# Dora-13 or 152C?



## taranis (Apr 19, 2012)

Greetings and salutations!

I'm a long-time lurker first-time poster who's fascinated with WWII aviation, especially the LW.

After looking through the 200-odd pages of links on this forum, I am curious: how did the Dora-13 stack up against the oncoming (sorta maybe!!) Ta-152C overall (performance, maneuverability, etc. - the whole package)? 

From what I can see in Herman's books there's not a lot to choose from (save firepower). I'm assuming initially they have the 213E and 603LA, respectively.

And for further speculation, with the 213EB and the 603L, and possibly even the 213S and 603N!

I realize that any answer will at least likely be a lot of speculation, but that's part of the fun in my eyes.

Oh, and is there somewhere I can get a large-scale cutaway drawing of the 152C? (I have the 152H.)

Now, hopefully some of you will bite!

Peace.


----------



## davebender (Apr 19, 2012)

I agree with your conclusion.

Welcome to the forum!


----------



## riacrato (Apr 20, 2012)

Too bad there is sol little information about the Ta 152 C available. I like it a lot, it was heavily armed and iirc had equipment for bad weather fighting etc. Consequently it was a lot heavier. Would the changes made to the airframe counter this so that it still showed the great handling of the Dora series? Hard to tell.

As a pure fighter I think the D-13 was likely more promising and maybe the best mid altitude piston fighter the LW would have to offer for 1945.


----------



## davebender (Apr 20, 2012)

1946 or late 1945 before significant numbers make it into combat. The Ta-152 would be contemporary with the P-51H and Griffon powered Spitfires. 

However they would also be contemporary with the He-162C. So I wouldn't expect a long service life for these cutting edge piston engine fighter aircraft.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 20, 2012)

I was talking about the D-13 of which a few were operational when the war ended. He 162 C was still a drawing board (some say early prototype) project, unlikely to become operational in any numbers in 1945.


----------



## jim (Apr 20, 2012)

taranis said:


> Greetings and salutations!
> 
> I'm a long-time lurker first-time poster who's fascinated with WWII aviation, especially the LW.
> 
> ...


 
Mr Taranis
The answer to your question is simple. Using the sames engines Ta 152C was almost 1 ton heavier than Dora . Performance and manouverability of D13 should be much superior
The extra weight of Ta was the extra guns(4x20mm 1x30mm versus the 3x20mm of the dora), extra armor, pressurized cocpit,, and more fuel.Equipment and extra wing fuel were planned for future D13s as well. All these under other circumstances could be useful(except the guns, 5 big cannons are overkill)But without quality fuels,and lack of raw materials , such luxuries were ill afforded. The airframes should be getting lighter,and smaller in order to remain competitive with less powerful engines. I dont see how Ta 152 could be competitive in 1945 with the available engines. Check its power and wing loadings. They are really unimpressive for a 1945 fighter.
With all engines Dora should be superior .It would always have weight advantage. ( However i am not sure if Dora airframe could recieve Db603N)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Apr 20, 2012)

When was the Jumo 213J projected to enter mass production?


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 22, 2012)

davebender said:


> When was the Jumo 213J projected to enter mass production?



The Thomas Hitchcock book on the Ta 152 mentions that there were 13 x Jumo 213J being test benched by wars end. Ofcourse the DB603 was no slouch either. The Ta 152C initially had the DB603LA (I think about 2450hp) but this was only an interim engine pending the full scale production of the DB603L which also added an intercooler. The Ta 152H and C had potentially 2800hp available from the DB603N engine: essentially a refined DB603L with better pistons, C3 fuel and a two speed gearbox on top of the infinetly variable supercharger drive. This engine had much better altitude performance than the Jumo 213.

Some of the advanced technology of the Jumo 213J (eg the pistons and/or crankshaft) would likely find their way into the Jumo 213E1 or the Jumo 213EB and allow increases in rpm and boost the latter Jumo 213EB lacked the 4valve head of the 213J but did come with enlarged valves. Furthermore the Jumo 213E1 only used B4 87 octane fuel and work was clearly preceding on upgrading to C3 96/130 octane witness the FW 190D9 runs using C3 for whch we have data.

Fw 190A and D had a aeroelastic issue in the wing, under high g the washout would untwist and lead to a spin stall, recovery was very easy however. The Ta 152H with its larger and structurally new wing eliminated this problem. The Ta 152C doesn't make sense unless its new but shorter than the H series wing also eliminates this issue. The FW 190A10 was supposed to get a new larger wing (presumably from the Ta 152C)

AFAIKT FW 190D13/R10 (I think R10), were to be built with the outer wing guns removed (leaving 3 x 20mm guns) but with extra fuel tanks fitted in the vacant space. These ground attack aircraft were to be equiped with a TSA 2D toss bombing computer sight. The MG213 revolver canon, unlike a gatling style gun, could be made to sychronise with a propellor and I suspect would have made themselves on this aircraft.

The Ta 152 could carry the MK103 30mm machine canon, my copy of "The great book of planes" has a detailed and lengthy article on the FW 190 series. It notes that the Mk 103 when mounted on the FW 190A in the outer gun positions had a penetration of 140mm (I'll check this when home from work) at 90 degrees. Note the forward speed of the aircraft adds enormously to the penetration of these canon. The FW 190A gunshp was not a success due to gun vibration in the outer position however the Ta 152 could carry the guns in the wing roots and motor/boss. This doesn't seem to have been possible on the FW 190D9.

I rather like the idea of he Ta 152C with the BMW 801R, a heavily intercooled engine with a two stage independantly controlled 4 speed supercharger; it would add the durabillity of an aircooled radial while offering excellent high altitude performance.


----------



## spicmart (Apr 22, 2012)

According to Manfred Griehl's Fw 190 book the Jumo 213 had more exhaust thrust than the DB 603 thus mitigating possible advantages of the DB in terms of power output.


----------



## davebender (Apr 22, 2012)

By April 1945 the R4M FF rocket was in service. IMO a rack or pod of FF rockets under each wing would likely replace aircraft use of the 3cm Mk103 cannnon.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 22, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> .
> 
> The Ta 152 could carry the MK103 30mm machine canon, my copy of "The great book of planes" has a detailed and lengthy article on the FW 190 series. It notes that the Mk 103 when mounted on the FW 190A in the outer gun positions had a penetration of 140mm (I'll check this when home from work) at 90 degrees. Note the forward speed of the aircraft adds enormously to the penetration of these canon. The FW 190A gunshp was not a success due to gun vibration in the outer position however the Ta 152 could carry the guns in the wing roots and motor/boss. This doesn't seem to have been possible on the FW 190D9.[ quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## davebender (Apr 22, 2012)

Are you planning to use this aircraft for CAS? Otherwise such armor penetration data has no bearing. HE filler weight is what counts when shooting at aircraft @ 300 meters.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 22, 2012)

I would assume Siefried was quoting the incorrect 140mm penetration for use as a CAS. Because it would gross overkill for use against anything flying.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 22, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Siegfried said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 22, 2012)

A 20-25% boost in muzzle velocity doesn't result in a doubling or almost doubling of kinectic energy, the math doesn't support it. 

Plus a 20-25% boost in velocity at the muzzle doesn't necessarily translate to a 20-25% increase at 300 meters or whatever range.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 24, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> A 20-25% boost in muzzle velocity doesn't result in a doubling or almost doubling of kinectic energy, the math doesn't support it.
> 
> Plus a 20-25% boost in velocity at the muzzle doesn't necessarily translate to a 20-25% increase at 300 meters or whatever range.



A 41% boost in muzzle velocity does support a doubling.
A 10% boost in muzzle velocity suggests 21% extra penetration.
A 16% boost in muzzle velocity which would occur from a 140m/s aircraft (310mph) adding to the 860ms Mk103 projectile to produce a 1000m/s projectile whose velocity is 16.5% greater and whose kinetic energy is 35% greater.

"Great book of Planes" gives 110mm penetration at 300m with an AP/HE shot. I've got some extra details elsewhere.

Nikalas Zetterling in his analysis of the Combat Effectiveness Ratio of Allied v German troops "Normandy" gives some formulae and data tables for slope effects of armour. Around 45 degrees it is around 2.4 ie so we would have about 45mm penetration. However an aircraft diving onto a tank from the sides or top could find considerably less accute angles and thinner armour and certainly even heavy tanks would have some vulnerabillity. Medium and light tanks would be quite vulnerable; a sherman and T-34 from all but the front.

There is no doubt that a 30mm gun is a vast jump in penetration over 20mm however beyond 30mm the penetraion growth is nowhere as dramtic.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 24, 2012)

So if the aircraft was doing about 700mph, you'd get your 140mm of penetration out of the Mk 103 30mm.
In other words, it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## davebender (Apr 24, 2012)

Speer's claims have been confirmed by the USAF Armament Laboratory and documented in AFATRL-TR-84-03. However I still fail to see what this has to do with a Fw-190D or Ta-152.

German uranium ammunition was produced in small quantities and had stringent rules for use which are covered in the USAF publication. Among other things it could only be employed against Soviet armor.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 24, 2012)

Siegfried evidendly thinks the Fw-190D or Ta-152 should have been employed against armor.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 25, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Siegfried evidendly thinks the Fw-190D or Ta-152 should have been employed against armor.



The Ta 152B5 was scheduled for production in may 1945. It was essentially an Ta 152C optimised for close support and carried the twin long barrel 30mm Mk 103 canon in the wing roots. Ta 152v56 was the prototype.


----------



## bada (Apr 25, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> The Ta 152B5 was scheduled for production in may 1945. It was essentially an Ta 152C optimised for close support and carried the twin long barrel 30mm Mk 103 canon in the wing roots. Ta 152v56 was the prototype.



i dont think that i ever saw a german fighter with a mk103 or 108 firing through the prop arc, to my knowledge, it was impossible to do because no reliable syncro mechanisme was made for those guns.

as for the 152B, using the 213EG, the gun config were:

fuselage: 2 mg151/20E
propshaft 1xmk108 or 1mk103
wing roots: 2mg151/20E
wings outboard 2mg151/20 or 2mk108 build-in or 2 mk103 in pods.


desription can be found on this board:

Google Image Result for http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6323/ta152totalxg4.jpg


----------



## davebender (Apr 25, 2012)

Ta-152 had a wing loading similiar to the Skyraider so that might work. However I still think wing hardpoints are more likely to hold a pod of R4M FF rockets.


----------



## Erich (Apr 25, 2012)

what ta B series was scheduled and to whom in 45.... ? if you are talking fighters of the present JG's in 45 this is not true according to LW records, the Mk 103 was rejected due to weight issues but perfect for low level air to ground encounters. the 2cm weapon was preferred even over the Mk 108 and would of replaced this prop weapon on later Ta H series and yes as Dave said reconditioning of the rocket rack and rocket weapons system would of been on the increase of useage for future anti-bomber flights if the JG's could so mount them later in the war which is rather doubtful.


----------



## davebender (Apr 25, 2012)

> the 2cm weapon was preferred even over the Mk 108 and would of replaced this prop weapon on later Ta H series


There were operational MG213 revolver cannon prototypes during April 1945. Production couldn't be too far away. IMO that's the ideal hub cannon for for the Ta-152. With a revolver cannon plus FF rockets you don't need anything else.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 25, 2012)

There are photos of some sort of Fw 190/TA 152 with a MK 103 in each wing root. Mock-up, test rig or? There seems to have been a problem synchronizing the big 30mm guns. In order for the sychro to work you not only need the cap ignited at the right time but you need a predictable powder burn. This is harder in a big case than in a small case. It is not a question of consistent muzzle velocity but a question of timing from when the firing pin hits the cap to when the shell exits the muzzle. A failure in timing on a 7.9mm or even 13mm gun may be annoying. A 20mm could get Nasty depending on projectile land what part the blade is hit. A 30 mm hit on the prop is much more likely to be fatal to the aircraft and possible the pilot. 

Mr. Bender has never answered how the Germans were going to go into production of revolver cannon in months if not weeks in the spring of 1945 when it took the US, Britain and France 8 years to get them in production and service, with the help of some of the German workers/engineers. Granted the Allies slacked off for a few years but from 1948 on or so you had the threat of the cold war, nuclear bombs ( the bomber MUST NOT get through) and the demands of the Korean war.


----------



## johnbr (Apr 25, 2012)

The designer of the MG 213c said to the USA that they had started to make 100 of them.


----------



## Erich (Apr 25, 2012)

without seeing full on schematics I wonder if the revolver cannon would of been a good fit. I do have other archival documentation from England clearing showing the variants to be supplanted to the Ta 152H-1 if the war would of dragged out longer


----------



## davebender (Apr 25, 2012)

> designer of the MG 213c said to the USA that they had started to make 100 of them


15 prototypes were captured along with the Mauser factory.

20mm x 135mm. Mauser cartridge for 20mm version of MG213.
.....20mm version of MG213 was supposed to replace the MG151/20 cannon.
.....Also used by MG301 cannon, which lost the competition.

30mm x 85mmB. Mauser cartridge for 30mm version of MG213.
.....Low velocity but powerful. Supposed to replace the 30mm Mk108 cannon for attacking heavy bombers.


30mm x 113mm. ADEN cannon cartridge.
British and French copies of the MG213 were delayed because they opted to develop their own cartridge rather then use the ready for production Mauser designed cartridges.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 25, 2012)

@Shortround6,

There is a photograph of a Ta 152 (probably the V58 which was simply the modified V53, to test this). The photograph is taken from the left side as if the photographer was standing at the tip of the tailplane. It shows the ammunition tray hatch opened over the wing root (it is very big) with the rather large MK 103 rounds. It is in the Thomas Hitchcock book.

@Erich, production of the Ta 152B (essentially a Ta 152C designed for ground attack) was scheduled for May 1945, earlier production was not possible due to loss of wings due to bombing.

the Hitchcock book says that both the MK213A 20mm gun and the MK213C 30mm revolver guns were scheduled for various Ta 152 variants. These guns could be synchronised.

An air combat version of the Ta 152C was to receive 1 x Mk 103 as a motor canon and 4 x MG151/15 (the high velocity 15mm version of the MG 151/20 gun). It seems this was an attempt to produce a fighter that could engage targets at very long ranges.

I know the Tony Williams site mentions that achieving conistant cartridge burn in a large cartridge that was suitable for synchronisation was supposedly a difficulty in 30mm guns.

However it was either a non problem or a problem that was solved. The Ta 152H wing was simply large enough to take this gun.

German synchronisation technology worked via electrically ignited primers, it was reliable.

The MG213 revolver canon development started in 1940 as the result of a 1000 rpm by 1000m/s specification for a 20mm gun. Only a revolver could meet both the cadence and velocity requirements simultaneously. The need to prevent jamming under high g also compelled a rotary mechanism.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2012)

davebender said:


> 15 prototypes were captured along with the Mauser factory.



Prototypes are a far cry from a combat ready gun. The US had lots of prototype .50 cal and .60cal MGs that never made in into service. 



davebender said:


> 30mm x 113mm. ADEN cannon cartridge.
> British and French copies of the MG213 were delayed because they opted to develop their own cartridge rather then use the ready for production Mauser designed cartridges.



British and French both had lower powered rounds in early models. The British had 30 X 86B round and the French a 30 X 97B round so it wasn't just a case of using much more powerful ammunition. 
The American M39 gun used a shorter, smaller diameter that fired a slightly lighter projectile at about the same speed as the German round. That shouldn't have been a problem gun wise and yet again it took until 1953-54 to get into service.

you, of course, have proof that the cartridges delayed the programs?


----------



## drgondog (Apr 26, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> Fw 190A and D had a aeroelastic issue in the wing, under high g the washout would untwist and lead to a spin stall, recovery was very easy however. The Ta 152H with its larger and structurally new wing eliminated this problem. The Ta 152C doesn't make sense unless its new but shorter than the H series wing also eliminates this issue. The FW 190A10 was supposed to get a new larger wing (presumably from the Ta 152C)
> 
> *I haven't seen the Ta 152 wing and can't comment regarding approach to solve high G/High AoA issues with FW 190A and D. Having said that the D and A wings were the same with respect to washout - namely zero from 80% span to wing tip, coulpled with large ailerons, were the root cause of the unwanted torsional deflections into a stall condition.
> 
> ...



One potential problem that comes to mind for Ta 152 vs FW 190 series wing, is that increased wing span by necessity implies shifting the lift distribution outboard from wing root (all other variables such as LE Washout being equal) - which usually suggests a deeper spar or increased spar cap and web to absorb the bending loads - without regard for torque box considerations to reduce the elastic deformations imposed by the ailerons.

What did Tank do?


----------



## davebender (Apr 26, 2012)

That's exactly what the 20mm version of the MG213 was designed for. It had a longer effective range then the MG151/15mm, a higher rate of fire and more punch then the MG151/20 mine shell. What's not to like?

The 20mm version of the MG213 was designed first and may have been production ready by the end of 1944. I suspect the Luftwaffe elected to forego production and wait for the 30mm version which was considered crucial for destroying heavy bombers. Just one of many production choices forced on Germany at the end of the war. In this case they chose wrong as the 30mm version didn't arrive in time. Just as the Jumo 004B jet engine and Type XXI submarine didn't arrive in time.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 26, 2012)

It was impossible to synchronize MK 103/108 due to their firing mechanism, exact timing was not possible.


----------



## davebender (Apr 26, 2012)

MG213 fired 1,200 rpm (30mm version) or 1,400 rpm (20mm version). If it's firing through the hub you only need one vs WWII era aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 26, 2012)

You only need one if it works. If it doesn't then putting 5 in the plane won't help.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 27, 2012)

drgondog said:


> One potential problem that comes to mind for Ta 152 vs FW 190 series wing, is that increased wing span by necessity implies shifting the lift distribution outboard from wing root (all other variables such as LE Washout being equal) - which usually suggests a deeper spar or increased spar cap and web to absorb the bending loads - without regard for torque box considerations to reduce the elastic deformations imposed by the ailerons.
> 
> What did Tank do?



An article written by David Ledicener (who maintains the incomplete guide to airfoil usage) quotes a Focke-Wulf document that puts the sudden spin stall of the Fw 190 down to this aeroeleastic issue. Stall under normal (non high g) conditions was mild. After the high g induced spin stall recovery was quick as the wing was back in shape. Some pilots seem to have been good enough to utilise this inconvience as a tactical escape manouver. (Norbert Hanig)

The Ta 152H used the same NACA 5 digit aerfoil series of greater span achieved by adding primarily at the wing root; apart from the section and reuse of some components I think it was really and all new wing (with a very large fuel capacity). However wheras Fw 190 washout was 2 degrees from the root to the 87.5% point (the final 12.5% had no washout) the Ta 152H had 3 degrees of washout (I read in one of those combat simulation program specs so not sure yet). The change in handling was dramatic; pilots talked of being able to turn on their own tail, one pilot spoke of no longer being leary of the Spitfire (Eric Brown put the manouverabillity as equal to the Mk 19 Spitfire (which was only a light recon variant) below 25000 but superior above) another spoke of its abillity to out turn the P-51 in all but the initial turn.

The Ta 152C with its shorter span wing was running behined the Ta 152H so I have seen no reports from combat pilots as to the handling but I immagine the shorter span wing was desired so as to improve low altitude speed, roll rate, dive rate. The Ta 152H had restriction on its dive rate but the pilots seemed complacent about exceding it only reporting a wing flutter that did not interfere with controllabillity. Given the number of Luftwaffe 'rookie' pilots and the likelihood that in the Ta 152H they may have had the tightest turning fighter of the late war ETO and that it had easy handling it may have been better for the Luftwaffe to concentrate on this type even for low altitude air combat and ground support.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 27, 2012)

Denniss said:


> It was impossible to synchronize MK 103/108 due to their firing mechanism, exact timing was not possible.



See below


----------



## Juha (Apr 27, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> ...pilots talked of being able to turn on their own tail, one pilot spoke of no longer being leary of the Spitfire (Eric Brown put the manouverabillity as equal to the Mk 19 Spitfire (which was only a light recon variant) below 25000 but superior above).. .



How many times 152Hs fought with Spitfires? Did Ta 152 pilots ever claim a Spitfire? Now we know that JG 11 lost 2 Ta 152Hs to Spitfires and third made wheels-up landing to Lech a/f for whatever reason, so only one of the 4 152s in that Schwarm arrived intakt. 

And what Brown writes (in Air Enthusiast Quarterly 1) "In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145m), there being little to choose between the British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decisive edge..." And I'd not call Spit PR 19 as "light" It weighted 9000lb with full internal fuel and its max permissible was 10,450lb, it was unarmed but not light Spitfire. 

Juha


----------



## davebender (Apr 27, 2012)

Germany built 102 Fw-190A1s before introducing an improved model. That's pretty typical for WWII era aircraft. The first 100 aircraft aren't necessarily a good indication how the perfected design will perform.

Looks to me like fewer then fifty Ta-152H were produced. So I wouldn't place much weight on performance of the handful that made it into combat. We don't know what improvements would be made after the first 100 or so enter service.


----------



## jim (Apr 27, 2012)

Juha said:


> How many times 152Hs fought with Spitfires? Did Ta 152 pilots ever claim a Spitfire? Now we know that JG 11 lost 2 Ta 152Hs to Spitfires and third made wheels-up landing to Lech a/f for whatever reason, so only one of the 4 152s in that Schwarm arrived intakt.
> 
> And what Brown writes (in Air Enthusiast Quarterly 1) "In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145m), there being little to choose between the British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decisive edge..." And I'd not call Spit PR 19 as "light" It weighted 9000lb with full internal fuel and its max permissible was 10,450lb, it was unarmed but not light Spitfire.
> 
> Juha


 
Mr Juha
1) We also knowthat these were not operational Jg11 machines.They were the first of the type to be assigned to the unit and were on their transfer flight, by pilots of unknown type experience, and who knows the tactical situation of the engagement. Even Me262 was vulnerable under certain conditions

2) Brown also writes ,in the same article ,that they had not neither Mw50 nor GM1 in England , so Ta 152 never showed its full capabilities. Its final conclusion was that the two aircrafts , as flown at those test, were very close. But it is really nery strange that it compares the Ta to a recce version of the Spitfire.

My personal opinion is that Ta 152H with boosted ailerons would be better at all altitudes than C version and with C3 fuel a formidable opponent for any fighter of its time.


----------



## davparlr (Apr 27, 2012)

davebender said:


> Looks to me like fewer then fifty Ta-152H were produced. So I wouldn't place much weight on performance of the handful that made it into combat. We don't know what improvements would be made after the first 100 or so enter service.



I certainly agree with this. We also don't know if the improvements would have worked or not.


----------



## Juha (Apr 27, 2012)

jim said:


> Mr Juha
> 1) We also knowthat these were not operational Jg11 machines.They were the first of the type to be assigned to the unit and were on their transfer flight, by pilots of unknown type experience, and who knows the tactical situation of the engagement. Even Me262 was vulnerable under certain conditions
> 
> 2) Brown also writes ,in the same article ,that they had not neither Mw50 nor GM1 in England , so Ta 152 never showed its full capabilities. Its final conclusion was that the two aircrafts , as flown at those test, were very close. But it is really nery strange that it compares the Ta to a recce version of the Spitfire.
> ...



Hello Jim
All true and nobody had claimed that Ta 152 wasn't a very formitable fighter. But
1) a) Do you know any other Ta 152 vs Spit combats? If not, how would LW pilots knew that one should not be anymore "leary of the Spitfie" b) Now some Ta 152 fans have claimed that because Reschke succeeded to shot down a Tempest, that shows that Ta 152 was a superior plane totally forgetting that the 152s surprised the Tempest pair while it was strafing trains. As you wrote we don't know the tactical situation or the experience level of either side involved that Spit vs 152 combat. In any combat the attacker had usually at least initial advance. There is even a case when a Finnish I-153 (ex-Soviet bi-plane) tactical recce pilot shot down a Soviet P-39 in Summer 44. Of course nobody has drawn the conclusion that I-153 was a better fighter than P-39 from that combat.

2) We also know that probably 152s never participated combat while equipped with both types of power-boost systems, even if that was claimed earlier. The PR 19 stuff, yes that is a bit strange, maybe Brown was more familiar with 19 than with XIV or 18, or simply he fly alternately with 152H-1 and 19 i order to test PR 19's ability to survive against a special high altitude fighter.

Juha


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 28, 2012)

Juha said:


> How many times 152Hs fought with Spitfires? Did Ta 152 pilots ever claim a Spitfire? Now we know that JG 11 lost 2 Ta 152Hs to Spitfires and third made wheels-up landing to Lech a/f for whatever reason, so only one of the 4 152s in that Schwarm arrived intakt.
> Juha




These Ta 152H were pre production aircraft, all of a technically different configuration. A squadron of Spitfire XIV bouncing what were only 6 essentially prototype Ta 152H on a transfer (evacuation) flight in the 10th last day of the war, when Germany conisisted of tiny territory, cleaven in 2 (or 3 or more) and swarmed by hundreds of allied aircraft counts for nothing in evaluating the aircraft. We have no record of the event, only a hearsay account.



Juha said:


> And what Brown writes (in Air Enthusiast Quarterly 1) "In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned, the story was very much the same; the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below 30,000 ft (9 145m), there being little to choose between the British and German fighters between that altitude and 35,000 ft (10 670 m), but above the latter altitude the Ta 152H-1 enjoyed a decisive edge..." And I'd not call Spit PR 19 as "light" It weighted 9000lb with full internal fuel and its max permissible was 10,450lb, it was unarmed but not light Spitfire.
> 
> Juha



Brown has to be taken with a grain of salt in this,

Brown also writes that the PR XIX latter known as the PR.19 was *less* manouverable above 25,000ft. So which of his opinions is more correct?. The Mk XIX Spitifre was a Griffon engined photo reconaisance Spitfire capable of 49000ft of service ceiling due to its lack of armour, armament and supercharger optimised for altitude. It is a much better comparison than the less altitude capable Mk.XIV or Mk.XVIII (which weighed over 8800lbs).
The PR XIX was also fast at 460mph because of the lack of drag and would have had better lift than a standard spit from its clean gun bulge free wings.

Of course Browns evaluation is purely subjective. The superior manouverabillity of the Ta 152H over the MK XIV above 25,000 that he acknowledges etc etc can't be explained in terms of better engine power for the German aircraft: both the Ta 152H had intercooled liquid cooled V12 of around 34L with two stage three speed superchargers.

The better manouverabillity (at height) can only be explained in terms of better lift loading and better L/D (lift to drag ratios) of the Ta 152H. If so the Ta 152H should also have better manouverabillity at *low altitude*. Then why not?

The reason is that the Ta 152H was at a severe power advantage.

Then Spitfire XIV was basically running around with 2300hp (on 100/150) and 2038 on 100/150 fuel and 100/150 fuel was certainly available.

1 Ta 152 only received the erhote noteleistung (increase emergency power) that boosted power from 1750hp to 1900hp by Feb 1945. It was running way behined the Fw 190D-9 in receiving this modification.
2 Ta 152H1 with MW-50 which permitted 2050ps/2000hp on B4+MW50 (B4 = 87 octane) came in around that time as well.

3 The RAF, which captured a Ta 152H0 and a Ta 152H1 *never flew any Ta 152H with MW50.*4 The one opportunity they had of evaluating the Ta 152H flown by an experienced German fighter pilots against a Spitfire in post war mock combat was avoided (see Harmann book in the same page) because it was feared that the German pilot would bail out and destroy the aircraft. This is a case of the some of the officers being victims of their own lurid propaganda about the nature of Germans as unstrustworthy fanatics. Possibly the lack of comparison was good for the longevity of the Spitfire legend but now we'll never know.

[/B]So we have the case of a 1900ps Ta 152H being subjectively evaluated against a 2300hp Mk XIV. Guess which aircraft is going to turn better before loosing height or loosing speed due to the lift induced drag from high g turning, which aircraft is going to turn at a better speed or rate and which one is going to be able to climb faster and dive down upon its opponent. We are comparing an aircraft knobled to 332 mph versus a 389mph aircraft. Throw in a bit British haughty supercilious superiority common of victors in the immediate period following victory and we have a good explanation as to why an aircraft with better turn at 30,000 somehow had less a low altitude.

In this case the term "manouverabillity" obviously is a subjective composit that includes instantaneous climb, speed, acceleration, roll rate, sustained turning rate ALL of which except roll rate are functions of engine power. Above about 25,000 feet the Spitfires better fuel would not help it at all as 87 octane is sufficent at the pressures encountered. 

Brown wasn't the kind of guy that talked much about specific test conditions, fuel types and detailed issues. He gave subjective impressions and had the intuitive skills to survive poorly handling aircraft. He never writes like a professional test pilot as one wouild communicate to engineers (he doesn't seem to have been and R+D type) even if he was one. He refused to meet with Heinrich Beajealais a test pilot at Rechlin to discuss the manouverabillity of the Me 109 v Spitfire so we have few if any objective assesments of his impressions.


----------



## Kryten (Apr 28, 2012)

"""4 The one opportunity they had of evaluating the Ta 152H flown by an experienced German fighter pilots against a Spitfire in post war mock combat was avoided (see Hermann) because it was feared that the German pilot would bail out and destroy the aircraft. This is a case of the allies being victims of lurid propaganda about the nature of Germans as fanatics. Possibly the comparison was good for the longevity of the Spitfire legend but now we'll never know."""

The Nazi's were fanatics mate, willing to commit all kinds of appaling atrocities in the name of thier fuhrer, thats not propaganda, put yourself in the position of the people who had to deal with these fanatics during the war, your not going to change your attitude toward them just because the wars over, that certainly does'nt apply to all germans but as my father said (who was part of the occupation force post war) "strange how there were no nazis in germany after the war"


----------



## davebender (Apr 28, 2012)

What does that have to do with German fighter pilots? I doubt 1 out of 100 joined the National Socialist Party.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 28, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello Jim
> All true and nobody had claimed that Ta 152 wasn't a very formitable fighter. But
> 1) a) Do you know any other Ta 152 vs Spit combats? If not, how would LW pilots knew that one should not be anymore "leary of the Spitfie" b) Now some Ta 152 fans have claimed that because Reschke succeeded to shot down a Tempest, that shows that Ta 152 was a superior plane totally forgetting that the 152s surprised the Tempest pair while it was strafing trains. Juha



They weren't suprised, they had an extensive dog fight. While WO Mitchell of NZ RAF 486 is often descrive as a Rookie he would have had at least 300 hours of training before he went to a squadron and then more when he got there. He may have had more total hours than Reschke who would have learned 'on the job' rather than at a fighter school in Canada.

The Tempest wasn't a notworthy turning fighter, the Ta 152H simpy out turned the Tempest, probably easily. This is the side effect of building a wing with a high L/D ratio. Had Michell come across a plain FW 190A his tactic of turning might have worked as even if he couldn't have matched the FW 190 turn he would have just flown around the circle faster. Again the Ta 152H was a new aircraft.

The Ta 152H1 the RAF captured had MW-50 installed. Simply running the engine of C3 achieves much the same result as B4+MW50.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 28, 2012)

The Mauser MG 213 would not solve much of the weight problem for the 152 armamment?


----------



## Kryten (Apr 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> What does that have to do with German fighter pilots? I doubt 1 out of 100 joined the National Socialist Party.



the relevant paragraph was deleted from Siegfried's post, its at the top of my response in """ """


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> These Ta 152H were pre production aircraft, all of a technically different configuration. A squadron of Spitfire XIV bouncing what were only 6 essentially prototype Ta 152H on a transfer (evacuation) flight in the 10th last day of the war, when Germany conisisted of tiny territory, cleaven in 2 (or 3 or more) and swarmed by hundreds of allied aircraft counts for nothing in evaluating the aircraft. We have no record of the event, only a hearsay account...



Now if the pilots didn't have death-wishes they would not be more inclined to get themselves shot down at the end of a war than on any other day. How you know that there was a sqn of Spit XIVs if there is no record of the event, why not a 4 plane formation of IXs/XVIs?





Siegfried said:


> Brown has to be taken with a grain of salt in this,



I don't claim that Brown's word is the ultimate thruth, my point is that I have seen the Brown's assestment in two different sources and in same form, that I quoted.




Siegfried said:


> Brown also writes that the PR XIX latter known as the PR.19 was *less* manouverable above 25,000ft.



Where? Source please.




Siegfried said:


> Of course Browns evaluation is purely subjective. The superior manouverabillity of the Ta 152H over the MK XIV above 25,000 that he acknowledges etc etc can't be explained in terms of better engine power for the German aircraft...



Source, please, because in the articles what I have seen Brown writes that Ta 152H-1 was more manouvrable over 35,000 ft.

And if you don't know already, 2 British (to be exact new zealanders) Tempest pilots who participated in that Tempests vs 152Hs combat on 14 Apr 45, wrote combat reports and both claimed that they out-turned their German opponents, so Retschke claimed that 152H was more manoeuvrable and Shaw and Short that Tempest was. As I wrote it was rather impossible to reliably assest a plane if it had been only in very limited use.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2012)

Hello Siegfried
According to both Reschke and Short 2 Tempest pilots saw 152s when they had already began their attack runs and Tempests still had their drop tanks on. "...W/O Mitchell was pulling up from attacking Met north of Ludwigslust when we saw 2 Me.109s at 100 ft another 4 109s at about 3000 ft. The 2 109s were coming in to attack us from port rear-quarter. I called up advised my No. 2 instructed him to drop his tanks..."


----------



## davebender (Apr 28, 2012)

Then why was it employed for ground attack?


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> They weren't suprised, they had an extensive dog fight. While WO Mitchell of NZ RAF 486 is often descrive as a Rookie he would have had at least 300 hours of training before he went to a squadron and then more when he got there. He may have had more total hours than Reschke who would have learned 'on the job' rather than at a fighter school in Canada.
> 
> The Tempest wasn't a notworthy turning fighter, the Ta 152H simpy out turned the Tempest, probably easily. This is the side effect of building a wing with a high L/D ratio. Had Michell come across a plain FW 190A his tactic of turning might have worked as even if he couldn't have matched the FW 190 turn he would have just flown around the circle faster. Again the Ta 152H was a new aircraft.
> 
> The Ta 152H1 the RAF captured had MW-50 installed. Simply running the engine of C3 achieves much the same result as B4+MW50.



Now Mitchell was Reschke's 25th kill and he had been 10 month in a front line unit, and because of the history of JG 301s had got instrument flying training, so he had got more flight time than a normal LW fighter pilot during his training, Mitschell was a newcomer.

As I wrote earlier the two other Tempest pilots participating the combat claimed in their combat reports that they out-turned their opponents.

Juha


----------



## jim (Apr 28, 2012)

Juha said:


> Now Mitchell was Reschke's 25th kill and he had been 10 month in a front line unit, and because of the history of JG 301s had got instrument flying training, so he had got more flight time than a normal LW fighter pilot during his training, Mitschell was a newcomer.
> 
> As I wrote earlier the two other Tempest pilots participating the combat claimed in their combat reports that they out-turned their opponents.
> 
> Juha


 Mr Juha
1) According to our Anglosaxons friends Tempest at that stage of war was running at 13lb boost and had over 3000hp and was a specilized low level fighter. Ta 152 H had 1750 hp. It is amazing that the other two Tempest pilots did not destroy the Ta s or that Mitchel was unable to escape Rescke, all he had to do was put the throttle forward. But it appears that Tempest ,even with massive power advantage, was not able to dominate the Ta.
2) Mr Juha you must decide, german pilots overclaimed or not? In many threads you question their reliability of claims, but in this thread you use Rescke s 25 claims with no question, to prove that he was very more experienced than Mitchel. 
3) It is a fact that you can not deny that Ta 152 H with worse power to weight ratio ,out turned very easily Fw 190A8. Ta 152 , even in this uncomplete form, was tested by the field pilots.
4) Indeed , there were no combats between Spits and Ta s. But an experienced pilot that had faced Spitfires and knew their turning abilities, could judge if Ta 52H abilities was adequate to face Spitfires turning.
5) I agree that Ta 152H with just 1750 hp , and lacking the aerodynamic improvements intended for the normal production machines,were not something special performance wise at low altitude. But they desplayed that the type possesed qualities very very important that some people prefer to ignore

Friendly
JIm


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 28, 2012)

davebender said:


> Then why was it employed for ground attack?



Because of load lifting ability. and the fact that a plane _DOES NOT_ have to be a great dogfighter in order to be a ground attack machine. Few strafing runs, rocket firings or bomb drops were done in 4-6 G turns. AS long as the plane responded to the controls in a predictable fashion and perhaps more importantly, had decent aileron response at high speed that may be all that was needed. 

All the aileron (or roll response) charts at at indicated airspeeds, which is darn close to actual speed at sea level. Trying to do a ground attack run at 350mph (if the plane can go that fast) with severely degraded aileron response is going to difficult no matter how well the plane turns _ONCE_ it has banked.


----------



## Juha (Apr 28, 2012)

Hello Jim



jim said:


> Mr Juha
> 1) According to our Anglosaxons friends Tempest at that stage of war was running at 13lb boost and had over 3000hp and was a specilized low level fighter. Ta 152 H had 1750 hp. It is amazing that the other two Tempest pilots did not destroy the Ta s or that Mitchel was unable to escape Rescke, all he had to do was put the throttle forward. But it appears that Tempest ,even with massive power advantage, was not able to dominate the Ta.



I don't know about our Anglosaxon friends, but IIRC Tempest MK V Serie 2 had Sabre IIB +11lb boost 2420hp it was low and medium height fighter, one of the other Tempest pilots claimed one destr (one Ta 152 was lost in that combat) and the other one damaged. As I have wrote it's rather useless to draw far reaching conclusions from limited data. IIRC Gloster Gladiators beated Dewointine D.520s 4 to 0 during Syria battles in 41 and there usually D.520s were attackers, but that doesn't mean that Gladiator was better fighter.




jim said:


> 2) Mr Juha you must decide, german pilots overclaimed or not? In many threads you question their reliability of claims, but in this thread you use Rescke s 25 claims with no question, to prove that he was very more experienced than Mitchel.



If you bothered to read my messages, I have wrote that some German pilots overclaimed, some badly and some were very accurate claimers. I have no idea of Reschke's claim accuracy, so I used the info from luftwaffe.cz site. And IMHO Reschke was clearly more experienced combat pilot, what is your opinion?



jim said:


> 4) Indeed , there were no combats between Spits and Ta s. But an experienced pilot that had faced Spitfires and knew their turning abilities, could judge if Ta 52H abilities was adequate to face Spitfires turning..



Now there seems to be one combat between Spits and Ta 152s which Spitfires clearly won 2 to 0, but that seems to be the only one. Do you have other info?



jim said:


> 5) I agree that Ta 152H with just 1750 hp , and lacking the aerodynamic improvements intended for the normal production machines,were not something special performance wise at low altitude. But they desplayed that the type possesed qualities very very important that some people prefer to ignore



Now was Reschke flying Ta 152 H-0 (pre-production) or H-1 (production version)? IIRC he had H-1, so a serial production type

Juha


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 28, 2012)

Kryten said:


> """4 The one opportunity they had of evaluating the Ta 152H flown by an experienced German fighter pilots against a Spitfire in post war mock combat was avoided (see Hermann) because it was feared that the German pilot would bail out and destroy the aircraft. This is a case of the allies being victims of lurid propaganda about the nature of Germans as fanatics. Possibly the comparison was good for the longevity of the Spitfire legend but now we'll never know."""
> 
> The Nazi's were fanatics mate,"



Just not true, at least not for most of them neither for Germans nor even for the bulk of Nazi party members.

When Reschke's squadron surrendered the British officer was more sensible, he told them he regarded them as honourable foes, asked them to stay around on their own recogniscence (ie they weren't locked up). Most were released to their families unusually quickly.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2012)

Hello
I read what Brown writes in AE Quartely 1, the reason why he compared 152H-1 to Spit PR 19 was simpley "since I had done quite a lot of high altitude flying in the pressurised Spitfire XIX on clear air turbulence investigation..."


Juha


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 29, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> The Mauser MG 213 would not solve much of the weight problem for the 152 armamment?



I didn't know the Ta 152H had a weight problem with its armamanet? The MG213 and MK213 rotary guns had at least 50% to 100% more fire power than the equivalent MG 151/20 canon and MK 108 30mm canon. That would have at least allowed deletion of at least 1/3rd of the guns for a considerable weight and drag saving. In addition the tendancy of 'reciprocting' guns to jam under high G would also have been eliminated in the rotary guns: that was another intention of the specification, a vast improvement in reliabillity under combat contitions. The MG 213 20mm with 1000m/s also had a much higher muzzle velocity than the standard Luftwaffe MG 151/20 though the MK 213C fired the standard 30mm ammunition. The rotary guns also had the abillity to draw from long ammunition magazines; which likely would have made them ideal in cutting down ammunition handling.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 29, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> Because of load lifting ability. and the fact that a plane _DOES NOT_ have to be a great dogfighter in order to be a ground attack machine. Few strafing runs, rocket firings or bomb drops were done in 4-6 G turns. AS long as the plane responded to the controls in a predictable fashion and perhaps more importantly, had decent aileron response at high speed that may be all that was needed.
> 
> All the aileron (or roll response) charts at at indicated airspeeds, which is darn close to actual speed at sea level. Trying to do a ground attack run at 350mph (if the plane can go that fast) with severely degraded aileron response is going to difficult no matter how well the plane turns _ONCE_ it has banked.



It's worth quoting Reschke's impression of the fight becaus he refers to something you refered to, he said he had plenty of controllabillity remaining.


WILLI RESCHKE's version, from his book "Jagdgeschwader 301/302 "Wild Sau" - In Defense of the Reich with the Bf 109, Fw 190 and Ta 152":


"Attacks by enemy fighter-bombers became more frequent in the areas around the airfields, and Tempests were seen more frequently. From Neustadt-Glewe we could see them hanging in the air like hawks, ready to swoop down on anything that moved. During the late afternoon hours on 14 April 1945 two of these aircraft were seen attacking the railway line from Ludwigslust to Schwerin, which passed just a few kilometers from the airfield. Immediately three Ta 152's took off flown by Oberstleutnant Auffhammer, Oberfeldwebel Sattler and Oberfelwebel Reschke.

As our takeoff was in the same general diretion as the railway line, we reached the Tempests' attack area shortly after takeoff. I was flying as number three in the formation, and as we reached the area where the Tempests were I saw Sattler's Ta 152 go down for no apparent reason. Now it was two against two, and the low-level battle began.

The Termpest was known to be a very fast aircraft, with which the English had been able to catch and shoot down the V-1. In this engagement, however, speed played a less important role: at low level an aircraft's maneuverability was more important. As I approached, my opponent pulled up from a low-level attack and I attacked from out of a left-hand turn.

Both pilots realized that this was a fight to the finish, and from the outset both used every tactical and piloting ploy in an attempt to gain an advantage. At that height neither could afford to make a mistake, and for the first time I was able to see what the Ta 152 could really do.

*Twisting and turning, never more than fifty meters above the ground, I closed the range on the Tempest. At no time did I get the feeling that my machine had reached the limit of it's performance.* The Tempest pilot quite understandably had to undertake risky maneuvers to aviod a fatal burst from my guns. As my Ta 152 closed in on the Tempest, *I could see that it was on the verge of rolling the other way: an indication that it could not turn any tighter.* The first burst from my guns struck the Tempest in the rear fuselage and tail. The Tempest pilot reacted by immediately flicking his aircraft into a right-hand turn, which increased my advantage even further. There was no escape for the Tempest now. I pressed the firing button once again, but my guns remained silent. Recharging them did no good: my guns refused to fire even a single shot. I can't remember whom and what I cursed at that moment. Luckily the Tempest pilot was unaware of my bad luck, for he had already had a sample. He continued to twist and turn, and I positioned my Ta 152 so that he always had a view of my machine's belly. Then came the moment when the Tempest went into a high-speed stall: it rolled left and crashed into a wood. This combat was certainly unique, having been played out at heights which were often just ten meters above the trees and rooftops. *Throughout I never had the feeling that my Ta 152 had reached its performance limit, instead it reacted to the slightest control input, even though we were practically at ground level.* Oberstleutnant Auffhammer *also gained the upper hand against his Tempest*, but in the end the enemy succeeded in escaping to the west. As the combat had taken place just a few kilometers from the airfield, in the late afternoon we drove out to the scene and discovered that Oberfeldwebel Sattler's Ta 152 and my Tempest had crashed within 500 meters of each other. The treetops had absorbed some of the force of the crash and the Tempest looked like it had made a forced landing. The damage inflicted by my cannon shells was clearly visible on the tail and rear fuselage and the pilot was still strapped in his cockpit. It turned out that he was a New Zealander, Warrant Officer O.J. Mitchell of No.486 Squadron, Royal Air Force. The next day the two fallen pilots were buried with military honors at Neustadt-Glewe cemetary.

For a long time that evening the crash of Oberfeldwebel Sattler occupied the minds of the pilots and the many witnesses who had observed the combat from the airfield. The engagement had not even begun when Sattler went down, as both Tempest pilots were still busy with their low-level attacks on the railway line and incapable of posing any threat to the Ta-152's. Moreover he was too experienced a fox to place himself in a disadvantageous position in such a situation. We could not find an explanation for his crash, which will remain a mystery forever. This was the third crash of a Ta 152, and all were unexplained." 



The Crash of Sattlers Ta 152H was witnessed from the ground and he was simply not seen to recover from a dive. The Ta 152 had a reputation for its rudders seizing mechanically which required a few kicks to release. It may have simply been a mechanical failure.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 29, 2012)

Juha said:


> Now Mitchell was Reschke's 25th kill and he had been 10 month in a front line unit, and because of the history of JG 301s had got instrument flying training, so he had got more flight time than a normal LW fighter pilot during his training, Mitschell was a newcomer.
> 
> As I wrote earlier the two other Tempest pilots participating the combat claimed in their combat reports that they out-turned their opponents.
> 
> Juha



What puts the lie to that is the fact that Rescke was able to turn inside the Tempest, get his guns on it, and then continue to close and get his guns on it again. W.O. Mitchells Tempest stalled in a turn and then spun into the ground while Reschke writes that he was nowhere near his aircrafts limmits and had perfect control sensitivity.

What other Tempest pilots? There were non engaged by the Ta 152's. Those pilots were smoking an early form of weed are engaged Me 109's or FW 190's.


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> What puts the lie to that is the fact that Rescke was able to turn inside the Tempest, get his guns on it, and then continue to close and get his guns on it again. W.O. Mitchells Tempest stalled in a turn and then spun into the ground while Reschke writes that he was nowhere near his aircrafts limmits and had perfect control sensitivity.
> 
> What other Tempest pilots? There were non engaged by the Ta 152's. Those pilots were smoking an early form of weed are engaged Me 109's or FW 190's.



Short was Mitchell's element leader, now he identified the attackers as 109s, and the plane which shot down Mitchell as 109E, so either they were 109s and Mitchell was shot down by a 109 or they were 152s. Short claimed that he outturned the othet German plane and claimed it as damaged. Shaw was the number 2 of the 4 plane Tempest formation ie the wingman of the formation leader W/C Brooker, and he claimed a lonely 190 at right time and at right place, according to him "a strike just forward of the cockpit." and both used gun camera so they had something on the film on the combats.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Apr 29, 2012)

Have you read this Siegfried?

Ludwigslust aerial combat


----------



## cimmex (Apr 29, 2012)

Juha said:


> Short was Mitchell's element leader, now he identified the attackers as 109s, and the plane which shot down Mitchell as 109*E*,
> 
> Juha



In 1945 a Bf109E in combat with Tempest?
Sorry Juha, sometimes your posts are rather funny...
Regards 
Cimmex


----------



## Kryten (Apr 29, 2012)

think you need to re read that Cimmex, the pilots combat report identified thier attackers as BF109, misidentification is a regular occurance, that the guy reported them as 109E should give you an idea how clued up these guys were on the finer details of aircraft recognition!


----------



## Kryten (Apr 29, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> What puts the lie to that is the fact that Rescke was able to turn inside the Tempest, get his guns on it, and then continue to close and get his guns on it again. W.O. Mitchells Tempest stalled in a turn and then spun into the ground while Reschke writes that he was nowhere near his aircrafts limmits and had perfect control sensitivity.
> 
> What other Tempest pilots? There were non engaged by the Ta 152's. Those pilots were smoking an early form of weed are engaged Me 109's or FW 190's.



that would be the other Tempest pair that shot down sattler, FW190 claimed same time, place and altitude!
sattler couldnt pull out because he had been shot down!


----------



## Juha (Apr 29, 2012)

cimmex said:


> In 1945 a Bf109E in combat with Tempest?
> Sorry Juha, sometimes your posts are rather funny...
> Regards
> Cimmex



Nix
only sometimes pilots' a/c recognizations were funny. Certainly it wasn't 109E, but as He 113s in British combat reports or Me 109s seen by USN pilots at Midway in June 42 misidentifications were not so rare.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Apr 29, 2012)

I would not think it wouod make a bit of difference.At the end of the war there were exactly two Ta 152C's operational and they have only verified two Fw 190D-13's out of the approximately 17 supposed built as ever having gotten operational.

So, you are looking at a choice among four aircraft that are reasonably close in performance and each was exactly as fit as the other to make an impact on the war; they had none. So you are looking at four pretty good aircraft that made no difference to Germany or the Allies in real life. Might as well pick the one that has the lowest-time engine. It might last longer than the others before it needed the non-existent spare parts.

On the more technical side, I think they were almost identical in capability with the D-13 having the MG 151/20 firing through the prop hub. I'd probably take the centerline armament as the deciding factor and pick the one with the lower-time engine and least damage from normal wear and tear.


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 29, 2012)

Milosh said:


> Have you read this Siegfried?
> 
> Ludwigslust aerial combat



That guy looses his credibillity when he starts of by stating absolutes such as "links that to the reasons why Ta152 is likely the most overrated and overhyped airplane ever."


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 29, 2012)

Kryten said:


> think you need to re read that Cimmex, the pilots combat report identified thier attackers as BF109, misidentification is a regular occurance, that the guy reported them as 109E should give you an idea how clued up these guys were on the finer details of aircraft recognition!



They claim confiromation in cine camera and that doesn't show Ta 152H. The Ta 152H has rather distinct features, you know like the wings.


----------



## GregP (Apr 29, 2012)

Look at all the hype the Ta-152 gets with a combat record of anywheere from 7 kills and 4 losses to 10 kills and two losses.

If seems like a pretty good aircraft design, and the circumstances of its employment coupled with construction by slave labor and the attending sabotage may explain the so-so combat record, but calling it the best ever with that combat record is definitely overhyped by almost any definition of the word, woulldn't you say?

The only genuine Ta-152 left (in the U.S.A.) is not flyable, so maybe we'll never know. If it were to be made flyable, I think the supply of Jumo 213E engines is so limited it would never even do a top speed run.


----------



## Juha (Apr 30, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> They claim confiromation in cine camera and that doesn't show Ta 152H. The Ta 152H has rather distinct features, you know like the wings.


 
Hello Siegfied
have you seen the film, or what is source of your claim? 

BTW still waiting the source of your claim that "Brown also writes that the PR XIX latter known as the PR.19 was less manouverable above 25,000ft" than Ta 152H-1.

Juha


----------



## cimmex (Apr 30, 2012)

Kryten said:


> think you need to re read that Cimmex, the pilots combat report identified thier attackers as BF109, misidentification is a regular occurance, that the guy reported them as 109E should give you an idea how clued up these guys were on the finer details of aircraft recognition!



Do you really believe that an allied fighter pilot in 1945 was not trained which kind of enemy models he could meet during his sorties and how to fight against. 
BTW I don’t trust web sites like(“Ludwigslust aerial combat”) with such kind of Yellow press headlines at all, do you?
Regards 
Cimmex


----------



## Kryten (Apr 30, 2012)

Siegfried said:


> They claim confiromation in cine camera and that doesn't show Ta 152H. The Ta 152H has rather distinct features, you know like the wings.



the guys UNDER ATTACK identified the aircraft as 109's, or is that simply a mistype by the pilot in his report, 109 instead of 190?, simple case of misidentification or are you saying they werent attacked by the 152?

the pair that shot down sattler identified it as a 190, bearing in mind no allied pilots had seen a ta152, how would you expect them to identify it correctly anyway?
and what relevance is any of this, seeing as the time and location of the encounters are verified by both sides!


----------



## Kryten (Apr 30, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Do you really believe that an allied fighter pilot in 1945 was not trained which kind of enemy models he could meet during his sorties and how to fight against.
> BTW I don’t trust web sites like(“Ludwigslust aerial combat”) with such kind of Yellow press headlines at all, do you?
> Regards
> Cimmex



I believe making an error such as 109 instead of 190 in a report that noone liked typing out anyway is very believeble!


----------



## cimmex (Apr 30, 2012)

There was mentioned Me 109E, and there was no E-version of the 190. So I don’t think the pilot made such a typo. Most likely is that this combat report never exists in that way.
Regards 
Cimmex


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 30, 2012)

cimmex said:


> In 1945 a Bf109E in combat with Tempest?
> Sorry Juha, sometimes your posts are rather funny...
> Regards
> Cimmex



I do not doubt there was some 109E flying in 1945. Probably stored that returned to service.


----------



## cimmex (Apr 30, 2012)

Sure there were some 109E left, in flying schools. But a 1940 plane in combat with tempests, lol, next comes “with Galland at the controls.”
Cimmex


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 30, 2012)

I forgot the flying schools. The Russians BTW, still had some frontline squadrons with I-16s in 1945!

I already read in somewhere a story from a pilot that fought in a 109E in 1945, to let the less experience others fly better versions. If it's truth, perhaps was an instrutor. By the wars end there was not much fuel left to train pilots anyway. 

About the performance differences, ah, the 109E was similar to the Zeros and Oscars the Japanese were still flying in 1945. Obsolete but still capable capable of surprises if well flown.


----------



## Juha (May 1, 2012)

cimmex said:


> Do you really believe that an allied fighter pilot in 1945 was not trained which kind of enemy models he could meet during his sorties and how to fight against.



If so, why at least in almost all AFs there were cases of own goals, after all confusing between 109 and 190/152 was rather harmless, much less fatal than confusing between Spit and 109 or between Hampden and Do 17. All that happened.



cimmex said:


> BTW I don’t trust web sites like(“Ludwigslust aerial combat”) with such kind of Yellow press headlines at all, do you?
> Regards
> Cimmex



Now all those reconstructions should be handled carefully but the writer of that article had put links there, so one can check his facts, for ex the combat reports. But if you are a true believer, who would not like to check the facts which might be contrary to your believes, its not my problem.

Juha


----------



## Juha (May 1, 2012)

cimmex said:


> There was mentioned Me 109E, and there was no E-version of the 190. So I don’t think the pilot made such a typo. Most likely is that this combat report never exists in that way.
> Regards
> Cimmex



It was not in the combat report in that way, Mitchell's elementary leader Short reported them as Me 109s, why they are 109Es in Shores' and Thomas' 2nd Tactical AF Vol 3, who knowns maybe Me 109 E of Ludwiglust had trasferred in some stage to Me 109E E of L...

The writer of the article gives a link to the reports, but if you are too lazy, look the attachment, it is from Mike Williams' site, to where the link also is.


----------



## Milosh (May 1, 2012)

Jenisch said:


> I forgot the flying schools. The Russians BTW, still had some frontline squadrons with I-16s in 1945!



What units would these be.


----------



## Kryten (May 1, 2012)

Juha said:


> It was not in the combat report in that way, Mitchell's elementary leader Short reported them as Me 109s, why they are 109Es in Shores' and Thomas' 2nd Tactical AF Vol 3, who knowns maybe Me 109 E of Ludwiglust had trasferred in some stage to Me 109E E of L...
> 
> The writer of the article gives a link to the reports, but if you are too lazy, look the attachment, it is from Mike Williams' site, to where the link also is.




Printing error then, 
interesting to compare the combat from both perspectives, a lot matches up but as is always the case the details vary!


----------

