Talk:Messerschmitt P.1112

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Messerschmitt P.1112 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

A fact from Messerschmitt P.1112 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the factory in which the Messerschmitt P.1112 (concept model pictured) would have been built was occupied by Allied troops before construction of the aircraft's prototype could be started?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Messerschmitt P.1112.

Wikipedia

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 been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion 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.

Military history: Aviation / European / German / World War II

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion 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

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

woldemar vs.waldemar?[edit]

Spelling of the first name of designer Voigt appears not be consistent across litterature. (See "woldemar voigt" messerschmitt vs "waldemar voigt" messerschmitt on Google Books) Any idea how we could settle this issue? --Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the books actually cited by the article use the "Waldemar" spelling. Therefore, I believe that should be the one used here. I wonder if any of the experts could chip in? I'll ping the aviation wikiproject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian uses the a form for its (long description) entry on the Me262 [1].GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This references gives a picture of Voigt with the o form: Herwig, Dieter; Rode, Heinz (2003). Luftwaffe Secret Projects : Ground Attack & Special Purpose Aircraft. Leicester: Midland Publishing. ISBN 9781857801507. Other books dedicated to the Me 262 give also the o form like: Jenkins(1996), Messerschmitt Me 262 Sturmvogel. I flagged my edit with the o form with the "vague" template.--Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong dimensions and shapes[edit]

Please have a look to my homepage www.mep1112.de There you will find some facts concerning correct overall dimensions, correct shape of air inlet and correct shape of canopy (glazing). My conclusions are based on original drawings and on descriptions in literature which support these conclusions although the author didn't recognize the interrelation (concerning dimensions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.136.160 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]