# Focke Wulf Ta 152H.



## GT (Mar 8, 2005)

Cancelled.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

GT,

MW50 is a low to medium (6-7km) altitude boost juice. GM1 is used at altitudes above that of MW50.

Also I have been told, on this board, that the 'boost juices' were only good for climbing and not top speed.

Known H a/c WNr are 150001 to 150040, 150167, 168, 169. The first 20 are H-0 a/c 

When III./JG301 gave up its 152Hs, by order, in mid March to Stab JG301, it was supposed to get A-9 a/c.

Who is this Jagdflieger H D. Fritzsche? Is he a new find, for Harmann in his book does not list him as a 152 pilot.


----------



## GT (Mar 8, 2005)

Update.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

Sorry GT, I put Nowarra in the same class as Green.

What pg, for I have that book.

I know what MW does. Did you know there was another system that injected fuel for the same result?


----------



## GT (Mar 8, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

GT look at my answer on the other TA 152 trhead. Fritzche is full of bull as NO Ta flew airfield defence for Me 262's. Heinz book is dead beat and I owned it at one time and gave it away............sorry man


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

additional notation. In April of 45 III./JG 301 had 0 Ta 152's, they had all gone over to Geschwader Stab which had quite a few H's and some C machines. III. gruppe had the heavy Sturm A-8 and the lighter A-9 in their line-up


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

And again this is why I say that one can not solely base there knoledge off of what people say and what they say they know because a lot of it is myth and bull.


----------



## GT (Mar 8, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Erich (Mar 8, 2005)

was he a ground mechanic ? good question but again what unit would they have defended ?..........and I mean what 262 unit . None of them were in close proximity as far as I know to JG 301.

Heinz could of been totally bluffed out by the mechanic as has happened in the past. The mechanics knew the a/c so well and even the missions better than some of the pilots. Will do a further search in my data base on this chap and see what comes up. he may have flown early altitude flights with the bird as familiarity which is what many of the III./JG 301 pilots did before they entered combat and in fact few III gruppe pilots flew on operational missions with the Ta.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

Thats a great colour photo up there! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

GT said:


> Who was Fritzche then if he was is full of bull when he spoke to Nowarra?
> 
> Regards
> GT



Well I did a search for him and came up with nothing.


----------



## GT (Mar 9, 2005)

Update.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

GT,

Nowarra's 190 book has many errors, just like Green's books have. An example of Nowarra's is on pg 152 where he says the bombs are SC50s when they are in fact ZC50 bombs. It is not a typing error as he says it again in another photo caption.

I keep it around as it is filled with interesting photos and info but I always double check what he says. Much has come to light since he was published. Just don't take what he says as gospel.


----------



## GT (Mar 9, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

ah Pierre Closterman and another pilot with fantaies. Rudi Wurff who was a pilot with several victories nearly shot Pierre out of the skies as he knocked off Pierre's wingman. Rudi made it through the war and was never shot down. Pierre also claims that Rudi alone shot down 4 Temepests in one action.........ah no

Pierre also gets coverage in our book towards the end as he and his wingman were flying over northern Germany and again Pierre loses another wingman but not to 2cm flak in which he thought but to another very fast German machine. It will be covered in detail in our book


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

boy my spelling sucks...............  

Doras were not used in 1/2 the staffels as it was still a new bird. I do beleive I gave the units in another thread that operated the Fw 190D.

JG 2 was completely outfitted with them, IV./JG 26 and several other staffeln of JG 26 had them. 5-7th staffels in JG 301. Stab of JG 4. IV./JG 3 stab and one staffel of IV./JG 3 also equipped. 5-6 in the JV 44 Galland circus.

Still the unknown of JG 301 clims then that possibly Doras were used for airfield defence. Can tell you he never would of know about the JV 44 puny unit till much later after the war. Ah memories ow they falter after so many years.

Rudi Wurff shot down Clostermann's wingman on 21 April 1945 as his 3rd and last victory.

Fritzschke if he was a pilot in JG 301 scored a big fat 0, as he is not listed. As I said earlier the Ta's flew maybe 1-2 escort missions for the II./JG 301 Doras, NO Me 262 flights. Personally I don't think this man existed and I know for fact that Clostermann is a great story teller. In many historical circles the man is noted as such.

Erich ♪


----------



## GT (Mar 9, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

have no clue. If indeed the pic represents the a/c he shot down it is not a JG 301 a/c as it would of had a yellow/red rumpfband by the tail

JG 6 flew some Doras and they were not well marked. The problem with clostermanns books is that his operations are so fouled up none can tell what is true or not. given his fantasy about nailing a German port close to wars end and blasiting numerous floatplanes is just palin ridiculous as on the given date and with the proper research there were no float planes in the area. all had been previously sent to the Ost front for evacuation and in support of the last defensive battles there.....


----------



## GT (Mar 9, 2005)

Update.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 9, 2005)

The Dora in the pic is WNr 212 133.


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

In my opinion and I am not alone, Clostermann may have had 13 kills


----------



## GT (Mar 9, 2005)

Update.


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

sorry but Clostermanns claims some of them are not confirmed with German sosurces....... the Ju 290 for example. 
The He 162 was never shot down in combat and it is extremely doubtful any JG 1 pilot shot down any Allied fighter in one. I have spoken with JG 1 vets and have both JG 1 histories. Schmdit's kill is still not confirmed by any sources..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Well again I can not verfiy any of those claims either but here is some stuff that I found.



> The He-162 finally saw combat in mid-April. On April 19, a captured Royal Air Force fighter pilot informed his Germans interrogators that he had been shot down by a jet fighter matching the description of a He 162. The Heinkel and its pilot were lost as well, shot down by a RAF Hawker Tempest while on the landing approach. Though still in training, from mid-April I/JG-1 had scored a number of kills, but had also lost thirteen He 162s and ten pilots. Ten of the aircraft losses were due to various technical malfunctions, such as engine flameouts and sporadic structural failures, and just two were shot down.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Clostermann


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

the story is not verified by the two JG 1 authors who are quite well known. It was considered but no confirmed. I would not beleive anything from clostermanns mouth. I see his bogus ground calims of ailplanes shot up in the 2nd taf book as fact in which it was not. this is news from a very old book prodcued before Clostermann did his two own books. Of course they are considered as fact as he put in the calims aand since he was a prime French ace and propaganda tool it is climed as such. interesting when we interviewed Pierre's private biographere, what he had to say about the kill confirmatations. he couldn't even cross check them.........like I said climing that Rudi shot down 3-4 Tempests and the 2cm flak incident which never happened.

do I sound opinionated or what ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

No sounds fine to me, hes a French Pilot anyhow (who cares that he flew for the RAF)


----------



## Erich (Mar 9, 2005)

There were excellent French pilots including Closterman flying Tempests for the RAF; my personal beliefs is that Pierre was a good story teller.

Late war claims as we all have admitted whether Allied or German are hard to come by. many of 44 and 45 for the Germans have been lost inclusion of claims and losses. In fact it was in the fall of 44 when the Luftwaffe stopped the claims process system and officially awarding those claims.......so how do we know for sure one way or the other ?

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2005)

Pretty much all pilots not matter who they fly for tell stories though, it comes with the territory.


----------



## GT (Mar 10, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2005)

I am not saying that it is not true or that they are not confirmed. I am just posting what I have over the info.


----------



## GT (Mar 11, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

I am sure the numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed was greater though, but still damn 120,000 but then again a lot of those were bombers which were easier then fighters.


----------



## Erich (Mar 11, 2005)

there really is no confirmed numbers not even counting the thousands from official documentation at Freiburg. As I said over and over again here on this board in the fall of 1944 the Luftwaffe quit counting and officially giving claims for pilot victories for day and night fighters. We will never ever get a firm count, just a theory of possibly how many.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2005)

How many do you think it was, just in theory?


----------



## GT (Mar 12, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

Yeah but how many was that.


----------



## GT (Mar 12, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2005)

No I was wondering the amount of Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed, sorry if I did not make myself clear. I have not really been able to find anything on this topic.


----------



## GT (Mar 13, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

Do you have any numbers for the Luftwaffe as a whole?


----------



## GT (Mar 13, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2005)

The figures I have are from www.feldgrau.com and they are 165,014 Killed in Action, 155,450 Missing in Action, and 192,594 Wounded in Action. The wounded is only figured up through 31 Dec. 1944. The total number of casualties from 1939 to 1945 for the Luftwaffe was 485,000+. Now I dont know if these figures are correct though.
If anyone has the figures what I am really looking for is the number of Luftwaffe aircraft shot down.


----------



## GT (Mar 14, 2005)

Update.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2005)

Yeah that is about the numbers I was able to dig up.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> GT,
> 
> MW50 is a low to medium (6-7km) altitude boost juice. GM1 is used at altitudes above that of MW50.
> 
> Also I have been told, on this board, that the 'boost juices' were only good for climbing and not top speed.



Umm, not quite.

MW50 could be used any time it was needed. Its primary function was to cool the cylinder and prevent detonation.

GM1, i.e. Nitros-Oxide injection, could only be used when load conditions were right. The engine had to be at full throttle, the prop pitch had to be set proprerly, AND IT COULD NOT BE USED W/O MW50 (I read this just recently, I'll post the source if I can locate it).

If you've ever had a vehicle with NO2 injection you understand how carefully it must be used. It must be mixed into the air-fuel mixture in the proper proportions, too much will cause very late burning fuel. You also have to be very careful about over-revving the engine. It is used for hard acceleration (racing) or sustained hill climbing (RV's), but it is not genrally useful for maintaining high speeds. This is not to say it could not be used for such under very specific conditions such as trying to set an air-speed record, but for combat flying it is highly unlikely. The pilot is far too likely to over-rev and blow the engine.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

MW50 was of no use above the engine's rated altitude since the boost was decreasing.

GM1 was for use above the MW50's use altitude. The 109E-7, iirc, had a restiction that said not to engage GM1 below 6km. I am not at home so can't check.

You had better find that source, for afaik they were not be used together.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> MW50 was of no use above the engine's rated altitude since the boost was decreasing.
> 
> GM1 was for use above the MW50's use altitude. The 109E-7, iirc, had a restiction that said not to engage GM1 below 6km. I am not at home so can't check.
> 
> You had better find that source, for afaik they were not be used together.



When using GM1, the boost does not matter, the engine develops more power and needs more cooling. The whole point of MW50 is to cool the cylinder, which is not normally needed when the boost level drops, but when you add in the Nitros injection you again need the cooling.

I'm sure I'll locate the info again soon. Been reading a lot recently, I have a trove of new docs to study. It may be in the TA-152H manual, which I used translation software to translate what appeared to be interesting sections - if so we should find out as soon as delcyros is done with his translation. I'm hesitant to keep searching until that translation is complete.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

I am not really up to date on this but everything that I have read says that they are not to be used together. The MW50 was for use at lower altitudes and the GM-1 was for use at higher alltitudes.

Here is what it says on a site about the Ta-152:



> Engine: Junkers Jumo 213E-1 twelve-cylinder liquid-cooled engine rated at 1750 hp for takeoff (2050 hp with MW 50 boost) and 1320 hp at 32,800 feet (1740 feet with GM 1 boost). Maximum speed: 332 mph at sea level (350 mph with MW 50 boost), 465 mph at 29,530 feet with MW 50 boost, 472 mph at 41,010 feet with GM 1 boost. Service ceiling was 48,550 feet with GM 1 boost. Initial climb rate was 3445 feet/minute with MW 50 boost. Weights were 8642 pounds empty, 10,472 pounds normal loaded, 11,502 pounds maximum. Wingspan 47 feet 41/2 inches, length 35 feet 1 2/3 inches, height 11 feet 0 1/4 inches, wing area 250.8 square feet.
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html





> Series production orders for the Ta 152C had been placed in October 1944, the delays being a result of the Luftwaffe still continuing to support the Jumo 213 over the DB 603 for the Ta 152 as late as the autumn of 1944. The Ta 152C with the lighter DB 603 engine was otherwise identical to the Ta 152B. It was considered primarily as a Zerstorer. The MW 50 boost installation for the enhancement of low-altitude performance was standard.
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

I used to think so too. But recently I read that GM1 use was prohibited without MW50. Lets wait till delcyros finishes the translation (or you might scan for it ???), it may be in the TA152 manual.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

I will look for it. If it had to be used with the MW50 then it is new to me.


----------



## Erich (Mar 16, 2005)

I./JG 3 used the MW 50 boost in high altitude Bf 109G-6/AS in April and May of 44 as well as JG 1. this was to compete with P-51's at over 32,000 feet. Our staffel 10.(N)/JG 300 also flew the same 109G-6/AS with the same two stage supercharger and thinned oil to take on the Mossies of the LSNF attacking by different routes to Berlin in the fall of 1944. MW 50 was definately used at high altitude !

v/r E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

I thought it was the other way around.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

If you think about it, it makes sense. The NO2 allows more fuel to be utilized, providing oxygen in the post flash phase of combustion. The fuel burn from the spark plug flash heats the NO2 and splits the molecule releasing the O2 to allow unburned fuel to burn. More fuel burning means more heat in the cylinder, which means there is a need for additional cooling, which is the primary function of the MW50.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2005)

Yeah sounds right.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

Erich, what was the rated altitude of the AS engine?


RG, pg 71 of the Harmann 152 book does not mention any use of the 2 together. Specifically saying, MW50 below the engine's rated altitude and GM1 above the engine's rated altitude (max boost altitude).

MW50, or as the Allies called it ADI, cooled the intake charge which stopped pre-ignition thus keeping the combustion chamber temp down.

Where did the GM1 go in the 109, for the MW tank was behind the pilot?


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Erich, what was the rated altitude of the AS engine?
> 
> 
> RG, pg 71 of the Harmann 152 book does not mention any use of the 2 together. Specifically saying, MW50 below the engine's rated altitude and GM1 above the engine's rated altitude (max boost altitude).
> ...



I've seen that statment too. I'll have to find the info. I know I saw it, but I seem to have failed to create a link to it with a special name so I can find it. Like I said above, I have lots of docs I've been investigating recently (the TA manual is one example), so it's hard to remember exactly where I saw it. I was surprised when I saw that GM1 needed MW50 to be used, but I know that's what it said.

As for the NO2 tank, I'm not sure where it went on the K, but it's a relatively small tank so it could go lots of places. Typically NO2 injection occures after the air and fuel are mixed, at the top of the intake manifold.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

I think you, or whomever made the statement, read it wrong. NO2 also acted as an anti-detonant. It was in a liquid form until released into the intake. In the G-6, a full GM system weighed 434lb. The fill point was the same for MW and GM.

Maybe the 109 expert, Dalton, will enlighten us?


----------



## Erich (Mar 16, 2005)

The G-6/AS did not have both though just to make it clear. Not sure what the engine ceiling height was but in the case of nf operations always the 109 was in hot pursuit of the Mossies by diving on them so they did have an altitude advantage on operations.

to tell you the truth I have not heard that the Ta 152H had the GM-1 boost system installed only the MW 50

E


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> I think you, or whomever made the statement, read it wrong. NO2 also acted as an anti-detonant. It was in a liquid form until released into the intake. In the G-6, a full GM system weighed 434lb. The fill point was the same for MW and GM.
> 
> Maybe the 109 expert, Dalton, will enlighten us?



Nitrous does provide some cooling and anti-knock benifits, but it is easy to see how this would not be enough since it was taking the engine back up over the normal power levels. Also, radiators are inefficient at high altitude as there is very little air flowing through them relative to the power outputs involved.

I seriously doubt the MW50 and GM1 used the same "fill point", as normally water is injected into the airstream either with the fuel or before the fuel, where NO2 is injected after the air. But it is possible, there would be no reason the two could not be mixed and use the same hole.

PS: I'm pretty sure the source is a Luftwaffe or Messershmitt document. I have a bunch of them, but unfortunately you cannot search on images of documents, which makes finding this specific info... difficult.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## delcyros (Mar 16, 2005)

I have completed 7 of 16 pages. After a short look around, I found no instructions for the use of GM-1 or MW-50 devices (for Ta-152 H-0), sorry.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 16, 2005)

On the G-6, it was one or the other, not both. The fill point for the tank, which was mounted behind the fuel tank, used the same fill point on the starboard side with the correct decal applied for which 'boost juice' was was being used.


----------



## Erich (Mar 17, 2005)

KK wasn't the 109G with the GM-1 given a U designation ? can't remember


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 17, 2005)

Erich said:


> KK wasn't the 109G with the GM-1 given a U designation ? can't remember



Yes, the reference I have says /U2 but there is some confussion on the number so that might not be correct.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2005)

In my book Messerschmitt Me-109 Volume II from 1942-1945I have found this in it: 
The Bf-109G-1/R2, G-2/R2, G-3/U2, G-6/U2, G-5/R2 (G-5/U2), G-8/U-2 used the GM-1 power boost system

The Bf-109G-4/U3, G-6/U3, G-8/U3, G-10/R2, G-10/U4 used the MW-50 system. 

However no where in the book does it say that they used both systems. The Bf-109 did not.


----------



## Erich (Mar 18, 2005)

for the G-10 the MW 50 was an automatic installation. some guys have posed that there was a G-10/AS but this is not the case.

Erich


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

What I've found interesting as I've researched this is that MW50 was considered to be rather heavy but worth it - GM1 was considered to be very heavy (475 lbs) and of questionable worth.

Interestingly, N2O injection was also used on the Mosquito.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 19, 2005)

Erich said:


> for the G-10 the MW 50 was an automatic installation. some guys have posed that there was a G-10/AS but this is not the case.
> 
> Erich



The only G varients that were AS I believe were the G-6AS and the G-14AS.

Something that I found interesting was that there were F varients (F-2Z, F-4Z that used the GM-1.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 20, 2005)

After a significant amout of research into the topic, I have discovered that the MW-50 and GM-1 systems did not "share the same hole". This is evidently traceable to an erronous diagram in a book.

MW-50 is actually 50% methenol, 49% water, and 1% top oil (to keep the MW-50 system pumps lubricated). It is injected prior to the blower.

GM-1 (Nitrous-oxide) is injected after the blower.

Evidently only certain Jumo engine installations used both. Also both systems were kind of heavy. Both together (plus water) adds up to about 800 lbs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 20, 2005)

There was also a system that injected fuel instead of MW50. There was also MW30.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2005)

Well I will see what I can find out about it. There is a section covering the topic in the Bf-109K-4 manual that I am translating right now.


----------

