Talk:Dornier Do 217/Archive 1

Production
Are these production figures Original Research? Is there a secondary source for them?Nigel Ish 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer is yes and no. The productin figures come from a compilation done by German officers in late 1945. It is available at the Federal Archives in Freiburg, Germany. The problem is that they have many mistakes included for the German officers did not have production lists after December 1943. The deliveries for 1944 and 1945 were estimates. Furthermore, they did wrong interpretations with the figures. That is very clear for the case of the Do 217, for it was built until May, 1944. To correct the case, I put in a production list based on production programms and delivery figures from the Federal Archive in Freiburg.

Many German aviation historians take their information only from secondary sources. Many of these are wrong, inventions or fairy tales. Griehl is no exception in doing so. Diethelm duck (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then they should not be added. Its OR. I've removed it. And the source is not traceable either so no one can check. Dapi89 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to add: opinions from anons off the internet about the quality of proper historians is irrelvant. If there is conflict among them add the differences. Please see: No original research. Dapi89 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is really a pity that serious research work is not appreciated in the English Wikipedia, but obviously wrong data from secondary works. Anyone who is interested in the correct production figures can look into the German version.Diethelm duck (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't just assume your figures are correct. Fo all you know authors have taken other things into consideration. Besides, there is no way a verifying what you say is true. Sorry. Dapi89 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The main part of the production was used in the training role.[citation needed]
I am deleting this statement. Who was being trained to fly what, and with what gasoline? The article says it was phased out in favor of single engine fighters (and I add jets); fighter pilots are not trained in bombers!


 * I think that the statement in question refers to the night fighter variants (i.e. Do 217 J and M which use by the Luftwaffe was mainly as a training aircraft for other more capable night fighters - as it was written, however, it was misleading.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

bomb load
the bomb load it's on a wrong source max internal load for M it's 4000 kg (4*1000kg SAP (semi armoured piercing), considering only HE bombs it's 2800 kg (2*1400kg)). many of the olds english pubblication on luftwaffe planes are on intelligenge allied reports and aren't reliable--87.7.218.200 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

== Design ==

I have never heard of the Do 217 being designed "from scratch". Most of the sources I have seen mention nothing of this. Given the Do 217 looks like an obese version of the Do 17 it is difficult to believe the design is inherently different. How was it designed and what was different? Did it make sense to design it from scratch? Funny how this "new" design looks exactly like the Do 17. I think things need explaining. Dapi89 (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Manfred Giehl states:

Dornier worked on a version of the Do 17M with the all round vision cockpit of the Do 17Z and a fuselage having a large bomb bay capable of holding a maximum of two 500kg and ten 50kg bombs.

He goes on to say:

''On 8 July 1939 Dornier issued a manufacturing specification for a Do 217 E Glide-Bomber for full marine use with BMW 801 engines. In contrast to the earlier description, the Do 217 E had a new nose and the nose, cockpit rear, and ventral positions carried one MG 15 each. The maximum bomb load was two SC 500 and two SC 250 bombs''.

Griehl says nothing about a significant redesign. Dapi89 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

E-2 engines
Alfred Price in his edition says DB 603s were used in the E-2. Griehl states the 603 was only used in the prototypes of the M-8 (V13 and V14). Does anyone else have any data on this? Dapi89 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Price told us a lot but lot of this stuff was inaccurate or plain wrong. The whole E-series was powered by 1560 PS BMW 801A, later by 801L of the same power (801C is wrong, it's L, the bomber version of the fighter engine 801C (the 801C/L are similar to 801A but with automatic prop pitch mechanism); similar with 1700 PS 801D (inaccurate, correct designation would be D-2 for the fighter engine) and it's bomber derivative 801 G-2. The DB 603 was used by the Do 217 M and N series. EDIT: If you're interested in some aircraft manuals use this link --Denniss (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources I have (The Price International Air Power Review article, Green, Smith & Kay and the Dressel and Griel books all have the E powered by the BMW 801, starting with the MA and ML "power eggs" (which differed only in having diferent propellers), followed by 801Cs (same power but "bare" engines rather than power eggs, with 801Ds for the Ks, with the J sharing the 801 ML of the 217E-2.  Have you a WP:RS for these engines and powers?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The typical confusion with the engines, 801A is the first version of the 801 and was intended for bombers. Second was the fighter engine 801C, this had some improvements like the auto prop pitch mechanism. This was introduced as 801L for bombers. 801MA/ML are just 801A/L as Motorenanlage (not power-egg as this is the later Triebwerksanlage), many authors mistakenly used the Motorenanlage or Triebwerksanlage designation instead of the engine type. Again, there's no 801D but only the 801 D-2 (often shortened to 801D but thats wrong as 801D was a project) and this is a fighter engine. The bomber version is the 801 G-2. If you need a reliable source then look at the website I linked above, many documents for the BMW 801 available, at least a lot of info is found in the various manuals of aircraft using them. The capture report of the Ju 88 G-1 landing by errorin England 1944 has explicitely stated the engine type as 801 G-2. --Denniss (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Griehl has cleared up the misunderstanding. The 603s were to be used in the E prototypes, but were not. Price has probably used a plan rather than a protoype spec. Dapi89 (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Layout
I think t would be better to merge all the sub variant sections together, perhaps like the Dornier Do 17 or He 111 pages once these spaces have been filled out a bit more. Dapi89 (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Do 217 manual
At http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de (click on Neu-aktuell) there are several Do 217 manuals available. The latest add-on is a manual for E-1/E-3 (October 1941) and an E-2 weapons manual (January 1942). Information contained: E-1/E-3 talks about a hydraulic prop pitch mechanism thus 801L engines, E-1/E3 manuals has red-marked add-on notices that the dive brakes were not operational, not installed and space covered-over. The 1050 L fuselage tank is not named as the main tank, the two 795 L inner-wing tanks are named as main tanks. --Denniss (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no complaints if you want to change the information regarding the fuel tanks using the manual as a supporting citation. Griehl states that the E-1 design schematics had a dive brake design on the E-1b variant although it was never built. As far as I can see no operational dive brake (with the exceptions of prototypes) were used on E-1/3s. I don't have the book by Green that states these were in use from the E-2 on operations. Though Griehl does say and has supporting pictures of E-2s on trials with the lattice-type airbrakes (p. 48, 51).
 * I am still unsure as to whether Ls were used on E-1s. Although Griehl does say (p. 48) a trial of an E-1 led it to be installed with L-2s. Dapi89 (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Powerplants
I have removed this statement "The coolant radiators were located underneath the engines" as it cannot be correct - it appears to be referring to the E model and according to other information on the page the model E had an aircooled radial engine. This section starts by discussing the E model then seems to talk about models in general, it needs making clearer which model or models it is referring to. It could be true that the later model M with DB603 watercooled inline engines had the radiators under the engines. Chris.Bristol (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it's referring to the oil coolers. Perhaps with less than perfect English skills..45Colt 10:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nickname
Was the " Fliegender Bleistift " nick extended to cover the Do 217 as well, or was that limited to the Do 17? BP OMowe (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)