Author Topic: Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?  (Read 4482 times)

LJK Raubvogel

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #60 on: October 26, 2000, 02:53:00 PM »
F4UDOA, "Sour Kraut" is a pretty vague and not well chosen remark. Many Germans still find the term Kraut offensive.  I'm not a Nazi, but I take offense.

As fas as the turn rate of the TA-152...I never mentioned anything about it being able to turn great, or ever mentioned anything about its performance. But, yes, I am well aware of its wingloading specs,etc. I know it can out turn a Tempest.....just ask Willi Reschke   I was just wondering why such an argument over a plane that by everyone's account is not very good?

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #61 on: October 26, 2000, 03:13:00 PM »
Dude,

I've got a book that say's the F4U could out turn a NIK2(Corsairs and flat tops). This does not make it fact.

Does Deiter mention if the Tempest had drop tanks, fuel state, flaps? Was the pilot on his first mission or was he an ace? Did he misidentify the aircraft? Is his memory bad? I've got Eric Brown's book and it is so full of mis-stated facts and inaccuracy's it can't be used for anything but interesting reading. Do you think the FM in Aces High is based on the opinion of one or more pilots?
It is based on hard flight data and physics calculations. Pyro does not make the Spitfire FM turn better than the FW-190 FM. He puts the values for each A/C into a flight model builder, such as Aspect ratio, Lift coeeficient, Wing area, Drag(induced and Flat plate drag area) weight and others.
Then when you fly this "model" it performs according to the sum of these parameters.
Got it? I'm not being sarcastic, I am just explaining the why that you are not providing. When you understand why the TA-152 airframe is very good at some things and bad at others this will make more sense.

I reccomend the Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics by H.C. Smith. It helped me understand the why.

Later
F4UDOA  

LJK Raubvogel

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #62 on: October 26, 2000, 03:18:00 PM »
Haha, I don't really need lessons on aerodynamics from you, but thanks. What you fail to realize, is I'm not saying the 152 was a great turner. I haven't said that anyplace. I'm just asking why all the argument against a plane that is by all accounts not very good?

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #63 on: October 26, 2000, 03:30:00 PM »
LJK_Raubvogel it means I don't accept YOUR limitations as set with your statement ""production #'s don't make a rat's bellybutton of a difference. ""

 This is a pat answer quite a number of insecure LW folks give when they fear flying against a production aircraft that didn't need to see combat because there were no enemys left to fly it against.
 While many LW players like to hold up a one off prototype like an Olympic gold metaland say see what we wish we had? Here we have several instances of actual production of US aircraft already dispersed in Fightergroup and Carrier Wing strength but ...<cough> BLOW JOB <cough> ....they don't count because they didn't shoot anyone down.
 
roadkill.  If there had been the need due to any kind of  formidable and threatening foe they would have been on scene and used pronto.

 Grunherz, the word is "production", as in aircraft. Not prototypes nor weapons on a drafting table.   Or else the Allies get the nuclear bomb and you don't.   And you're falling into the pitfall of modeling aircraft behavior based just a few positive pilot comments or stories. If we did that then the P-47 could not be shot down by an FW- 190 even when fired upon from point black range (Robert Johnson and several others with comments on the "indestructability" of the P-47)) and the P-51 could outclimb and out turn 109's (based on about a dozen P-51 pilto combat action reports) from the ozone layer down to the deck.

 

   -Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 10-26-2000).]

LJK Raubvogel

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #64 on: October 26, 2000, 03:43:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Westy:

  If there had been the need due to any kind of  formidable and threatening foe they would have been on scene and used pronto.
 

You said it all right there. They would have, but they weren't. What's so hard to understand about that? Would've, could've, should've, but didn't.



------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

Offline Westy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #65 on: October 26, 2000, 03:53:00 PM »
 Because now we can. That's why.  And it's not "what if's" or prototypes nor "1946". These are perk planes were actual aircraft in actual service and inventory, ready to go. It's not the fault of these aircraft that Admiral Doenitz surrendered and they weren't called into the gameplay.  

 Saying because something wasn't use would be like re-enacting a famous sports event and saying the reserve or players that were on the bench back then cannot participate in the re-match because they weren't put into play in the original game.
 If that's the case then let's get a bit more historical and make it so that for every TA-152 that is airborne in the MA there must be one hundred P-51's and P-47's too..   If I can't fly planes that were in the USN and USAAF service because of your twisted logic then I say you can fly yours only under these "realistic" conditions.

   -Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 10-26-2000).]

funked

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #66 on: October 26, 2000, 03:54:00 PM »
Grunherz, I'm not saying anything that isn't backed up by the Germans' own published figures for the aircraft.  The climb and speed at low altitudes were nothing special.  If you've got better figures I'm sure HTC would love to have them.

The wingloading is better than the D-9 or A-8 but it's still not particularly good.  The aspect ratio should help energy retention though.  Don't expect to have a big advantage in slow speed turning against Tempests and Thunderbolts and Mustangs.

On the deck it will be about as good as an A-5 or A-8.  It's only at high altitudes where it becomes one of the best planes.

I think for most arena work, the low level speed of the D-9 would be more useful.  Ta 152H would be the king of buff-hunting though.

PS I don't believe pilot anectdotes without supporting evidence.  Frank Gabreski told me his P-47D with water injection and paddle blade prop could outclimb anything the Germans had.  Shall HTC model at 4500 fpm Jug that outclimbs the Me 109G-10?  Of course not.  

Pilots speak from their personal experiences.  If you read enough pilot statements you'll notice after a while that a heck of lot of them conflict.  Why?  Because the performance they observe in combat is affected by flying skill, fuel load, power settings, ammo load, maintenance, and a zillion other factors that can make two aircraft perform quite differently relative to one another.  

Of course if one's reading is focused on just one country's planes and one point of view, rejecting any data that doesn't fit this point of view, then it might be hard to see this.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-26-2000).]

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #67 on: October 26, 2000, 04:23:00 PM »
HI

I prolly blew my top a bit cuz of the constant bashing of this plane which was really quite outstanding. And maybe also about the idea that some want the 51H which never saw service, its the same if somebodty asked for a do335. It shouldn't be made if id didnt fight. It would be a great hi alt plane which it was designed to do and thayts all I really want from it something for the 35k buffs, Plus at those alts it could outfight anything, 47 outmanuverd and outurned 109 and 190 at hi alts even tho it had a higher wing loading so at hi alts turning isnt just a factor of wing loading, but seems about maintaing of poer at hi alts. Simmilarly ive heard that 109F could outurn SpitV above 25k because it maintained better power up hi.

thanks GRUNHERZ

Offline Spritle

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #68 on: October 26, 2000, 04:25:00 PM »
Westy and F4UDOA,

The pilot accounts that you so desperately want from GUNHERZ he has already given to you.  "One of them said that he considerd the Ta152 his life insurence policy for the last few months of the war."  That's a quote from Walter Loos I believe.  He flew the plane in WWII and scored Kills in it.  That's a far cry from anyone on this entire board.  

The book is by Dietmar Harmann.  You really should pick up a copy.  The list of references in this book is very credible (Daimler-Benze).  NATH-BDP already posted a picture from the book.

Your right Westy no one said that the Ta152 was garbage just a bunch of people giving their expert opinion that it wasn't as good as anything the Allies had.  Honestly I think some people are patriotic to a fault.  Usually people that have never been out of the US.  

Also another of the prime sources for information on the Ta152 for Mr. Harmann's book was the chief test pilot for the Ta152 program.  So is that bonafide enough for ya?

Spritle

 

LJK Raubvogel

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #69 on: October 26, 2000, 04:35:00 PM »
Well, Westy, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I fly these WW2 sims in an attempt to vicariously experience some of the air combat that occurred during WW2. I know its not realistic. Due to the country set-up, you end up having P-51's fighting Spitfires, etc. But to bring in a plane that was never proven or used in combat just doesn't make sense to me. It's not a "what if" plane, but it is definitely a "what if" situation, because it never happened.You are entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

funked

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #70 on: October 26, 2000, 05:56:00 PM »
Yes Grunherz, you can overcome a wingloading disadvantage to some degree by having more power, absolutely correct.  Ta 152H will still have excess power to maneuver at altitudes where many planes will be using all their power just to stay aloft.

LJK_Reschke

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #71 on: October 26, 2000, 07:28:00 PM »
Here is a link and quote from Joe Baughers site concerning the Ta-152 in all its various versions.

First the quotation:
"Several Fw 190C airframes were used in the project. The first Ta 152H-0 service test aircraft rolled off the assembly lines in October-November 1944. The Ta 152H-0s had no fuel tanks in their wings. They were joined a month later by the first production Ta 152H-1 aircraft, which had fuel tanks in the wings. The Ta 152H-1 was armed with one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds and two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wings with 175 rpg. 330 pounds of armor were carried for the protection of the engine and the pilot. Most production machines were delivered to Ta 152H-1/R11 bad-weather fighter standards. A MW 50 boost tank was fitted in the inboard port wing tank for use in enhancing low-altitude performance, with the GM 1 high-altitude boost tank aft of the cockpit being standard.

Approximately 150 Ta 1252H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the final abandoning of production with the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant. No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type, but several Jagdstaffeln operated the Ta 152H alongside the Fw 190D and other types. Most of the Ta 152s operated in the close-support role. Others flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, trying to protect the jets from being "bounced" by Allied fighters during takeoff or landing. It was said that no British or American fighters risked attacking an Me 262 during landing while Ta 152s were known to be circling the airfield. The large wing area of the Ta 152 made it quite easy to fly. Most of the Ta 152Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery. A few Ta 152Hs were allocated to the Mistel program.

Near the end of 1944, Kurt Tank himself had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152Hs. He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs. Tank pressed the button which activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke."

Here is the link to the page: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html

Now I have read that many of the Ta-152H-1's produced saw REAL flight time and combat time.  The man I take my nickname for WW2 combat flew a Ta-152H-1 with JG301 Stabschwarm.  He also has a interesting story about his shooting down of a Tempest that had just attacked a railyard(I believe that is correct it has been a while since I read the account.) and he along with the other members of his flight (All flying Ta-152H-1's) were scrambled to intercept the inbounds.  

So I agree that it should be a "perk plane" but I also contend that ANY plane that never flew a combat sortie should not be included.  I do not care if it is Soviet, Polish, Finnish, Italian, Swedish, German, British, Samoan......well I doubt they had any planes in WW2.  But I think  you get the picture.  To me a plane such as the F7F Bearcat should not be in the game.  It never flew a real combat sortie as it was in transit to the theater to participate but was far away from combat when hostilities ended.  The same goes for the P-51H, sure some units had been equipped with it and were training up with it but they were not in theater to join in combat operations and the same goes for the He-162 with its muddied history of whether it actually flew combat or not.  To me if a plane was only built in a few numbers BUT did see combat then by all means it should be included.  Likewise a plane built much in the numbers of the F7F and P-51H but were either in transit or in training but not flying combat should not be allowed.  The same goes for each country that supplied aircraft in WW2.  So for me give me the F4F or F6F along with the Corsair.  But please don't give us a plane that never saw combat in WW2.

------------------
Maj. Reschke
Kommandeur Jagdbomber,
StaffelKapitaen I-31 LJK www.luftjagerkorps.com

[This message has been edited by LJK_Reschke (edited 10-26-2000).]

funked

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #72 on: October 26, 2000, 07:33:00 PM »
LJK, Baugher's web pages are based on books - not primary documents.  And some of the books he used are quite old.  I think Harmann's book is based on more thorough and recent research - Luftwaffe and Focke-Wulf documents tracing the serial number of each and every Ta 152 that was built.

I've read the story of Reschke's Tempest "kill" a few times, and I don't recall a specific reference to the H-1 model.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-26-2000).]

LJK_Reschke

  • Guest
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #73 on: October 26, 2000, 10:08:00 PM »
As soon as I get my copy of Willi Reschke's book on the history of JG300/JG301 I will be able to find out from a first hand pilot how it handled.  I am fortunate that the company I work for is based in Germany and my boss is coming back from there next week with my copy.  However it is in German and he will have to translate it for me since I can speak it but not read it yet.  It is going to be a teaching tool for me also since I am familiar with some of the terms and words he has used in it.

You are right that there is not a reference to the H-1 model in his story but that was the plane that JG301 Stabschwarm was using at the time of the encounter as they had serious engine trouble with them and were going through engine refits.  The H-0 and H-1 series had a very real problem with the engines either catching on fire or blowing out cylinder heads. I believe they ended up changing them out from the Jumo 213E to the DB603 but I will have to look that one up next week.

------------------
Maj. Reschke
Kommandeur Jagdbomber,
StaffelKapitaen I-31 LJK
www.luftjagerkorps.com

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
Ta 152H-1...what it is and what it is not ?
« Reply #74 on: October 27, 2000, 08:54:00 AM »
Where did I ever post anything close to the statements that have been attributed to me? Please show me.

I have repeatedly stated that the Ta-152 will be disappointing to most Luftwaffe fans because it performed best at high altitudes (very good at hi alt), and very poorly (compared to other late war fighters) at low to medium altitudes where most of the arena fighting takes place. This is supported by Focke-Wulf factory test documents I have posted here repeatedly, sorry but its pure fact.

I have stated that the Fw190D9 would perform much better at the altitudes we commonly fight in the arena at, and would be preferrable to the Ta152 for that reason.

Nowhere have I stated that either plane was trash or that it sucked. In fact, I always say that I would like to see the D9 in AcesHigh.

And like Funked has said, Harmann's book goes down to each and every individual werk number of every Ta152 ever built. This is a German author working from many many years of work in the Luftwaffe and Focke Wulf archives. It also inlcude detailed performance data, that I have never seen anywhere else.

And you would rather believe someones web page?

PS: The DB603 was the backup engine to the Jumo 213 in the testing program, it was not installed on any production aircraft.



------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure