Ta-152

[Dinger]

Of course, the H in 109 is valid according to the incremental system.

[SnakeEyes]

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).]

[Dinger]

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.

[SnakeEyes]

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=