Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants

Spick 2003
One of the citations refers to "Spick 2003", but there is no work by Spick in the Bibliography section. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Leiferplan
RLM Lieferplan Nr. 18 Ausgabe 3, 01.11.1940 (Deliveries up to 31.10.1940) does not differentiate between the Bf 109E-4/N and E-4/BN http://s91.photobucket.com/albums/k304/Major_Sharpe/?action=view&current=emilproduktion.jpg Would it be possible to explain how it does, without another source to show this? Thanks ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   13:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On the related note, editor Minorhistorian also seems to have a problem with the July 1940 introduction date of the E-4/N type. I have found a very interesting paper, noting that the DB 601N was introduced for a Gruppe of 109 July 1940, in the link kindly provided by Minorhistorian, amongst the stuff uploaded by this same "major sharpe". The source appears to be Petrick/Mankau's Bf 110/210/410 book. Surely it should not be a problem to properly cite the July introduction date (I for one do not know any other variant that was in existence in July 1940). After all, we are all good-faith editors here, interested in improving the article, are we all not? On the second though, the link "RLM Lieferplan Nr. 18 Ausgabe 3, 01.11.1940 (Deliveries up to 31.10.1940)"" provided by editor Minorhistorian also shows that 452 E-7/N with DB 601N were produced by 31 October 1940. Am I reading it right, I am not too familiar with the subject but I believe E-7 were built with DB 601Aa and N in mixed manner? Or this particular secondary source/edition may have some typos in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.180.172 (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This "RLM Lieferplan" is a scan from an old book and an improper transcription, original uses BFW for the Messerschmitt Augsburg factory, the E-3a were built by BFW and not by MttR, the already noted merger of E-4/N and E-4/BN, probably some more minor erros. I don't claim my source is better but it's more detailed. It also does not claim every E-7 was equipped with a 601N. Most probably 601N were installed if available, otherwise 601A or Aa were used. The production of the 601N was not that high and it always proved to be somewhat problematic until they made some internal changes (AFAIR to the supercharger) to become a reliable engine in the 109F. --Denniss (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Denniss If you have the information please cite it because if, as you say, the plan I am using is wrong then isn't it better to provide the original information, rather than continue to use inaccurate material? 213.222.180.172 from Budapest, or Kurfurst - whatever - you can butt out, you have been banned from here for very good reasons and you're nothing but a sockpuppet so bye bye.  ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''


 * I agree Dennis, the other Radinger book is quite absymal when it comes to transcription accuracy. I am pretty sure its simply an error in the English published version, some lines/columns got garbled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.180.172 (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Airscoops
It seems this article could use an explanation of what and where the different air intakes are i.e. get at it from both directions: one or more of the drawings of the large-production-volume, WWII-relevant models (the E for example) could have the engine-air-intake, the oil cooler and the coolant radiators distinguished and labeled - especially the under-wing coolant radiators that suddenly appeared with the E model; additionally the text, when first mentioning these devices, could be better at indicating their location. Intermediate-level readers like myself are interested in things like this and want clues to the answers to such questions as "What are those different scoops on the 109 for?", "Why didn't the Mustang have all of those scoops?", "What about aerodynamics and its relation to air intakes didn't the designers of the P-40 understand that Willy Messerschmidt did such that the Bf 109 was such a more formidable and versatile opponent?" and "Why were the later-model Spitfire coolant radiators so much larger than those on the later Bf 109 models?". BLZebubba (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A great deal of that information is available elsewhere, including forums (eg: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/#world-war-ii-aviation) where you can ask such questions and usually get a good answer: remember, this is an encylopaedia, not a full-on technical reference; as such there are rules and guidelines to be followed which preclude adding too much technical detail such as the aerodynamics of 109 air intakes. Also, if you read more carefully there are comments on the locations and functions of various airscoops and housings; eg:
 * "Underneath the cowling was a revised, more streamlined oil cooler radiator and fairing" or


 * "The supercharger air-intake was, from the F-1 -series onwards, a rounded, "elbow"-shaped design that protruded further out into the airstream."


 * or even "The wing radiators were shallower and set farther back on the wing. A new cooling system was introduced which was automatically regulated by a thermostat with interconnected variable position inlet and outlet flaps that would balance the lowest drag possible with the most efficient cooling. A new radiator, shallower but wider than that fitted to the E was developed. A boundary layer duct allowed continual airflow to pass through the airfoil above the radiator ducting and exit from the trailing edge of the upper split flap. The lower split flap was mechanically linked to the central "main" flap, while the upper split flap and forward bath lip position were regulated via a thermostatic valve which automatically positioned the flaps for maximum cooling effectiveness.


 * Note there are often in-text links to websites, plus those at the bottom of the article, will lead readers to sites which will provide many of the details. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   03:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose I could've saved you some cut-and-paste trouble by telling you previously that I noted all of the remarks you re-state here; what I didn't see was anything explaining why the under-wing scoops suddenly appeared with the E model and why that location for them was chosen, nor what improvements were expected to be realized with subsequent modifications to the pattern established with the E's basic layout. And the remarks you highlight are widely separated in the article; I was trying to encourage someone to encapsulate delineation of the various scoops in one spot. But thanks for the lead to "WWW.WW2Aircraft.Net" - I've made note of it and will definitely check it out.


 * Just looking again and yeah, there is room for some basic explanations as to why the main radiators were moved to the wings, etc. ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

109 F
Their is mention of the F introducing the cambered fin, this is not the case. I can supply a photo of an E fin if needed. Also, the F is credited with introducing the Frise ailerons, this isn't accurate, either. While the number and/or location of aileron hinges vary between some of the models, all hinges are displaced a similar amount beneath the wing contour. The main aileron changes appear to be limited to span and elimination of the flap linkage (can't speak to linkage geometry). The mention of the main gear increased angle is described as improving handling, this is not entirely accurate. The further forward main landing gear is moved the less directionally stable the aircraft is on the ground. What does improve is an aircraft's resistance to noseover, desirable if it is to be operated from short and/or unimproved strips. JetMec (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants. 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/20140805215423/http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/stammkennzeichen.html to http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/stammkennzeichen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702000808/http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=32 to http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=32

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) 13:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Bf 109X engine model clarification
The Bf 109X section of the page mentions a 1200-horsepower P&W "Double Wasp" SC-G engine being chosen as the engine for the type, yet on said engine's page the SC-G is listed as having only 900 hp, whereas the only variants that contained something close to "SC-G" with 1200 hp are the S1C3-G and the S3C4-G. Can we fix it? Varxo (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bf 109 Variants
07/11/2019

Greetings:

A-ha! (Not the band that sang, "Take On Me", but the exclamation. To understand the weak pun in the preceding sentence, you likely had to grow up during the 1980s.) I have FINALLY figured-out what part of the file names meant!

The part by which I was thrown-off was "3Seiten neu". I thought that the uploader had meant that it was part of the Bf 109 model number. Therefore, I thought "File:Bf109B 3Seiten neu.jpg" meant the image was of model Bf 109B-3 and that "File:Bf109C 3Seiten neu.jpg" meant the image was of model Bf 109C-3. If I had examined the file names of the other sketches in the Wikipedia article, I would have realized that "3Seiten neu" was the uploader's personal identification and not part of the model number. Duh.

I apologize for cluttering-up Wikipedia with my misunderstanding. Take care.

All The Best, Robert Ternes rtmorphine Rtmorphine (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

07/10/2019

Greetings All:

Below are 2 parts of 2 messages that I previously sent to Wikipedia user “Denniss”. I don’t know if he saw and/or read them. As you will see (if you dare to read them) is that when it comes to Wikipedia prowess, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I tried to differentiate between the 2 parts by typing the second part in capital letters. Hopefully, Denniss didn’t think I was eyeing rude and completely ignore my message.

Please ignore the part where I write: “Since the text on the page makes it sound as if the plane shown in the second image wasn't even produced”. I was using my Kindle reader to edit and send messages (BIG mistake as you will see) and wasn’t able to go back and check my facts - or in this case, mistakes - since what I wrote was incorrect.

What I asked Denniss about - and about which I’m still curious are the following image files.:

File:Bf109B 3Seiten neu.jpg This image has the description “Bf 109 B-2” on the image upload page. This is the first sketch in the Wikipedia article and has the label “Bf 109B-2”. All of that is fine, except the image file’s name is for a different aircraft. Is the file name incorrect, while the rest of the information is correct, and this is a Bf 109B-2?

File:Bf109C 3Seiten neu.jpg This image has the description “Bf 109 C-1” on the image upload page. This is the second sketch in the Wikipedia article and has the label “Bf 109C-1”. Again, all of that is fine, except the image file’s name is for a different aircraft. Is the file name incorrect, while the rest of the information is correct, and this is a Bf 109C-1?

Please someone, put me out of my misery and let me know. Thank you for your time and patience!

All The Best, Rtmorphine (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC) rtmorphine Robert Ternes

EARLIER MESSAGES

Greetings:

I PREVIOUSLY SENT THIS MESSAGE TO THE WRONG PAGE ON WIKI. THE NEWER PART OF MY MESSAGE (THE ONE THAT I AM HOPEFULLY SENDING TO THE RIGHT PAGE ON WIKI) APPEARS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. PLEASE READ THE NEW PART AND THE ORIGINAL PART OF MY MESSAGE BECAUSE I STILL HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE “BF 109 VARIANTS” PAGE. THANK YOU.

I HAVE DISCOVERED SOMETHING THAT I SHOULD HAVE PREVIOUSLY VERIFIED. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING DONE SO EARLIER! WHEN I ORIGINALLY VIEWED THE WIKI BF 109 VARIANTS PAGE, I DID SO FROM MY KINDLE READER. I ALSO PERFORMED CHANGES FROM THAT SAME DEVICE BASED ON HOW IT APPEARED VIA KINDLE’S OUT-OF-DATE WWW BROWSER. (IT STILL LOOKS WEIRD ON MY KINDLE.) I HAVE NOW VIEWED THE WIKI ARTICLE FROM MY I-PAD AND NOW SEE THAT THE WIKI ARTICLE APPEARS CORRECTLY LAID-OUT TO 99.999% (OR MORE) OF THE WWW & WIKIPEDIA’S USERS! FROM NOW ON, I WILL BE MORE CAREFUL! THEREFORE, YOU CAN IGNORE THE 1ST PART OF MY MESSAGE (SHOWN BELOW).

HOWEVER, PLEASE READ AND REVIEW THE CONCERN THAT I LISTED IN THE 2ND PART OF MY MESSAGE (SHOWN BELOW). THE FILE NAMES AND THE SHORT TITLES THAT APPEAR DIRECTLY BELOW THEM ON THE WIKI PAGE STILL DON’T MATCH. ARE THE FILE NAMES AND/OR THE SHORT TITLES BELOW THEM (AS THEY APPEAR ON THE WIKI PAGE) INCORRECT?

Thank you for correcting my boneheaded mistake regarding the deleted image file. I apologize. What I had intended to correct was the hideous way that this Wiki article appears on my handheld device. I don't know if this applies to larger laptops, but on my viewer, everything beginning with the Rall quote is listed on the left side of the page with blank space on the right side of the page - the appearance is a 15%/85% split betwen the quote (which is broken up into little segments) and a blank area. Does this occur on larger laptops and desktops? If not, then I would not have entered all of the &lt;br&gt; HTML tags. By entering the "break" tags, the Wiki page looked normal - at least on my viewer. Please let me know if the Wiki page looks abnormal the way it is now (which to me still looks weird), or if the page looks okay on larger viewers.

One other thing, the image files have names that are different than what they indicate is portrayed. When I first attempted to correct the way this page appeared, I deleted the image tags and re-typed them after the Rall guote. In doing so I stupidly forgot the image file names and had to make a bunch of mistakes trying to enter the image file names correctly - after an hour of failure, I gave up. Since the text on the page makes it sound as if the plane shown in the second image wasn't even produced, I eliminated the file. I realize that this wasn't the correct thing to do. Again, I apologize. However, can you please compare the image file names and the titles that appear directly below them? In both instances the file names do not match what they purport to show. Thank you.

All The Best, Rtmorphine (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC) rtmorphine Robert Ternes