Ta-152

[SnakeEyes]

Hehe. thanks Wells.  

Ram, you are 100% wrong.  The 190D and Ta-152A are not the same aircraft.  They both used the Jumo 213 engine, but they are different aircraft.  Verm and Nath (who also have the 152 book) can confirm this if you'd like.

Interestingly, here is a quote from the inside cover of the Dietmar Harmann book:

"In 1943 he [Tank] developed a new fighter based on this successful concept [the 190].  The project soon deviated far from the original Fw 190 concept and as an honor to the designer it was designated the Ta 152."

Please note the use of "new fighter" and that the project soon "deviated far from the original Fw 190 concept"

PS - This is NOT an argument not to model the 152.  I *want* a 152.  I'm just wondering why we all seem to treat it as a variant of the 190... is it *really* technically a variant?  I tend to think not... though maybe the F8F _should_ have been on that list, seeing as it was developed from the original F6F concept (and the 190 <grin> ).

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

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

[Nath-BDP]

Umm... I see no '190' in 'Ta 152' do you?

Its not a variant.

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

[Dinger]

Hehe. That's what my hot air basically said too.

Nor was any Dora able to be converted to a Ta-152.

But if you've already got the cockpit interior and part of the fuse, you've already got a hell of a lot of the polygons necessary to build the thing.  So, in terms of work, it doesn't require a from-scratch model, and that makes it an HTC variant.

Similarly, the c.200 would be an HTC variant of the c.202, but not IRL.

The Tempest is not a variant of the Typhoon, but building one wouldn't require a completely new polygon model, so it's an HTC variant.  Any arguments against the Ta-152 being considered a variant should also hold for the Tempest.

[SnakeEyes]

Nobody is making any arguments against modeling the 152 (or the Tempest).  I was just wondering why people seem to treat the Ta152 as a 190 variant, when it's a new aircraft.

Dats all.  

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

[Pyro]

When talking of variants in AH, I really mean whether we have to build the shape from scratch or if we can reuse parts of an existing shape.  Some variants would use almost all the same parts while others would require a lot more reworking.  But that's still a lot easier than starting from scratch.  Even if there is a lot of external reworking to do, that's really not as time consuming compared to some more intricate work that doesn't need to be done from scratch.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[flakbait]

In the case of the D9, some were fitted with tail sections from the Ta-152 series. In actuallity, a Ta-152 could be done more easily if based off a D9 than an Fw-190A. Considering this, Pyro might want to wait until the D9 is modeled before going on with a Ta-152. Once the D9 is completed, he'd have about 70-80% of the work for a Ta-152 already done.




------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[senna]

Nobody has ever modeled a Ta-152 before. That in itself is worth a reason to make it happen pyro. U da man

-- senna

 

Originally posted by Pyro:
When talking of variants in AH, I really mean whether we have to build the shape from scratch or if we can reuse parts of an existing shape.  Some variants would use almost all the same parts while others would require a lot more reworking.  But that's still a lot easier than starting from scratch.  Even if there is a lot of external reworking to do, that's really not as time consuming compared to some more intricate work that doesn't need to be done from scratch.

[senna]

Please pardon me in this opinionated reply but I have this strong feeling that the Ta-152 began as not only an improvement to the 190 but also to preserve it's fundamental characteristics as a combat aircraft only at higher altitudes. Assuming this thinking in mind, the average 190 pilot would feel at home just higher up?

-- senna

 

Originally posted by SnakeEyes:
Hehe. thanks Wells.    

Ram, you are 100% wrong.  The 190D and Ta-152A are not the same aircraft.  They both used the Jumo 213 engine, but they are different aircraft.  Verm and Nath (who also have the 152 book) can confirm this if you'd like.

Interestingly, here is a quote from the inside cover of the Dietmar Harmann book:

"In 1943 he [Tank] developed a new fighter based on this successful concept [the 190].  The project soon deviated far from the original Fw 190 concept and as an honor to the designer it was designated the Ta 152."

Please note the use of "new fighter" and that the project soon "deviated far from the original Fw 190 concept"

PS - This is NOT an argument not to model the 152.  I *want* a 152.  I'm just wondering why we all seem to treat it as a variant of the 190... is it *really* technically a variant?  I tend to think not... though maybe the F8F _should_ have been on that list, seeing as it was developed from the original F6F concept (and the 190 <grin> ).

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by SnakeEyes:


Ram, you are 100% wrong.  The 190D and Ta-152A are not the same aircraft.  They both used the Jumo 213 engine, but they are different aircraft.  Verm and Nath (who also have the 152 book) can confirm this if you'd like.

Quote from "jane's fighting aircraft of WWII"

 "when the so-called "long nosed Fw 190" (see focke-wulf Fw190D9) Had been proved to be successful, Professor kurt tank redesignated this aircraft the Ta152A. Structurally there was little difference between the Ta 152A and its predecessor. The nose of the aircraft was cleaned up t ogive a smoother fuselage top line and hydraulic instead of electrical operation was used for landing gear and Flaps".

Ok, give me then a smoother and more aerodinamical Fw190D9, with MW50 and hidraulically operadted gear and flaps    

Ta152A and Fw190D9 are bassically the same aircraft. And I remember reading somewhere (Dont remember where ,tho) that the RLM changed the Fw190D9's name to Ta152A to honor Kurt Tank.

Maybe that last affirmation isn't true, but you read the quote saying that Ta152A and Fw190D9 have very little difference...didnt you?    

[SnakeEyes]

I do not doubt that the 190D and 152A are similar, but your contention is that they are the same aircraft, which they are not.

Harmann's book doesn't specifically compare them, but from the remarks section for each prototype, I can see the following definite differences:  Different tail from the 190D, longer fuselage, added an engine cannon, different wing area, use of the Jumo 213 with a three-gear transmission and two-stage supercharger.  The prototypes were converted from former Fw 190 A-0 production machines (not Ds).  There are certainly other unmentioned differences as well.

Moreover, the RLM specifically ordered the 190D into production, rather than the Ta152A, per Harmann's summary.

In any event, I view the 190D9 itself as being most of the way to "new plane" status.  Can you imagine taking a Mustang, adding a P&W RW2800 radial engine, changing the tail, modifying the gun package, lengthening the fuselage, and still calling it a Mustang?  And, as if that were not enough, you go on to modify it by changing the wings and other things on later prototypes?

PS - Harmann's book is definitely a better source than Jane's.

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

[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by SnakeEyes:

In any event, I view the 190D9 itself as being most of the way to "new plane" status.  Can you imagine taking a Mustang, adding a P&W RW2800 radial engine, changing the tail, modifying the gun package, lengthening the fuselage, and still calling it a Mustang?  And, as if that were not enough, you go on to modify it by changing the wings and other things on later prototypes?

Apart of the Ta152A-190D9 thing...

If the P51 retains its inline appearance with the R2800, for sure the change wont be that great

You mention a different tail. Well, not. Fw190D9 had only a lenghtened tail adding an additional fuselage section, but the tail, by itself, is the same.

The plane is identical to a Fw190A in the wing and cockpit, and the fuselage, other than the added section on the tail, is identical. The engine is an inline one but with the appearance of a radial one. It has a long nose, and that is probably the only thing that needs some work in the art departament.

Get a Fw190A7. Add some lenght on the tail and put an inline engine with anular radiator on the cowling. What do you get?

you get this:

   

So, please stop the nonsense about the "completely different plane". D9 is just a 190A with another engine and a longer (but identical) tail.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 11-01-2000).]

[-lazs-]

So ram.... If we take the soon to be added Hellcat... shrink it down, add the P51 canopy, drop a couple of tons of weight and add 4 or 500 horsepower..... we can have a varient... the Bearcat of which 300 (6-20 times as many as the 152) were in service by wars end in squadrons and at combat ready battlefields (ac carriers).   These Bearcats were delivered to the French at the end of the war and flew so many combat sorties in Vietnam that some of em had 4 or 5 times the hours to overhaul on em that was recommended.   So it wasn't that these planes were incapable of fighting... Certainly the pilots were brave enough?  
lazs

[RAM]

if you perk it and add it to the planeset?

its OK with me  ...remember that Fw190D9 won't be a perk plane   but bearcat will  

[HABICHT]

RAM, your story of 190d9's were renamed
to ta152' is wrong.
lots of ta's were built out of DORA parts,
but they were still huge differences between them.

but for our main, i want still a 190D9 with mw50!

[SnakeEyes]

Ram:

You're wrong.  It's that simple.  Go buy Deitmar Harmann's book.

PS - I didn't know that HTC hired you to decide which planes were perk or not.

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