Talk:Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a Commons admin; this pic will get deleted soon from Commons as it isn't free in its source country (Germany). Please move this picture here under a Fair Use rationale if you're interested in keeping it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The information on the Ta 154 page doesn't match that on the Tego film page. The latter has the Wuppertal raid in February 1943, and says a replacement glue was found. The implication on the Ta 154 page is that the raid significantly impeded if not prevented delivery. 
Dietmar Hermann's book also says quite directly that the glue was not an issue in the cancellation of the Ta 154. 
Primary issue so far as I can see is the inconsistency between the two pages, which link to each other.
121.217.61.71 (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tego Film / Wuppertal 

message: Citing (No.  114)  ↑Lutz Budraß: Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918–1945. Droste, Düsseldorf 1998, , S. 794.
(Lutz Budraß: aircraft and air defense industry in Germany from 1918 to 1945. Droste, Dusseldorf, 1998,  , page 794)
the German Wikipedia Article says that “Die Gründe für das Scheitern des Projektes waren nicht produktionstechnischer Art, sondern die Folge mangelnder Detailkonstruktion, gepaart mit der Ungeduld der Luftwaffenführung.[114]”
(The reasons for the failure of the project were not production-technical, but the result of lack of detailed design, coupled with the impatience of the Air Force leadership.) Having read both the article and other published information about Tego film, plus with my own professional knowledge of timber engineering and adhesives, I feel that this is certainly correct.  They needed a process comparable to Redux, which the Allies has, and which the UK applied successfully in the DH Hornet and to post-war civilian aircraft e.g. Fokker types.  The German engineers and industrial chemists had the know-how and in normal circumstances would have had the ability, but in the chaos post fall of Stalingrad, it was impossible.
There is a list of crash causes in the German Article and one out of twelve was due to adhesive failure.  Tego was being manufactured at the Goldschmidt factory in Ammendorf, which was less badly bombed than Essen and Wuppertal.  Even in the war, Tego was also available outside Germany, even in the UK, an article in Flight Archive says so. 
So, I’m sorry to say that both of the English Wikipedia Articles – FW Ta 154 and Tego Film, contain misunderstandings and some factual errors, as well as “citations needed” statements.  But not many Wikipedians seem to visit these Articles, so perhaps people don’t care!Dendrotek 14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project failure NOT due to Tego film bombing or even other wood adhesives problems 

message: Is that 5% per mission?
Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Garlicplanting (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  'compared to an average of 5%[2] for RAF medium and heavy bombers'