Talk:Tego film

File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg, 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 image page (File:German Night Fighter Ta 154.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Adhesive type error - Aerolite UF or casein?

This article includes the phrase "glued by Aerolite, a casein adhesive."

But Aerolite is a UF adhesive. Was the Albatross bonded with Aerolite or casein? Either way, something is wrong and needs changing.

Dendrotek 17:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs) ed

The problem aroose with this uncited change, adding "Aerolite" to the pre-existing "casein". I can source the Albatross as having used a casein adhesive, and that the Mosquito used Aerolite, but not that the Albatross used Aerolite. As you note, Aerolite is a urea formaldehyde, not casein - although one has to be careful with old brandnames, as sometimes the modern adhesive bears little resemblance to the current formula. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Aerolite wasn't available until 1938 so the Albatross is unlikely to have been constructed using it: [1] - however, this article also from Flight specifically mentions the Albatross using it: [2]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Since they used casein adhesive in first Mosquitos and then changed to syntetic resin adhesives, casein adhesive has been used in Albatross. However, which is the relevance of Albatross' and Mosquito's adhesives since page is handling Tegofilm which has not been used either in Albatross or Mosquito?Myllyre (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft names in different languages do not demonstrate design relationships

The article states (16 April 2013) that "Germany attempted to copy this aircraft [i.e. the De Havilland Mosquito, just mentioned in the text] as the Moskito, it used Tego film". The Ta 154 Moskito was a design very different from its British namesake. A statement like this undermines one's confidence in the entire article. Togifex (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In what ways was the Ta 154 "very different" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The twin-engine mid-wing formula was quite common, probably because of its soundness and usefulness. But a common basic layout is insufficient to establish a relationship, let alone one that justifies the word “copy”. The DH Mosquito, for instance, was not a copy of the Junkers 88, or the Junkers 88 a copy of the Martin B-10, or the Dornier 17. All these aircraft, and the Ta 154 also, were designed independently from the outset. One who concludes a relationship from a basic arrangement of essential components, and/or from the fact that aircraft may share principal building materials, would see this very quickly when looking at structural details, where they probably had very little, if anything, in common. 31.209.228.110 (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How many other military aircraft of this period were constructed as wooden monocoques? – let alone twin engine high-speed light bombers specifically.

The Ta154 was designed because of the success of the Mosquito, and to emulate the virtues of the Mosquito. Amongst others, we have Bill Gunston's citation on this. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be an instance of how easy it is to sink into pointless wrangling. And a matter like this - if deeemed worthy of being settled - should rather be settled on the Ta 154 talk page (in the unlikely event that somebody were to assert there that the Ta 154 was a “copy” of the DH Mosquito). The idea to make aircraft out of wood can occur to a person of any nationality. The Ta 154 was not a bomber. Locutus sum. Togifex.Togifex (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)