Talk:List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

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 CL‑class

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

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

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

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

Welcome

Brand new addition to the survivors series welcome

Several notes are in order:

Page is correctly titled BF 109 - Professor Messerschmitt was employed by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke when the aircraft was designed and created - spacing between BF and 109 also correct.

HA-1109 & HA-1112 are Bf-109-2 built under license not copies.

S-199 was built using Messerschmitt factory equiptment and tooling on exsisting Bf 109G-14 production lines.

both the HA-1112 & S-199 are Bf 109 just with different designations.

Davegnz (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on Category talk:Survivors (aircraft) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 14:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory notes on numbering

Some explanatory notes would really help, here! E.g. for the Buchons, I gather that "c/n" must mean 'Construction Number', but this is nowhere stated for certain. Also, with their numbers, I have a hard time fathoming something like "c/n 234 C.4K-169". What's the "C4.K" mean/stand for? And is the "C.4K-169" the Spanish Air Force registration number, or what? Noel (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename as 'Me-109'

I found this article today without a single mention that the aircraft's name is 'Me-109'. Granted, that might not have been the official name, but considering the wealth of references that indicate that this is the name by which it was commonly called, even amongst German aces themselves, it can be seen that the article is broken. In need of a major fix. Here is the discussion on the Talk page of the main article for the aircraft, where it has been proposed that the very name of the article be changed: Me-109 Talk page.

For consistency, it would be proper for this article to follow whatever decision is made over there.--Lexi sioz (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071229162005/http://www.courtesyaircraft.com:80/N109ME%20Spec.htm to http://www.courtesyaircraft.com/N109ME%20Spec.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. 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/20081219054915/http://www.suomenilmailumuseo.fi/en/planes.html to http://www.suomenilmailumuseo.fi/en/planes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of HA-1112s and S-199s

The consensus is that the surviving HA-1112 and S-199 airframes be included in this article. One RfC participant suggested deleting the entire article. That it outside the scope of this RfC but can be pursued in an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion.
Cunard (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The surviving HA-1112s and S-199s should only be included on their dedicated articles and do not belong here. This page is for surviving Bf 109s. Even though they are developments of the Bf 109, they are a separate model of airplane. (Even the HA-1112s that have been converted to resemble Bf 109s remain HA-1112s and do not become Bf 109s by virtue of their conversion.)

Furthermore, it is confusing and redundant to have them listed in two places, and of the two options it makes much more sense for them to be listed on their dedicated articles. –Noha307 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may seek consensus before such a major change. As variants of the Bf 109 they belong to this article in their proper subsection. --Denniss (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had already considered putting out a request for consensus, but I wanted to wait for your response on the talk page before doing so.

I have recently been considering revamping this article since many of the entries are either poorly or completely uncited and their format is difficult to read. Since the entries that I removed fit this category, it seemed doubly justified to remove them anyway. –Noha307 (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Should the surviving HA-1112 and S-199 airframes be included in this article or only on their respective dedicated articles? –Noha307 (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are clearly variants of the Bf 109 rather than wholly new aircraft. Separate lists for each manufacturer should go in the relevant article or sub-page, however an overall inclusive list is also immensely useful to visitors who want to find out more about a particular machine. That makes for a duplication of information, but this often happens and cannot be avoided, as Wikipedia is here for the convenience of its readers and not of its editors. The best way to implement a comprehensive list is as a sortable table, including separate columns for manufacturer, operator, flyable status, and so on. As the reader's focus switches from say the serial no. to others with the same manufacturer or operator, they can click the column headings to group the machines of immediate interest. This also saves endless repetition in multiple lists by each such criterion, which are a pain for everybody. My suggestion would be that the present article title is more appropriate to the Messerschmitt-branded Bf 109 machines (Messerschmitt-manufactured is technically wrong because most were made by other companies in in shadow factories, much like the Castle Bromwich Spitfires). The full list could move to a new page such as List of surviving Messerschmitt Bf 109s and Variants and might usefully include oddities such as the surviving Me 209. Whether the current content might be forked across, or moved wholesale and forked back, is a technicality I have no views on. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Include. These are more or less the same aircraft - having them all here is useful to prospective readers. Icewhiz (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include Those variants are Bf 109s built under license, some even retained the DB 605 engine of the Bf 109. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 16:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include: Just a variant. - Ahunt (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: If the these are "more or less the same aircraft" and "just a variant" should we then delete the HA-1112 and S-199 articles and merge the information into the Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants article? It seems to me that we shouldn't have it both ways. –Noha307 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The HA-1112 and S-199 are already mentioned in the Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants article (although their subheadings could be reworded to make that a bit more obvious). Many such widely-produced types have a whole tree of sub-articles for different variants and their ramifications (see for example the Canadair CF-104 Starfighter article). The Bf 109 should be no exception. There is no "both ways" about it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this list passes WP:LISTN. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman are you suggesting to delete the entire page? - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 13:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If the subject doesn't pass notability criteria, this discussion about variant airframes is pointless. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman you should know that many exceptions exist for aircraft (especially warbirds), as a complete list of surviving aircraft when the aircraft has many notable survivors (such as the P-51 Mustang, Spitfire, and Bf 109) is not feasible on the aircraft's article. Therefore a list article is created to include all that information. List articles for aircraft variants also exist. All of these list articles stem from a notable topic, one which would have an insanely long article if all relevant information was bundled together. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"many exceptions exist for aircraft" I've never heard of this, please provide a link. "List articles for aircraft variants also exist" Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "All of these list articles stem from a notable topic" Doesn't matter, to my mind. Standalone topics have to be themselves notable, otherwise we could have one notable topic and hundreds of lists built from it, like "list of dresses that Queen Victoria wore." Chris Troutman (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MilborneOne what are your thoughts on this matter? - ZLEA _T\^C 19:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Lists. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would seen no reason why all the variants cant be included in the same page as along as the actual type was clear. Clearly a list of surviving aircraft of a noteworthy aircraft type is a reasonable subject for what is a daughter article to the parent. But deletion is not the subject of this RFC and if anybody who doesnt like the article should take the necessary steps to start a seperate AfD discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yugoslav "G-2"

Something that strikes me as odd is the Yugoslav G-2 survivor with bulges over the tops of the wings. I thought those bulges were for the larger tires introduced on the G-3/G-4 series? Isn't this aircraft infact a G-4? 198.190.156.241 (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The provided sources actually disagree on the variant. Warbird Registry states that it is a G-6, while airliners.net states that it is a G-2. I'm a bit skeptical about the airliners.net source as it is a user-uploaded image, but Warbird Registry's claim also doesn't match. me109.info (probably unreliable) states that the WkNr 14,501–14,850 range belonged to the Bf 109G-2/R3. The variants article does not list a "Bf 109G-2/R3", but a quick search on google seems to indicate that it exists, though I have not found any information on it. For now, I think it's best to leave it as it is. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its very much possible that late G-2 aircraft already received larger wheels or got the bulged wings but still using the smaller wheels. --Denniss (talk)

Discrepancy in information regarding the picture of the Bf 109 E-3 3579

The description of the 109 states that it is of the "E-3" variant, when the canopy would indicate it is of the E-4 variant (E-3s had a more rounder canopy with metal bars not fully up to the top of the canopy, where as the E-4 has metal at the very top creating a square canopy). The Wikipedia article on Bf 109 variants also states that this is an E-4 variant. A video from the airshow where this 109 was flown also states that it is an E-4. RogueMD20 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RogueMD20 Bf 109 WrkNr 3579 seems to have a confusing history. According to Warbird Registry, it was originally built as a Bf 109E-3, but was later converted to an E-7. Although not usable as a source, Aerial Visuals states that it was first converted to an E-4 before its conversion to an E-7. Parts from WrkNr 1342, a Bf 109E-3, were used during restoration, making the aircraft an E-3/E-7 hybrid and visually similar to an E-4. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cavanaugh Flight Museum HA-1112

The Cavanaugh sadly closed permanently on 1 January 2024, and announced that all of its aircraft would be moved to North Texas Regional Airport in Denison, Texas, but with no publicly disclosed plan to return the collection to public display.^[1] I've been adding this information to the various Wikipedia pages that discuss the Cavanaugh collection, and I'd like to do the same here, but the listing for the Cavanaugh aircraft in this article also says it's based at a different museum in Germany! The entry appears to have been sloppily edited with some information that doesn't make sense because the context seems to be missing. Can someone straighten this out? I don't want to edit or move a reference to the wrong aircraft. Carguychris (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The listing of C.4K-172 as belonging to Hangar 10 Air Fighter Collection GmbH is in error. It does not appear on the museum's website, while another HA-1112, D-FMGZ (C.4K-169), does. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sullivan, Cole (1 January 2024). "Historic Addison flight museum announces closure". WFAA. Dallas, Texas. Retrieved 4 January 2024.

[1] Sullivan, Cole (1 January 2024). "Historic Addison flight museum announces closure". WFAA. Dallas, Texas. Retrieved 4 January 2024.

[1]