Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109

Explanation of "Flugzeugwerke"

The article explains that "Bayerische Flugzeugwerke" literally [means] "Bavarian Aircraft Works", meaning "Bavarian Aircraft Factory". Isn't this explanation a bit of an overkill, as Works is used in English in the same way, e. g. Swindon Works? --KnightMove (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's what "Fleugzeugwerke" translates to. Are you suggesting we leave "Works" out of the translation because "anyone can see" that "Werke" obviously is the same as "works"? So we'd end up saying "Bayerische Flugzeugwerke means Bavarian Aircraft"? How else would you leave out the word "werke"? Flugzeugwerke = aircraft works. I don't see the problem. Even ignoring that, if it didn't say that, you'd have someone in the comments asking "doesn't "werke" mean "works/factory" in English? So why doesn't the translation include the word "works" in it?"AnnaGoFast (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The OP was stating that " ... . meaning "Bavarian Aircraft Factory" was unnecessary and that "Bayerische Flugzeugwerke" literally [means] "Bavarian Aircraft Works" in English was sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"Works" may equal "Werke" in some dialects of English, but not in all. "Factory" is used in the most used dialect. Lineagegeek (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Movie appearances

so after world war 2 the produced aircraft that were look like Bf-109 are Ha-1112 ex: Battle Of Britain it used repainted Ha-1112 because the produced aircraft of the time are Ha-1112 that probably cheaper than remaining 109 Wibu in 1945 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

At the time that the Battle of Britain film was in production (1965-68), airworthy original Messerschmitt Bf109s were exceedingly rare. However, the Spanish Ha-1112 Buchon, some of them built as late as 1958, had been well maintained by the Spanish Air Force, both in airworthy condition and in useful numbers.

Hence it wasn't just economics - it was the only way that something resembling a staffel of 109s could be made available for filming.

WendlingCrusader (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

...the produced aircraft of the time are Ha-1112 that probably cheaper than remaining 109... The issue wasn't necessarily price. Recall all the Allied bombing raids aimed at German aircraft factories and logistical stockpiles. Recall that the Allies were preparing for a grueling multi-year invasion of Japan that was cut short by the A-bomb. The postwar result was that spares for German aircraft were rare while spares for Allied (particularly American) aircraft were abundant. Piston fighters were becoming obsolete anyway. If you're a relatively cash-strapped country, why struggle to keep a Bf-109 airworthy when you can cozy up to the U.S. or U.K. and get P-51s or Sea Furies with truckloads of spares? Carguychris (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Performance and variants

Considering the significant improvement of the performance of the Bf 109 over its career, wouldn't it be relevant to include specifications for a few models besides just the G series? There is a whole page about Bf 109 variants but it gives nothing about speed, only power, range, armament, etc. The only performance stats given on either page is for the G-6. How much faster is a G-6 than an E-4? I came here specifically because I was curious to find that out and it seems strange that it simply isn't mentioned anywhere. If it is it's buried somewhere at random in the text and I didn't notice it. That can't be obscure information that just isn't available. Idumea47b (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It is convention in the aircraft project to include specifications from one variant only. The variant chosen is usually the most numerous or representative of the type, discussions to change the variant take place on the article talk pages. The guideline is to prevent an unencyclopedic wall of numbers. Comparison between variants is also discouraged (comparison articles and tables in articles) for the same reason, airliner articles often ignore this. The rationale is that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and the information that readers seek is contained in specialist publications/monographs etc. This is a wiki wide concept mostly stemming from WP:NOT, the aircraft project conventions follow the policy, if they don't then someone usually notes it and complains. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 07:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a valid question, though, and the G-6 with the 605 engine had almost 50% more power than the Battle of Britain E-3 with the 601, the E-3 making claimed maxima of 293mph (472kph) at sea level, 307mph (494kph) at 3,280ft (1,000m), 322mph (518kph) at 6,500ft (2,000m), 348mph (560kph) at 14,560ft (4,438m) and 336mph (541kph) at 19,685ft (6,000m). (William Green, Aircraft of the Battle of Britain, Macdonald / Pan, London, 1969, SBN 330 02415 9,p.33.) It will be seen that the E-3's full-throttle height (1,020hp at 14,765ft -- 4,500m) was below that of the Spitfire Mk I, which was rated for 1,030hp at 16,250ft (4,953m) and 355mph (571kph) at 19,000ft (5,791m), (Green, op. cit., p.18) the British fighter being appreciably faster at the typical combat altitude of 20,000ft -- and also at medium to low altitude, where British 100-octane fuel gave more power than German 87-octane. And the Spitfire and Hurricane had 15 seconds' worth of ammunition, while the E-3 had only about 5 seconds' firing time for its main armament, the 20mm wing cannon -- its two rifle-calibre machine guns could keep firing for 45 seconds, but that left it with only the firepower of a World War I fighter, making it badly outgunned by the British opposition. By the time of the G-series, the Germans were putting too much power on the 109's airframe and the Gustav was known as 'the killer' because it killed about one in three of the pilots learning to fly it. The added power gave greater straight-line speed but only worsened the swing on take-off and landing, which was often too much for the 109's poor undercarriage and dated aerodynamics. The RAF tested a captured E-3 presented by the French in 1940 and were surprised by its reluctance to roll or turn, serious problems in a fighter. In 1944 they tried a captured G-6 against a Mustang and found that, although the Mustang did not climb, roll or turn very well, it was superior to the Gustav in everything except zoom-climb. They noted particularly that the 109 G's maximum rate of roll was 'embarrassing' because 'the slots keep opening' -- that is the automatic Handley Page anti-stall slots on the wing leading edges, which other fighters at that time did not need. The Focke-Wulf 190, included in the same comparative trials, was a more dangerous opponent because it could roll (that is, change direction) faster than a 109 or a Mustang or indeed anything else. (Alfred Price, Battle Over the Reich, Ian Allan, Shepperton, 1973, ISBN 0 7110 0481 1, p.202). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.70.160 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Concerns and classification

The B-class criteria #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. "Important or controversial" material could be subjective, but multiple maintenance tags indicate more than a likelihood of being challenged, requiring an inline citation per BURDEN.

Current sourcing maintenance categories:

• Articles with unsourced statements from July 2010,
• Articles with unsourced statements from February 2013,
• Articles with unsourced statements from January 2019,
• Articles with unsourced statements from June 2019,
• Articles with unsourced statements from March 2020. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Where is the source located

I cant seem to find the first source, its supposed to be "U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Aircraft Division Industry Report, Exhibit I – German Airplane Programs vs Actual Production", but it dosen't link to anything and a quick google search doesn't give anything. Can anyone else find this source or should it be replaced? OliKtokEt (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems the source was first added to the article in this edit in 2009. Unfortunately, the editor has since been blocked, so they cannot confirm where they found the source. I also searched for the source and I don't believe it exists online. While that doesn't automatically mean that it needs to be replaced, it's probably worth looking for this source and confirming it actually supports the content after so many years. It appears the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum has an extensive collection of United States Strategic Bombing Survey records. - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It was available online at soem point but the angelfire website seems down or access is restricted. I do have some production tables of this report bit it ends with 12/44. I dont know if theres another revision covering 1945, might be in the tables I dont have. Data seems correct with the data up to 1944, even fixes the original calculation error for WNF 1944. The Gyor data seems to also include production for Hungarian air force whereas the USSBS data covers only those produced for Germany (as that's what they counted which was the basis for this production report). --Denniss (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)