Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SnakeEyes on October 30, 2000, 11:26:00 PM
-
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=
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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=
-
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?
(http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/ram.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/tongue.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
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!
-
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).]
-
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=
-
Okay guys here's the proof that concerning modelling effort for HTC the Ta-152 is a variant.
Pyro had it on the list (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
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
-
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=
-
-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.
-
Originally posted by SnakeEyes:
.
Moreover, we're talking about the Ta-152, not the 190D.
Fw190D9. Also commonly known as Ta152A.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
yeah, the 152 is a variant of the 190, like the Typhoon is a variant of the Hurricane!
-
Hehe. thanks Wells. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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).]
-
Umm... I see no '190' in 'Ta 152' do you? :P
Its not a variant.
[This message has been edited by Nath-BDP (edited 10-31-2000).]
-
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
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
-
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 (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
-
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.
-
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. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
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> ).
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
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? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
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).]
-
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:
(http://www.airtel.net/hosting/0003d/ebringas/fw190d9.jpg)
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).]
-
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
-
if you perk it and add it to the planeset?
its OK with me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...remember that Fw190D9 won't be a perk plane (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) but bearcat will (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
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!
-
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=
-
PS - Harmann's book is definitely a better source than Jane's.
cc that - Jane's All (what a joke!) of the World Aircraft 1945 is missing loads of planes in service at the end of the war and is, to say the least, short of info even on those included...
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
Umm, I thought this was about the Ta 152 not being a variant of the D9, not the D9 being a different variant than the A?? I don't think anyone here is arguing over the fact that the D9 is/isn't a variant of the A series, RAM.
-
The Ta 152 was a continuation of the Fw 190 series, just like Bf 109 became Me 109.
Fw 190A, Fw 190B Ta 152C, Fw 190D, Ta 152E, Fw 190F, Fw 190G, Ta 152H
Fw 190D-9 used wings, center fuselage, and empennage Fw 190A-7/A-8. The only differences were the new cowling and engine forward of the firewall, and a constant-cross section "plug" that was inserted between the center fuselage and the empennage assembly. But the center fuselage, wing, and empennage assemblies were completely unchanged from the late Fw 190A.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
How do you explain the Ta 152B-5 then? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)
-
No aircraft with the designation Ta 152B was actually built - only prototypes with V designations. However some Fw 190B-0 and B-1 were actually built - not just V planes.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
I guess that makes the F8F merely a continuation of the F2F series, eh?
F2F, F3F, F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F
PS - Where do the Ta-152A & B fit into that progression, Funked? Plus, there was going to be a FW190C, but it never materialized... how does that affect the progression you outlined?
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Ta 152A never left the drawing board.
-
If no production aircraft with the Ta-152 moniker were built, then how can you claim that the A, B, C, etc., progression demonstrates a relationship? Sounds mutually exclusive to me.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
typo, Ta 152B
-
SnakeEyes, the only production aircraft of the Ta152 line, was from what we can tell from Hartmanns book 40 Ta-152H0's, and 3 Ta-152H1's.
There was also an additional two production Ta-152 aircraft that were intended for the unarmed recon varient (I forget the official designation right now, E possibly?) but due to the desperation of the last couple of months of the war were picked up by JG301 and armed in the field as C models, and some consider this as 2 production C aircraft.
All the other Ta152 subtypes never made it past the prototype stage.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
E was the armed recon variant. It's unclear whether any Ta 152C or E were produced. Certainly no Fw 190's were produced with C or E designation.
-
Right, but the point I'm making is that we have prototype Ta-152s with designations of:
A, B, C, E, and H
The fact that they weren't produced is irrelevant. If the A, for example, was produced, wouldn't that be a problem for this neat little progression?
Funked, prototypes for the A were created. Maybe I mistook your comment and you mean that it never reached pre-production? [Nix this, irrelevant per your edit]
The fact that the Ta-152's letter designations might just possibly fit into this convention (perhaps as much due to the luck of the war ending as anything else) doesn't necessarily mean that the Ta-152 wasn't a "new" aircraft in and of itself.
The Ta-152 has about as much in common with the original 190A series as the P-63 does with the original P-39.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
SnakeEyes, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the designation system. Prototypes were given either a V designation (e.g. Fw 190 V53, prototype for Fw 190D-9, pictured above in RAM's post) or they were given a pre-production -0 designation (e.g. Fw 190A-0 or Ta 152H-0).
There were no aircraft built bearing the designation Ta 152A or Ta 152B.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
PS Ta 152H still used the center fuselage assembly from Fw 190A. I believe the landing gear and horizontal stabilizer were still used also.
-
Originally posted by Nath-BDP:
Umm, I thought this was about the Ta 152 not being a variant of the D9, not the D9 being a different variant than the A?? I don't think anyone here is arguing over the fact that the D9 is/isn't a variant of the A series, 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?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Can you imagine taking a Mustang, swapping an Allison for a Merlin, changing the propellor, changing the radiator and oil cooler bath, moving the carburetor inlet, changing the ailerons, adding fuel tanks, moving guns from the nose to the wings, completely changing the shape and structure of the rear fuselage and canopy, and still calling it a Mustang?
It's called a P-51D Mustang. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
I'm not sure if these quotes from Joe Baugher are true or not, but here they are:
The requirements of the second phase were to be met by the Fw 190 Ra-4D. Although it was based broadly on the Fw 190, the Ra-4D embodied a complete structural redesign and numerous aerodynamic refinements. It was from the start to use a turbosupercharged Daimler-Benz DB 603 engine, the engine which Kurt Tank had preferred all along.
Dipl.-Ing Kurt Tank had by this time obtained almost legendary status as a result of his successful aircraft designs, and the
RLM decided to honor him by using the prefix "Ta" instead of "Fw" for aircraft coming out of his design bureau. Since the
Ra-2 and Ra-3 were considered sufficiently different from their predecessors to deserve a new designation, they were the
first to receive the new "Ta" prefix. They were both redesignated Ta 152 by the end of 1942. Logic would seem to dictate
that the Ra-2 and Ra-3 be designated Ta 152H and K, since they followed on directly from the Fw 190F and G (I and J
were not used as suffixes). However, Tank had a different idea. He proposed that the short-span Ra-2 be designated Ta
152B, where the B stood for Begeleitjäger or Escort Fighter, and the long-span Ra-3 be designated Ta 152H, where the H
stood for Hohenjäger or High-Altitude Fighter. Such was the prestige of Kurt Tank that he immediately got his way. The
Ra-4D was assigned the designation Ta 153.
FOCKE-WULF 190 A-9
Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would
have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of
these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used with a more efficient, 14
blade fan. These engines were delivered as a power unit BMW 801 TS because of their need for a more efficient radiator
and bigger oil tank mounted side by side. Both were in the form of a ring ahead of the engine under an armor cover with
thickness increased from 6 to 10 mm. Large area, three bladed wooden propeller with constant speed mechanism should
have been used as a standard, but for unknown reasons the majority of the A-9 planes (as opposed to F-9) had the metal
VDM 9-12176 A propellers, as used in the previous version. One difference in the airframe between A-9 and A-8 model
was a larger cockpit canopy, adapted from the Fw 190F-8 version. A few planes got tail sections with an enlarged tail as
provided for Ta 152 fighters. Armament and Rustsatz kits were the same as in the A-8 version, but in many cases, on the
pilot's request external part of the wing mounted MG 151/20 E cannons were removed.
Minor goof on my part. I remembered that one variant of the 190 got the tail sections from Ta-152's. It was the A9, not D9. Oops.
------------------
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
-
Flakbait I forgot about that. Yes the Ta 152 empennage assembly was used on some Fw 190A and Fw 190F aircraft. Of course in those cases it was used without the fuselage "plug" that was inserted between center fuselage and empennage assemblies on the Fw 190D and Ta 152H.
-
Then why does Harmann's book refer to a -A and -B developments of the Ta-152 (even though they didn't proceed to development)? I guess that is what is throwing me off.
PS - That *thing* with the Allison most certainly ISN'T a Mustang in my book. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Originally posted by funked:
Can you imagine taking a Mustang, swapping an Allison for a Merlin, changing the propellor, changing the radiator and oil cooler bath, moving the carburetor inlet, changing the ailerons, adding fuel tanks, moving guns from the nose to the wings, completely changing the shape and structure of the rear fuselage and canopy, and still calling it a Mustang?
It's called a P-51D Mustang. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
LOL!!! good one, Funked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Funked, explain to me why Harmann refers to V19, V20, and V21 as the prototypes for the Ta-152A?
PS - Ram, stop being an splat! pif!, apparently only you and Funked here think that the 152 doesn't represent an new aircraft. Personally I think that the addition of the Merlin created an aircraft that is quite different from the 51A. Though I still think the changes involved in ultimately producing the 152 are greater still.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
They might have been prototypes for a Ta 152A, but they weren't Ta 152A's. And no Ta 152A's were produced. The project was cancelled and continued under Ta 152C and Ta 152H. Now I wonder why they chose those letters?
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Funked, that's not the point. The point is that had the "A" been produced, which was entirely possible, it would delegitamize the progression you outline above. You drop the C and E versions into the mix (hell, how much production was done on the E?), but ignore the A & B because they are inconvenient to your hypothesis.
With regard to the use of "C" & "H", there is nothing in Harmann's book that indicates that either of these aircraft were taken from the "A" version. The "C" was a derivative of the B, based on a change of requirements, and the H a high-altitude version of the "C". Maybe the "H" is for "hoch", eh?
Are you arguing that Harmann is making-up the designations, and that these aircraft were never referenced as an "A" version? Sorry, but since the Deitmar was actually involved in the program, I'll have to take his word for it. Perhaps it was informal as there was never a production version with the "A" appelation, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't referred to as the "A" in internal discussions of it. Where else would this naming come from?
PS - I understand your argument that the "A" didn't exist, as there was never a preproduction or production version of it (e.g.: A-0/A-1), but that didn't stop you from referencing the E, which I can't find any preproduction or production references regarding. But where does this reference to the A and B come from? To me it clearly implies that Harmann knew that the prototypes involved would have led to A and B preproduction models had that decision been made. The fact that the potential for a 152A or B existed indicates, to me, that the link between the 152 and 190 designations isn't so tight.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Well we have:
Fw 190A
Fw 190B
Fw 190D
Fw 190F
Fw 190G
and
Ta 152C
Ta 152H
Ta 152E (not certain)
as the types that were produced.
Is it just a coincidence that the letters mesh together in a series A through H?
I dunno. We'll have to exhume Kurt Tank and clone him to find out. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
PS My understanding is that V19 crashed, and V20 and V21 were used as Ta 152C prototypes.
-
My reading is that, once the decision was made to not progress further with the 152A, the v20 and v21 were to be converted to be the Ta-152C prototypes, much like the 152A was converted from 190-A0 bodies that were originally intended to be 190C prototypes. The idea, I suspect, is that it would be much easier to modify existing prototypes than start from scratch. Anything more is reading alot in IMO.
For what it is worth, there are a series copied schematics on pages 30, 31, and 31 that explicitly refer to the Ta-152A & B prototypes as "Ta 152 A" and "Ta 152 B".
PS - The "H" in Ta 152 H wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the 152H prototypes came from the Hohenjager program, would it? Especially given that the "opportunity for Focke-Wulf to develop the Ta 152 H resulted from the failure of the Me 109 H high-altitude fighter..."? Nah... silly of me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-01-2000).]
-
Note the text highlighted in bold:
They were both redesignated Ta 152 by the end of 1942. Logic would seem to dictate
that the Ra-2 and Ra-3 be designated Ta 152H and K, since they followed on directly from the Fw 190F and G (I and J
were not used as suffixes). However, Tank had a different idea. He proposed that the short-span Ra-2 be designated Ta
152B, where the B stood for Begeleitjäger or Escort Fighter, and the long-span Ra-3 be designated Ta 152H, where the H
stood for Hohenjäger or High-Altitude Fighter. Such was the prestige of Kurt Tank that he immediately got his way. The
Ra-4D was assigned the designation Ta 153.
From my above post regarding the Ta-152 parts being used in Fw-190 A-9s. Just as a hint, read an entire post before asking a question. Someone might have already answered it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
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
-
thx Flakbait... I had thought that the H was from Hohenjager.
Funked, the problem with your argument (besides the fact that we now have some relative confirmation on where some of the designations came from), is that the aircraft were designated A, B, etc., prior to going preproduction, and not the reverse (designations occurring during preproduction or later). A & B designations can and did exist as the schematics in Harmann's book demonstrate, and they are germaine even if they ultimately didn't go into production. Moreover, as the history of the original 190 series demonstrates, the Germans used a combination of incremental designations (e.g.: A, B, C, etc) as well as purpose-related designations (e.g.: 190S = Schulflugzeug or "training plane", 152H = Hohenjager or "high altitide fighter"), so we cannot simply assume that the 152 designations were 'incrementally' filling unused Fw190 designations.
Ultimately, there's alot of evidence that the Germans recognized that the Ta152 had evolved into a new type of aircraft with its own variants.
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
Just one point -o-o-o:
You give two pieces of evidence for functional designation: "Schulflugzeug" and "Hohenjaeger".
Trainers are not combat aircraft. Carrier-launched craft are likewise specialized modifications.
"Hohenjaeger" is a case of petitio principii: that's what you're trying to prove, so you can't use it as evidence for that conclusion.
So that line of reasoning isn't convincing.
Furthermore, Flakbait's post if anything proves that it was not normal practice to use functional designations instead of incremental ones -- "Such was Tank's prestige...". Moreover, it claims that the aircraft should have been designated "H and K" as they followed on the 190F and 190G. That is a strong argument for the 152 being a variant. Had the LW considered the 152 an entirely new aircraft, the whole debate concerning what stupid letter to give it would have been much different.
[This message has been edited by Dinger (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
Points granted Dinger, but the 152 was an oddball... throughout much of the process (especially early on, it is clear that they considered it to be a 190. However, as it evolved it becomes evident that they began to consider it to be a new aircraft type that evolved from the 190. Heck... the v19/v20/v21 are more fully called "Fw 190 v19/Fw 190 v20/Fw 190 v21" and it is only later in the process that the new prototypes start being termed "Ta 152 vX". Point being, I think the mixed terminology across the board is a direct result of the 152 evolving from the 190, but not actually being a variant of the 190.
I think the creation of a 109H as part of the Hohenjager program is a pretty good piece of evidence as to the derivation of the 152H and that the H is for Hohenjager.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Of course, the H in 109 is valid according to the incremental system.
-
That is, of course, making the assumption that the incremental system is always used. I don't think that's been proven.
PS - Exactly how does Flakbait's data, which clearly states where the B and H came from, not qualify as supporting evidence?
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
[This message has been edited by SnakeEyes (edited 11-02-2000).]
-
Hold on a second.
"Making the assumption that the incremental system is always used"
Nonsense. Here's how it works:
The incremental system was used. (no debate here)
The H designation for the 109H is consistent with the incremental system
Therefore, the 109H does not prove the existence of a functional designation system.
I didn't claim the 109H proved an incremental system in that case, just that its consonance with an incremental system means that you cannot use the 109H to prove a functional designation. The fact that 109H works both functionally and incrementally means that no conclusion can be drawn from this evidence.
Although Flakbait's evidence supports the use of a functional designation in the case of the Ta-152, it does it in a way that excludes the consideration of the 152 as a new aircraft, and the use of functional designations as standard practice.
It states that:
The Ta-152 received functional designations only because of Kurt Tank's influence.
This implies that functional designations would otherwise not have been applied to this aircraft, or to any others like it.
It also says:
If Kurt Tank had not insisted on functional designations, the Ta152s would have been designated H and K as they were successors in the 190 line.
That is, they were variants and would have been designated accordingly.
That's why Flakbait's evidence doesn't work.
-
Flak's argument doesn't necessarily qualify the 152 as a variant. It only means that the LW _initially_ thought of the 152 as a variant. That's reasonable given their incomplete understanding of the scope of the changes. In fact, given their concentration on reusability of 190 jigs, it makes sense.
However, Kurt Tank seems to be arguing from the start that it was a new aircraft, derived from the 190, but not merely a new variant of the 190. The designation of the first Ta-152 prototype as an A (which clearly occurred, as proven by the schematics shown in Harmann's book), backs that theory IMO (otherwise the A would have been an H, and so forth).
Why do they go from C to E? Who knows... perhaps to avoid confusion with the 190D? But the jump to H from Hohenjager is clearly understandable (if not proven, as you reasonably argue), and is at least as arguable as a linear system.
However, the 152A is not, in any way, compatible with inclusion in the 190 designation system. The fact that it didn't achieve production is immaterial, as it was named the A on schematics produced prior to that decision and would have likely entered production as an A had that not occurred.
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=