Unrecoverable stall/spin in ta152

[nrshida]

It was not an interceptor. That term really doesn't apply much until the jet ages and the cold war.

Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (for just two examples), were designed originally as short range interceptors.

[Chalenge]

No. It was not. The Ta152 was designed as a high alt fighter, meant to engage other fighters. It was not intended as a bomber hunter nor was it used as one. Your use of it as one doesn't mean you have the same experience as somebody like moot (or, to a lesser extent, myself) that push this plane to places where it actually might stall. When you're hunting bombers, it is a chase, a hunt, but not a dogfight.

Doesn't matter if you had 100-1 ratio against bombers. You can get that in many/any plane in the game. When hunting bombers you're never going to get into the situation where you would experience the tail-stall.

So, frankly, it doesn't matter what others say about you... it matters what you described about yourself. You're not using the 152 in any way remotely aggressive enough to bring about the topic of this thread.

Which, by the way, is NOT to have a pissing contest between shida and chalenge.

Wrong again Krusty. The Ta152 was developed as a high altitude interceptor, because of the difficulties involved with battling American heavy bombers. Cute how you twist that word 'interceptor' to mean what you want it to mean. The Ta152 was designed from the beginning to stop heavies, which is the ultimate role of any fighter pilot. While the DA cry babies 'go round the roseberry bush,' the real work is upstairs. I can't blame them though. Even the Germans in WWII feared bombers at high altitude. The uber 30mm Mk 108's were mounted in fighters to knock down heavies, not shoot noobs. But, even the experten could not pull it off well. Lyric has produced actual evidence that every fighter equipped with the 30mm that went up against high altitude bombers never hit their targets.

As to your other accusation. Watch your mouth.

I wonder who the Ki84 is?



Oops, someone just got oiled! Say it ain't so!



The DA definition of 'getting owned' is reversing and killing anyone that has alt and position on you. Like I said, it can happen to anyone.

Oh, snap! Krusty just got told!

[JunkyII]

To quote Ron Burgandy....."Go on"....

Liking where this thread is going.

[Chalenge]

Apparently this recent Panzer driver got frustrated with the mudhens and decided to kill Bishop ordnance with a B17! Maybe he didn't want his fighter or attack score burned by ack, huh?

Who would this be Junky? 

[nrshida]

As to your other accusation. Watch your mouth.

[LCADolby]

I see while I've have been enjoying a nice beer or three in the pub, chalenge has continued to be ..

Here's a diagram to aid your selection.

[save]

Why should I have expected anything other than this kind of jerk-off response?  I ASKED you to prove what you are saying, since it flies in the face of everything I have read.  Your response is above.

The Ta-152 had **330 POUNDS*** of armor added to the cockpit and engine areas.  I guess so it could HO real good, right partner?  YEEEHAAAW!!!   

And yet first bullet in front arc will automatically get you radiator hit...

Regardless purpose of the plane, its either unacceptable made by design, or its unacceptable modelled.

I have yet to see a contemporary flight test report of the TA152 showing these flaws.

[moot]

I have yet to see a contemporary flight test report of the TA152 showing these flaws.

Historical context.  Picture this at Rechlin in 44/45.  Remember e.g. half or a whole batch of production was destroyed by allied attack.  Or... Some Rechlin test crew using emergency fire water as drinking water.  Ruggedness under fire is lower in priority - if the plane can't even fly or shoot straight, you're not yet down priority list to get to fire resistance.  Remember the plane was put into production before testing had gotten anywhere near halfway done (vague memory of exact proportions, but that's the gist of it)

Also see the fuss in other development times where the 152 is declared unfit for basic gunnery trials due to instabilities in 2 or more axes (vague memory cause I havent thought of this in years).

All in all the 152 was a bad design as flown in the field.  Whether or not the reasons for it are mitigating (e.g. slave labor sabotage, instead of e.g. Kurt Tank screwing up or Rechlin being clueless about what pilots needed or field pilots not trying hard enough to make the best of what they got)

Finally Krusty saying the 152 was not made at least in majority of intent as high alt bomber intercept ... what are you smoking now Krusty?  Have you not even read a single good 152 reference book, or going amnesiac or what?


And yes sometimes in that endless tail first spin, the controls are inverted in effect as someone above says.  Sorry I don't remember well enough to give something useful like a flowchart..  And some of the above debate sounds a bit simplistic.  E.G. Widewing once said the 152 felt like the rudder being blanked by airflow.  When I considered this at the tail end of 10 years of "flying" the 152, that sounded as true as any other hypothesis for the 152 not "feeling" right.  This suggestion of Widewing's is just one item that upsets the whole conviction that "the coad is wrong".  IOW there could be many more such items should one actually study this case with proper aerodynamics knowledge instead of armchairing it.
I personally think the 152 "properly" modeled would be just as much a handful, even if the flight physics weren't (as they seem to be) OOR once you're beyond the useful (air combat) flight envelope as with this damned spin
---
yall have fun

[JunkyII]

Apparently this recent Panzer driver got frustrated with the mudhens and decided to kill Bishop ordnance with a B17! Maybe he didn't want his fighter or attack score burned by ack, huh?

Who would this be Junky? 

(Image removed from quote.)

Oh gawd he caught me in a buff....which I'm terrible in but I do like gunning....

Is that me?

[Butcher]

Wrong again Krusty. The Ta152 was developed as a high altitude interceptor, because of the difficulties involved with battling American heavy bombers.

Interesting considering every book I have classify's the Ta-152 as a High Alt fighter - There was no designation for BOMBERS or Fighters - Look at the Bf109K - idea is hitting a target with a single 30mm causes enough damage it would bring down a single engined fighter.

Ta-152 was designed to fly High, fast with a good punch to combat bombers and mustangs.

There were other variants that were put on paper, so the real answer is it was NOT designed for bombers strictly, or an Interceptor, but a High Alt Fighter.

[uptown]

How about we classically the TA152 a multi-role fighter designed to take down any enemy aircraft put in front of it? 

[moot]

Interesting considering every book I have classify's the Ta-152 as a High Alt fighter - There was no designation for BOMBERS or Fighters - Look at the Bf109K - idea is hitting a target with a single 30mm causes enough damage it would bring down a single engined fighter.

Ta-152 was designed to fly High, fast with a good punch to combat bombers and mustangs.

There were other variants that were put on paper, so the real answer is it was NOT designed for bombers strictly, or an Interceptor, but a High Alt Fighter.

The actual answer is much more convoluted than such black/white.  Expectation of very high alt bombers was one of if not the main initial motivation for sure though.

[BaldEagl]

Oh oh oh ooooh ooooch ouch, yikes the pain make it stop. 

   That made my day.  Thank you.

[Krusty]

To claim 30mm indicates an emphasis on bomber hunting is false and just uninformed. When you look at the timelines involved and the development of the 30mm cannon, it is much more likely it was to counter the super-resilient enemy aircraft on the Soviet front. When heavily armored Fw190s couldn't dent IL-2s, you know you need bigger guns.

The 30mm was intended for single engine fighters as well. Many's the time the sturdily-built US plane soaked up tons of damage, be it P-40s over Tunisa, or be it P-47s soaking up an entire Fw190's ammo load, or what have you. The Mk103 was intended to need LESS hits to kill a target. Any target. Their main concern was younger and greener pilots as the war went on, and it was decided that stronger round meant pilots had to stay on target for lesser time, allowing for better survival of German pilots. 30mms weren't developed only for bomber hunting.

Moot: You seem to suggest there were only 2 roles in the bomber campaign: US heavies, and the planes attacking them. For any 110G of sturmbock 190 going for the bombers there were twice as many Bf109s flying high cover and escort, engaging and dogfighting the US escorts. Often far far above the heads of the bomber attackers. This was still an important part of the war. When the high-cover could dominate (or at least contend with) the US escort fighters, the bomber hunters got through and made their runs. Fact of the matter is the LW had plenty of planes they could adapt to hunt higher-alt bombers. Even if the bombers were only flying an average of 5k above B-17 or B-24 formations. Ta-152s (and in general the high alt fighter design) were there as fighters. I'm sure if they were ever to run across bombers they would have made an attack run, but so would Bf109s, or Macchi C.205s... Doesn't mean they are bomber hunters. Hell anything could technically bring down a B-17, given the right situation. Far more likely, and quite clearly, the 152, the 109k, the 109H project, and so many other high-alt emphasis was to keep up with the US side of aviation. It wasn't role-specific.

C.202s, armed with only 2x 12.7mm Breda machine guns attacked and sometimes brought down B-24s. Should you re-write history to categorize this as a bomber-hunter? Bristol Blenheims were converted to 7mm-armed night fighters, to stalk and hunt bombers at night. Should history be rewritten to categorize the Blenheim as a bomber-hunter?

I ask those rhetorical questions because that is the same logic at work for calling the 152 a bomber hunter or bomber interceptor.

[Chalenge]

To claim 30mm indicates an emphasis on bomber hunting is false and just uninformed. . .

Wrong again. The primary objective was to knock down heavies. That is just the way it is Krusty. Fighter aircraft went up to attack the bombers and not just to score kills on escort fighters. The problem is that attacking bombers is very scary when it's your head on the line. So, most of the aircraft with the 30mm guns sat off at over 1,000 yards and hit nothing. Officers would put claims in and receive credit even when their gun cameras showed no hits whatsoever. Those that did dive away once the escorts attacked them may have gotten kills, but their primary mission was to attack the bombers. The number one responsibility of fighter pilots has always been to stop the bombers that are trying to end your ability to wage war. Shooting down other fighters has always been a secondary role.

The Ta152 was specifically designed to engage the B-29s, which the Germans expected to arrive at any time. Sure, they knew the B-29 was being developed, but they could not have known that it was never planned to use B-29s against Germany. The Americans already knew they would put Germany out of business with what they were already using, and the B-29 would be needed for the longer missions against Japan.

As to your clever comment about the 202s, well you don't change the mission role of an aircraft just because something could happen. Sometimes the mission role was changed because an aircraft showed an outstanding quality, as in the P-51s. Or, in the case of the P-38, were removed from the primary fighter role despite being well liked in that role, because the reality was quite a bit different from expectations.