Talk:Messerschmitt Me 210

message: I took out the following paragraph:
"One possible cause for the Me 210's terrible handling characteristics might have been the design of the wing's leading edge. The section inboard of the engines swept back at a steeper angle than the outboard section. The later Me 410 design made the entire wing leading edge the same angle from root to tip."
Perhaps this is true. The 210 and 410 have noticeably different wing designs. But this needs to be sourced, with a better source than a bulletin board, preferably a source you have seen with your own eyes.-Ashley Pomeroy 01:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to make the same point. A major criticism of the 110 was its lack of agility. By concentrating all the mass (pilots, engines, bomb bay) at the centre of gravity/aerodynamic centre, the designers of the 210 produced an agile plane that would be competitive with single-engine fighters in acrobatic ability. This however produced a dangerous unstable plane that required careful handling. Obviously, pilots transitioning from the 110 were confused by this and caused many accidents. It's notable that the Hungarians, who came fresh to the 210, didn't have these problems. This was 'fixed' in the 410 by making it more like the 110 in handling characteristics. DancesWithGrues (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The "cure" was a lengthened fuselage, most surviving and in-production Me 210 were converted to this stretch. The hungarians had only the longer fuselage version with stronger engines. I can only assume the CoG went too far forward so the plane easily snapped at the slightest problem. Probably good for dogfight but bad for general usage.--Denniss (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Swept wing

message: An anonymous user changed the engines in the spec to be Daimler-Benz DB 605s, but with unsourced changes to power and resulting aircraft performance. Denniss reverted the anon. I would like to know why we are putting the 601 in the specs when the 605 was more typical? We could take the 605 power specs from the unreferenced wiki page on the engine or we could take them from this aviationhistory page about the Bf 110. It would be good to get a better source for aircraft performance using the 605s. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 210A series used DB 601. The 210C and Ca series used 605s. Kurfürst (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. There were more Me 210C models: 267 of them vs. 90 of the A model. The C model was the most typical. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its simple - the 210A series is the model of Me 210 for which the specs are for - you cannot just change the engine types without a proper reference for the entire set of specifications.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 601 or 605 engines

message: Since the Me.210 had an entirely new wing (to say nothing of a nose section and cockpit entirely different than the Me.110's) it can hardly be called "a straightforward cleanup of the Me.110."  From "Stuka," by Alex Vanags-Baginskis: "Originally intended simply as a more powerful refinement of the Bf.110 and ordered as such in 1939, the Me.210 turned out to be anything but that.  Without consulting Udet or other RLM officials, Professor Messerschmitt had designed a completely new aircraft..."173.62.12.4 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this after working on the article for the first time. I will dig out the ISBN and edition on google and try to locate page number. will add when I have a minute in the next few days. I have already amended the above to "considerable". I think radical would be supported by the above quote. Its a totally different beast. Irondome (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Me 210 had been designed by Waldemar Voigt but the design was then adapted and changed by Prof. Messerschmitt himself. The aircraft was then ordered in large quantities and a production line set up before the first prototype flew.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.56 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly a "straightforward cleanup"