Talk:RLM aircraft designation system

message: ----
Any informantion on whether transport gliders received 108- or 8- prefixes would be very usefull. Currently its unclear which was used.
Greyengine5 23:36, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard reference work for German aircraft types of this period is Heinz Nowarra's Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945. On p 21, he gives the DFS 230 and Me 321 as  8-230 and 8-321 respectively. --Rlandmann 03:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about gliders

message: *(Put blurb on naming bit to) Yea the page has gotten too large. I recommend breaking it into RLM aircraft designation system] (with the explanation), RLM aircraft list by manufacturer (esentialy the bottom part of the page), and RLM-GL/C aircraft list with the table. (nice table btw) As for any carryover of the naming controvery extending to the breakup- I of course stick with my original choice 'RLM'. My secondary vote is for 'Reich Avation Ministry'. I think the full german name is a little rough for english speakers and 'German Air Ministry' is not a accurate enough translation and is not in common enough use. RLM-GL/C is the definative name for the actual list of aircraft so I wouldn't like to see the table under a different name, unless its required to fit into the decided upon naming heirarchy. Unless 'german a...' name fits into a set off govermental beruacracy naming rules, i.e. (Country)(area of orginization)(beuracry designation), then I think its superceded by aircraft naming beuracry rules, which is to use country of orginizations names and acronyms. Greyengine5 20:38, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of page breakup

message: An anonymous ip number, (84.133.88.202) took issue with several bits of information in the article, but is apparently ignorant of the purpose and existence of this discussion page.  I have removed some comments inappropriately placed in the article itself, however, the points made might be true or not (I don't know) and I summarize them here:
* Did the RLM create the designation system from scratch in 1933, or did it improve over a previous system created in 1929/1930 ? (I'm betting that it improved on a pre-existing system, at least to some extent, so the article now shows that. Correct me if I'm wrong and please source the proof)
* Disputes that:  "This immediately produced some duplicates - for example, between the Dornier Do 11 and the WNF Wn 11" and that "More duplicates were created when the RLM allocated "8-" series numbers to captured foreign aircraft, such as Czech Zlin XII aircraft referred to as "8-12" when this same number was already being used for the Dornier Do 12 " because: "Wn 11 is an Austrian design, which never could "produce immediately duplicates" in 1933. That could have happened theoretically only  after March 1938, when Austria came to the Reich. But at that time certainly no Do 11 was still in service."
:: On these last points, I have no knowledge, so simply deleting this discussion from article. Those facts should be sorted out here first, then put in the article. Intersofia 14:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for Duplicates / Designated name collisions 

message: I think there's a reasonable argument for disambiguation here. Reichsluftfahrtministerium does not translate as "German Air Ministry" - "Reich Air Ministry" is clearly more accurate, as Rlandmann correctly says, and I believe that s/he's also correct to point out that it is a proper noun (more accurately, a compound noun) relating specifically to the organisation of that name that existed between 1933-45. We need to distinguish between the generic name "German Air Ministry" which could relate to any Air Ministry in Germany, and the specific name "Reich Air Ministry" which was only used between 1933-45.
However, I also agree that the English-language title should be used. We would not, after all, use "Auswaertiges Amt" as the title for an article on the German Foreign Ministry (and I doubt if many outside Germany and diplomatic circles would understand it if we did). So I would vote for using the formulation "Reich Air Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, or RLM)" and using the acronym RLM thereafter. -- ChrisO 00:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, beat you by 14 years!!! - BilCat (talk) 
----
Just to help inform the discussion a little - here's a selection of web pages in English that use Reichsluftfahrtministerium spelled out in full: 
These range from quite general aviation pages to (admittedly) very esoteric aviation pages, include one (of a few) NASM pages that use the term, plastic modelling sites, computer flight sim game sites, an architecture site and even a UFO conspiracy site (!). I contend that this shows a limited but general usage, and not one just restricted to specialists. Of course the word only shows up on pages somehow related to aviation - which means nothing more than the fact that Pentium only shows up in connection with pages somehow related to computers...
For the record, I'm no longer arguing for Reichsluftfahrtministerium in full in the titles (though that's still my first preference), if only because the acronym RLM seems to outnumber the full version 10 to 1 on English webpages.
(As comparison, the only usage I've found for Auswaertiges Amt on English web pages is on contact directories, or (more frequently) as parts of email addresses or URLs)
--Rlandmann 00:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: According to my searching, 'Reich Air Ministry' is just as common as 'Reichsluftfahrtministerium' in English language pages.  'Reich Aviation Ministry' is rarer.  A search for 'RLM Luftwaffe' in English returns about 2,400 results, making RLM the common version.  The problem is that the most commonly used term for it in English is the abbreviation, but Wikipedia prefers spelled-out to abbreviation.  —Morven 01:34, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Acronyms are OK when the acronym is very widely used - NASA is a good example (as well as others like radar, laser, and scuba which are not even often recognised as acronyms any more) --Rlandmann 01:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few thoughts 

message: "Reich Air Ministry" 300 .  Reichsluftfahrtministerium 1,580 results . 'Reich Air Ministry' 20,800 . That seems to make it clear which is normal English usage.
:The last link is deliberately misleading.  If you search for "Reich Air Ministry" (using double quotes), only 302 results are returned.  Indeed, this does make it clear which is the normal English usage.  -- NSash 22:27, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Google test

message: I bring your attention to a series of gliders and research aircraft with designations Go 4, Go 8 and Go 9 built by the Gottingen Research Institute. Were they alloted 8-series numbers?
The Go 9 for example was a research plane for the Dornier Do 335 with a pusher propeller. They were built for similar purposes as the Berlin B9 etc. Also, was the Fieseler F.5R given an 8-Series number? By the way, the Go desigation was not for Gotha but should have 2 dots above the 'o' as in the German language. An experimental light plane with exceptional short take off performance was built and flown by German university students during the war. I recall the universiy's name began with a 'Z' and the aircraft was captured by the Bitish and tested afer hostilities. I think it was not given an 8-series number. Thankyou.
203.79.117.25 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He is talking about the | LF 1 Zaunkönig Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  8-Series numbers alloted before 10? 

message: RLM also created a number system to ID engine mfg's, what I know off hand (basis for finding sources and entering in main)
:1xx - BMW (single row radials, after earlier V-12 types)
:2xx - Junkers
:3xx - Bramo
:4xx - Argus
:5xx - ?
:6xx - DB
:7xx - ?
:8xx - BMW (dual row radials)
:9xx - ?
Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RLM Engine designations