Talk:Heinkel He 111
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] split off CASA 2.111?
The CASA models were produced with different engines and in almost completely non-overlapping runs. Is there any reason they shouldn't be stubbed off to a new page? It would, if nothing else, simplify the service dates for the He 111 and allow full specs for the Merlin-engined 2.111. ericg ✈ 02:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've created this page as a stub with basic specifications. Your assistance is appreciated! ericg ✈ 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phased out in 1942?
"He 111 was phased out of front line service in 1942, but remained in production until 1944" Why would it have been keep in production then? The He 111 served into 1945 in the path-finder, agent dropping, and transport role.--Bryson 04:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good find, changed it to a somewhat better solution from in the July 2004 article version. --Denniss 10:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In Media/ Games section
OK, what is the standard for subjects in media? I see a lot of other pages with this, and it serves a valid puroose for curious/interested persons to see real and simulated examples (not just 2d photos) As to games, it is a very valid inclusion as well. My opinion their needs to be a section, but listing brief, and only when image is more then a few (10 seconds?) seconds, and in games if you can at least partially control them, not simply as AI targets. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strange: You re-added the pop-culture junk BEFORE you know what the standards are? For the basic guideline we follow on aircraft articles regarinign pop-culture, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content#Popular culture. The key phrase there is "especially notable", and I don't believe anything on the list falls into that category. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and other related guidelines, the fact that some article may have sub-standard sectons or content is no reason to justify it's use on other pages. If you'd like to present your new standard, pleease do so at WT:AIR, and gain a consensus for it there, then you can apply it to article like this one. - BillCJ (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I went on the assumption that it should have been listed. I am reading over the links now (First time I saw them). --Flightsoffancy (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Crew numbers
It current lists: Crew: 5 (pilot, navigator/bombardier, nose gunner, ventral gunner, dorsal gunner)
We all know that the navigator/bombardier and nose gunner is the same person. Also, the number is 4. It could carry 5, but crew was mainly 4. Goes to proves that even Janes can be wrong. I will change in a couple of days. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

