Talk:Heinkel He 111/Archive 1

Archive 1

split off CASA 2.111?

The CASA models were produced with different engines and in almost completely non-overlapping runs. Is there any reason they shouldn't be stubbed off to a new page? It would, if nothing else, simplify the service dates for the He 111 and allow full specs for the Merlin-engined 2.111. ericg ✈ 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created this page as a stub with basic specifications. Your assistance is appreciated! ericg ✈ 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Phased out in 1942?

"He 111 was phased out of front line service in 1942, but remained in production until 1944" Why would it have been keep in production then? The He 111 served into 1945 in the path-finder, agent dropping, and transport role.--Bryson 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good find, changed it to a somewhat better solution from in the July 2004 article version. --Denniss 10:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In Media/ Games section

OK, what is the standard for subjects in media? I see a lot of other pages with this, and it serves a valid puroose for curious/interested persons to see real and simulated examples (not just 2d photos) As to games, it is a very valid inclusion as well. My opinion their needs to be a section, but listing brief, and only when image is more then a few (10 seconds?) seconds, and in games if you can at least partially control them, not simply as AI targets. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange: You re-added the pop-culture junk BEFORE you know what the standards are? For the basic guideline we follow on aircraft articles regarinign pop-culture, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture. The key phrase there is "especially notable", and I don't believe anything on the list falls into that category. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and other related guidelines, the fact that some article may have sub-standard sectons or content is no reason to justify it's use on other pages. If you'd like to present your new standard, pleease do so at WT:AIR, and gain a consensus for it there, then you can apply it to article like this one. - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I went on the assumption that it should have been listed. I am reading over the links now (First time I saw them). --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Crew numbers

It current lists: Crew: 5 (pilot, navigator/bombardier, nose gunner, ventral gunner, dorsal gunner)

We all know that the navigator/bombardier and nose gunner is the same person. Also, the number is 4. It could carry 5, but crew was mainly 4. Goes to proves that even Janes can be wrong. I will change in a couple of days. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Operational History

....section has just undergone creation. Expansion tags have been added until it can be fleshed out. Dapi89 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Navigational aids

I recall the Knickebein blind bombing/navigational system was present on all or most He 111s, as opposed to the the X and Y devices which were only used by special Pathfinder units like KG 100. I can't seem to find the reference though, but the part where it says that a 'select few' Heinkels were fitted with the Knickebein seems erroneous. Kurfürst (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not erroneous, definitely not "most". Only three Gruppen used this; II./KG 55, III./KG 26 and KG 100 (Mackay p. 89). Now III./KG 26 never had more than 26 machines in total during the BoB. II./KG 55 had not more than 28 (de Zeng Vol 1), and KG 100 had only two gruppen during the BoB, Stab.KG 100 and IV.(Erg)/KG 100. Their totals never exceeded 19 and 18 respectively. I.V(Erg) had 24 machines but 6 or 7 for training crews (de Zeng Vol 2). Thats about 70 aircraft - most definitley not in the majority but in the minority. Dapi89 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, given Mackay does not use "select few" I will remove it and convey its significance rather than its wide spread usage. Dapi89 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess the above also constitutes OR I think. Dapi89 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Knickebein used the standard blind-landing Lorenz receiver uprated with more sensitive components, thus it was more-or-less standard in many He 111's.

One of the things that led R.V. Jones to the discovery of Knickebein was that the Lorenz receivers on board shot down He 111s were found to be far more sensitive than they needed to be just for blind landing. Jones talks about this in the 1977 The Secret War episode "The Battle of the Beams". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.99 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

He 111Z

It claims a total fuel capacity of 8.25 l (2 US gal). Is this correct as with the stated range of 680 miles you're looking at a 340mpg value! ABurness (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the problem: decimal point confusion. The earlier text states Total fuel capacity was 8.250 litres, but was changed to what we have now per this diff. Warning, LOTS of edits in that diff!) Being a German plane, a lot of editors and or source material use decimal commas and thousands-points. Apparently this should be "8,250 litres". I'm going to change it to that, but add a {{verify source}} tag to make sure the figure is correct. Thanks for spotting that! - BillCJ (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. I have added the citation. The confusion = edit made by another editor in the link above. Dapi89 (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

THe confusion stems from the use of decimal-thousands, or perhaps it was just a typo. Whatever the cause, we all need to be more careful. Also, removing the conversions to gallons (US or Imp) is a not good idea. Per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "Conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided." If you prefer Imperail gallons, then nmake the conversions. Until then, we should leave in the US gallons conversions. - BillCJ (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomprehensible quote

In the 111 Z section, it says, "The variant did not display 'any convicing performance'". Even if it's a typo and should say "convincing", I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and elaborated on. Dapi89 (talk)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heinkel He 111/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. It is Well-written

(a) The article is well written and flows well, there are no sections which don't make sense. There are only a few spelling mistakes.

(b) It complies with the manual of style

2. It is Factually accurate and verifiable

(a) References are properly layed out and all sources of information are referenced

(b) All quotations and stats are referenced from sources which appear reliable due to wide use of them. However the popular culture section is missing a reference and needs atleast one as this is information which could be challenged See Good article criteria

(c) No original research

3. It is very Broad in its coverage

(a) It contains a lot of relevant information and addresses all aspects of the topic, it is very well detailed

(b) It doesn't stray from the focused topic and all information is relevant to the Heinkel He 111

4. Written in a Neutral POV

(a) The article is written in a neutral and doesn't show biased opinions

5. It is Stable with no ongoing edit wars

(a) This page does not change significantly on a daily basis and remains stable. There are also no ongoing edit wars is the history section or on the talk page

6. It is Illustrated by images if possible

(a) The images are all tagged correctly with their copyright status

(b) The images are very relevant to the page and the captions are good with more detail given once clicking on the picture

Overall this article is very good. It is very detailed and a lot of work has clearly gone into it. The article contains well referenced quotes, statistics and lists such as list of operators. There are only a few minor problems however none of which are significant enough to stopping this from becoming a good article. For improvements, the popular culture section needs atleast one reference to be sure it isn't challenged. There are plenty of images which are all tagged correctly with their copyright status and are all relevant. This article without a shadow of a doubt makes the Good article criteria and I believe it could even go as far as featured article.

Ajpralston1 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag

This is indeed a request that assertions in the lede, unsourced and not clearly born out by the subsequent text, be supported or removed. Please do not remove such tags without acknowledging such requests. Thanks.Redheylin (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an assertion. In case you had not noticed, it is sourced. Perhaps a proper read of the article lead, and the development of the He 111 is required. Dapi89 (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture section addition

It should be included using the minimal guidline in Media (discussed Popular sections, aircraft).
This would effectively make the Battle of Britain the movie choice, and World War II Online the game choice (it is the only level bomber on German side). Dapi89, what do you think? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Its up to you. I would keep to a minimum (films). I don't think adding sims will keep it minimal, there are loads out there that use the He 111. If we do one, the rest will be added and it gets out of control. Dapi89 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will word it such that it will exclude others.  :) --Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Mikhail Devyataev case be mentioned?

213.171.63.227 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Nick Cooper (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish He 111s

According to an article by Gonzalo Avila Cruz in the September/October 1998 Air Enthusiast, Spain's last two Heinkel built He 111s, a He 111E and H continued in use until at least 1958. Most of Spains's He 111Es were grounded from October 1942 to February 1946 due to lack of spares for their Jumo 211As, but this problem was then resolved allowing them to continue in service (being more reliable than the Jumo 211F powered CASA 2.111s).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Mackay is pretty clear that the entire fleet was down because of the Jumo crisis. He seems to suggest an "adaption" program was in place by 1953 - the reversion to Merlins. Dapi89 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you put that info in. It may by best to have retired by air force? Main users Germany and Spain each with date. Dapi89 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added detail of the Spanish use to the Operational History article if anyone's interested.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I was right after all. Well I was off by a year, but it is still better than saying the aircraft was retired in 1945. Still don't see the reason to state in the infobox that the type was retired in 1945 by the Luftwaffe when it mentions that in the article. There should only be one retirement date in the infobox. Better than a revert war though.Panzertank (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you were not. Two Heinkels does not warrant changing the retirement date to 1958. Neither does it justify putting a date post-1945 regarding the Romanian/Bulgarian and Czech machine that has been acknowledged in the "User" section for nearly two years. Dapi89 (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

German-built HE-111s were in military service after 1945. The infobox does not say "Retired by Main User", it says "Retired." Since they were used by a military after 1945, the article should reflect that. For example, the RAF has retired the Tornado F.3. Since the Saudis still use them, you would not state that the F.3 was retired in 2011 because the RAF stopped using it. Don't worry Dapi89, you are allowed to be wrong once in awhile. ;)Panzertank (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Its He 111 not HE or He-111. One/two machines should not be dominate an info box. The current German date comes first, and Spain's two aircraft are noted. Its good enough for me. Dapi89 (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

adding operators

Iraq and Syria air forces operated the He111 in 1941 albeit in German hands and therefore should be added as operators 213.123.135.235 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they did not use them. German aircraft operated by german crews under german command just marked with iraqi/syrian colors. --Denniss (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Was there any such thing as Syrian colours in 1941? Syria was run by the French (and German involvement in the Syrian campaign was only minimal (i.e. passing through to Iraq) as far as I remember.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

H-20

Unfortunately I don't have the Punka reference re: the use of 213E-1s as power plants in the H-20. But it still is a more authoritative source than the say so of editors. I believe its better not to change the information in the source given (for reasons that should be obvious to experienced editors), but rather find a better one. After consulting Karl-Heinz Regnat it appears most H-20s (excluding those selected for special operations) were indeed fitted with the old F-2s. The later H-22 was given the E-1 in small numbers; ostensibly to deliver the unguided bombs against Britain. Dapi89 (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Survivors. There is a fifth one.

The museum in Hermeskeil in Germany has one stored outside. Here's a picture of it.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=loc:49.685278,6.960833&hl=en&ll=49.685655,6.962478&spn=0.000014,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=49.685655,6.962478&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-76921712

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugausstellung_Hermeskeil

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heinkel_HE_111_H16_pic-2.JPG He 111 H-16 (Stammkennzeichen of G1+FL),

Pretty sure that is a CASA 2.111 not a He 111. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any easy distinguishing feature? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The spanish aircraft have a pair of Merlins. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hermeskeil

CASA 2.111

Meaningless numbers

"242 He 111s were destroyed during the course of the battle between July and October 1940, a total substantially lower than the 303 Ju 88s destroyed. The Dornier Do 17s losses in the Battle of Britain amounted to 132 machines destroyed, the lowest losses of the three German bomber types." Statements like this with no relevant contextual data have no place in an encyclopedia, and should be deleted or expanded to provide meaning. Losses as percentage of machines deployed ? Were their missions equivalent ? Real damage done per loss ? Cost effectiveness in money, lives and training ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a fact. Deal with it. Dapi89 (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I see this change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heinkel_He_111&curid=174487&diff=646815403&oldid=646813314 has changed UK spellings to US. Any justification, or is it just "WP is American, Dude!" yet again? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong translation

Very good written and full of information. Here are translation errors found in text: Werknummern (Works numbers) is wrong. I propose rather the term production number (P/N). A 'Werknummer' is a unique identifier isued by the producer. The case of German numbers are simply systematicly increased numbers beginning with pre-serial protoypes (delivered to troops). The 'Werknummer' was systematicaly paintet in 25 cm high letters in black or white on the tail or rudder on both side . This simplifies the recognition for historians working with b/w photos.

Funkgerät radio:  'Funkgerät is litteraly the translation for 'radio', so this phrase means: "..was used up by Radio radio equipment and contained the dorsal..". I guess the author is believing that the Therm means a kind of specification or factory name? It is not. 

reference: this among others --Cosy-ch (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggest this notation style Funkgerät (radio), or (German: radio). Wiki may have a standard already. Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Video links (to YouTube) of videos I created

The links of videos I added are my creation, and are very relevant to the topic for the detailed description and operation. I have contributed to this page in past, but not a frequent Wiki contributor. Direct me on options to adding videos, and can the YT vid link remain for now? Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Citing yourself is always a tricky proposition. The main issue is that, unless you have some credentials, these are no different than any other self-published source - i.e., they don't rise to the level of a reliable source. These might work better as a YT playlist for the external links section, since they do offer a good view into the aircraft. --Xanzzibar (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have written 40 articles for the game War Thunder, an example is on Wellington. The limit of "external links" is the separation from the most relevant section. Better than no line, though. Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links should really add to the article and not added for the sake of it or as a replacement for finding information with Google (other search engines are available), I would say they are not needed. MilborneOne (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If one is looking for general info, agree, but this is very specific, detailed, information. Additionally your suggestion does not work well. A Google search for He 111 under "video" tab, only 1 video shows up on page 2, and the others do not show up until many pages down. Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to create your own website for these videos but they have no place here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

They have every place to be here, and improves the value of Wiki. The only question is what is best way. Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope sorry wikipedia is not a collection of videos, and as the addition has been challenged you will need a consensus on this page to add anything, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft inviting comment MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I should also point out that external links are not inserted in article text as you did, as explained at WP:EL. Furthermore inserting your own videos into the article, no matter how well intentioned is covered under WP:SPAM and WP:YOUTUBE. There is no place in Wikipedia for this. You need to create your own website for that or your own YouTube channel. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is neither a prohibition on linking ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article") nor ban on using YouTube ("While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites"), it is not spam because it is directly relevant to topic, and it is posted on my YT account (Priceless History). I find no rational not to add links to the video somewhere on 111 article. What is an acceptable form to include? (PS An apology for not asking about this before posting) Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You cant add it without gaining a consensus on this page first. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Was addressing Ahunt, and I did not add anything now.

Ahunt wants to keep discussion here: I have studied early German bombers since 2004 and I have not found a correct illustration of the He 111 turret operations. These series of videos were created on the last He 111 in Norway so offer a detail not found anywhere else. I have written a series of articles for the game War Thunder, an example is this on the | Wellington (future publications in works). I am open on how the videos are presented. Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You keep mentioning how you should link to your youtube videos, but you need consensus/agreement first which I dont see at the moment. MilborneOne (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how it adds to the article. The text already has citations attached. Why confuse the issue? Adding citations in like this prompts their removal and if the editor that added in the book citations isn't available to verify that the text reflects the written source a citation needed tag is added and that eventually leads to the article being degraded, both in quality and in Wikipedia assessments.

I'm not opposed to using you tube for quotations from relevant parties, but this unnecessary. Dapi89 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

most often portrayed?

The "In popular culture" section claims The He 111 is the most-often portrayed German bomber in Second World War-related shows. This needs a citation as back-up. The term "shows" is a bit vague. And, it would need to be defended against the counter-example, which is that the Ju-87 Stuka is seen more often.

Thanks for pointing this out, fixed as per WP:AIRPOP. - Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943 He-111

Hidden Multi-article text dumping

Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943Greater Romania Campaign over Stalingrad 1941-1943 ....................... Preparations Source, Ministerul Fortelor Aerului R56 02478 BIBLOTECA 11.834/4, hence ,public domain,Library of Air Ministry of Romania, books?Aristiderazu (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu Romanian Aeronautic in 1935-1941 Chief of Romanian Air Ministry of Air Secretaey was named Engineer Nicolae Caranfil.These proposes a daring program of reorganising of the Aeronautics which would suite the needs and real financial possibilities of Greater Romania.Before him Radu Irimescu .The new plan was to have a total of 83 Squadrons,aviation and 41 companies of aero-stations letter of Engineer Caranfil to the Prime Minister at the time .. MR.Prime Minister Following the discussions we had with Mr.General Paul Angelescu , Minister of National Defence , at yor Mr.home , in the day of 24th of December 1936, seeing once more that the connectionwhich must therefore exist between leaders of departments of National Defence and of Air thus, and Navy cannot take place , due to the permanent animozity which Gral Paul Angelescu had always towards me , and of which cause I have never seen and do not see a way of acomplishing my urgent program of organising the Aeronautics and Navy,our underlyning , I have the honor to present to zou Sir my resignation from Government . With this occassion I thank you ,Mr.Prime Minister , for the conqur which zou Sir have always given to me , in all circumstances and please have my deepest gratitude..signed .Eng.N.Caramfil ............... 40 Bristol Blenheim and 12 Hawker Hurricanes(for dog fighting role), have been aquired by Romanian Air Ministry from Great Brittain , of which 37 have landed safely in Bucharest .In 1941 in Romania Campaign to Stalingrad ,these were used for long ricconaisance purpose ,equiped with two Bristol Mercury engine, each, of 825 Hp, speed 418Km/h, ceilling 8130mAristiderazu (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu .The Huricannes have all landed safely in Bucharest. In those political circumstances ,initially , the British have refused to aacept the order by Romanian State , oficially .Has though interveened unoficially ,Commandor.Av.Nicolau Constantin , Aero -attache to London then,1939, .Through connections with certain pollitical factours , he succeeds tochange the decission of the British Government.The matter have been discussed in the Room of Communes , too.Finally has been approved the delivery towards Romania of a number of 40 Bristol Blenheim which have arrived in the country in three batches .The romanian pilots have left for England in two groups .,the first group at 17th of August 1939, made up of ten flying pilots crews under the command of Cpt.Cdor.av.Georgescu Laurentiu .The second group under the command of Cpt.Cdor.av.Alecu Demetrescu leaves at 6th of September 1939. At 14th of September 1939 , a formation of fourteen planes , having as head of formation Lt.Cdor.av.Cristescu P.Ioan have left towards the country on the intinerary ..Oxford -Bristol-Caen-Nantes Bordeaux.At 15th of September they have flown from Bordeaux to Marseille ,and at 16th of September they have arrived at Milano.At 17th of September with an escale at Belgrad, have arrived at Bukarest only 13 planes .Number 4.plane with the crew made out of Lt.av.Nicolae Mirescu and maister/master Petre Todica , due to a torrential rain and to a visibility almost nulle , enter in lossing of speed when landing .They crush to the edge of Bordeaux Aerodrome.The plane goes on fire , and the crew sadly perish in flames. The other formation ,led by Cpt.Cdor .av.Alecu Demetrescu , have left England at 27th of September with direction Bordeaux , from where on the same intinerary , on which have flown the precedent batch , have arrived in Bucharest/Bukarest/Bucuresti at 10th of October 1939, with an escale at Milano of nine days. The last formations of planes leaves England at 15th of October 1939, under the command of Capt .Cdor.avLaurentiu Georgescu and arrives into the country at 18th of November 1939, in extremly difficult atmospheric conditions . At take off on Bordeaux erodrome , the plane piloted by Cpt.av.Dumitru Popescu -Pufi is accidented .Luckily the pilot escapes unharmed. In the last stage of flight of the said formation , the number 14 plane , piloted bz Adj.Chief av.Vasile Mezin , having colleague of flight Maestru/Master Enache, due to the very dense fogg, engages and crushes at Orsova .The crew perish in Danube River waters. Have arrived in the country 37 Bristol-Blenheim , instead of 40. At take off on Bordeaux erodrome , the plane piloted by Cpt.av.Dumitru Popescu -Pufi is accidented .Luckily the pilot escapes unharmed. In the last stage of flight of the said formation , the number 14 plane , piloted bz Adj.Chief av.Vasile Mezin , having colleague of flight Maestru/Master Enache, due to the very dense fogg, engages and crushes at Orsova .The crew perish in Danube River waters. Have arrived in the country 37 Bristol-Blenheim , instead of 40. From Germany have beenaquired *Romanian petrol being the exchange coin* starting with 1940 , 30 Heinkel 112*dog-fighting* planes , 32 twin engined Heinkel 111 planes *bombers* , 20 planes Ju 87 ,,Stukas,, *dive bombing role* , 50 Messerschmitt 109 E3 and E7*dog-fighting role* As to the plan, from France have been aquired , special autovehicles for airfields and equipment, from Germany heavy tonaje transport trucks Henschel , from Switzerland 20mm Oerrlikon cannons,the necessary of ammunition for airplanes and wirst watches ,necessary for the navigant personel .From United States autotrucks Ford Marmon with double tracktion , destined to the units of anty air defence .From Italy ,silk for parashutes , Beretta hand pistols for the navigant personell , tractors and buldozers for the Aero Pioneers Regiment and shit /foil for the campaign tents. Obtaining of these materials was beginning to come more and more difficult after 1st of September 1939 ,once the second part of the Mondial War started, the situation became critical. England,Belgium,Holland ,France have definitivelly stoped the shipments towards the Greater Romania,Germany and Italy have drastically reduced them.The Romanian Aeronautical Industry was in great difficulty of primery matters and semifabricated ones, hence raw materials .The situation had become thus critical. With the order nr.11349 from23rd of March 1940, the General Staff of Romanian Army ,asks to the Romanian Ministry of Air and Navy to pass at the latest 1st of April 1941 , to the integral execution of hzpotesis 32.Thus 84 different Squadrons with a total of 834 planes mono and twin engined within the operative units , to which were added 338 reserve airplanes and 350 airplanes for interior for school and training of the navigant personell.Thus , a total of 1517 aiplanes. The value of 32nd Hzpotesis rose up to 32 milliards Lei , at 1938 value,. Material Staff 1941 For long range reconaisance and light bombardment,,Bristol Blenheim,Bristol-Mercury twin engined ,825Hp,418km/h,ceilling 8310m, Potez 63, equiped with Gnome-Rhone 14M of 670Hp,425km/h,ceilling 8500m. For observation , IAR 38 , BMW,132-700Hp,220Km/h and IAR 39, equiped with IAR K/14 engine of 870Hp,280km/h,ceilling 7000m.Also in this category were included SET 7K ,with an IAR K7-120 of 420Hp,250km/h. , For bombing role Savoia Marchetti S79b.which were aso produced under license in Romaniawhich (),twin engined Gnome Rhone K14 and 1000 A and starting with July 1941 also Savoia Marchetti 79 B manufactured at IAR Brasov after the Italian license ,modified at IAR Power Plant , equiped with 2 Junkers 211 E and 211F of 1200Hp engine each and 1350 Hp , 3350Km/h,ceilling 8000m,PZL planes P-37B Los,manufactured in Poland , equiped with two engines Bristol Pegasus XII and Bristol Pegasus XX of 918Hp,440km/h,ceilling 6000m. The planes IAR 81 ,equiped with IAR K 14-1000A , of 1000Hp,500km/h,used for divebombing role ,, Junkers Ju 87 Stukas ,Junkers Jumo 211 D.a. of 1200Hp for dive bombing role ,385Km/h,ceilling 8000m,,planes Heinkel He 111 ,Karas and Bloch. For dog-fight IAR 80 ,IAR K 14 engine ,510km/h,,Messerschmitt Bf 109E,Daimler-Benz,1250Hp,520Km/h,ceilling 10500m,, planes PZL P 11 ,engine IAR K 9,600Hp,380Km/h,9000m,,PZL P24 planes ,engine IAR K 14 ,870Hp,430km/h,9500m,,planes Hawker Hurricane , Rolls -Royce ,1200Hp,500Km/h,11900m,planes Heinkel 112 ,400Km/h,10500m. For Hydroaviation Savoia Marchetti S 62 bis, with one engine I.F.Asso 800Hp,225Km/h and Kant Z 501 , engine Asso I.F.833 Hp,265Km/h planes. For transport planes Junkers 34, the three engined Junkers 52 ,Potez 56, Lockheed 14 and Lockheed 10. For connection and school planes Fleet F-10G.ICAR,Nardi-PWS,ST,Klemm K1 35D and Me 108 Taifun. Hence in 1941 ,there were 50 squadrons/Escadrile to 80 ...The 32 Plan ................. for missing textAristiderazu (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Aristiderazu