Talk:Heinkel He 100

tagging for "essay"
Might not be quite the correct tag other option was "tone" or "inappropiate person" but I feel that certain sections have to be dealt with. GraemeLeggett 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur, I "stumbled" onto this article and rather than proceeding, I left the comment, "This is all I'm going to do at first- but a complete rewrite is required". I will give it a week for comments but then, I will tackle the job. FWIW Bzuk 18:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

DM should be RM
In the section about a possible purchase by Japan it says the aircraft and the license would've cost xx DM. DM is Deutsche Mark the post-war currency of Germany, the actual currency used prior to and during WW2 in Germany was Reichsmark --> RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.103.254 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooling system
The section about the aircraft's cooling system is informative, but it's basically original research ("Following is a description of what is known about the cooling system used in the final version of Heinkel's system. It is based entirely on careful study of surviving photographs of the He 100 since no detail plans survive" is a dead giveaway). It's plausible enough, but for all I know it could be a lot of nonsense, because it doesn't have any sources. Unless it can be sourced to something, it should really be removed. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooling System again
I'm only uncultured wikipedia reader and I like "unsourced data" or "original research" instead of "no data" or "blank page-s" The cooling system paragraph although very interesting & informative is a complex matter and need some sketches for dummies who never faced mechanical engineering courses.--Kiko 64 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge request for Heinkel He 113
Is there enough in the Heinkel He 113 article to stand on its own? It may make more sense to include it into this article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section appears to be WP:OR
This is unsourced, and appears on the face of it to constitute original research. If sources differ as to why the He 100 never went into production, Wikipedia should state that they do so, and then present their arguments. Stating in Wikipedia's voice that the RLM version is correct based on the opinion of whoever wrote this is a violation of policy. 86.141.208.224 (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We also favour citation, which this article is badly lacking. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't the only section that is uncited and riddled with WP:OR - the article should be trimmed back to what can be cited, and not include opinion in the voice of Wikipedia. Currently we cannot say that sources differ, as no sources are presented. The section should be removed.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Info template
I tried to clean up the info template at the bottom, which was kind of awkward. I changed the phrasing to "intended" and "actual" for the various armament schemes (instead of "Offical" and "In Fact"), but I cannot figure out how to get rid of the part that says Guns, or drop the two entries below that down onto their own bullets. I hate templates, they just make what should be obvious difficult, as far as I'm concerned. Right now it reads

Guns (intended) 1 x 20mm MG FF cannon firing through propeller hub and 2 x 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns in wing roots
 * (actual) 1 x 7.92mm MG 17 machine gun firing through propeller hub and 2 x 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns in wing roots

I want it to read

Guns
 * (intended) 1 x 20mm MG FF cannon firing through propeller hub and 2 x 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns in wing roots
 * (actual) 1 x 7.92mm MG 17 machine gun firing through propeller hub and 2/x 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns in wing roots

or just remove the Guns altogether, but I cannot get the entries to separate, and I cannot just delete "Guns" or the entire armaments section vanishes. I tried taking each individual character out one at a time, and each caused a worse result than the one before.

Also, in the Prototypes section it says that on of the V units was used in filming a movie "to preserve the record breaking V8". But in the adjacent paragraph it claims that V8 was probably destroyed in crash testing. Why would they go to such lengths to save the V8 and then wreck it in destructive testing?

64.223.104.59 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Unlike every other armed forces organization in the world, the Japanese Army and Navy both fielded complete land-based air forces." ---> Incorrect. At least Soviet Union had naval air force which was deployed in land bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:410:D4A4:B55B:A5A4:BCDE:16E0 (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)