 and V3 both first flew with twin tails - and there are photos of it in this configuration, and several photos of V2 (with the registration D-AHAK) in several configuratons, all with twin tails. Just to further confuse the ssue, V1 waswritten off on 21 December 1935, but a replacement was ordered as the Do 17 Ers (Ersatz) with the Same registration (D-AJUN) flying on 13 June 1936.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then that (the photographic evidence) proves Goss was wrong to make the claim they were identical, at least he was wrong to imply that and not mention these upgrades. I suppose it makes sense. Why would they build a new aircraft? All they needed to do was modify the tail section. Mention of these fact should be in the article. Could you make the necessary amendments please? Dapi89 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Film strip image
I have posted and linked a scan of a film image showing a Do-17z, and it shows the 17z with a 20mm cannon installed. In what way is this not appropriate to this wiki? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * These are the problems I have with the image:


 * Not a single complete frame--it's like an image you might use on a film restoration page
 * Not enough clarity and detail visible to be certain you are seeing a 20mm cannon
 * Not saved from the above problems by being a very interesting (and rare!) moving image
 * Why not digitize some of the film and share the sequence as an animated gif or snippet of video? At least use one complete frame and zoom in to see more machine and less background. Here's what such a frame might look like--Image:Do17-Kauz1-stitch.jpg. Also, the image (if used) should have Kauz I in the image text and be placed down where the Kauz I variant is mentioned in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't have any method to play the film, just scan a few frames.
 * I had hoped that 1 image will suffice for several subjects, but it appears that it will not work. I will make 2 or 3 cuts of the film and post them, one as you suggested here.  would it be OK if I add an pointer to indicate the 20mm cannon? Will get a new version up in a couple of days.


 * BTW, this is not a Kauz, but a regular 17z with the 20mm, to be used on a ground assault mission--Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Favour" vs. "favor"
I reverted what seems like an unnecessary change. why change (in view of 1 and 2 above)? ;) --TraceyR (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This is an article about a German (i.e. European) aircraft and the UK is also in Europe (in spite of what certain people think/wish!),
 * 2) The paragraph is in the context of the Battle of Britain,
 * 3) "favour" was there first, and
 * 4) since the MoS states that neither is right/wrong

Fair enough (also Canada has U) Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada too! I'm impressed! --TraceyR (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do 17 in the Turkish Air Force
The article states that 2 saw service with the TA, but the fact tag has been there for some time. If a citation is not added soon, I think it should be deleted. Dapi89 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do 17s in Bulgarian AF - ridiculous!
Browsing trough the article to read about the M- and Z- modifications of the Do-17 I saw the section regarding its use in the Bulgarian AF in WWII, and honestly, it is ridiculous! I'm familiar with the source ("Do-17 The Yugoslav Story") as I had the book. Honestly, I couldn't believe how thoroughly national bias has affected it (the book).

Firstly, 32 Do-17s is the actual number delivered to Bulgaria, [i]not[/i] lost in combat. Not only that, but the article is written in such a way that it gives the impression the prediminant modification used was the Yuoglav built Ka/Kb. In reality, 10 Do-17Ka's and 5 Kb's were taken by the Bulgarian and of them only six (6) were repaired to flying condition because the [i]lack[/i] of spare parts. The 17 other Dorniers were bought from Germany (fully refurbished ex-Luftwaffe planes) of the Do-17M/P modification.

Second, 71 of combat activity is some figure pulled out of the thin air. Bulgarian participation on the Allied side is divided on two phases, first between September 1944 through to December (those 71 days mentioned) when the Do-17's of the 1/5 bomber orlyak (with 14 operational machines of mixed variants) performed bombing duties and 73rd lond range recconaisance yato (with 4 operational Do-17Ps) reccon flights. After December through to May 1945 73rd yato continued to perform long range reccon, crew transfer and even bombing flight during which its planes were also several times attacked by mistake by US and British planes.

Thirdly, could m-rs Ciglic and Savic provide any info on the actual numbers of vehicles destroyed by Bulgarian bombers, as they claim they're far less than the bomber crews reported? Which is highly doubtfull, as the Germans were retreating through the Balkans and with the Soviet and Bulgarian armies on their heels those figures have not been disputed by either army command.

And, how could 32 bombers be lost when operationally fewer were used?!

With all the respect, I hope someone who is more eused to working with Wiki articles edit the page, as not to damage any links or text formating. I would edit it, but I'm afraid I'm not used to this.

Reliable and thourough sources on Bulgarian Do-17s are "Air Power of the Kingdom of Bulgaria Vol.IV" by "Fark Ood" (publisher, available in English) and "The Long Range Flight of 73rd yato" by "Air Group 2000" (publisher). The last is written by actual Do-17 pilots who fought in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.146.198 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, may I say I'm pleased you took this to the talk page first. This article is a Good Article candidate and reversions could cost it that title. To your concerns:
 * Everything that is written is directly from the source. Only 11 Do 17s were initially handed over. More former German machines were handed over, and some captured Yugoslav machines. This total (32) is not the total received bu those lost. Losses are broken down by the Authors to individual squadrons. So the 32 figure is through reinforcement. You don't think the figure stood at 11 received in total? Not all of the machines were total write-offs. But of course, if you have more reliable sources you can replace the figures with your book sources.


 * The issues don't refer to combat until May 1945, it mentions 71 days to cover the period of the heaviest involvement. In December Yugolsavia refused to allow Bulgarian flights over its territory. After 24 November just a single combat sortie was flown. On 11 March 1945, flights were again permitted. So for a good few months there was no mass activity.


 * Third - the wording was meant to mean they underclaimed not overclaimed. I will amend this. Dapi89 (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dapi89, thank you for the reply. I'm refering to the discussion page first exactly to avoid any unwanted editing of the article.

I am aware what's written in the source, as I said, I do own the book. It is, sadly, inaccurate (regarding that section, at least). The only aircraft mentioned specifically are the known Yugoslav-built D-17Ka. There's absolutely no source refered to the Bulgarian combat losses. And I already pointed above two researches, one is based on archive AF sources, the otherspecifically dedicated to the types by people who flew it, that contradict the volume by m-rs Ciglic and Savic. I checked before I posted the stats above, with the books opened before me.

And I'm yet to see where are the basing their claim on destroyed German vehicles from - official Wehrmacht archives, local Yuogoslab partisan accounts, Soviet army documents, etc.

Combat losses (not including mechanical breakdowns and unserviceable planes) between September and December (24th November if you want to be specific) in the Bulg.AF were [i]exactly[/i] 11 planes of [i]all[/i] types, mostly Bf 109 and D.520 fighters used for ground support. Nowhere near 32 lost, much less for a single type.

Second, regarding combat flights - Yugoslavia did permit transition flights for medical and crew rotation purposes. Besides, by November Bulgarian armies were fighting in Hungary and that's where 73rd yato operated.

I just glanced through the book. Combat losses per squadron/plane are listed only for the Yugo airforce and Luftwaffe. The only Bulgarian AF planes mentioned specifically are the known Yugoslav-built D-17Ka. There's absolutely no source refered to the Bulgarian combat losses. And I already pointed above two volumes, one specifically dedicated to the types by people who flew it, that contradict the volume by m-rs Ciglic and Savic. I checked before I posted the stats above, with the books opened before me.

So, do we need to continue this pointless debate and would kindly take my word, based on accurate reference? If not, I'd be glad to point you to where you can buy the books I mentioned, and cross reference the data by yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.146.198 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Lastly, a historical correction - there's absolutely no direct participation of Bulgarian forces against Yugoslavia and Greece. Bulgarian armies moved in on German approval after April 17th and have had no contact whatsoever with either Yugo or Greek armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.91.146.198 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I right in thinking you are a Bulgarian national? In that case you have far more knowledge on this subject than I do. You have english written sources, so is best if you make the changes you deem appropriate. I'll clean up if needs be. Dapi89 (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda Photo of the Do-17 and the Spitfire
I noted that the heading under the photo of the Do-17 and the Spitfire dating from 1940 is labeled with "...may be a propaganda photo..". I wish to propose that it is, with the following justifications:
 * There is a very famous colour photo of a Bf-109E intercepting a Spitfire known to have been captured at the beginning of the Battle, and that sptifire remained with KG-200 throughout its active service with the Luftwaffe. Identifying features of the propaganda ship are the wing roundels - on RAF Spitfires of the period, the roundel centres are in line with the first aileron hinge linkage (more or less), and occupy the outer third of the wing panel. The propaganda Spitfire has its roundels occupying the inner third of the panel, which visually very obvious. These are on the upper panels only - there are no known photographs with the undersides clearly visible, so it is very difficult to know what the undersides of the wings looked like - they night have Balkankreuze for all we know !
 * The photo of the D-17 and Spitfire again betrays that the Spit has its roundels in the identical position to the colour Bf-109 intercept photo. Since, at that stage of the war, there were a very tiny number of Spits in German hands (this Spitfire was later re-engined with a DB-601 due to its unique nature status, and the need to retain an example for comparative evaluation), maximum use of the airframe for propaganda purposes is very understandable.
 * The picture, in its German Wikidata says this is a Propaganda shot. Always nice to have that data, but I also enjoy furnishing some subsidiary info too.

Please comment, and make a decision appropriate to the page. Regards --Deepshark (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a Spitfire I with the old Watts two-bladed propeller, which IIRC was obsolete and had been replaced on service aircraft by three-bladed de Havilland VP propellers by the time of the battle, the new type becoming the Spitfire Ia. You are correct about the wing roundels, as they are positioned incorrectly. I suspect the aircraft is an early Spitfire that may have been captured in the Battle of France as this was when the Mark I was current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.149 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Spring 2011 -- The submerged plane in the UK
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110408/lf_nm_life/us_britain_warplane Would it be possible to get one of those sonar images for the article? --24.21.105.29 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Wouldnt be a bad idea. There are a few sonar pics of the plane floating around the net since it was front page Yahoo. 67.166.155.113 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Problem is: getting it is difficult owing to copyright issues. Dapi89 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Pleonasm
On 3 September 2010, the Royal Air Force Museum London announced the discovery of a Dornier Do 17 buried in the Goodwin Sands off the coast of Kent, England. On 10 June 2013, the aircraft was successfully raised from the seabed.

I suggest an amendment to the sentence to read

On 3 September 2010, the Royal Air Force Museum London announced the discovery of a Dornier Do 17 buried in the Goodwin Sands off the coast of Kent, England. On 10 June 2013, the aircraft was raised from the seabed.

The word "succesfully" is superfluous, because you can't unsuccessfully do something. Why was orignal edit to remedy this reverted?Keith-264 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, the proposed edit makes for a long, run-on sentence in a "passive-voice". Two shorter active voice statements are more pointed and actually break the statements into two aspects, the announcement of the discovery and the success of the actual recovery effort. You certainly can do things unsuccessfully, and that was the crux of the recovery effort in that the aircraft could have broken up further and been lost. Many underwater archaeological attempts do not result in an overall "successful" result. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 1/2 lines hardly amounts to a long run-on sentence.

You can't do something unsuccessfully, because if it is unsuccessful you haven't done it.

On 3 September 2010, the Royal Air Force Museum London announced the discovery of a Dornier Do 17 buried in the Goodwin Sands off the coast of Kent, England. On 10 June 2013, the aircraft was raised from the seabed.

How about this then?Keith-264 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC) The fallacy that you can't do something unsuccessfully seems to be the reasoning here. Many things are "done" to a matter of degree of success. Re-read the section, it is a minor passage in the lede and the full background is later described in the section on surviving airframes. The RAF Museum announced a discovery of a wreck and their salvage team successfully pulled up the main part of the wreckage. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a fallacy, the wreck was lifted and that's it. If you want to dwell on what could but didn't happen fine but be logical, while you're about it. Had the raising been unsuccessful it wouldn't have been raised. When did you last unsuccessfully score a goal?Keith-264 (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly possible to unsuccessfully raise a wreck from the seabed. Successful gives the impression that what was raised was in the condition that was hoped for and managed to reach the shore in one piece. There are plenty of occasions where objects have, say, broken in two during the salvage effort. In such circumstances, while something may have been raised, the salvage operation cannot be claimed to be a complete success.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An attempt can be unsuccessful but a success can't be, obviously.Keith-264 (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we agreed then that "successful" should go?Keith-264 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, no. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that a successful failure to agree or an unsuccessful agreement.?;O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The long discussion "string" above merely reflects an unsuccessful attempt at consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A successful failure to agree then.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of image?
I am curious why this image was removed from entry. Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Separate article for Do-17 1160
I was going to update the section on this aircraft, which is out of date as the RAF Museum has made considerable progress in its conservation. However, it struck me the sub-section is already quite long. Rather than make it longer, I thought I'd float the idea of a separate article. A precedent being the article for Tiger 131, the only working Tiger tank.

Being the only survivor, 1160 is somewhat notable in its own right. And its recovery was a big news story at the time. Obviously, there are plenty of aircraft types that are only represented in museums by a single survivor. And they don't all have articles both for the aircraft type and the last remaining individual. But I think it's justified in this case. Catsmeat (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?
"The positions of the wing roots were offset. The leading edge wing root merged with the top of the fuselage and cockpit. As the wing extended backwards, by roughly two thirds, it declined downwards at a sharp angle so that the trailing edge wing root ended nearly halfway down the side of the fuselage increasing the angle of attack."
 * It is hard to decipher what this is saying exactly, but it sounds like it's talking about angle of incidence (aerodynamics), which is something that most aircraft have (the only aircraft that I know of that were designed with 0deg incidence are the Vultee Vengeance and F6F Hellcat). Perhaps the Do 17 has more angle than most, but it's not abnormal for a trailing edge to be lower relative to the fuselage than the leading edge. Angle of incidence can be more simply described by saying that the wing is mounted at a permanent angle of attack relative to the fuselage, to increase lift. Otherwise, the aircraft would have to fly in a nose up attitude at all times to give the wings enough AOA to create lift, and this would increase drag by increasing the frontal cross section moving through the air. If this section isn't referring to angle of incidence, it's not really clear what it is describing.70.20.40.28 (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It just means the top of the wing is level with the top of fuselage. It is a rare mounting, as typically wing was below fuselage, though the fuselage, or even on top of the fuselage. Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dornier Do 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207064415/http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk:80/cosford/conservation-centre/downloads/Dornier%20Do17Z%20Wnr%201160.pdf to http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/conservation-centre/downloads/Dornier%20Do17Z%20Wnr%201160.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Republic as user of the Dornier Do-17: Not possible
Article: "Spanish Republican Air Force received ex-Legion Condor Do 17E, F, and Ps and 13 remained in service after the end of the Spanish Civil War". The Spanish Republic did not survive the civil war. So it would not be possible they received bomber aicrafts from Nazi Germany, whith whom were at war (not officially, de facto; see Legion Condor, operation ursula, bombing of gernika, first combats of Panzer I, etc.), and by mid-1939 the second republic was reduced to ashes. In any case who would have received them had to be the Nationalist aviation corps.

Please, check sources.

Thank you in advance,

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, correct. I note this has now been dealt with. Dapi89 (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dornier Do 17. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/cosford/conservation-centre/downloads/Dornier%20Do17Z%20Wnr%201160.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050407093921/http://web.wt.net/~kikuko/Do17depot/Do17index.htm to http://web.wt.net/~kikuko/Do17depot/Do17index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"MG 151/20" in photo
There is a still frame from a video that was supposedly taken ion 1940 showing a Do 17 mounting a 20mm cannon in the nose. I'd believe it. However, I have my doubts as to whether it's really an "MG 151/20" as labeled in the image. 1940 is way to early for a Do 17 to be mounting an MG 151, let alone 151/20. MG 151s were strictly for frontline combat craft, like fighters, etc, even when they were adopted. They were using MG FFs in the wings of their premier frontline fighter, the Fw 190, because they couldn't get enough MG 151/20s to use in all four postions. The MG 151 wasmn't even in service in 1940, and certainly not in use as a ground-strafing gun in bombers, or even as night-fighter guns. They had thousands of MG FFs still sitting around and millions or rounds of ammo for them. They also had more obscure 20mm weapons like the MG 204. Anyway, either that's not an MG 151/20 or it's not taken in 1940. Probably both. The MG FF was the gun you'd find in the nose or bola of an He 111 in 1943, so it's not likely that Do 17 squadrons would have the use of the ultra-new, powerful, and hard-to-get MG 151 in 1940. Idumea47b (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a poor quality image, so I've removed it. - BilCat (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is a MG FF/M. And if that is the the best image you can get, that is what you have.  At the time I extracted image supporting sources listed MG 151/20, time to update. Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do we need a poor quality image in the article when we have better photos of the aircraft? - BilCat (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * BilCat, you completely miss reason for including that image. You should discuss it with me before unilaterally removing it.  You may not have understood my earlier post about updating, that I will replace it with a better image and no text. Flightsoffancy (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Restoring the original image, because BilCat fails to provide sometime better. Flightsoffancy (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thankfully the image has been deleted. Since you've stated your intentions to re-add a similar image, perhaps now is a good time to discuss why such a poor image is needed in an article with many high quality images, copyright issues not withstanding. Please not it is up to you to justify the inclusion of copyrighted images on the image page, not up to me to justify their removal. - BilCat (talk)

Image of Do 17z with cannon discuss.
What is the issue? Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The photo was previously uploaded as fair use - and was deleted for poor quality and adding nothing to the article - it has now been reuploaded under a free licence - which is inappropriate as it is a derivative of a non-free image.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument "deleted for poor quality" is poppycock now with new version that is about as good as can be had for a period image. As to license, originally posted was in 2008 which may still have been under original (C). Now is 2018 (wow, 10 years..), well past fall of Nazi Germany. The film segment is in my possession. Please be more specific on rationals, please. Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * TO ADD: BilCat has failed to produce an alternate image subject, thus a fair use rational to keep image. Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It's still not good enough quality for an encyclopedia article, as the image shows what is basically an unidentifiable stick protruding from the cockpit. There's not enough detail to make the image useful. As to fair use, the subject is the aircraft itself, not the gun, and we have sufficient photos of the aircraft already. - BilCat (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The same film shows the mount from different angles, possible to ID without doubt, supported by other sources. Quality is as good as others in article; have you refreshed you browser? I can upload larger image. The page is not only "the aircraft itself".  Simply look at Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants where nearly every combination of weapons is listed.  If the 109 has such extensive listing with its own page (even a drop tank not mounted on 109), why should the 17 be denied this? Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edit comment "you can't use this image until the copyright issue is settled" is valid and I honor. Flightsoffancy (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * (ec) You did not create the original image, and as you don't know when it was first published (not created), you cannot claim the original image to be public domain. (For anonymous EU works the rules are 70 years after Publishing). The image is still of poor quality, being a not particularly detailed image of the nose, and still adds little or nothing to the article. In addition there is nothing to say that it shows what you says it does.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the 70 year rule, and I have clearly said in description image is well past 70 years (73 since fall of Nazi Germany); everything I read says over 70 years is PD. Being a film, other views of installation are shown (and there are non-free images on internet), and read reply above.  I selected the CC because it is a Derivative of a PD (digitized and edited), not a claim on original; Public Domain works that are modified can be copyrighted, yet room to discuss this license. Regards, Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Creation does not equal publication - you need to demonstrate that the image was published more than 70 years ago.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can do that. I know the location (Épinoy, France (close to Cambrai)), the squadron, and the months the squadron was based there, all before 1942.  That is in addition to the fact WW2 ended more than 70 years ago. Regards.  Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't equal publication - when the film was made publicly available - just because the film may have been shot in 1942 doesn't mean that the "work was made available to the public" then - it may have remained in an archive somewhere until after the war, or even until it was sold on EbayNigel Ish (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I found a common segment of my film posted on YouTube, paste this code to YT site: 42IeOdeUyGE?t=3m48s. That is a link to my segment and proof the material was used in at least 1 other work.  Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Restoration of File talk:Do17z 20mm.jpg
The copyright issue has been settled, that is need to be under Fair Use per Wikipedia:Non-free content. The image is of reduced DPI and size to not impact any sales of a production company. The image is worthy of inclusion because it clearly depicts something mentioned by a number of primary source authors, including by Manfred Griehl, Richard Franks, and Chris Goss. An argument was made the Do 17 page has too many images, but compare with the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet which has 12 images of focused on the aircraft alone for a smaller page. If the image quality is insufficient, then a substitute with the 20mm cannon should be found that will satisfy the quality desired, and this image not simply removed. Regards, Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair use doesn't apply, as the article is about the aircraft, not the gun, and plenty of free images of the aircraft are available. - BilCat (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and yet the image is a closeup of the cockpit area of the Do 17, with a clearly visible object not found on other Do 17's. I did provide book references in support of that installation. Flightsoffancy (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair use doesn't apply, as the article is about the aircraft, not the gun, and plenty of free images of the aircraft are available. - BilCat (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is so illogical. The aircraft is clearly shown, which also happens to mount a 20mm cannon.  Filename is Do17z20mm  Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)