Talk:List of German aircraft projects, 1939–1945

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Blohm + Voss aircraft

The Blohm + Voss article lists a few of their aircraft, some of which would, it seems, fit this list. They are spelt differently from the links in the present list, but some of them would appear to be the same aircraft; perhaps the change of designation reflects their entry into production, I don't know, but the alternative spellings are the ones which actually go to articles, and the articles have information on the prototypes. However, I'm unfamiliar with the subject, so I haven't replaced links or created redirects in case they're not in fact the appropriate aircraft.

The aircraft in question are:

Blohm + Voss BV 40, glider interceptor
Blohm + Voss Ha 137, prototype dive bomber
Blohm + Voss BV 138, military patrol flying-boat (early versions designated as Ha 138)
Blohm + Voss Ha 139, long-range seaplane
Blohm + Voss Ha 140, torpedo bomber flying-boat (prototype)
Blohm + Voss BV 141, reconnaissance (asymmetric)
Blohm + Voss BV 142, reconnaissance + transport
Blohm + Voss BV 143, glide bomb (prototype)
Blohm + Voss BV 144, transport
Blohm + Voss BV 155, high-altitude interceptor (formerly Me 155)
Blohm + Voss BV 222, Wiking (Viking), transport flying-boat
Blohm + Voss BV 238, flying-boat (prototype)
Blohm + Voss BV 246, Hagelkorn (Hailstone), long-range radar-homing glide bomb

– Kieran T ^(talk) 21:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RLM manufacturer designations

The RLM manufacturers designations were very rarelyused with project designations, if at all,as they were intended purely for production aircraft.Petebutt (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of red links

Are many of these links ever going to be articles? How many got further than a folder full of sketches and calculations? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of... section

Refs are to blogs (and some not even relevant as they cover fake tanks, not aircraft, and others make no mention of them being fake). Does anyone have any better references to projects being faked? While I don't doubt that some could have been (with so many poorly documented projects, it wouldn't have been hard to add a few extras), I for one would like to see something more substantial, reference-wise, or the whole section will have to go.NiD.29 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section title is non-encylopaedic, the text itself is questionable, and as you say the sources questionable. On one hand there might be some coverage in RS about claims being made for post-war aircraft being based on German projects, and possibly about any mythology of wonder weapons created by the Third Reich, but at the moment it looks more like a hindrance than a help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've thinned out the least reliable, and a couple of unrelated, cites. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]