This redirect 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 redirect 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 redirect 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
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)reply
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 BushrangerOne ping only00:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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 BushrangerOne ping only04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 BushrangerOne ping only17:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)reply