Talk:Bachem Ba 349 Natter

Doesn't "Natter" mean "Adder" or "Viper"?

Umm, doesn't "Natter" mean "Adder"? Not only does that make sense in terms of spelling, and that that term is what I find on every description of the aircraft I can find, but I also find it difficult to believe the Germans named their aircraft after a class that contains the garter snake... Maury 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen "Natter" ="Adder" in almost every source, too. Trekphiler 00:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. See de:Nattern, and Ger. Otter is cognate with "adder", while Natter is cognate with Latin natrix (I think) and the "original" version (see Adder (snake) for details). It might also mean "nondescript mid-sized snake" as a colloquialism, with a disparaging air a bit like en:"serpent". Nazi "biological" codenames were usually genera (Enzian: Gentiana) and families (Fw 190 Würger: Laniidae), sometimes species (Fw 189 Uhu: Bubo bubo) however.

In brief, the only correct translation of Natter in this context is colubrid.

The class that contains the garter snake is "reptiles" (or sauropsids) BTW. Dysmorodrepanis 03:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicht Wahr

John Cornwell in Hitler's Scientists (P. 383) claims the Ba-349 became unstable after her rockets were expended. I've never seen this anywhere else; can somebody confirm he's wrong? Trekphiler 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first manned flight eneded in a crash because one of the jettisionable rocket would not come off, and so made the aircraft unstable. It seems there were at least seven and maybe ten (Green 1970, p. 67, 69) prototypes that have made flights, no problems with the other ones.

SS funding?

What evidence is there, for the statement that development of the Ba 349 was funded by the SS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oboroten (talk • contribs) 11:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

• Green 1970, p. 65 "Himmler displayed immediate interest in the Natter project, promised his full support" But apart from using his (Himmler's) influence to push the design I can not find any evidence of SS Funding.Dirk P Broer 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And about the order of 150 Natters for the SS: Where were the SS pilots?Dirk P Broer 20:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    
    • I seriously doubt there were ever any SS pilots...but who knows?...As a side point, the Luftwaffe was the most National Socialist or "Nazi-fied" of the three main services (Army, Navy, Air Force; thats not counting the SS as a separate service of course)...I dunno - it does seem a bit strange the SS would control this project. Were they involved with or control the V1-V2 efforts? If so, that might be an indicator of why it was organized that way...Engr105th 00:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some things that are not clear enough

"Several sources claim that an operational unit of Natters was set up by volunteers in Kirchheim unter Teck but didn't carry out any operations, but the evidence for this is inconclusive."

My question is: who would have formed such an unit? The Allies or the Germans? Greetings, Krysiul (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The Germans. What the Allies found later on didn't exactly convince them of the viability of the project...

The question is actually not whether a Ba349 unit existed in general or nominally (the launch pads would seem to prove that - someone had to order them to be built, to be used by someone else). The maghic word is "operational", i.e. "beyond field trials (or rather, one field trial) status". The de: article does not mention anything that would suggest the former is correct. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Surviving Natters

The article mentions the three survivors, and shows a replica in a museum in Germany. I saw another one at Kermit Week's Fantasy of Flight in Florida - does anybody know if that's an original or a replica? Ptomblin (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A very passable replica, I think. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC).

Never mind, answered my own question - http://www.fantasyofflight.com/aircraftpages/natter.htm says it was a replica, built in 2000 Ptomblin (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sieber's death

Two explanations of the test-pilot's death are given. The one brought forward by e.g. Gooden, that the canopy opened and probably broke Sieber's neck since the headrest was part of it, is dismissed. Instead a far more complicated series of events is given: one booster fails to release, Sieber opens the canopy intending to jump but is talked down via radio (or did he try to jump but failed since the chute get stuck in the remaining booster?), but loses his direction in the clouds and eventually drives straight into the ground.

I would like to see some good sources for the longer explanation. The details don't even match each other. I also fail to understand the point of the following: "Photos were altered to hide the fact that a FuG16 radio was in the cockpit, used to order Sieber not to bail out." A picture of a radio in the cockpit gives no indication of how it was used. Hexmaster (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Drawings

I think the article would need a drawing. if you agree with FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)FockeWulf FW 190FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC) place your comment here. Thank You

Translations "adder" and "viper" reloaded

While it is correct that "Natter", in modern German, refers to non-venomous snakes of the colubrid family, this usage is no way applied consistently and independent of period. "Natter" is poetically and figuratively used for an "evil" venomous snake. The usual translation of a "brood of vipers" (biblical etc.) is "Natterngezücht". More concrete, the name is said to be inspired by Bachem reading Shakespeare The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, quote of Brutus:

“It is the bright day that brings forth the adder and that craves wary walking.”

The German translations use the term "Natter", example:

"Der warme Tag ist's, der die Natter zeugt; Das heischt mit Vorsicht gehn."

So it's perfectly correct to translate "Natter" with "adder" and also with "viper". The explanation in the article is to be adapted in this way. --KnightMove (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio?

The phrase "With a roar, the M23 rose out of a cloud of steam and rocket smoke straight up, displaying its camouflage paintwork." seemed out of keeping with the encyclopedic tone expected of Wikipedia articles. I did a quick Google search, and found 44 results. It's possible all are copied from Wikipedia, but I don't really have time to research each one looking for which might be original. Since the tone is somewhat unencyclopedic, my suspicion is that it was copied into Wikipedia from elsewhere. I'm hoping someone with more time / expertise than I can address this.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah i'm almost certain that it is copy-pasted from somewhere but i do not know where it was ripped from. Maybe we can figure out who put it there and ask where he stole it from and remove it and replace it with actual information. 96.29.181.235 (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran a copyvios check and found nothing which was not copied from wikipedia. I do agree, however, that that sentence seems ripped from one of the source books. I removed it and rephrased the surrounding information independently of those sources. Themillofkeytone (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox title

I removed the title deliberately. What's the point of this? It strikes me as entirely redundant to the article title, less than an inch above and the caption down below?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The same point that parameter in every other infobox on Wikipedia has. It's a "quick overview" redundant to and seperate from the article in some regards. Every infobox has a title parameter and it's used. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised too. This almost seems "Pointy". BilCat (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Not so much; I rarely see it in the ship articles that I mostly edit. It still is redundant to the infobox image caption if one is present. So a waste of screen space, IMO, in that case. I've received complaints about excessive length in ship infoboxes, so perhaps I'm more sensitive than most to things that will lengthen infoboxes with little value.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I admit that "excessive length" complaint surprises me - the more detail the better, even when summarized. The fact ship infoboxes don't use it is something I'll look out for - it really should be used there, I'm pretty sure it's spelled out somewhere that it's strongly encouraged to be used if not required; but anyway, it's the aircraft project standard to include it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ship infoboxes are a notable exception to the norm, as nearly every other infobox type on Wikipedia uses infobox titles. It still seems weird to me not to see them on ship articles, but I don't go around adding them because that's what I'm used to either. BilCat (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX#Consistency between infoboxes does state "The template should have a large, bold title line." I do find them helpful myself, as I have field of view issues with my eyes, and thus don't find them redundant to the article's title. This may thus be an issue worth pursuing on accesibilty grounds. BilCat (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point about accessibility, Ghod knows that I've complained enough about the unfathomable popularity of the ref begin and end templates, reducing the size of the various appendices. I'll leave them alone outside of ship articles, then, as we probably have the longest infoboxes in all of Wiki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've complained about the small type in places too, and they should at least be easily overridden by user user preferences, but they aren't. BilCat (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

How many manned flights?

The opening paragraph says one; later in the article, it states that three more were accomplished. John D. Goulden (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that as well. I did a bit of research and found an article states that there were multiple manned launches. I'll fix the error. Springfield2020 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not an error. All of the subsequent flights to Sieber's fatal flight were unmanned.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)