The Ta-152.... The Best High Altitude Fighter?????

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Lunatic said:
The figures I was refering to were number of aircraft that were flight worthy according to German records, not the number that were actually flown.
Click to expand...

Jan 10 1945

Courland Pocket

Bf 109G
Stab/JG 54 > 20 - 16

Fw 190A 1 - 1

Fw 190A
I/JG 54 > 35 - 32
II/JG 54 > 41 - 40

Fw 190F
III/SG 3 > 39 - 35

91% operational

Poland

Fw 190F

Stab/SG 1 > 5 - 5
II/SG 1 > 39 - 38
III/SG 1 > 38 - 36

Stab/SG 3 > 9 - 8
I/SG 3 > 47 - 43
II/SG 3 > 34 - 31

Stab/SG 77 > 6 - 6
I/SG 77 > 40 - 34
II/SG 77 > 38 - 31
III/SG 77 > 38 - 30

89% operational. Not bad for the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.

Austria, Hungary and the Balkans

Fw 190F
Stab/SG 2 > 32 - 23
II/SG 2 > 34 - 29

Stab/SG 10 > 3 - 1
I/SG 10 > 22 - 17
II/SG 10 > 23 - 19
III/SG 10 > 21 - 20

82.6% operational. Not bad for the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.

Western Germany

Fw 190

Stab/JG 1 > 5 - 4
I/JG 1 > 27 - 22
II/JG 1 > 40 - 30
III/JG 1 > 40 - 35

Stab/JG 2 > 4 - 3
I/JG 2 > 28 - 23
II/JG 2 > 3 - 2
III/JG 2 > 19 - 6

IV (Sturm)/JG 3 > 35 - 24
Stab/JG 4 > 2 - 1

II (Sturm)/JG 4 > 25 - 18

Stab/JG 11 > 7 - 6
I/JG 11 > 23 - 20

III/JG 11 > 42 - 26

Stab/JG 26 > 3 - 3
I/JG 26 > 60 - 36
II/JG 26 > 64 - 26
III/JG 26 > 56 - 28

Stab/JG 27 > 2 - 2

III/JG 54 > 47 - 31
IV/JG 54 > 50 - 39

Stab/SG 4 > 49 - 17
I/SG 4 > 29 - 24
II/SG 4 > 40 - 36
III/SG 4 > 34 - 24

66% operational dispite the complicated and maintainance intensive FI.


The question is still, how many were U/S due to combat damage and how many were U/S due to the complicated and maintainance intensive FI. ?

Alfred Price. Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997.
 
Lunatic said:
Why is it significant if they'd been seen on previous German AC? These technologies were all quite new in the 40's and they were all combine onto the TA152. They reduced the servicablity of earlier AC as well as the TA.

Fuel injection is harder to maintain than carberation - there are 12 injectors to be serviced rather than a carb and you have to get to the injectors which are often covered by other components. The location and design of the cooling system also made engine maintainence more difficult.

The point remains. Typcially only about half (or less) of the Dora's and TA's available were flyable on any given day.
Click to expand...

Yes the Germans were very stupid using technologies that were new dispite producing 50,000 fighter a/c plus untold number of bombers that used these so called complicated innovations. :rolleyes: It is only your supposition that FI and/or 'boost juice' was the cause of U/S a/c. Battle damage, flat tires, faulty instruments, and so on could all make an a/c U/S, especially in 1945 when component supply was almost non existant. Me109s must have spent much time in the maintaince hangers since they also used 'boost juices' and FI.

For sure the radiator of the Dora/152 was in the way, although it was positioned in front of the gear reduction case at the front of the engine.

Well the injectors were not covered by other components on either the Jumo213 and the BMW801.

Access to German engines was very easy, unlike Allied engines which required the removal of numerous fastners to remove the panels.

MW50 was fed at a constant 150l/min.

Oh yes, it is Ta not TA.
 
KraziKanuK said:
Access to German engines was very easy, unlike Allied engines which required the removal of numerous fastners to remove the panels.
Click to expand...

Now there you are wrong KK - US aircraft had a little invention used on most access panels on most US combat aircraft - it was called a DZUS fastener, it allowed easy access to engine compartments and any other frequently removed panel. The Brits still liked structural screws and from what I could remember on German aircraft, they liked big, course thread slotted fasteners.....


No , I blow out a little Yankee pride here - US aircraft were probably the best maintainable aircraft because of the Dzus fastener.....
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Now there you are wrong KK - US aircraft had a little invention used on most access panels on most US combat aircraft - it was called a DZUS fastener, it allowed easy access to engine compartments and any other frequently removed panel. The Brits still liked structural screws and from what I could remember on German aircraft, they liked big, course thread slotted fasteners.....
Click to expand...

The Germans used DZUS fasteners, as well as latches. The access panels for the engine did not have to be removed completely since they were hinged unlike on American and British a/c. Hinge being the key word. Agree on the Brits.

The P-51 had over a 100 (lost count) 1/2 turn Dzus fasteners just for the engine cowlings. The Dora/152 had 1/2, maybe (will look later), a dozen latches for the engine cowling. The access panels to the fuel tanks on the 190/152 was by Dzus fasteners. Access to the P-51's ammo was by 12 Dzus on each wing. The Germans used latches.

I ask you, which gives quicker access?
 
Ok - I agree latches can be quicker - providing they don't break while in use, a typical problem with latches and why Dzus fasteners are still popular today. Dzus fasteners, when they wear out can be replaced in about a minute, a latch may involve drilling out rivets and re-riveting a new latch in place.

Don't have a Dora or -152 latch assembly photo in fromt of me so I can't comment on construction or reliability, I wonder how the -109 stacks up??
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Ok - I agree latches can be quicker - providing they don't break while in use, a typical problem with latches and why Dzus fasteners are still popular today. Dzus fasteners, when they wear out can be replaced in about a minute, a latch may involve drilling out rivets and re-riveting a new latch in place.
Click to expand...

Yeap, we still used Dzus fasteners and Cam Locks today. They are used all over my Blackhawk. To be honest though I hate them. For instance the ones on my Tail Rotor Gear Box Cover break out all the time and after about each flight I have to replace about 2 or 3 of them on that cover alone. However as you said though it takes on average about 20 seconds to put a new one in and put a star washer on the back. Presto replaced! Now if you have to replace the nut plate or the leaf spring that holds it on then you have to replace rivets and it can take a while because you have to remove the cover or fairing and take it into the shop most of the time.
 
DZUS fasteners?! Damn we used those in training. We were taught to carry a quarter or nickel with us always to refasten them if they came loose. Funny that.
 
Ok, Ive figured this out.

The Ta-152 was probably the superior very high altitude fighter of WW2.

However, as it got to the middle and low altitudes, it wasnt.

If I were a P51/P38/P47 pilot and want to tangle up 1 on 1 at 35,000 feet with it..... id be very carefull about it.

If I was down to 20,000 feet, Id go for it.

Below that, it would be meat on the table.
 
Lunatic said:
And the unified control system on the 190A was one of its greatest weaknesses. Had it had a manual system it would have been able to operate at the higher altitudes where it was needed. The flight control computer failed at around 24-25K forcing the plane into a low power rich fuel mode (70% power?). It relies on relative pressures with the ambient pressure acting as a divisor. When the ambient pressure got too low a divide by zero error condition occured. The Beech system did not rely on purely analog logic to control the system, and I believe it was not made to operate above 20,000 feet anyway (not sure of this). Modern unfied control systems of course use digital logic and have no problem with altitude.

=S=

Lunatic
Click to expand...

This is a US report on the Kommongerat, http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/naca-wr-e-192.pdf.
 
Monkeysee1 said:
DZUS fasteners?! Damn we used those in training. We were taught to carry a quarter or nickel with us always to refasten them if they came loose. Funny that.
Click to expand...

North American Aviation had a Dzus tool for the Mustang that could also be used to straighten out the edges of the engine cowlings if they distorted. I have one! 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

BarnOwlLover
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
PAT303
P
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
3K
Denniss
D
Civettone
high altitude bomber
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
A
Best parasol or high-mounted wing fighter?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Wild_Bill_Kelso
Demopan78
Ta 152 Ha aerial victories
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Demopan78
Demopan78
Back