Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 110

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Adding widescale updates to article. Stay tuned for more. --Evil.Merlin 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Even more stuff added. Need to update variants, and add some details on G versions. --Evil.Merlin 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Me" or "Bf" ?

In a previous version, this article said the "Me-110" designation was "erroneous". I fact-tagged it, particularly since the Bf-109 article said the designation "Me" was considered correct after 1938....now we have an edit saying it is 'familiarly' known as the Me-110. Which is it? If either is acceptable, then the 'Me' designation wasn't *merely* familiar (although it was familiar), it was offically sanctioned. ??? DMorpheus (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Me designation was never correct for Bf 108, 109 and 110. Messerschmitt tried to get it into official use but this was denied by the RLM. In fact they ordered every piece of paper from Mtt baring Me 109 or Me 110 designation to be delivered back to Mtt with notice "acceptance denied". And that's a fact. The allied side preferred to call them Me. The first aircraft to officially carry the Me designation was the Me 210, the Me 209 (first version, racer) may have it received as the very first one but that's hard to verify. --Denniss (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? I am sure I have read that either usage is acceptable. Just trying to clear this up consistently across both articles (110 and 109). Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Augsburg, north of Munich

<-- Augsburg is not in the North of Munich. http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/imagemaps/deutschlandkarte.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.223.205 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See: Augsburg; it is noted that the city is 50 miles northwest from Munich. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Field modifications

A list of the various field modifications (Rüstsätze) made to the Bf.110 type would be interesting. Drutt (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)