Talk:BFW M.20

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 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

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Know this machine was designed by Messerschmitt, but surely it should be known as the BFW M.20? He worked for BFW at the time. Other designs, i.e. the BFW M.23 are always shown thus. We could add add an a.k.a. if you wish.TSRL (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought a bit more about the entangled history of M and BFW and the way M XX notation persists through these changes I can see the appeal of calling them all Messerschmitts. Nonetheless, the Messerschmitt-BFW merger began in 9/27 and ended in bankruptcy in 6/31 so all his designs in this period were built by a company trading as BFW. That implies the proper (contemporary) name for them is BFW M XX. Looking at the dates and models, 20≤XX≤29.TSRL (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which crash was Hackman killed in? Was it the first flight, and was it a premature bail out at too low an altitude? Certainly the first aircraft was lost, but what other "prototype" crashes were there? References? R Smith seems a bit tight-lipped. TSRL (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Messerschmitt-Milch relationship

The material in this section is covered in the Messerschmitt article and is only margianlly relevant here; its also been tagged "citation need" since 2013. I propose its deletion unless anyone feels strongly it should stay.TSRL (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]