Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hristo on October 24, 2000, 05:04:00 AM
-
With poll results the plane seems closer than ever (IMO).
IMO, taking this plane against Zekes, early Spits or any other mid war plane is the dweebiest thing imaginable. However, taking it against late 1944/45 Allied planes sounds like great fun.
So, compare one to the Dora.
How did it handle on the deck ?
Did it have lower wingloading than Dora ?
How much power could that Jumo put out on the deck ?
How fast was it on the deck?
What was standard gun package, what were the options ?
How was roll rate affected, compared to the Dora ?
Was it heavier than the Dora ?
What was the benefit of all the supercharger systems, MW 50 and GM 1, if it had those ?
How did it accelerate ?
How did it climb ?
Please, let's start meaniungful discussion, no hijacking.
Thanks
-
I will answer the ones I know:
Originally posted by Hristo:
How did it handle on the deck ?
Slower and worse accelerator.
Did it have lower wingloading than Dora ?
yes, had way bigger wings for very high level actuations.
How fast was it on the deck?
332mph with no MW50. With it, I dont know
What was standard gun package, what were the options ?
2xMG151/20
1xMK108
How was roll rate affected, compared to the Dora ?
Significantly worse, but still good. extended wings made rollrate get worse.
What was the benefit of all the supercharger systems, MW 50 and GM 1, if it had those ?
Ta152H1 had provision for both,IIRC, and was fitted with MW50. Benefit?. power increases under and over 25K respectively-
Over 30K this plane will shine brightly. over 20K will be quite average.
at low levels it will have bad performance.
I voted it to kill 35K altdweeb buffs and to bring down uberdweebish sputnikfires (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). But it is not a good MA plane. Ta152C would be better choice IMO (it shines at 20K-30K alts) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-24-2000).]
-
First, the specs from Luftwaffe Resource Group and Joe Baugher's page:
Type: Single-seat high altitude fighter
Engine: Jumo 213E-1 12-cylinder inverted Vee,liquid cooled with MW-50 injection and GM-1 boosting
Horsepower: Take-Off: 1,750 hp at 3,250 RPM (2,050 hp with MW 50)
Climb And Combat: 1,580 hp at 3,000 RPM
Maximum: 1,320 hp at 32,810 ft. (1,740 hp with GM 1 boost)
Propeller Unit: Junkers wooden three blade unit Diameter: 3.6 m (11 ft. 9.75 in.)
Fluids:
FUEL:Capacity: 364 Imperial Gallons (1618 liters) Type: B4 (87 Octane)
OIL: Capacity: 72 liters
GM-1 (Nitrous Oxide): Capacity: 85 liters
MW-50 (Methanol-Water) Capacity: 140 liters
Dimensions: Wing Span: 14.5m (47 ft. 6.75 in.)
Wing Area: 23.5 Sq. M (252.95 Sq. Ft.)
Length: 10.8m (35ft 5.25 in.)
Height: 4m (13 ft. 1.5 in.)
Wheel Track: 3.95m (12 ft. 11 in.)
Stabilizer Span: N/A
Weights: Empty: 3,600kg (8,642 lbs.)
Loaded: 5,500kg (10,472 lbs.)
Performance:
Maximum speed:
534.62km/h (332mph) at sea level; 563.6km/h (350mph) with MW-50
695km/h (431mph) at 10,500m (34,451 ft.);
750km/h (466mph) at 9,000m (29,529 ft.) with MW-50
760km/h (472mph) at 12,500m (41,012 ft.) with MW-50 and GM-1
Climb rate: 3,440 ft/min
Ceiling: 14,800m (48,560 ft.)
Range (Internal fuel): 1200km (745 Miles)
Armament:
One 30mm MK 108 mounted between the cylinder heads, firing through the propeller hub
Ammunition: 90 Rounds
Two inboard wing mounted 20mm MG151/20
Ammunition: 175 Rounds Each
(Occasionally outboard MG 151/20s as well, depending on model, some reconaissance models were unarmed)
Bomb load: None
Avionics:
Revi 16B Gunsight
FuG 125 Navigation equipment (H-1/R-11 Only)
LGW-Siemens K 23 Autopilot
FuG 16ZY Radio Transmitter/reciever
BSK 16 Gun Camera
Since the basic design is an Fw-190 D9, the two should roll fairly closely at low altitudes. Some D9s were fitted with the tail sections from the Ta-152. If we got that D9, elevator response would be a bit sharper.
What is it? High altitude fighter-interceptor. It's no deck fighter, but it can get you away from those pesky N1K2s in a hurry.
Wing loading is 41.39lbs/sq ft
Power loading is 5.98lbs/hp normally, 5.10lbs/hp with MW-50 at takeoff. Power loading at 32,810 ft is 7.93lbs/hp normally, with GM-1 it drops to 6.01lbs/hp.
It won't turn nearly as well as the D9, since it weighs more (10,472lbs vs. 9840 lbs). It will roll about the same as the D9, since it has larger ailerons and a slightly longer wingspan.
I'd need wells here for some of the more complicated stuff, but that's what I've got on it.
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"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
[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 10-24-2000).]
-
Would those long wings mean less drag/more E retention ?
I believe it has something to do with aspect ratio, huh ?
Also, I believe not the weight, but wingloading is the main factor in turn performance.
By this data it seems wingloading is close to D-9, but powerloading on the deck is worse. Then again, how does aspect ratio affect the turn ability ? Hmmmm.
Why is Ta 152 so much slower than the Dora on the deck ?
-
Hristo, I edited my post above because I forgot 2 things, plus I had to correct the weight and loadings. LRG gave the wrong weights, so I fixed it. You're right about one thing, the D9 is faster by 7mph on the deck. The D9 peaked at 426mph at 21,650 feet, where the Ta-152 is 40mph faster at that alt. It was designed to be a high-altitude interceptor, not a deck fighter. That's why I still agree with RAM; we should see a Ta-152 C-3 not an H-1. It was better suited to lower altitudes, and really shined around 15,000 feet.
Wing loading for the D9 is 48lbs/sq ft, and 4.93lbs/hp. If you're going after strato-buffs grab a Ta-152, if not I'll give you the keys to a D9.
As a reference, the Fw-190 A8-F8 power loading is 4.43 lbs/hp with a wing loading of
38.98 lbs/sq ft.
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"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
[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 10-24-2000).]
-
Flakbait I have to correct you on one thing. All references I have read about Ta152 talk about a significant loss of rollrate compared with D9. Extended wings make roll WORSE, not better, no matter that the ailerons are in the extremes.
The reason for fw190A having the awesome rollrate it had were the electric assisted ailerons and the little wing it had. The first 190Vs had a wing still more little. But the wingloading was quite high and they enlarged the wing to the known standard.
The more little the wing, the better rollrate. Ta152H1 had a much bigger wing, and so had a worse rollrate.
-
Originally posted by flakbait:
Wing loading for the D9 is 48lbs/sq ft, and 4.93lbs/hp. If you're going after strato-buffs grab a Ta-152, if not I'll give you the keys to a D9.
As a reference, the Fw-190 A8-F8 power loading is 4.43 lbs/hp with a wing loading of
38.98 lbs/sq ft.
Two things, first the powerloading of the D9 you give is with no MW50 boost.
Second, how in the earth can a D9 have a worse wingloading than an A8?? D9 was a couple hundred lbs lighter than A8 and had the same wing.
Look those numbers again, there is something wrong there.
-
Juzz' evaluation of Ta 152H-1 vs Fw 190D-9 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Wingloading: 41.7lbs/ft^2 vs 49.9lb/ft^2 (Wingspan: 47ft 4.5in vs 34ft 5.5in)
Power at S/L: 2050HP vs 2240HP with MW 50
1750HP vs 1776HP without
Speed at S/L: 350mph vs 380mph with MW 50
332mph vs 357mph without
Guns and ammo: 1xMK 108(90rnds) + 2xMG 151/20(350rnds) vs 2xMG 131(950rnds) + 2xMG 151/20(400rnds). No gun options for either plane.
Roll rate: Capt. Eric Brown, RAE(Ta 152H-1) - "I found a noticeable reduction in roll rate and an increase in the stick force per G by comparison to its BMW 801-powered predecessors, some of the more attractive qualities of the original fighter having being sacrificed in order to achieve the best possible performance at extreme altitudes." D-9 had equal rollrate to A series I believe, so Ta 152H-1 is worse with higher stick forces.
Loaded weight: 10,472lb vs 9,840lb
MW 50 and GM-1: For Ta 152H-1, MW 50 increases top speed by 15-20mph up to about 30,000ft. GM-1 raises top speed to 472mph at 41,010ft and service ceiling to 48,550ft.
MW 50 raises top speed by 20mph up to about 18,000ft for D-9.
Acceleration: Powerloading at S/L: 5.1lbs/HP vs 4.4lbs/HP with MW 50
5.9lbs/HP vs 5.5lbs/HP without
Climb: 3445fpm initial with MW 50, 13.8min to 32,800ft vs 3,300fpm initial without MW 50, 16.8min to 32,800ft.
Sources: Ta 152H-1: Wings of the Luftwaffe by Captain Eric Brown CBE, DSC, AFC, RN
Fw 190D-9: Joe Baugher's Focke-Wulf Fw 190D (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html) page, and Vermillion's Fw 190/Ta 152 charts (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-3.jpg).
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-24-2000).]
-
Those are very good numbers, juzz. Can I ask you where did you got them (and the book's number so I can buy it? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif))
Thanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Juzz fixed it for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I used LRG and Joe Baugher's page as references, and neither one gave consistant info. At least I didn't screw up the Ta-152 specs that bad! Besides, I'm new at this stuff.
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"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
-
Sources added for RAM. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hristo, I hope this answers your second batch of questions:
Generally, high aspect ratio(AR) wings add more profile drag(greater frontal area), but lessen induced drag(drag from lift). Wells, funked or someone could supply an equation that shows this AR difference mathematically(I can't remember it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
The Ta 152H had those 47ft wings(AR=8.9) to reduce drag at high altitude - where induced drag is a bigger factor, and profile drag is less important. Eg: The P-38L had 52ft wings with an AR=8.2.
I think with it's lower wingloading, the Ta 152 would certainly out-turn the Fw 190D-9, and probably the Fw 190A-5 as well(wingloading: 43lbs/ft^2).
The reason the Ta 152H-1 is 30mph slower than the Fw 190D-9 at S/L would be because of those huge wings, and the 200HP less engine power.
-
Yes aspect ratio helps. I forgot the formula. Where's Wells? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
RAM there ain't no electric ailerons on no 190, dagnabbit.
In general I think the Ta 152 will be not much better than an A-5 or A-8 if you are below 20,000 feet. Above that altitude it will be a great plane as long as the boost lasts. I think it will definitely be a better turnfighter than the 190 at all altitudes.
-
Gentleman nice posts' could not of said it better my self and I own Capt. Eric Browns book excellent read!, Cant wait to fly whatever model of Ta-152 they put in it is my all time favorite plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Brady
-
Originally posted by funked:
RAM there ain't no electric ailerons on no 190, dagnabbit.
Fw190 was an electric fighter. All controls were electric.
-
Ram, propellor pitch, landing gear, flaps, and pitch trim were electrically actuated.
Primary flight controls were not powered. The only thing unusual was that they had a linkage using rods instead of cables.
Trust me please. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-24-2000).]
-
Yeah.
I thought first fly-by-wire plane was Avro Arrow ?
-
These specifications from "Focke-Wulf Ta 152: The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-war, High-Altitude Fighter by Dietmar Harmann (most accurate book available about the 152).
(http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/bs/Ta152spec1.jpg)
-
F4U used direct linkage and not cables too.
FYI....
-Westy
-
is the pic not loading for anyone else?
-
nvmind
-
Hi
Flakbait the Ta152 turned better than any previous 190. The Ta 152 test pilots actually reported that they blacked out in Ta152 turns, when they almost never blacked out in Fw190 turns. Tests of 152 vs 190 with a very experienced 190 pilot and with a new (to the 152) pilot in 152 showed the 152 had no problems in outturning the 190 by a great margin.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Hi
Flakbait the Ta152 turned better than any previous 190. The Ta 152 test pilots actually reported that they blacked out in Ta152 turns, when they almost never blacked out in Fw190 turns. Tests of 152 vs 190 with a very experienced 190 pilot and with a new (to the 152) pilot in 152 showed the 152 had no problems in outturning the 190 by a great margin.
thanks GRUNHERZ
They removed the lazy-boy chair from the Ta-152, and finally made the LW pilots sit in their FW's with the correct stiff-as-a-board posture and not that G-reducing recliner crap of the previos FW's.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
- Jig
-
Hi
Nope! They had the same arangement for seating as the earlier versions. Where you got this idea is beyond me. Second Ta152s had no problem outturning P51s at any alt. They could also easily outaccelerate P51s. Read up on Kurt Tank's little meeting with a bunch of Mustangs who bounced him from above and behind- the story ended like this "he left them standing". As for comparison of climbrates. This is based on a Ta152H-0 no MW or GM.
Spit14 7minutes to 6000meters or 857m/min
P51D 7.3minutes to 6000meters or 822m/min
Ta152H-O 8minutes to 7000meters or 875m/min
This would be equal to 6.85minutes to 6000m
So there the awful and useless Ta152 sans MW50 and GM1 outclimbed your dear late war allied planes. You allied guys are just afraid of loosing the performance edge, the Ta152would give the LW types a plane that could outrun anything you guys have, outturn most if not all of the faster allied crates and out-climb them up to the higher alts. And now you guys want a P51H, an airplane that never saw any form of military combat service whatsoever, not even in Korea!
Oh and where do these numbers come from?
FOCKE-WULF Ta152 The Story of the Luftwaffe's Late-War, High-Altitude Fighter.
By: Dieter Harmann
also from the book:
"Its high speed, tight turning radius and enormous climb rate must actually have brought many P47 and Tempest pilots to the point desperation" Again all this from uselesss Ta152H-0s flying lo alt airfield defense missions.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
GRUNHERZ, please don't fall for Jigster's bait, let's keep this discussion nice.
Juzz and Funked, thanks for clarification on wing aspect ratio/frontal drag/induced drag.
Now I see why this high alt fighter isn't the best choice on the deck.
-
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!! <- fishing reel sound
Ta 152H outclimbing Spitfire XIV? LOL!
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
Grunherz, Spit XIV could climb to 20,000 feet (6100 m) in 5:06.
Good place for Spit data: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
Grunherz,
The F4U-4 could reach 20,000ft in 4.9Min.
http://214th.com/ww2/ (http://214th.com/ww2/)
Was faster than the D9 or the Ta-152 under 30,000ft could climb faster and outurn either of them. And there were over 1800built before wars end and saw combat.
The P-51H was also built and deployed during WW2 as well as the F8F-1. However it is held against allied planes that they could not reach combat fast enough before the surrender of Germnay. While the Germans were fighting with proto-types(TA-152) taking off from the fields were they were being tested. That hardly qualifies as a WW2 fighter any more than the P-51H or F8F-1 that were in full production and deployment. The reality of the TA-152 is that it was not built for point defense, it was built for intercepting high altitude buffs that were coming(B-29).
It may have gotten of the ground during combat a couple of times but more than likely it was to prevent it form being straffed on the ground.
That being said I would still like to see the TA-152 and FW-190D9 in the game evn with just current planest to compete against as I do not think either fighter will infuence the game significantly. Can you say that about the F4U-4, P-51H or F8F-1??
-F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
F4U-4 outclimbing a D9--sorry no, D9 climbs at 4.5k a min--F4U-4 3,870 ft a min.
Also, F4U4 is worthless above 30k.
F4U cannot outturn a Ta 152--both the Ta 152 and D9 will out accelerate a F4U4.
-
Depends on what you feed the Corsair. The manufacturer claims S/L climb of 4770fpm and a top speed of 450mph at 20500ft.
Also, F4U4 is worthless above 30k.
What, and the Fw 190D-9 isn't? Sure Ta 152H-1 is good above 30k, but it is pretty useless below that. Unless you think you are going to be flying Kurt Tank's amazing prototype "Transformer" fighter...
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
I didn't say the D9 wasn't worthless about 30k did I? uh uh uh...
That 3,870 ft/min figure is at SL.
I highly doubt that the F4U4 with combat load ever went above that... the 1D climbed at 3.1k a min.
-
Then WTF is the point of mentioning that the Corsair is not good at 30k+, when the plane you are comparing it to is even worse?
In the words of Kim Salmon: "Well I, think, I already know..." (I doubt anyone will get that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
Uhh, Ta 152 isn't that bad above 30k. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Nath-BDP I suggest you download this link before you make too many claims
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/hist-ac/f4u-4.pdf)
This test was done with 110 octane fuel if I remember correctly, so take that into consideration.
But America's Hundred Thousand (AHT) has the 100 octane data in it, if you have a copy of it.
Furthermore, the climb rate of the F4U-4 was increased considerably over the F4U-1 due to improvements in the propellor.
Check this against the 190D9 and Ta152 data here:
http://vermin.net/ta152/ta152-1.jpg (http://vermin.net/ta152/ta152-1.jpg)
and
http://vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg (http://vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg)
and http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-3.jpg (http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-3.jpg)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
I already have those last 2 pictures in the book you got them from. However, I cant understand what altitude it specifies the speed at. Can you?
"Hochstegeschwindigkeit mit Noheistung am Boden?" I know boden means ground.
"in Volldruck Hohe" Hohe is high but it doesnt specify how high.
etc etc etc etc... maybe you could translate that chart into the imperial system or something ?
note: im referring to the 2nd link
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
Those 4.7k fpm tests were done with war emergency power were they not?
-
Fw 190D-9
Emergency power(MW 50)
576(612) - speed at S/L in km/h
685(702) - max speed
6,6(5,7) - at altitude in km
Climbrate
Emergency power(MW 50)
12.7(18.5) - climbrate in m/s
5,8(4,8) - altitude of climbrate
16,8(12,5) - time to 10km in min
-
was Yeling a eternity on begin about seat inclination in 190 , it black out to fast on vertical lop and that not right and the frekin spit roll to well many planes roll to well !
-
Höchstgeschwindigkeit mit Notleistung am Boden
Top speed with emergency power on the deck.
Höchstgeschwindigkeit mit Notleistung in Volldruckhöhe
Top speed with emergency power at maximum pressure level.
Eingeklammerte Werte gelten für Sondernotleistung (Start-u. Notleistung mit MW50) Bei Fw 190A-8 für Notleistung und erhöhtem Ladedruck!
Cited values are valid for Special Emergency Power (Start and Emergency Power with MW 50), in the FW 190A8 for Emergency Power and raised boost pressure.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
Hi
F4UDOA With all due respect bud Aces High is still a WW2 Air Combat Sim. WW2 endend in September 1945. No P51H or Bearcat ever saw service during WW2, yes there were a small number of units getting equipped with some of them but the war endend. It isnt my fault WW2 endend before you would liked it to have. But it did and no 51H or Bearcat took any part in it whatsever. Just how many super planes did the germans have just about in producton or did production start on in last few weeks. Should they all be included just on the basis that they WOULD have seen action IF the war went on for a time? What do you want a Ta183 with guided missles, Ta152c, New 262s with MG213/30mm high velocity high rof cannon- with new engines and aerodynamics that gave it level speeds over 600mph? We cant start asking for our favorite dream aircraft, solely on the "Oh but they almost made it argument". Should the RAF guys get an MB5 or a Vampire? Should the LW guys get Ta183? Should the US guys get P80 or 51H? Then in a few months we will be fighting the Korean war, then Vietnam, then well be launching cruise missles at Saddam, it just cannot be allowed to start. I dont mean to pick on you or attack you but if it didnt fight or participate in the war it shouldn't be included, perk plane or not.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
just FYI, 370 P51Hs were delivered to the US Army Air Corps before VJ day but none made it to operational squadrons--the P51H never saw any combat in any war.
The same is true with the He 162 Volksjager, however, many were delivered to JG 1 and it is suspected that the He 162 scored atleast 1 kill during a ferry flight--a Spitfire.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-25-2000).]
-
So please HTC if you give allies P51H give LW He 162, Fw 190D-13 and a Horton Flying Wing.
-
Originally posted by RAM:
I will answer the ones I know:
I voted it to kill 35K altdweeb buffs and to bring down uberdweebish sputnikfires
LMAOROFLOL (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) sputnikfires (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
hehehehehehe.....
-
Originally posted by Nath-BDP:
So please HTC if you give allies P51H give LW He 162, Fw 190D-13 and a Horton Flying Wing.
I agree though that if the plane was not produced or FLOWN IN COMBAT then it should not be allowed into the game at all. Especially since this is a WORLD WAR TWO flight simulation game.
Ok the FW-190D-13 was a production aircraft with a run of no more than 50. The designation preceding it was the D-12 and it never made it past testing and prototype but they used the beginning of the production of it for the D-13. I forget where I saw this information but I think it was through aviation artist Dave Crandall(? I hope I got that correct). Most of them were destroyed in the final weeks of the war while awaiting FUEL to get to units. Some made it through and were used immediately.
Now for the Go-229 (Flying Wing)......NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! For the He-162 well since it had been thought to have gotten ONE kill maybe but only as a perk plane.
------------------
Maj. Reschke
Kommandeur Jagdbomber,
StaffelKapitaen I-31 LJK www.luftjagerkorps.com (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by LJK_Reschke (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
During April Hopsten Airfield was occupied by No 122 Wing, which became the first tempest Wing to operate from German soil. Few thought that the war would last much longer and on 19 April No 80 Squadron returned to England. That same day, No 222 Squadron undertook a strafing attack on Husum Airfield. During this mission F/O Walkington chased and shoot down a small jet aircraft unlike any previously seen. Subsequent analysis of combat reports and gun camera film revealed that the aircraft was an He 162, one of the few to fly operationally.
And revenge is sweeet
The final aerial victory claim by a Tempest pilot occured on 3 May 1945 and the last combat loss was the aircraft flown by F.G. Auston, who was claimed (as a Typhoon) by LT Schmidt of JG 1 flying an He 162.
From http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/tempest.htm (http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/tempest.htm)
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
If the P51H is included why not the Spit 21 and Tempest II?
The Spit 21 actually saw action before the end of the war, and about 170 Tempest IIs had been built before the war ended.
-
If you don't stop hijacking this Ta 152H-1 thread, I will reopen my account, shot you down again and strafe your sorry chute.
[This message has been edited by Hristo (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
Ok I will take it back to topic.
The Ta152H-1 never saw any combat either.
Only the H0 (zero) aircraft saw combat, which lacked the stellar performance of the H1's due to manufacturing problems of fitting these engines with GM1 and I believe also MW50.
And thats straight from the book (written by a German author, from Luftwaffe and Focke-Wulf records) that you Luftwaffe guys have been touting as the Ta152 "Bible" throughout this thread.
So the Ta152H1 is as much of a fantasy "never saw combat" aircraft as the P-51H.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Hmm,
Getting offtopic a bit (sorry Hristo) but.
Grunherz,
There were 555 P-51H built during WW2 and they were at least partially deployed even if they didn't see combat. The same goes for the Bearcat. Built in production, in significant numbers and deployed. The TA-152 hardly qualifies as a production vehicle. How many in total were built? Somewhere between 10 and 30 depending on the source right? Just because 2 or 3 of these a/c may have seen 5 minutes of combat does not make them a WW2 fighter either. Remeber these are Perk Planes. The TA-152 barely qualfies as a proto-type by allied standards. Even the performance numbers of the TA-152 aren't clear becuase the varient that you want, the TA-152H-1(all 2 of them) never saw combat either. So relax and let Pyro worry about what qualifies as a "Perk Plane" in AH.
Nath-BDP,
The F4U-4 speed exceeds 400mph well over 30,000ft, hardly worthless. Also why do think the TA-152 could out turn a F4U-4? Your wingloading is still higher(41.39 vs 39.80). It's just good compaired to another FW-190. Besides it rolls so slowly that the F4U could break and be gone before the TA-152 could half roll. And the 4800FPM climb is accurate is you look at the URL I posted. 4.9 minutes to 20K. I guess you will be spending allot of time at 40K.
Later
F4UDOA
[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
Horten flying wing, I loved those in the AOE 46 expansion (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Maybe AH could, eventually (as in longterm) have a SEPERATE arena for the birds that were nearly in the war, like 51H, F8F, F7F, etc etc.
But, back to the topic (sort of) - having the high-alt 152 to hunt down the buffs would be better than the low alt version, since there's enough planes down low for any particular mission, but few enough for high-alt missions (which those HQ raids turn into)
Cheers
-
My fault. Change the second one to read as follows:
Originally posted by funked:
Höchstgeschwindigkeit mit Notleistung am Boden
Top speed with emergency power on the deck.
Höchstgeschwindigkeit mit Notleistung in Volldruckhöhe
Top speed with emergency power at maximum pressure altitude.
Eingeklammerte Werte gelten für Sondernotleistung (Start-u. Notleistung mit MW50) Bei Fw 190A-8 für Notleistung und erhöhtem Ladedruck!
Values in parantheses are valid for Special Emergency Power (Take-off and Emergency Power with MW 50); in the FW 190A8 for Emergency Power and raised boost pressure.
-
Right Dinger, I assumed it was altitude they were referring to.
Interesting to note there is no MW 50 on the Fw 190A-8. This agrees with the Fw manual for the aircraft.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
Hi
The Ta152H-0 had no problems whatsoever dealing with any allied planes it faced over the last 4 months of the war. P47s, Tempests, Mustangs, Spits or whatever. It was faster than all of them at higher combat altitudes outurned all of them at all alts except the spits, and by all pilots accounts and the figures in the Ta152 book outclimed all of them at the high altitudes where it was meant to fight. It was a great plane which was constantly attacked by both sides as the LW pilots were unfamiliar with its shape, yet is didn't suffer catastrophic loses. The Ta152 was said to be the best Focke-Wulf Fighter of the war, by the experieced pilots who flew it- but of course
what would they know, their names weren't Leutnants funked and Vermillion. One of them said that he considerd the Ta152 his life insurence policy for the last few months of the war. Surely this man (an experienced real life WW2 fighter pilot) was mad and stupid to say something like just because we all know that funked and verm are the real LW experten who diligently flight tested these aircraft and flew them in real combat, outnumberd 10 or 20 to 1, and under attack by both sides. Now you guys dont argue with me about your opininons of the Ta152 argue with its pilots who consider it their best plane of period and who backed up their trust in the machine with some great accomplishments vs overhwhelming enemy superiority. I just dont get why you guys insist on a plane like the P51H, that never did anything but fight at airshows, to counter the awful useless garbage ( according to u guys) Ta152. Personally im sorta sick of the allied guys supposed kindness of telling the LW types just how bad any particular plane would be in AH, any time its adoption to the planeset comes up. Im sure you all mean well to spare us the inconveniene of flying the uselesss Dora, or the even more useless Ta152, but if they are so bad why do you seems so reluctant to have them introduced. Surely they would all be sitting ducks and easy targets. Im not saying they will be the best planes or the most dominant, but they will be a more balancing factor in this IMHO stupid little LW vs. Allied debate. Right now the axis have no real hi alt fighter, the G10 is good but at those alts the mustangs just run or dive away and if they dont want to fight well thats that. A Dora with MW50 could do 453 Mph at around 23K (Eric Brown's figure), plus it would be more controlable than a G10 at these speeds. Maybe thats why you dont want it in here? And yes Doras did have MW50 after some of the earliest examples. Sorry if this is an offensive post to anyone, especially funked and verm, but im a little upset about the attitude some you guys show. You bash the planes capability saying its useless in the MA and then hope to spare the LW types the hardship of flying thes buckets by suggesting they never be included in AH. And now you are so confident of the Ta152s garbage status all you want added in the MA is a plane that never fought in any war. Yes a bunch were made, but so what. Werent some of u guys saying before that the 262 shouldnt make it in here because only a few ever fought, out of the 1100 built. Or even that the Ta152 shouldnt be included because so many of its small producion run were strafed awaiting delivery? Well thats tough on the P51H cuz it never saw service at all anywhere. Ever hear the phare often applied to LW super planes "too little too late", well the 51H was too late to even see fighting in WW2. Again sorry if this angry post but this attitude you have on the 152 "IT SUCKS TOO BAD TO FORCE IT ON OUR LW FRIENDS SO WE BETTER MAKE SURE THEY CAN FLY THE 51H" is getting to me. Sorry.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
My my Grunherz. No one, absolutley no one said the TA-152 was garbage. Try not to wear your emotyions on your sleave.
And please back up you claims otherwise all you are doing is posting your opinion. Which, from what I've seen is a might tad over board on the LW-Uber-Alles side. Which is fine. Except with you it has appeared to cloud your grasp of reality.
How about you back up your claims and statements with the actual pilot accounts. You'll get a little further in believability too if you would use real facts and figures from these books too. Other here have. You're using conjecture, infatuation and a liberal dash of inaccurate paraphrasing.
And if I was a LW pilot at the time I'd sure as hell would have wanted the aiplane too. It was a case of at least here's something that I might be able to survive in (fast at least allows one to run away better) versus being dogmeant in an earlier 190 or 109 version.
Course. That is if the ME-262 was not available for me.
-Westy
And P.S: The P-47M was there for the last four months of the war too and it could eat the TA-152 alive.
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
Groinhurtz,
The bottom line is that allied supporters on this board don't care what Nazi A/C you want to bring into the game as long as there is some accurate fligth test data to model it with. The LW types only want to fight against 1943 technology and that's it.
I say bring on your ME 262 and 163. More cannon fodder for my F4U.
BTW, what in the hell makes you think a
TA-152 can out turn anything? It doesn't have low wing loading. It's just lower than the FW190D-9 and thats about it. It rolls more slowly so getting into a turn will be creeky at best. Just because some little Sour Kraut says it turns better doesn't feed the bulldog. You need to provide some engineering data for that one. Maybe one of those uber engineers is on the web?
-F4UDOA
-
I agree Grunherz, why do the tech police keep trying to convince us of how poor the Dora and the Ta-152 are? I could care less if they aren't better than a Runstang or a Corsair. I know they will give me a little better chance than the a/c we have now. Hell, if they are so pitiful, then the Allied cheerleaders should welcome the hundreds of easy kills they will provide.
As far as the P-51H thingy......if it never shot anything down, or was never shot down, then it wasn't really involved in World War 2, was it? The production #'s don't make a rat's bellybutton of a difference. That's pretty much a black and white issue, I'm not sure what's so confusing about it.
p.s. F4UDOA....since you want to call Germans "Sour Krauts", is it ok if I call you "trailer trash"
, or "redneck"? Just wondering.
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by LJK Raubvogel (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
"production #'s don't make a rat's bellybutton of a difference. "
<COUGH>blow job <COUGH>
-
Well, I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean. Could you explain please?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
LJK Raubvogel,
When refering to the Nazi scum third reich?
Why yes, it is ok. Why, do you have something nice to say about Nazi's?
Nobody is bashing your plane by the way. Just saying prove it. I know why the TA-152 won't turn well. Do you?
And just for the record it is the AH Geshtapo(SP) that is saying that the P-51H can't be modeled. Why, I thought the TA-152 was uber?
What are you afraid of? It doesn't even have a single cannon.
BTW, I am far closer to Urban Euro trash than I am trailer trash. Hard to be a redneck when your from a large city.
F4UDOA
-
Hi
All of what I said is in the Harmann Ta152 book. Which is really pretty straight forward on the capabilities and limitations of the Ta152H-0. It basically said that the Ta152H-0 was fully capable of performance in the class of the P51 even without the use of GM1 and MW50 . About the turning and climbing issue the book quite clearly stated that Ta152s used their superior climbrates and tight turning ability to evade both allied and LW attacks. If you remember that famous fight with the Tempests on the deck one of the things the book said was that the fight quickly ended up in in a tight turn battle which presented the 152 no problems but in which the Tempest stalled and spun into the ground. Interestingly you say something about some LW-uber-alles attitude, well the truth is quite reverse actually. Every time a good LW plane like Dora comes up for review the allied types bash it all to death saying how it could barely fight off a spitV. It just seems the allies have this uber attitude thats why all of u get into some kind of fit every time a capable LW plane is discussed. Do you want me to quote page numbers for all these useless pilots combat accounts (like what would they know). I will gladly do it if it would make you happy I have the book upstairs. Maybe I should get all of you to meet one of Ta152 pilots if he is living now, so you can all tell him you think he was wrong when they thought Ta152 was fully capable of fighting all the late war alled planes on equal terms? Again plese dont disagree with me take it up with the author Dieter Harmann, The Books Publisher, or try to see if any of the 152 pilots are still alive and "enlighten" them. And again I dont intend this post to be offensive to anyone.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
Hi
Oh BTW if the 51H is modeled then the Ta152H-1 must be modeled with all the goodies. So you guys will have an nice 15-20mph top speed advantage but thats about all.
thanks GRUNHERZ
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I was just wondering why such an argument over a plane that by everyone's account is not very good?
------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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
-
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 (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-Westy
[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
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 (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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).]
-
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).]
-
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
-
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
-
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 (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.luftjagerkorps.com)
[This message has been edited by LJK_Reschke (edited 10-26-2000).]
-
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).]
-
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
-
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
-
Raubvogel, <S> . Neither of would have any success changing the others mind about the "produced/saw combat" so I thiungk agreeing that we can disagree is about as best we can do (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As for Grunherz, you were born 80 years too late.
As for the statement " "One of them said that he considerd the Ta152 his life insurence policy for the last few months of the war." .. What does that quantify? Nothing. It means a nothing and an aircrafts performance in no way shape or form can be deduced from it. Maybe it meant he could run? You make it sound like poof positive and vindication that the TA-152 was some kind of Wunderbird.
And from this "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." So what? Whether any of us had actual combat experience in the real world is irrelevant in this virtual computer simulation we "fly:" in. Your grasping at straws and saying stupid things like Grunhurz is.
Ok. Since the TA-152 was a "life insurance policy" I want the P-51 modelled accrording the best eye wintess acounts so that it can out climb, out turn from the deck to the stratosphere all 109's. And the P-047 hould be invulnerable because Robert Johnson and many others were abloe to keep on flying after taking enourmous and impossible amounts of damage.
Stop talking out of your arsses and use facts. The facts show whjat TA-152's flew in combat and what were prototypes. The facts show (and from German/LW reports too!) just how it
performed. And I think that if you take a "light" and ammo less Ta-152 up and a gaggle of Mustangs creeps up on your arse in the Main arena you should be able to hit the button and zoom away too. Might as well be flying a Cessna for all the good that trick does you.
-Westy
-
I'm not surprised at comments made by some of the individuals here, but do you realize how much of a Pro-US/Allied AC Anti-anything else forum this has become? If specific facts/figures/data/selection of AC/views on WW II are not deemed acceptable by the "Great Triumvirate" and there followers, the presenter is literally executed when he try's defend his point of view. Funked, Verm, Westy, I respect you as pilots and as contributors to the AH community, however, your pedestals are starting to get a little too high.
Flame Away.
Ash
-
Sorry if you perceive it that way Ash. I guess you could say I'm just trying to climb up high enough so that the pedastal I stand on is at least on the same level as the "LW was UBER but we suffers from a Pro-US Conspiracy" types.
Facts always piss off the dreamers and those who worship. That's not necesary but it is a shame.
-Westy
-
Whatever Ash. We are having a historical argument, discussing different sources of information. That's how one learns stuff.
If you don't like the facts that are presented, then do some research and make an argument based on that. If you come up some new information from a good source I will be all ears. Just don't start making personal attacks - stick to the facts.
Also if you are accusing me of bias, you can shove it where the sun don't shine. The only thing I am biased against is roadkill spread by people who are so obesessed with one point of view that they ignore any contradictory information. I've jumped on the Hog lovers for this (just ask DOA), P-47 lovers, P-51 lovers, Tempest lovers, 190 lovers, Spit lovers (even my own Wing Commander!) you name it.
My opinions are based on facts, not the other way around.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-27-2000).]
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 10-27-2000).]
-
LJK_Reschke, <S> I'm eager to hear what you find in Willi's book.
-
i would prever d9 instead of ta152.
we fight in 25k max and there the dora is
better.
and think of the deck speed. THEn, ponies have to FIGHT!
-
Strange, but I thought all I had done was share the data I had with you.
I never said anyone was wrong for wanting the Ta152, and never condemned it. I just pointed out that it might not be the "wunderweapon" that many think it may be.
I'm sorry if the official FW factory test data doesn't support your dream of an uber-152, but facts are facts.
Wasn't it Nath-BDP who started the "negative" side of this thread, when he started suddenly calling for a ban of the P-51H? I just pointed out that you can either have both the P-51H and the Ta152H1, or neither. Because the issue is the same with both.
And I have very good references and documents to back me up. If you have better data please present it.
Its strange that the Luftwaffe crew consider me so "Pro-Allied, anti-Axis", but I have equally defended the N1K2 (a Axis plane), protested against the first TWO versions of the P-38L (ask Citabria), and I vocally supported the Luftwaffe guys protests that the P-47 was too good. Not to mention that in each and every thread that the Luftwaffe fans have asked for the Dora, I agreed with them.
And I fly Axis in about 90% of all scenarios I have ever flown in, over the past 6-7 years of flying.
Yes, if I see some typical propaganda spouting bullcrap being spread on this board, I will step forward and present facts to counter it. But that doesn't make me "Pro-Anything". If I see roadkill from either side, I will call them on it.
Ah well, I'll end this now, its like trying to defend against the question "SO you beat your wife?"
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 10-27-2000).]
-
Dub Verm the official "roadkill Flag Waver"
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Thx verm, always look forward to reading your posts, very informative (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hamish!
-
Look, if you can't handle your authorities being questioned, or if you can't defend the authorities you use and the methodology you employ, you have no business in an historical argument. Get out of the kitchen!
-
Who went off topic first and started this mess? Burn the witch! Burn the witch! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Does she weigh more than a JF-2 (Duck)?
------------------
M.C.202
Dino in Reno
-
Well; IMHO this (http://murph708.tripod.com/0d4e1220.jpg) one is better than this (http://murph708.tripod.com/0d52e5b0.jpg).
You guys are funny (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
My first time here, but not my last!!!
My info. indicates that the GJ301 was the only unit to fly the Ta152 in combat.
The prop was 60cm wide..........is extremely wide, excellent for high altitude. Around 1943 Heinzbaer used to have a second aircraft, FW190 at his disposal which had a wooden prop of similar style (very wide) that he used.
The Ta152 could lift off in under 400meters w/o boost.
The Ta152 was an excellent turning platform not only at high altitude but also at low altitude. It could easily catch/outturn a Tempest at low altitude "AS PER" Oberfeldwebel Josef Keil reported in one of the final Arial battles of the war when he was engaged with New Zealander Wt Off O J Mitchell . At low altitude Keil keep turning inside O J Mitchell until his left wing stalled and crashed.
Oberfeldwebel Josef Keil has 5 confirmed kills in a Ta 152-1
-
Hmmm. Geee. Ta-152. New topic? NOT!
-Westy