• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The non-existent Messerschmitt 'P.1116'

carsinamerica

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
104
Reaction score
6
Does anybody know much about the provenance of this fighter project? This is all I know:
* Single-engine jet aircraft.
* Aft-located cockpit a la Me 209 V4.
* T-tail.

I saw one sketch of it once, but -- fool that I am -- I didn't make a copy of it. I'd love a picture, and any information about what role it was meant to fill. Was it an alternative to the P.1101, or a different beast altogether? Cheers.

Sorry, I just realized that this should have been put in with the "Various Messerschmitt projects" thread, but I can't move it.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Hi Cars,


do you want P.1106 or P.1116 ?,the aircraft which you are described it,was P.1106.
 

airman

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
17
Website
zeef.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_HeS_011 here the information about Heinkel HeS011
 

carsinamerica

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
104
Reaction score
6
hesham said:
Hi Cars,


do you want P.1106 or P.1116 ?,the aircraft which you are described it,was P.1106.
Well, in the book I read, "Messerschmitt: Aircraft Designer" by Ishoven, it had a low-quality illustration like the one I described, but it claimed that this was called the P.1116. On the other hand, it looks exactly like the T-tailed version of the P.1106 that Orionblamblam posted. So what was the P.1116, then?
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Hi cars,


all I know about P.1116,that it had a bat wing,may be there is someone can help you.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Hi Cars,


a more info about P.1116.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Great find my dear Justo.
 

carsinamerica

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
104
Reaction score
6
Justo Miranda said:
My two cents
Sweet, thank you! That picture is indeed from the same book, I guess I messed up the tail configuration in my head. So, it's just a straightforward variant of the 1106, then. Solved. Thanks!
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
hesham said:
a more info about P.1116.

From the book; Secret Nazi Aircraft 1939 -1945 Luftwaffe's Advanced Aircraft Projects


here is anther info about P.1116.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
newsdeskdan said:
You're seriously quoting David Crocker?? You know that the intro to that ebook makes it clear that most (all?) of the words are from Wikipedia. There was no P.1116. The last Messerschmitt project of the war was the P.1112. What Crocker mislabels is the P.1106. Variants of the P.1106 are unknown (although there were undoubtedly several, since alterations to the design are mentioned in some documents). Even if any variants of the P.1106 were known, they would be called 'P.1106' but with a different Zeichnung Nr. Take the P.1101 for example. Numerous different designs were set down and all labelled P.1101 but with a different drawing number. The sequence of drawing numbers ran and ran.

Hi Newsdeskdan,


who said there is no Me P.1116,in two Germany trusted books,they confirm its existing,and give it
its description,also in a Putnam book,also mention that,and my dear Justo also displayed his source
page about it ?!.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
73
newsdeskdan said:
You're seriously quoting David Crocker?? You know that the intro to that ebook makes it clear that most (all?) of the words are from Wikipedia. There was no P.1116. The last Messerschmitt project of the war was the P.1112. What Crocker mislabels is the P.1106. Variants of the P.1106 are unknown (although there were undoubtedly several, since alterations to the design are mentioned in some documents). Even if any variants of the P.1106 were known, they would be called 'P.1106' but with a different Zeichnung Nr. Take the P.1101 for example. Numerous different designs were set down and all labelled P.1101 but with a different drawing number. The sequence of drawing numbers ran and ran.

(...)

Justo's drawing shows the P.1106. If there's no original document or drawing anywhere that shows the P.1116, and no reference to it in any contemporary German documents then... it didn't exist. Anything else is just one person making a mistake and everyone else copying them... Just like the Henschel PJ 600/67. No such thing. It was the Henschel P.90 and I have the original documents to prove it. The more original documents you see, the more mistakes you see in supposedly authoritative books. How many authoritative books do you know that show the Henschel PJ 600/67? Any book that has it is suspect.
I'm grateful for growing up in a generation that couldn't access more than maybe 10% of all the information readily available on the web today, but could trust most of the sources published. Today there is so much information noise, what with countless sites mirroring Wikipedia (itself full of inaccuracies), lots of authors merely scratching the surface and repeating info from other books instead of going to the source documents, and the general public taking at face value anything they've seen in print, heard in the news or read on a forum.

Those of us with that "Green/Swanborough" culture, so to speak, can separate most of the wheat from the chaff; I'm worried however about today's and tomorrow's generations of aviation enthusiasts, who can take an elaborate prank at face value and question well-established facts, and their authors who will no doubt fill future libraries with inept books adding even more confusion as access to original sources becomes more difficult with the passing of time.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Hi Newsdeskdan,


with all respect,I can't convince with Messerschmitt P.1116 was not existing,I said two
trusted Germany book speak about it,and of course it was not a mistake,they have their
sources,also if there is no report about it,not a proof at all,we know Messerschmitt after
WW2,continued his series from P.1118,it means the P.1116 was there.


Also I remember in anther site,when I spoke about Heinkel P.1084 as a project,someone
tell me that,there is no project for Heinkel during WW2 after P.1080,and all available sources
mention that,now I tell him that,in 1945,Heinkel developed P.1090 & P.1095 also Wespe,
which given a "P" designation,but unknown,and his sources is wrong.
 

iverson

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
229
Reaction score
2
I rely on Wikipedia and other online sources both for hobbies and for work.

I am no internet-era kid either. I am a trained, old-school library researcher. Yet I see little difference in quality between sources like Wikipedia and print sources. Compared to printed encyclopedias, in fact, Wikipedia is often significantly more up to date and often seems more reliable on balance, probably because it is subject to far more critical reviews than any old-style volume. And anyone old enough to have taught secondary school or university level courses in the pre-internet era knows that copying stuff from an encyclopedia and presenting it as oiginal "research" is nothing new--I just wish Amazon did not gum up my search results with them.

The bottom line is that research principles haven't changed nor have the qualities of the writers and resources available. You can only rely on any source--primary, secondary or tertiary--to the extent that you know its background and sources and to the extent that you are prepared to read criticially. Even an well-known author who can convince a premium publisher to publish in print may be spouting nonsense for one reason or another. So you have to weigh each author's words against the facts that he can cite and against other competent sources.

What the internet has changed is the availability of materials, particularly primary sources. Electronic publication has made it economical to share the world's archives freely for the first time. If the price that we pay for that flood of valuable material is a modest increase in intellectual frauds and general drivel, I think that is a small price to pay.
 

newsdeskdan

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
766
Reaction score
83
iverson said:
I rely on Wikipedia and other online sources both for hobbies and for work.

I am no internet-era kid either. I am a trained, old-school library researcher. Yet I see little difference in quality between sources like Wikipedia and print sources. Compared to printed encyclopedias, in fact, Wikipedia is often significantly more up to date and often seems more reliable on balance, probably because it is subject to far more critical reviews than any old-style volume. And anyone old enough to have taught secondary school or university level courses in the pre-internet era knows that copying stuff from an encyclopedia and presenting it as oiginal "research" is nothing new--I just wish Amazon did not gum up my search results with them.

The bottom line is that research principles haven't changed nor have the qualities of the writers and resources available. You can only rely on any source--primary, secondary or tertiary--to the extent that you know its background and sources and to the extent that you are prepared to read criticially. Even an well-known author who can convince a premium publisher to publish in print may be spouting nonsense for one reason or another. So you have to weigh each author's words against the facts that he can cite and against other competent sources.

What the internet has changed is the availability of materials, particularly primary sources. Electronic publication has made it economical to share the world's archives freely for the first time. If the price that we pay for that flood of valuable material is a modest increase in intellectual frauds and general drivel, I think that is a small price to pay.
I like Wikipedia - it works well in other areas but not for 'secret projects'. Not Wiki's fault though. Its sources are quoted but frequently the sources given got it wrong themselves. Where the Internet falls down is, unless someone somewhere does the archive research to start with, it's the blind leading the blind.
The beauty of the Internet, though, is that it's a perfect medium to get the right information out there - the primary sources that we can all check those old books against to see if they got it right. This is happening right now - particularly on that Swiss guy's website, www.deutscheluftwaffe.de.
I'm convinced that there's a whole load more out there to discover. The Pb series is at the Library of Congress right now; several tons of German secret documents and contemporary Allied reports that no one is looking at. It's a crying shame. And I believe the French are sitting on a lot more documents than they've so far revealed.
I'd like to encourage document-based challenges and debate. If hesham or anybody else can provide primary evidence for the P.1116's existence I will immediately admit that I was wrong and welcome the design into the pantheon of German WW2 secret projects. If, when challenged, no one is able to do that, absolutely no one, then surely we have to accept that it didn't exist or, if it did, no one has any idea what it was for or what it looked like.
 

Stargazer2006

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,243
Reaction score
73
newsdeskdan said:
I like Wikipedia - it works well in other areas but not for 'secret projects'. Not Wiki's fault though. Its sources are quoted but frequently the sources given got it wrong themselves.
There are two basic flaws about Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned:

1°) Articles that are very well researched and knowledgeable are labelled as dubious when references are missing. But any moron can write the greatest nonsense and get it published if they give sources, however disputable or unreliable these sources may be.

2°) However reliable the information, someone can always come up with contradictory information and modify it. Fanboys, negationists and others can rewrite at will the articles and subtly reshape and alter the truth, either out of sheer stupidity or because they follow a secret agenda, knowing people will take their writings at face value if they have enough references to back them up.
 

newsdeskdan

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
766
Reaction score
83
Skyblazer said:
newsdeskdan said:
I like Wikipedia - it works well in other areas but not for 'secret projects'. Not Wiki's fault though. Its sources are quoted but frequently the sources given got it wrong themselves.
There are two basic flaws about Wikipedia as far as I'm concerned:

1°) Articles that are very well researched and knowledgeable are labelled as dubious when references are missing. But any moron can write the greatest nonsense and get it published if they give sources, however disputable or unreliable these sources may be.

2°) However reliable the information, someone can always come up with contradictory information and modify it. Fanboys, negationists and others can rewrite at will the articles and subtly reshape and alter the truth, either out of sheer stupidity or because they follow a secret agenda, knowing people will take their writings at face value if they have enough references to back them up.
You're right. And the more contentious the subject (like 'secret projects), the more likely that both 1°) and 2°) will apply!
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Hi Newsdeskdan,


temporarily,I agree with you until get a trusted source about P.1116.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
Hi Newsdeskdan,


in the book; Willy Messerschmitt. Pionier der Luftfahrt und des Leichtbaues,they
spoke about Messerschmitt P.1116,I don't have the book,but I saw a page of index
of it on Internet ?.
 

Attachments

newsdeskdan

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
766
Reaction score
83
hesham said:
Hi Newsdeskdan,


in the book; Willy Messerschmitt. Pionier der Luftfahrt und des Leichtbaues,they
spoke about Messerschmitt P.1116,I don't have the book,but I saw a page of index
of it on Internet ?.
Okay, interesting. I'd love to know what it says... although the lack of a P.1113, P.1114 and P.1115 on that list doesn't bode too well.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
144
Had a look into "Messerschmitt Geheimprojekte" by Willy Radinger and Walter Schick: Yes, they actually mention
the P.1116, but as "make-believes by some authors" only. The development of the P.1111/1112 is listed in
chronological order, with the date of the last, final design of the P.1112 ("Zeichnung XVIII/166 P1112-V1") finished
on the 30th of March 1945 and the description of the mock-up on th 18th of April 1945. So there wouldn't have been
much time to produce a new design, I think.
To my knowledge, those authors mostly did a good job, using contemporary sources. That's not to depreciate other
sources, but to my opinion, it strongly seems to support newsdeskdans opinion ( http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20040.msg254132.html#msg254132 ),
that the "P.1116" just is a post-war phantom, kept alive by repetitions in often otherwise reliable sources.
That doesn't mean for sure, of course, that there wasn't a designer, who drew up a "Messerschmitt P.1116" on the
back of an envelope, while siiting in an airraid shelter, waiting for the war to be ended. But still yet, not even such
a sketch seems to have surfaced, let alone a hard evidence (original documents, drawings and so on).
 

newsdeskdan

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
766
Reaction score
83
Jemiba said:
Had a look into "Messerschmitt Geheimprojekte" by Willy Radinger and Walter Schick: Yes, they actually mention
the P.1116, but as "make-believes by some authors" only. The development of the P.1111/1112 is listed in
chronological order, with the date of the last, final design of the P.1112 ("Zeichnung XVIII/166 P1112-V1") finished
on the 30th of March 1945 and the description of the mock-up on th 18th of April 1945. So there wouldn't have been
much time to produce a new design, I think.
To my knowledge, those authors mostly did a good job, using contemporary sources. That's not to depreciate other
sources, but to my opinion, it strongly seems to support newsdeskdans opinion ( http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20040.msg254132.html#msg254132 ),
that the "P.1116" just is a post-war phantom, kept alive by repetitions in often otherwise reliable sources.
That doesn't mean for sure, of course, that there wasn't a designer, who drew up a "Messerschmitt P.1116" on the
back of an envelope, while siiting in an airraid shelter, waiting for the war to be ended. But still yet, not even such
a sketch seems to have surfaced, let alone a hard evidence (original documents, drawings and so on).
Seriously, much if not all of what Schick wrote does actually stand up when compared against the original documents. That guy seems to have been meticulous and try as I might I can't poke any definite holes in his work. What I've seen doesn't seem to support what he wrote about the Henschel Hs 135 (it doesn't appear to have been an entrant in the 1-TL-Jager competition, much less been discussed at the February 27/28 meeting - it might not even have really existed it definitely existed!) but I'm prepared to be proven wrong on that if someone has the documents.


The next posts, which discussed the Heinkel (or DB ?) Lerche and Wespe were split and can now be found in an own thread here
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,25081.0.html
 
Last edited:

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,760
Reaction score
805
From Ailes 15/8/1953,

they claimed wrong it was Me P.1116.
 

Attachments

newsdeskdan

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
766
Reaction score
83
From Ailes 15/8/1953,

they claimed wrong it was Me P.1116.
From Messerschmitt AG circa December 1944,

I'll say it again: There is no P 1116 - that's just an inaccurately drawn and inaccurately labelled picture of the P 1106, which was Messerschmitt's sole entry for the 1-TL-Jaeger competition at the design comparison meeting of December 19-21, 1944. If any mods are reading this, can we move 'Messerschmitt P.1116' to speculative please? There is no historical basis for it.

P 1106.jpg
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
416
Reaction score
32
newsdeskdan said:
You're seriously quoting David Crocker?? You know that the intro to that ebook makes it clear that most (all?) of the words are from Wikipedia. There was no P.1116. The last Messerschmitt project of the war was the P.1112. What Crocker mislabels is the P.1106. Variants of the P.1106 are unknown (although there were undoubtedly several, since alterations to the design are mentioned in some documents). Even if any variants of the P.1106 were known, they would be called 'P.1106' but with a different Zeichnung Nr. Take the P.1101 for example. Numerous different designs were set down and all labelled P.1101 but with a different drawing number. The sequence of drawing numbers ran and ran.

(...)

Justo's drawing shows the P.1106. If there's no original document or drawing anywhere that shows the P.1116, and no reference to it in any contemporary German documents then... it didn't exist. Anything else is just one person making a mistake and everyone else copying them... Just like the Henschel PJ 600/67. No such thing. It was the Henschel P.90 and I have the original documents to prove it. The more original documents you see, the more mistakes you see in supposedly authoritative books. How many authoritative books do you know that show the Henschel PJ 600/67? Any book that has it is suspect.
I'm grateful for growing up in a generation that couldn't access more than maybe 10% of all the information readily available on the web today, but could trust most of the sources published. Today there is so much information noise, what with countless sites mirroring Wikipedia (itself full of inaccuracies), lots of authors merely scratching the surface and repeating info from other books instead of going to the source documents, and the general public taking at face value anything they've seen in print, heard in the news or read on a forum.

Those of us with that "Green/Swanborough" culture, so to speak, can separate most of the wheat from the chaff; I'm worried however about today's and tomorrow's generations of aviation enthusiasts, who can take an elaborate prank at face value and question well-established facts, and their authors who will no doubt fill future libraries with inept books adding even more confusion as access to original sources becomes more difficult with the passing of time.


I share this concern. A few thoughts. Books by established authors published by established companies. Heavily footnoted and otherwise referenced. The internet has indeed added a great deal of amateurs and 5 minute researchers who view wiki as infallible or nearly so. The continued existence of experts who have led by example and who have passed on the torch will guide future researchers. Those properly done books will serve as a template. Libraries are still my home along with access to original source documents. There is a right way to do things and that will never change.
 
Top