Ta-152

[SnakeEyes]

Reading the poll kind of brought this thought up to me... is the Ta152 really a variant or is it more akin to being a logical development from the 190, but really a new plane unto itself??

This *isn't* an attempt to slam the 152 as a poll choice (hell, I *like* the 152 and have Harmann's book on it)...  it's really just a question that I've wondered about regarding when the changes to an airframe ultimately constitute a new aircraft, rather than a variant of the original.

It seems to me that there are at least a few aircraft that are more akin to each other than the 152 is to the 190, but yet are thought of as "different" aircraft...

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Hooligan]

I think the point is that Pyro was saying that they could make FMs for the specified aircraft relatively easily because they were "variants" of aircraft already modelled in AH.  Thus the Ta152 is on the list but the bearcat is not.

Hooligan

[Dinger]

Perhaps not so much the FM as the graphics model.  Most of the polygons are there already, just stretch the fuse and tweak the wings, give it a new paint job.

[juzz]

Hmmmm, actually, a Ta 152H 3d model would have very little in common with the Fw 190A.

Prop, nose, wings, rear canopy, rear fuselage, tail - all different. The only thing I can think of as common would be the front/quarter canopy glass and the instrument panel...

[Vermillion]

In regards to real life, its definitely a varient of the Fw190, specifically a subvarient of the 190D.

In regards to "varients" in AH, I would say its not. Now if we already had the Dora, then building a Ta152 3D model and FM would be pretty easy. But as juzz said, the 190D/Ta152 is quite a bit different from the 190A series we already have.

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

[SnakeEyes]

Well, Verm's and Juzz are heading more along the lines of what I was getting at... I mean, we consider the 190A/D/Ta152 progression to be a series of variants.  However, compared to my untrained eye, the Yaks (-1, -3, -7, -9) all appear to be far more similar to each other than the 152 is to the original 190A series.  And yet, don't we tend to consider the Yaks as individual aircraft?  Or are all of them variants of the original??

To me, the Ta152's relationship to the 190A series seems to be more akin to the relationship between the P-39 and P-63.  Just like the 152, the P-63 has different wings, a different engine, a different tail, etc.  Do we consider the P-63 to be a P-39 variant, or a plane type unto itself (albeit one that evolved from the P-39, but yet is no longer a P-39)?  

And, since you guys brought it up, the only thing I can think of (in an AH modeling sense) that the 152 would share with the 190 is perhaps its cockpit artwork.  Other than that, I can't see much that would help AH model the 152... wings, rudder, weight, center of balance, engine, external 3D model... it's all different.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Vermillion:
In regards to "varients" in AH, I would say its not. Now if we already had the Dora, then building a Ta152 3D model and FM would be pretty easy. But as juzz said, the 190D/Ta152 is quite a bit different from the 190A series we already have.

Fw190D9 is virtually identical to Fw190A series, only with longer nose and a lenghtened tail.

If it wasnt then how the hell is this pic possible?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Dinger]

Oh come on guys, just a stretch here, a pull there, graft in the cowling from a spare DB605A-based model (come on, they're both liquid-cooled, that should be enough!), and *poof* a Ta-152 to 95% accuracy. You've already beaten the accuracy of the competition that's charging $5/hour more or less than what people here are playing!

[SnakeEyes]

So, Ram, can your picture fly?

I think there's a bit more to it all than that.  There are center of gravity changes, wing and rudder changes, a different engine... it might be easy to stretch a picture, but I submit that building an airplane is a wee bit more complex than that.

Moreover, we're talking about the Ta-152, not the 190D.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 10-31-2000).]

[SnakeEyes]

Can't one of our engineer types explain this one to me??  Seriously... what criteria (in a general sense, not necessarily an "AH sense") makes an a/c a variant, and what makes another aircraft a new aircraft type?


------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Hooligan]

Okay guys here's the proof that concerning modelling effort for HTC the Ta-152 is a variant.

Pyro had it on the list  .

I think that one of the points of the list was that those were aircraft that would be relatively easy to add because some of the graphics and FM work was already done.

Hooligan

[SnakeEyes]

Oh, I know that Hooly... but I'm trying to figure out why the 152 is typically considered a variant.  To me the relationship of the 152 to the 190A seems like the relationship of the P-39 to the P-63.

I want someone to model all of the latewar uberbirds (like I said, I've always been interested in the 152).  I just am trying to figure out why most people consider the 152 to be a variant rather than a new plane, given the ultimately pretty significant evolution from the original aircraft design.

Again, this is more of an academic question than an AH question.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[Dinger]

-o-o-o I'm about as much an engineer as you are; still I'll give it a whirl.

The industrial practices at this time show considerable variation from coutry to country.  Add to this military procedure and you get a confusing mess.

For me, the only criterion for determining whether an aircraft be considered a separate plane or a variant that makes sense seems to be if the factory building it and the institution using it designate it as a variant or a separate plane.

Now, the Ta-152 according to this criterion would be considered a separate plane, but most books list it as a variant.  Why? Probably because so few were produced it logically serves as an appendix to a discussion of the FW.
(of course, all this is moot if the H desgination was the first assigned to the Ta-152.  I think I remember seeing -Cs and -Ds in testing.)

Take for example the Macchi series.
The c.200 c.202 and c.205 are all similar.  Hut the c.202 features a redesigned cockpit, redesigned wings and a new engine (at the very least).  The c.205 is essentially a late-model c.202 with a bigger engine (and later, bigger guns).
According to an "absolute" way of thinking, the c.200 is a different plane from the c.202, while the c.205 is merely a variant of the c.202.
Yet if we follow the criteria above, all three would be different airplanes.  This implies another criterion, one I ignored above: if one aircraft type can be changed in the field into another, the two aircraft are related as variants, not at separate planes.

So for a variant, we have two non-exclusive definitions:

(denominational): If the factory and the air force call the plane in question a variant, it is a variant.
-or-
(functional): if one of the planes in question could have been and was modified in the field to become the other plane in question, the planes are related as variants.  

So a plane is a variant if it fulfills one of these two criteria.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by SnakeEyes:
.

Moreover, we're talking about the Ta-152, not the 190D.

Fw190D9. Also commonly known as Ta152A.

 

[wells]

yeah, the 152 is a variant of the 190, like the Typhoon is a variant of the Hurricane!