Talk:Messerschmitt Me 409

Is this article valid at all?

I just picked up a book today, Messerschmitt: An Aircraft Album, by J. Richard Smith (Arco: New York, 1971). It includes the following: "The Me 409 was a project for a slightly larger version of the Me 309, no Me 509 has yet been traced, and the Me 609 was to have comprised two Me 309 fuselages coupled together by a new centre section." In the appendix, it specifically lists the Me 409 as a "fighter project" powered by one Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine developing 1,750 horsepower. I'm suspicious until someone provides a valid source for the "Zwilling" 409. Sacxpert (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This seems to date to before the article here was created (ruling out a wikimirror). According to Kay and Smith, German Aircraft of the Second World War, 2002: "Somewhere among the many variants the designation Me 409 was issued (about which details are lacking)". ; however, Schick and Meyer, Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters 1939-1945, 1997 seems to link the Me 409 designation to the Bf 109ST, which became the Me 155 and then the Blohm & Voss BV 155 - numerous other sources appear to refer to the 155's wing being based on the 409's. I'd trust Schick and Meyer the most; the "Me 409 Zwilling" is, most likely, a result of confusion with the Me 609 - therefore, I'm redirecting this to the Bv 155, nice catch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That "seems to link" does not justify redirecting to an article which does not, and for the foreseeable future will not, mention the subject, leaving the reader baffled as to the choice of redirect. I am redirecting instead to the Messerschmitt article, which at least lists it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'm going to try to get Schick and Meyer via interlibrary loan, although given past experience I'm not hopeful. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Was anyone able to find verifiable sources to re-write this article? Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, because the Me 409 became the Bf 109ST which became the Bv 155. A note on the designation needs to be added to the Bv 155 article, but Me 409 itself is not a valid article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Source for that please? Regards, DPdH (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters 1939-1945, as mentioned above. The "Me 409 is a Zwilling" traces back to one image on a random Czech site and utterly fails WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, OK until another verifiable source says otherwise. Please remember to add teh commentaty in the Bv 155 article, to prevent further confusion. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation or rather misinformation?

I'm confused. The BV 155 article "(Redirected from Messerschmitt Me 409)" The BV 155 article does not even mention the Me 409. (duh: the basis for redirection But Me 609 wiki article "twin-boom adaptations of its Bf 109 line including the Bf 109Z (which joined two Bf 109s) and the Me 409 (which used two Me 209-II aircraft)." Shjacks45 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bv 155 article has not yet been added to to mention the Me 409 designation being in the family tree; while the Me 409 is clearly linked to the Me 155/Bv 155, the details are quite complicated and I don't have the books on hand to cite it yet. The Me 609 article contains the same false informaton that was here, and hasn't been cleaned up yet - I'll do that right now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)