Talk:DFS 230

Article says Maximum glide ratio: 1:11 (empty), 1:18 (fully loaded). Sources given do not say that, best I found was the 1:18 number without any qualifications.

Isn't 1:11 (empty), 1:18 (fully loaded) the wrong way round? Would the glider indeed have a much better glide ratio when loaded?

109.91.123.234 (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not having access to sources, I can’t edit the article. But if you do, I’d suggest changing the glide ratio to 1:18 without qualifications. 65.128.136.4 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the wiki article on gliding, the glide ratio doesn't change with weight "Glide ratio usually varies little with vehicle loading however, a heavier vehicle glides faster, but maintains its glide ratio". The DFS-230 had the highest glide ratio of any WW2 military glider other than the Antonov A-7 (which had the same ratio and was a similar size). "Source: Slient Skies Gliders at War 1939-1945" Tim Lynch, Pen & Sword, 2008, Appendix CSitalkes (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC) The need for a high glide ratio is explained in the Hotspur wiki article "The glider had to be capable of a long approach during landing, due to the prevailing belief at the time that gliders would have to be released a considerable distance from the target and glide in to ensure the sound of the towing aircraft did not alert the enemy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitalkes (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I would like to change the article from the second paragraph onwards so it says:

In addition to the pilot, the DFS-230 glider had room for nine men who sat close together on a narrow bench located in the middle of the fuselage (half facing forward, half facing back). Entry and exit to the cramped interior was by a single side door. The front passenger could operate its only armament, a machine gun. It was an assault glider, designed to land directly on top of its target, so it was equipped with a parachute brake. This allowed the glider to approach its target in a dive at an angle of eighty degrees and land within 60 feet of its target. It carried a freight cargo of about one ton/ 1,200 kg. It played significant roles in the operations at Fort Eben Emael, in Crete, and in the rescue of Benito Mussolini. It was also used in North Africa. However, it was used chiefly in supplying encircled forces on the Eastern Front such as supplying the Demjanksk Kessel, the Cholm kessel, Stalingrad, and the defenders of Festung Budapest (until February 12, 1945). Although production ceased in 1941, it was used right up to the end of the war, for instance, supplying Berlin and Breslau until May 1945.

By means of a cable running along the tow rope the pilots of the tow-plane and of the freight glider were able to communicate with each other which made blind flying possible, when necessary. The towing speed of the DFS-Z30 was approximately 116 miles per hour. It dropped its landing gear as soon as it was safely in the air, and landed by means of a landing skid. The DFS-230 could be towed by a Ju-52 (which could tow two with difficulty), a He-111, a Ju-87, He 126, a bf 110, or a Me 109. The Ju 52 towed the glider using a 131 foot cable or, in bad weather, a much shorter rigid bar connected by an articulated joint to the tow aircraft. The DFS-230 had the highest glide ratio (18) of any World War 2 military glider other than the Antonov A-7. This was because it was thought that the glider had to be capable of a long approach during landing, so that it could be released a considerable distance from the target so the sound of the towing aircraft did not alert the enemy.

Sources: Tim Lynch, "Slient Skies, Gliders at War 1939-45", Pen & Sword, 2008; GeneralMajor Fritz Morzik, "German Air Force Air Lift Operations" by USAF Historical Division, 1961Sitalkes (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DFS 230. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527230716/http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies151-200.asp to http://www.afhra.af.mil/studies/numberedusafhistoricalstudies151-200.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Seating arrangement in the DFC 230

The article currently states the "the DFS-230 glider had room for nine men who sat close together on a narrow bench located in the middle of the fuselage (half facing port, half facing starboard)"

According to paragraph above ("Expanding the article") the correct arrangement was "the DFS-230 glider had room for nine men who sat close together on a narrow bench located in the middle of the fuselage (half facing forward, half facing back)" when you look at the seat inside the glider (using both primary sources as well as scale models) you can see the narrow bench is in the centre of the cramped fuselage and seatbelts go from left to right across the seats (and presumably across a soldier's lap), making the idea they'd sit facing port (ie left) and starboard (ie right) completely nonsensical. Further actual period photos of the front half (where you can see troops sat on the seats) shows them facing forward. (I'm unable to find a photo of the back half, alsmot certainly because such a view would've been impossible on a fully assembled glider (because the wall of the fuselage would've been in the way).

It's clear "port and starboard" has somehow become the text (because it's repeated everywhere) and has been for quite some time, but it is clearly wrong. (Specifically I am an artist attempting to draw this, and port/starboard makes not a lick of sense, but front and back does - if you prefer naval terms - fore and aft, which is why I've dug so deep in to this one bit of text). This article would be more correct if the line were removed, but the correct details are fairly obvious. Pauljholden (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Article here https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/classics-dfs-230-assault-glider/ talks about the seating arrangements " It carried a pilot and nine troops on seats in a single row, six facing forward and four backward. " Pauljholden (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)