Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 108 Taifun

Rating

Could use a lot more information on the production and service of the type. - Aerobird 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Seating of prototype

Smith's book does not mention a two seat version and indeed the Challenge rules called for 3-4 seat aircraft (Flight 6 September 1934 p.924). He also does not mention a change in seating for the B variant, which Jane's (1938) calls a four seater. There was a small change to the cabin rear window shape. Anyone know different?TSRL (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Warbirds Alley is cited to support the two seat contention; depends how reliable they are (clearly much on their page is right). Be good to have a contemporary report, but so far there is nothing in Flight specific to the Bf 108 on seating.TSRL (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Smith more carefully , he is quite explicit about the seating for four in D-ILIT, the first prototype Bf 108A.TSRL (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The M37-Bf 108 was from the start to the end a four seats aircraft. It is clearly stated in N.A.C.A. Technical memorandum No.706 "Technical aspects of the 1934 International Touring Competition (Rundflug)", a German to English translation by J. Vanier of "Technischer Rückblick auf den Internationalen Rundflug 1934" by R. Schulz and W. Pleines, Luftwissen. Pp. 244-257, September 15, and pp. 288-290, October 15, 1934.

The document is available in PDF format at the NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS); [1]The same document is also available from this link; [2]

This should settle the matter once and for all. Being my first intervention at Wikipedia, I made it in the "discussion" section, but any feedback, especially on how to modify and cite this piece of information would be apreciated.

--Hubbabubbaguy (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that I have changed it to four-seater and added the NACA document as a citation. If you are not sure about adding information then please ask, a good place for help and suggestions is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft which is where most of the editors of aircraft articles can be found. MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, MilborneOne. But I think that the next paragraph should be modified as well, if only for making sense! I would suggest; «Although it was outclassed [3](already cited above) by other aircraft in the competition, the Bf 108's performance marked it as a popular choice for record flights.» The mention of «lighter aircraft» makes no sense as the winner, a RWD 9, had exactly the same tare and loaded weight, as the N.A.C.A. TM 760 shows. This remark comes often in litterature but is simply ludicrous when confronted to the facts.Hubbabubbaguy (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Valiant aircraft

The Image from the Valiant museum is labelled "sole surviving example of the Me208". Valiant's info says it originally had a Renault 6Q.10 engine, which would make it a Nord N.1101 Noralpha. Only two Me 208 prototypes were ever built, again suggesting it's more likely to be a Noralpha (sometimes known as a Ramier). Any reason why we should not change the caption?TSRL (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, it's possible that Valiant are wrong: one Me 208 is said (Nord Noralpha without cites) to have survived the war. If this aircraft was later re-engined (it originally had Argus power like the Bf 108) with a Renault, it could just be our caption is correct.TSRL (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a Nord 1101 Noralpha acquired in France, registered N2144S with c/n 32. Not found its French history yet. Looks like a bit a clever marketing, look a German Me 208 is better that Look a French-built Nord. Interestingly it is registered with the FAA as an Me 208!! MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well detected! Two Qs follow: does anyone know (citeably) if if one of the two Me 208s A) survived the war, as claimed, b) survives today? Second Q: should we not put pics of aircraft X painted as Y in article on X rather than Y? I've removed the cn tag.TSRL (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Propeller

The text says the prototype was fitted with a "three bladed variable pitch propeller". Judging from the photographs, the actual production plane is fitted with a 2 bladed prop, but that is the only thing it says in the whole article about the propeller. When and why was it changed? It should at least mention that the production model was different. If I didn't have the photos to look at I would have taken it for granted that it was saying that a Bf 108 has a three bladed prop. I also wonder about the variable pitch propeller part. In 1934? Obviously the craft in the photos have props that are at least ground-adjustable, if not flight-adjustable, but did ALL versions of the Bf 108 have this, or is this a later addition? The early Bf 109s didn't even have variable props, neither did the Spitfire Mk I or Hurricane Mk I, until 1940. I guess that could be because fighters were designed to operate at top speed most of the time, and efficiency in all regimes wasn't considered worth the cost of a variable prop, in either weight, complexity, or money, whereas a competition plane needed to cruise efficiency while retaining high speed and good takeoff characteristics. But it still makes one wonder. If they did have variable props, it was quite advanced for 1934. I'd also like to know if "variable pitch" is as opposed to "continuous speed" self-adjusting propellers. A continuous speed prop is also a variable prop, but some variable props are not CS props. And of course the earliest form of this was props that could be changed on the ground to whatever the pilot wanted, but could not be changed once the engine started. These are also "variable pitch" props. Something like the difference between trim tabs that can be adjusted in flight, and those which have to be bent with pliers on the ground to adjust general aircraft trim.

Idumea47b (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)