Talk:Tego film

Adhesive type error - Aerolite UF or casein?
This article includes the phrase "glued by Aerolite, a casein adhesive."

But Aerolite is a UF adhesive. Was the Albatross bonded with Aerolite or casein? Either way, something is wrong and needs changing.

Dendrotek 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs) ed


 * The problem aroose with this uncited change, adding "Aerolite" to the pre-existing "casein". I can source the Albatross as having used a casein adhesive, and that the Mosquito used Aerolite, but not that the Albatross used Aerolite. As you note, Aerolite is a urea formaldehyde, not casein - although one has to be careful with old brandnames, as sometimes the modern adhesive bears little resemblance to the current formula. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Aerolite wasn't available until 1938 so the Albatross is unlikely to have been constructed using it: - however, this article also from Flight specifically mentions the Albatross using it:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Since they used casein adhesive in first Mosquitos and then changed to syntetic resin adhesives, casein adhesive has been used in Albatross. However, which is the relevance of Albatross' and Mosquito's adhesives since page is handling Tegofilm which has not been used either in Albatross or Mosquito?Myllyre (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the principal point that neither casein adhesives nor Aerolite are strictly relevant to Tegofilm, but as it stands the text in the section on use in aircraft is erroneous and messy. Would you like me to try and put it right? I know for sure that Mosquito adhesive was deliberately altered at a certain stage. Dendrotek 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft names in different languages do not demonstrate design relationships
The article states (16 April 2013) that "Germany attempted to copy this aircraft [i.e. the De Havilland Mosquito, just mentioned in the text] as the Moskito, it used Tego film". The Ta 154 Moskito was a design very different from its British namesake. A statement like this undermines one's confidence in the entire article. Togifex (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In what ways was the Ta 154 "very different" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The twin-engine mid-wing formula was quite common, probably because of its soundness and usefulness. But a common basic layout is insufficient to establish a relationship, let alone one that justifies the word “copy”. The DH Mosquito, for instance, was not a copy of the Junkers 88, or the Junkers 88 a copy of the Martin B-10, or the Dornier 17. All these aircraft, and the Ta 154 also, were designed independently from the outset. One who concludes a relationship from a basic arrangement of essential components, and/or from the fact that aircraft may share principal building materials, would see this very quickly when looking at structural details, where they probably had very little, if anything, in common. 31.209.228.110 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How many other military aircraft of this period were constructed as wooden monocoques? – let alone twin engine high-speed light bombers specifically.
 * The Ta154 was designed because of the success of the Mosquito, and to emulate the virtues of the Mosquito. Amongst others, we have Bill Gunston's citation on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be an instance of how easy it is to sink into pointless wrangling. And a matter like this - if deeemed worthy of being settled - should rather be settled on the Ta 154 talk page (in the unlikely event that somebody were to assert there that the Ta 154 was a “copy” of the DH Mosquito). The idea to make aircraft out of wood can occur to a person of any nationality. The Ta 154 was not a bomber. Locutus sum. Togifex.Togifex (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy re the above and it is interesting that Bill Gunston supports it too. Janes WW II Aircraft does as well. I've been looking at it in the Reference Library this afternoon.Dendrotek 19:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * IIRC the Ta 154 wasn't a copy of the Mosquito, but it was intended to emulate it in its performance - hence the name Moskito - which is 'Mosquito' in German. And IIARC, the Ta 154 was originally designed as a Schnellbomber and was only redesigned as a nachtjager later on - as was the He 219. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have changed 'copy' to 'emulate'. Another 'emulation' of the Mosquito BTW, was the I.Ae. 24 Calquin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.147.22 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Failure of project NOT due to wood adhesives
Citing (No. 114)  ↑Lutz Budraß: Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918–1945. Droste, Düsseldorf 1998, ISBN 3-7700-1604-1, S. 794. (Lutz Budraß: aircraft and air defense industry in Germany from 1918 to 1945. Droste, Dusseldorf, 1998, ISBN 3-7700-1604-1, page 794) the German Wikipedia Article says that “Die Gründe für das Scheitern des Projektes waren nicht produktionstechnischer Art, sondern die Folge mangelnder Detailkonstruktion, gepaart mit der Ungeduld der Luftwaffenführung.[114]” (The reasons for the failure of the project were not production-technical, but the result of lack of detailed design, coupled with the impatience of the Air Force leadership.) Having read both the article and other published information about Tego film, plus with my own professional knowledge of timber engineering and adhesives, I feel that this is certainly correct. They needed a process comparable to Redux, which the Allies has, and which the UK applied successfully in the DH Hornet and to post-war civilian aircraft e.g. Fokker types. The German engineers and industrial chemists had the know-how and in normal circumstances would have had the ability, but in the chaos post fall of Stalingrad, it was impossible.

There is a list of crash causes in the German Article and one out of twelve was due to adhesive failure. Tego was being manufactured at the Goldschmidt factory in Ammendorf, which was less badly bombed than Essen and Wuppertal. Even in the war, Tego was also available outside Germany, even in the UK, an article in Flight Archive says so.

So, I’m sorry to say that both of the English Wikipedia Articles – FW Ta 154 and Tego Film, contain misunderstandings and some factual errors, as well as “citations needed” statements. But not many Wikipedians seem to visit these Articles, so perhaps people don

Thanks, Andy, for recent change. Article is getting better. I like the way "Tego is now a generic name" has been handled - like Hoover eh?) But still it needs to stress more that a) Tego was available to Germany from elsewhere besides Glodschmidt Ammendorf by the time of the bombing raids. b) It was not primarily for technical adhesive reasons that the plane failed to meet expectations, but for insistence to protect scarce experienced aircrews by surrounding them with metal (their concept of the issue, not shared by Mosquito crews); Combined with inability to bond metal and wood together (they didn't have Redux - admittedly this IS purely technical), plus general political incompetence and madness. (Might be hard to phrase that in terms acceptable for an actual Article!) - Without the madness though, we might not still be here!--Dendrotek 11:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the widespread use of wooden structures on late-war German aircraft and the structural failures due to dis-bonding of the joints in some of them is one of the reasons, in addition to possible sabotage at the factories, the RAF in 1945 banned its personnel from flying some captured Luftwaffe aircraft, such as the He 162, as they were considered likely to be un-airworthy. The exceptions to this prohibition were RAE personnel, such as Capt. Eric Brown, who were tasked with testing the aircraft under suitable conditions.


 * Tego Film may have been available outside Germany but Germany was under blockade and so it may not have been obtainable in any quantity there. IIRC, the substitute adhesive was Dynamit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.216.123 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Later in the war some German aircraft alloy components such as rudders, ailerons, external bomb panniers, etc., were substituted with wooden versions of these components to save on limited supplies of light alloys. It was the dis-bonding of some of these that made these aircraft in the RAF's eyes, unsafe. They could cause flutter or even be lost completely, leaving the pilot without control in that plane, e.g., yaw, pitch, roll. A qualified test pilot could cope with these but an average pilot might not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.164 (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)