# Ta152-H1 uber-fighter?



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2005)

This is a reply to Erich comment "Nothing could touch the Ta 152H-1..." and various other comments concering the TA-152.

The Ta-152 was made to intercept the B-29 at altitudes above 30,000 feet. German intelligence anticipated the B-29 would be used against Germany starting in late 1944. It was not made to dogfight the P-51, though it was certainly capable of doing so, at least at high altitudes.

However, I'd point out that it was not the "super fighter" many have made it out to be. Let's compare it to the P-51...

*Focke-Wulf Ta 152-H1 Specifications:*
*Crew:* One 
*Powerplant:* Junkers Jumo 213E-1 12-cylinder, liquid-cooled engine rated at 1,750hp at take-off ( 2,050hp with MW 50 ) and 1,320hp at 32,800ft. (1,740hp with GM 1)
*Armament:* 1 x 30mm Mk108 cannon mounted in the engine with 90 rounds, 2 x 20mm MG151/20 cannon mounted in the wign roots with 175 rpg.
*Gunsight: Revi 16b reflector sight
Max. Speed: 332 mph @ sea level (350 mph with MW 50), 465 mph @ 29,530 feet (with MW 50), 472mph @ 41,010 feet (with GM 1)
Cruising Speed: 311 mph cruising speed at 22,965ft. 
Range: 755 miles to 1,250 miles depending on speed and external tankage
Fuel Capacity - internal 260.6 gallons external: 158.5 gallons
Climb - initial 3445 fpm with MW 50 injection Time to Altitude: ? 
Ceiling: 48,550ft. with GM 1 injection 
Dimensions - wingspan: 47 feet 4.5 inches length: 35 feet 1.66 inches height: 11 feet 0.25 inches wing area: 250.8 square feet 
Weights: 8,642 lbs empty, 10,472 lbs operational, 11,502 lbs max. 
Operational Wingloading: 41.75 lbs/square foot
Number deployed: exact figure unknown but 20 pre-production H0's and 34 production H1's seem to be a generous estimate.

Crew: One
Powerplant: Packard Merlin V-1650-7 V-12 liquid-cooled engine producing 1695 hp for takeoff, 1790 hp at critical altitude (WEP).
Armament: 2 x .50 M2 BMG's with 400 rpg and 4 x .50 BMG's with 270 rpg mounted in the wings (alternatively 4 x .50 M2 BMG's with 400 rpg)
Gunsight: K-14 lead computing gunsight.
Max. Speed: USAAF published - 395 mph at 5000 feet, 416 mph at 10,000 feet, 424 mph at 20,000 feet, 443 mph at 25,000 feet, 438 mph at 30,000 feet. NAA test: 449 mph at 26,600 feet.
Cruising Speed: 275-395 mph (1)
Range: 1180 miles at 275 mph, 950 miles at 395 mph (@ 20000 feet), 2440 miles with drop tanks (2 x 110 gallon) at 249 mph.(1)
Fuel Capacity - internal: 269 gallons external: 2 x 110 gallons 
Climb - initial: 3475 fpm Time to Altitude: 10,000 feet in 3.3 mins, 20,000 feet in 7.2 mins.
Cieling: 41,900 feet
Dimensions - wingspan: 37 feet 0.25 inches length 32 feet 3 inches height: 8 feet 8 inches wing area: 233 square feet
Weights: 7125 lbs empty, 10100 lbs operational, 12100 lbs max.
Operational Wingloading: 43.2 lbs/square foot
Number Deployed: about 10,000 including P-51K (which was identical except for alternate prop manufacturer)

To me this looks like a pretty even matchup, with the P-51D having the edge below about 20000 feet and the Ta152 having the edge above about 25000 feet.

But I'm not convinced the Ta was really that good a handling plane for normal dogfighting. It has only slightly better wingloading than the P-51, but in high speed combat lower wing loading is not really an advantage. The Ta's roll performance was nothing like that of the earlier FW190's, and the very long wings would have created excessive drag at high speeds (not so critical at higher altitudes).

The thing that has to be remembered about the Ta152 is that it was designed to fight at very high altitudes. In particular, it was designed to stall fight. The Ta152 wing is not only uniquie in its huge span, but also in that it is twisted, the wing near the root has more angle of attack than the near the wing tip. The reason for doing this was so when stalling out in a climb, as the plane fell through the stall, part of the airfoil would still be effective (air flowing over the ailerons), allowing roll control through more of the stall manuver. This would allow a Ta152 pilot to climb hard and then flip over and effectively attack an enemy that was chasing it, presumably as it was also nearing stall and had little control. Combine with the ability to engage SEP to ensure it would not be caught in such a climb, this sorta makes sense. However this assumes the enemy is unaware of the capabilities of the Ta, which would only be true for a short while had this plane been used in significant numbers. At lower altitudes, where the air is thicker, I have to wonder about this design, as it means at high speeds the wing would be fighting with itself which would have a tendancy to twist it even further and make the plane buffet as no single angle of attack can be set to minimize turbulence over the wing.

Another issue with the Ta152 is its performance figures are somewhat questionable. I don't believe actual high altitude performance of this plane was ever "tested", instead, it was estimated based upon low-medium altitude tests. If anyone has any information to the contrary, I'd love to see it!

Much of the Ta152 performance is based upon SEP (Special Emergency) power useage, which is NO2 injection, or GM1 as the German's called it. SEP power could not be flipped on and off at a whim. In order to engage SEP power the engine had to be at the right RPM and under a heavy load with the prop pitch set correctly (i.e. a steep climb with the prop set to a steep pitch). Under these conditions, SEP power could be used to prevent the engine from bogging (rpm's from falling) to sustain a climb. If engaged in level flight to try to gain acceleration, SEP would force a quick and nearly uncontrollable increase in RPM and probably blow the engine. It was probably also useable in level at very high altitudes where the engine power was already far below normal. But the point is this was not readily availble power for combat, dip the nose down with SEP engaged and the engine would be toast. I also don't think GM1 and MW50 boost could be used together as the combination would create nitric acid as a bi-product and this would quickly destroy the engine.

Also, the P-51 also had an additional source of power, cooling system generated thrust which increased with speed. This thrust amounted to about 300 HP equivalent at 25,000 feet at 400 mph, but comming out of a dive at 500 mph TAS at 20,000 feet it was worth a good 700 HP which could be turned into a very fast zoom climb. This is one of the reasons why the P-51 zoom climb is always noted as "far superior" in every comparative test. Cooling system thrust also helps the P-51 achieve its superior range.

Finally, perhaps the more appropriate Mustang to compare the Ta152H1 to is the P-51H, not the P-51D. About the same number of P-51H's were available at about the same time as the Ta152, 20 having been delivered in early Feb. 1945 and 355 by VE day in May. The P-51H had a top speed of 487 mph at ~25,000 feet, climbs at 3500 fpm w/o WEP (over 4000 fpm with WEP), and had a more effective cooling system generated thrust system. Also, it does not compare that favorably to the F4U-4 either, except above 30,000 feet. And then of course there is the F8F and the late model Spitfires...

My point is the Ta152 was a specialized aircraft, designed to dogfight at very high altitudes in a very specific way, and to attack high flying heavy bombers. It had some success in its very limited engagements near the end of WWII, but that does not tell us much because we don't really know much about the failures, and because Allied pilots had no experiance with this plane and thus were prone to make mistakes when they ecountered and fought it.

=S=

Lunatic*


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 2, 2005)

The only way to get an accurate portrayal of this fine aircraft is to look at the opinions of the men who flew them, cause their combat role was so very limited.....

Despite the fact that the Ta 152 H was intended to combat high-altitude Allied bombers, very few missions of this type were ultimately ever flown.... Despite this no Ta 152s were lost to enemy fire.... 

III Gruppe pilots of note who transferred to the Stab JG 301 were Fw. Willi Reschke, Uffz. Christoph Blum, Ritterkreuzträger Ofw. Heinz Gossow and Staffelkapitän Oblt. Hermann Stahl all of 9. Staffel, along with Sepp Sattler and Josef Keil of 10. Staffel...... 

Keil was to achieve ‘acedom’ on the type.... Former Sturmjäger Walter Loos, who had previously flown alongside Walther Dahl in the Stab JG 300 during the summer of 1944 and had achieved some thirty victories also transferred in.... In the last weeks of the war both he and Reschke were awarded the Ritterkreuz..... Given the number of Knights Cross holders flying Ta 152s at the end of the war some writers have considered the Geschwaderstab of JG 301 to be something of a crack unit.. 

Willi Reschke relates in ‘JG 301/302 Wilde Sau’ ; 

“On 23 January 1945 on orders from the OKL (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe) Jagdgruppe III./JG 301 was temporarily taken off operations and designated an Einsatzerprobungsverband, a combat test unit, re-equipping with the legendary Ta 152 – something we’d long given up hoping for…” 

In the early hours of 27 January the Gruppe’s pilots were taken by truck to the Neuhausen aircraft plant near Cottbus with orders to ferry the new Höhenjäger to Alteno...... 


“ Arriving at the airfield at Neuhausen we were confronted with our first sight of the Ta 152 H-1, which with its enormous wingspan and lengthened engine cowl hardly looked like a fighter aircraft at all........ With feelings of unease we walked around the machines drawn up in three rows (twelve aircraft in total). Technicians were on hand to answer our queries..... After a talk on the technical aspects of the machines that lasted barely 30 minutes, we took the aircraft on charge.. I got airborne at 11:08..” 

As Reschke opened up the throttle the enormous power developed by the Jumo 213 E forced the pilot back into the seat and after a roll of just a few hundred meters and at 210 kph the big fighter lifted off effortlessly..... Flap and gear retraction was smooth and with the 60cm wide blades paddling through the air the climb to 10,000 meters took just 12 minutes.... At this height the aircraft behaved impeccably..... That same afternoon the twelve aircraft were lined up on the field at Alteno..... The well known, indeed the only known photo of operational Ta 152s published was in all likelihood taken that same day.....

A report sent by Gruppenkommandeur Guth to the OKL relating to this test phase stated that the pilots of III./JG 301 were unanimous in their praise of the new fighter..... Pilots particularly enthused over the fighter’s manoeuvrability and at heights of 6,000 to 8,000 considered it hugely superior....... 

An unnamed pilot flying his second sortie in an H-0 completely outmanoeuvred a Fw 190 A-8 flown by an experienced pilot in mock combat at all heights....

Although III./JG 301 had been slated to fully re-equip with the new Ta 152 before resuming operations, there were never more than sixteen to twenty aircraft instead of the planned 35 available..... The dispersed production of the type suffered all sorts of bottlenecks against a background of impending collapse..... The Marienburg assembly plant in East Prussia was soon overrun by the Soviet’s rapid advance, as was ultimately the Cottbus facility itself...... The Soviet advance also soon forced a move from Alteno, which had found itself a front line airfield harbouring a variety of Schlacht and Jabo-Gruppen...... III./JG 301 moved to Sachau, west of Gardelegen, with the Geschwaderstab and the Doras of II./JG 301 moving to Stendal...... These factors resulted in a decision to concentrate the new machines into an enlarged Geschwaderstab as and when they became available and to transfer experienced pilots from III. Gruppe to the Stab....... This took effect from 13 March 1945.....

The first combat sortie flown by a mixed force of Ta 152 Hs and Fw 190 As of III./JG 301 had taken place on 2 March 1945...... That day a powerful 8th Air Force formation of 1,232 bombers screened by 723 fighters was dispatched to Böhlen, Magdeburg and Ruhland....... Airborne from Sachau behind Verbandsführer (formation leader) Oberleutnant Stahl, some twelve Ta 152s climbed away southwards and prepared to do battle with the Mustang escort screening the bombers heading for the Bohlen chemical plant near Leuna.... The sortie ended in disaster when the Ta 152s were engaged...... 

Willi Reschke has described the events of that day in his history of Jagdgeschwader 301; 

“We reached grid square ‘Heinrich-Caesar’ now flying at an altitude of more than 8,000 meters and closed to formate with a Gruppe of Bf 109s that were wearing yellow and red fuselage bands....... We could barely believe our eyes when, moments later, the first tracers split the air around us as Uffz. ’Bubi’ Blum’s Ta 152 came under attack...... The 109s had opened up on us!!! We could hardly return fire on Kameraden from our own Jagdgeschwader and the sortie was a complete debacle”..... 

Such had been the secrecy surrounding the introduction of the new fighter and the unfamiliarity of its slender winged silhouette that even JG 301 pilots had mistaken it for enemy aircraft...... Although no losses were incurred and the agility and superior performance of the Ta 152 H allowed them to evade all of the "attackers", the chance to join combat with the P-51s was lost..... Meanwhile the 109s of the newly formed IV./JG 301, largely comprising hastily retrained former He 177 pilots from III./KG ‘Hindenburg’ suffered heavily at the hands of the Mustangs west of Magdeburg...... 

In the event the 2 March 1945 sortie described previously was one of the last to see large numbers of German fighters in the air in defence of the Reich....... Thereafter most sorties flown were Jabo or Tiefangriffe on both Eastern and Western Fronts....... Although some writers have stated that Ta 152s flew "top-cover" for bases from which Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighters operated, this seems unlikely..... The Ta 152s of the Stabsschwarm did fly airfield protection duties for the Doras of II./JG 301 given that the various Gruppen of JG 301 were housed on different fields.. 

Incidentally the only recorded encounter with P-51s is the incident noted by Kurt Tank himself, who had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152 Hs towards the end of 1944.... He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus...... His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs..... Tank activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and so the story goes, quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke.....

The final victims falling to the guns of the Ta 152 were Russian Yak-9s during the final days of battle around Berlin on April 30, 1945...... Approximately 150 Ta 152 H-1 fighters were manufactured between January 1, 1945 and the arrival of Soviet forces at the Cottbus assembly plant...... No Jagdgruppen ever completely converted to the type..... Most Ta 152 Hs, however, were destroyed on the ground by Allied air attacks while awaiting delivery...... A few Ta 152 Hs were allocated to the Mistel program...... There is little firm information on numbers produced. Harmann has listed Werknummern from 150-001 to 150-040 and 150-167 to 150-169 for a total of 43 aircraft...... There is no information on WNr. -041 to -166...... Some claim all 169 machines were constructed. 

With its scintillating performance, numbers of high performance Allied fighters fell to its guns in the final weeks of the war...... Despite the fact that the Ta 152 H was intended to combat high-altitude Allied bombers, very few missions of this type were ultimately ever flown..... Despite this no Ta 152s were lost to enemy fire....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Jan 2, 2005)

B-29's ? where is this from unless I am totally clueless.

I see someone has been snooping on our web-site agin  

There are over 15 pilot accounts of the Ta's high altitidude performance. every pilot had previously flown the Bf 109G-6 or the Fw 190A-8 and their feelings were that the Ta was the ultimate piston driven a/c.

of course we can typically talk what-ifs as the US P-51 never came upon the Ta except when Kurt Tank was test riding a C variant and ripped away from 4 P-51's on his tail............

The Ta was in combat with mid altitude Soviet types and P-47's as well as Tempests. Walter Loos and Will Reschke both in the Geschwader stab said that nothing could touch the a/c in their personal combats, but this was also the case of "Jupp" Keil and Blum too.

Thanks for starting the thread Lun.............

at this time only Willi Reschkes book and the book by Kagero chats of the Ta's ops and the Monogram booklet covers more of the tech aspects. Schiffers TA 152 includes accts from both sources. Jerry Crandall has probably interviewd more of the TA pilots personally having donethis the last 15 years he will finish up his findings over the enxt 5 years and then write up his book. I am also going to be helping him as having a cousin in JG 301 I have been open to some interesting findings........

It was also mentioned to me that Will Reschke was to rewrite his JG 301/302 book 2 years ago but not sure if he is going to do so due to health reasons........I hope he does though, as there still is so little on the Tank H


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 2, 2005)

Again, my point stands that the Ta was simply unproven in battle. It's performance against a late model 190A is pretty meaningless, as that plane was not a dogfighter to start with.

As for Tank's famous story... kind of self serving don't you think? Declaring his creation successful w/o even firing a shot or being shot at. I'll point out the fact that no one witnessed this incident, either German or American. There is no USAAF report on it, and such an incident would surely have warrented such a report. I personally think Tank was flat out lying about the encounter. Either that, or the P-51's simply broke off fearing he was trying to draw them into an AA trap (a common ploy).

The fact is that P-51's were faster on the deck than the Ta152. This combine with them having "bounced" him, meaning they'd have had dive speed built up, allong with the complete lack of witnesses or P-51 pilot reports, makes this account totally unbelievable.

The only combat account I know of for this plane was vs. a Tempest at low altituded, and the according to the Ta pilot the Tempest pilot made several mistakes (relative to the Ta) which he was able to capitalize on and shoot him down. Again, I have to point to the fact that the Ta pilot knew exactly what to expect from the Tempest, where the Ta was an unknown quantity to the Tempest pilot. Besides, the fight broke down into a turn-fight, and the Tempest was not that great a turner.

Until the enemy pilots had some reasonable knowlege about the strengths and weaknesses of the Ta, combat reports of its "superiority" are questionable. Often, a plane appears much better when first introduced than it acutally really is, the Zero being a prime example.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 2, 2005)

What an awesome read, gentlemen !!...Having read William Green's version of the Ta-152 development, it's great to hear a little about what they did with them....

Erich, back around April 1944, they had started flying-out from the USA, the B-29's for the XX US Bomber Command in China/Burma/India, to start their build-up for the Allied bombing of Japan, and they flew one especially to England to help confuse the Axis as to the Theatre of Operations that B-29's were going to operate in....The ruse worked apparently......

I was wondering if anyone knows what became of the third Ta-152H-0 to leave Cottbus...[Werk-Nr.15 0003]...as it was taken to the USA after the War for testing.....Did it end-up at the Smithsonian Institute or such ???
- Cheers
- Gemhorse


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 2, 2005)

As great as the Ta-152 may have been, its days were clearly numbered. The future of combat aircraft (at least fighters) belonged to the jest powered aircraft. The only real exception to this was at sea where landing and launching a jet from a carrier was still difficult.

I think RG's comments hold some water. The Ta-152 was designed for high-altitude combat without compromise. I am not sure how it would have faired in sustained low-level combat. Also, I think we may have a similar situation to the Japanese and the N1K2-J. The pilots flying the Ta-152 were bound to be some of the very best the Luftwaffe had left to offer. As a result, and given the limited number of combat encounters, it would be impossible to make definite conclusions based off of combat. Still an interesting 'what-if' though.


----------



## Udet (Jan 3, 2005)

Lightining guy:

It seems fairly correct to affirm the Ta152 was designed for the main purpose of extremely high altitude combat.

Regarding your wondering of how the Ta152 would have fared on low level combat, there were many victories scored by Ta152´s at low altitude dogfights against the fighter frequently considered the best at low altitude: the soviet late Yaks.

All those patterns followed to doubt the capabilities of the Ta152 seem like hogwash to me. So to prove an aicraft is one of the very best fighters one must analyze the performance of thousands of them during a far longer period of time? I do not know. Perhaps aircraft developers may agree; what can not be denied is the Ta152 is in equal terms and superior in some departments to the P-51.

Perfect? No. No fighter plane was it.

In the limited numbers it saw service the worth of the machine was proven.

Still I would seriously argue the future of fighter aircraft was a 100% imminent event. Germany was the leading nation in jet power and rocketry technology, and the gap between the end of world war II and the deployment of jet fighters in relevant numbers until the North Korean conflict proves such assertion.

Piston engined aircraft continue to see service in many many countries well after WWII ended.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 4, 2005)

The argument on pilot quality still stands though. The Ta-152 was an excellent fighter but pilot quality certainly played a crucial role in the outcomes of any encounters.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

Udet said:


> Regarding your wondering of how the Ta152 would have fared on low level combat, there were many victories scored by Ta152´s at low altitude dogfights against the fighter frequently considered the best at low altitude: the soviet late Yaks.
> 
> All those patterns followed to doubt the capabilities of the Ta152 seem like hogwash to me. So to prove an aicraft is one of the very best fighters one must analyze the performance of thousands of them during a far longer period of time? I do not know.....
> 
> ...



I disagree. There were apparently fewer than 55 operational Ta152's, and never more than about 24 at one time. And they flew very few sorties, perhaps a total of 500 or so, quite likely fewer. Pilot's flying the Ta152 were ace's with lots of experiance fighting the planes they faced, where their opponents were often relatively rookie and none of them had any experiance fighting the Ta152 nor did they have any intelligence on its strenghts and weaknesses. In fact, in at least one case I know of the Tempest pilot hesitated to attack the TA because he was unsure if it was German, American, or possibly Russian.

Until the plane has been in combat long enough for the enemy to have a reasonable idea of what they are facing, there is always an advantage to flying a new high performance fighter - it's an unknown quantity and the enemy pilots do not know what to expect from it. The numbers were far too limited, it saw far to few sorties, over a relatively short time span (about 4 months) to be considered "proven".



Udet said:


> Still I would seriously argue the future of fighter aircraft was a 100% imminent event. Germany was the leading nation in jet power and rocketry technology, and the gap between the end of world war II and the deployment of jet fighters in relevant numbers until the North Korean conflict proves such assertion.
> 
> Piston engined aircraft continue to see service in many many countries well after WWII ended.



There were 24 operational P-80's flying by VE day, 45 by VJ day, and 563 by the end of 1945. Germany's advantage in Jet's would have been gone before the end of 1945, even had they sustained their pre-D-day position. By Spring of 1946, there would have been a thousand P-80's flying sorties over Europe, vs. at best a few hundred inferior Me262's and a smattering of He162's and other types. By summer there would have been 3000 P-80's, most with the improved 5000 lbs thrust engine.

The German "jet advantage" was not gone by VE day, but it was slipping fast.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

5000 lbs thrust engine? You mean the British Rolls Royce Nene engine.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

plan_D said:


> 5000 lbs thrust engine? You mean the British Rolls Royce Nene engine.



The first 345 P-80A's used the General Electric J33-GE-11 or identical Allison J33-A-9 turbojet engine, producing ~3850 lbs of thrust. The next 218 used the Allison J33-A-17 producing ~4000 lbs thrust. After this there were a another 354 P-80A's and B's built using a number of engines utilized from both manufactures raising thrust to about 4750 lbs (I rounded this to 5,000). 

This whole process is very confusing to research. Post war development was slowed down considerably as there were a number of labor strikes involved (which would not have occured during war).

Performance figures for the P-80A are based upon the 3850 lbs thrust engines.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

That's naughty, rounding. The British had the most powerful World War 2 jet-engine with the Rolls Royce Nene designed in November 1941 with 5000 lbs thrust. Used in the MiG-15.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 4, 2005)

I believe some variants of the P-80 had water-methanol injection that would raise the thrust over 5000lbs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't available on the YP-80's used during WWII.

I'm just curious as to where you found that the Nene was designed in 1941. All I've seen says it was designed and built in 6 months during 1944. Even the RR website says it wasn't designed until 1944.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 4, 2005)

perhaps its' concept was thought up in 1941..................


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2005)

I'm wondering too now, it's on my favourites (the site) but I can't find it.  

I have a better one with the RR Nene which is probably true - 

"Stanley Hooker, who had been in charge of the Rolls-Royce design team that refined the Derwent, visited the US in the spring of 1944, and found that General Electric was developing two turbojet engines with thrust ratings of 17.6 kN (1,800 kg / 4,000 lb) or higher. Hooker, realizing that the British had been thinking small, went back to Britain and initiated a fast track project to build a new, much more powerful centrifugal-flow engine. 

The result was the "RB.41 Nene", which was first bench-tested in October 1944 and provided 22.3 kN (2,270 kg / 5,000 lb) thrust. The Nene was the world's most powerful engine at the time, and it was also simple, cheap, and reliable. The Nene was made in large numbers, with versions made in Canada, Australia, France, the US, and the USSR. 

The Nene was such a good engine that Rolls-Royce decided to build a scaled-down version, which was designated the "Derwent 5" though it had little direct relationship to earlier Derwent marks. The Derwent 5 was first bench-tested in June 1945, with the test engine providing 11.8 kN (1,200 kg / 2,650 lb) thrust. "


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> I believe some variants of the P-80 had water-methanol injection that would raise the thrust over 5000lbs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't available on the YP-80's used during WWII.



They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's. The 5400 lbs thrust engine was not available until about 1948, but it probably would have been available much sooner had the war continued. After the war, the aero-industry in the USA suffered greatly from post-war cutbacks which lead to labor strikes and other problems. Had the war continued into 1946, the -17 engine would probably have been ready by the end of that year.

Sorry for rounding Plan_D, I didn't want to look it up so I had to rely on memory.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 4, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.
> 
> =S=
> 
> ...




I'm seeing YP-80A's in service during WWII.

There were thirteen YP-80A's built with serial #'s 
44-83023 
44-83024
44-83025
44-83026
44-83027
44-83028
44-83029
44-83030
44-83031
44-83032
44-83033
44-83034
44-83035

44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England, 026 crashed on its second flight in England and 027 was modified by Rolls Royce to test the Nene engine.

44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to Italy for combat service tests.

All these were powered by the GE I-40 engine which became the GE/Allison J33 this engine (I-40) produced 4000lbs thrust.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 4, 2005)

If you take the jets out of it for a moment, I feel the Ta-152 wouldn't have held that ascendancy for long.....
- Apart from the Mustang, there was significant piston-engined development going on that would've compromised the Ta-152 sooner or later....If this aircraft had started to become a problem, there was ongoing Tempest and Fury programmes, the fastest Fury was one with a Sabre VII, capable of 485 mph, and also De Havilland's Hornet which was about the same, and they had done alot of work on high-altitude engines, and not to mention the Spitfires, and plus other US piston-engined fighters still under development...It's rather a 'what-if' scenario, but I feel it should be mentioned.........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.
> ...



The first 20 or so were designated YP-80, the next 25 were P-80A's, all delivered before VJ day. By the end if 1945 there were over 550 delivered P-80A's, plus the original 20 or so YP-80A's. The first 345 P-80A's used the General Electric J33-GE-11 or identical Allison J33-A-9 turbojet engine, developing 3850 lbs static thrust.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 4, 2005)

Im going to have to side with my friend Joe Baugher on this one. Hes done a lot more research than I have... but he and I still agree 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 4, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> Im going to have to side with my friend Joe Baugher on this one. Hes done a lot more research than I have... but he and I still agree
> 
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html



Seems to be in agreement with what I've said...



> The first 345 aircraft of this contract (serials 44-84992 to 44-85336) were designated P-80A-1-LO. Some of them were powered by the 3850 lb.s.t. General Electric J33-GE-11 turbojet, the production version of the I-40 which had powered the XP-80A and the YP-80A. Others were powered by the Allison J33-A-9, a version of the same engine built by the Allison Division of the General Motors Corporation.
> 
> The next 218 aircraft in the contract (44-85337 to 44-85941 and 45-8301 to 45-8262) were built as the P-80A-5-LO production block and differed by being equipped with the more powerful 4000 lb.s.t. Allison J33-A-17. The -5 also introduced a boundary layer control splitter plate inside the air intake. The landing light was relocated from the nose to the nosewheel landing gear strut. Later, the initial production P-80A-1-LOs were retrofitted with the uprated Allison engine during routine engine overhauls.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_4.html



Note also...



> 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. _*They actually flew some operational sorties*_, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_3.html



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 5, 2005)

You said:



> They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.



I said:



> I'm seeing YP-80A's in service during WWII.
> 
> There were thirteen YP-80A's built with serial #'s
> 44-83023
> ...



Then you said:



> The first 20 or so were designated YP-80, the next 25 were P-80A's, all delivered before VJ day. By the end if 1945 there were over 550 delivered P-80A's, plus the original 20 or so YP-80A's. The first 345 P-80A's used the General Electric J33-GE-11 or identical Allison J33-A-9 turbojet engine, developing 3850 lbs static thrust.





Note that this is as far as the conversation went. I never stated that you were wrong. However I did state that the operational aircraft were YP-80A's when you said they were not.

Then you quoted Joes site:


> 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They actually flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_3.html



Obviously without checking the serial numbers to find that they are:
1. In perfect agreement with my previous post
2. Contradict your arguement that:


> They were not "YP-80's", they were P-80A's.


3. in fact YP-80A's.



Also I said:


> I believe some variants of the P-80 had water-methanol injection that would raise the thrust over 5000lbs. I'm pretty sure it wasn't available on the YP-80's used during WWII.



Meaning that YP-80s werent available with water-methanol injection, but that later variants were equipped with it. 

The water-methanol injection first appeared on the P-80B. Baugher references two thrust ratings in his text. One is 4000lb and the other is 5200lb, however he does not distinguish which one is wet and which is dry. It is extremely safe to assume though that the 4000lb rating is dry and the 5200lb rating is wet.[/quote]


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

Hmmm... I don't seem to be making my point. Yes the first 20 or so were YP-80A's (actually, it appears to have been about 12 by VE day). But, by VJ day, the end of the war, there were P-80A's flying (45 P-80's in all). By the end of 1945 there were more P-80A's than operational Me262's during the whole last year of WWII.

The P-80A (and YP-80A) used the earlier GE/Allision engine with only 3850 lbs ST. The 4000 lbs ST engine came in early 1946. The "wet" engine didn't show up until 1947 or 1948, and I don't think it was installed in operational P-80C's until the early 50's (because of strikes and other non-technical hold ups).

The figures I presented (in the Me262 vs P-80 thread) all relate to the 3850 lbs ST engine.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 5, 2005)

I agree with you completly. However I was contesting the statement that the operational aircraft in Italy were P-80's while they were YP's.

Really it doesn't matter! They flew and given a few more months or in the case of the Japanese a few more days, they're would have been many more P-80's fighting. Had the Luftwaffe been around to contest the P-80 Im sure they would have been given a rude awakening!

I really do wish the P-80s on the aircraft carrier heading for Florida Blanca had been shipped with wingtip tanks and their batteries so they could've at least got to tangle with the Japanese before the war was over. It would have been an interesting footnote in history not to mention interesting to see the results. But again Im glad it ended alltogether!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

What is a shame is that neither the F8F nor F7F saw action. Both were ready to go months before the end of the war (the Bearcat was delivered to VF-18 and VF-19 in May), but were held off from battle. I believe this was done because Truman was concerned we were going to have a showdown of sorts with the Russian's in East Asia. F7F's were stationed in Guam and China, and two class carriers (VF-19 was on the Langly) were loaded with Bearcats and steaming towards Japan when the war ended.







The F8F had an initial rate of climb of 4570 fpm without wep. With WEP it could climb at an astonishing 6300 fpm! An F8F set the world climb record for a prop plane at 91 seconds _from brake release_ to 10000 feet!

You can even buy one if you have  $1,850,000 sitting around


----------



## plan_D (Jan 5, 2005)

What was this? A P-80 with a 'Nene' engine? How did that perform?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

I recognize that F8F! 8) The climb rate on that airplane is incredible! If you were going to buy one, I would recommend the later models with the larger tail surface. They get a little twisty at military power and can get directionally unstable. A great airplane, like an Arabian; can be a handful, but if you know what you are doing, it will serve you well.

The only drawback is the internal fuel load is good for 2 hours max, even with economic cruise! But it was originally designed to get off the deck of the carrier fast to counter any threat.

With it's climb rate, it outclimbed even early jets! Here she is in her stable.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2005)

it's be interesting to see a dogfight between that and a sea fury...............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

plan_D said:


> What was this? A P-80 with a 'Nene' engine? How did that perform?



Actually not much better. The P-80C in combat configuration was heavier than the P-80A/B. In test configuration going for speed records, they hit speeds of something like 640 mph.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 5, 2005)

My dad recalled the F8F as the most amazing prop he'd ever flown. It was pure power.

Range on internal fuel was limited, it was similar in range to the Ta152. It was an interceptor, it didn't need the huge fuel load necessary to provide escort. It's top speed was not great however, at 425 mph. It was more of a dogfighter than other US designs had been.

The F8F held the climb record from brake off to 10,000 feet for 30 years, until it was finally taken by the F-16. (Some other jets actually climbed faster than the F-16 but required longer takeoff times).


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 5, 2005)

Wow, that takes y'breathe away !!!...Didn't they use them in Korea ??


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

They saw limited service in Korea. Most of them were phased out of the US navy by 1952. The French used them in Indochina though.


----------



## Gemhorse (Jan 5, 2005)

Hey, thanks for that evangilder, I kinda knew that it was one of the aircraft that was another US piston-engine development that would've braced the Ta-152 if it came to it, but wasn't sure what became of them...I've seen them in our national Warbird mag down here, Classic Wings, when they've done an article on the Reno Air Races....oh, and great pics too, from you and RG....snapped 'em up for my 'puny collection', they have a vague resemblance to the Hellcat, perhaps they replaced them as carrier-fighters, hmmm?.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 5, 2005)

Not exactly a replacement. They were the "little brother" of the hellcats. The whole design was around the engine, It was very nimble and had a climb rate and agility that outclassed most jets of it's time. 

They were built specifically to counter the kamikaze threat, get off the deck, get the Japanese planes and get back. Their limitation was their range. Later models replaced the 4 x .50 calibers with 4 x 20mm. They did pretty well for the French in Indochina. 

I have more pictures of that Bearcat as well. It is sitting in our museum right now, but flies regularly at airshows throughout Southern California. Here are a couple more for your collection.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

The F8F-2 Bearcat had a much improved speed, something upwards of 450mph if I remember right. In addition it had heavy fire power (4 x 20mm), that phenomenal rate of climb, and the ability to turn and roll with anything else flying. It gets my vote for the best piston-engined fighter of all time. The only thing that really compares with it, I feel, is the Sea Fury.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

The Seafury (or Tempest II) could not have won a dogfight with the Bearcat. The Tempst could not out turn the P-51, the Bearcat could easily outturn the P-51 and probably almost any other WWII plane because of its huge powerloading advantage. It had the advantage in acceleration and climb, and probably was equal in a dive. It was just more of a "pure fighter" than the Tempest II.

On the otherhand, the F8F probably would not have been the best matchup against the Ta152, as it was really designed for combat below 22,000 feet.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

I would agree with that, Lunatic (F8F vs SeaFury). If you have stood next to both, the size difference is remarkable. I love both of them, but the smaller size and agility of the F8F would give it a substantial edge.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

I have seen a Bearcat as well, and was amazed by it.... I too agree with RG and evan on this... The F8F was one of the best piston driven fighters of All TIme...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

The Bearcat might not have been a match for the Ta-152 at altitude, but it would have waxed the German fighter at lower levels (along with anything else that might have flown). I think it would have been interesting if the F8F had had the chance to mix it up with late-war Japanese fighters such as the N1K2-J and the A7M2.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

i'd put my money on the sea fury................


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 6, 2005)

The Sea Fury was designed to fight a different type of fighter than the Bearcat.... The Bearcat was a much more agile and powerful fighter....

And at altitude, I agree LG... The -152H was, in the hands of an Ace, extremely deadly over 35,000 feet...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 6, 2005)

interestingly the sea fury is the only FAA plane apart from the sea harrier F.1 to have shot down an enemy aircraft since the close of WWII...........


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i'd put my money on the sea fury................



You'd loose your money. The Bearcat could easily turn inside the SeaFury. It could out climb it, out roll it, and out accelerate it. The only advantage the SeaFury would have would be a slight top speed advantage at some altitudes.

The Bearcat is almost universally considered the ultimate in prop interceptor aircraft. BTW: it borrowed heavily from the FW190 design.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

I disagree that it borrowed from the FW-190. It was often called the "Hellcat Lite" and the design was built around the Pratt Whitney R-2800-34 radial engine. I have never seen any reference to any FW-190 influence of this design.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 6, 2005)

The SeaFury most certainly borrowed from the FW-190, though.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 6, 2005)

That is possible, I don't know with the SeaFury, but I do know about the Bearcat.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Evan is right. The Bearcat was much closer in basic design to the Hellcat than to the Fw-190 (and even that similarity wasn't THAT strong). 

I also think RG is right. In the majority of combat situations, the F8F would hold all the cards over the Sea Fury.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The Bearcat record was beaten by the EE Lightning actually. It didn't take any time at all to get going and it could climb vertically off the runway. The US record was probably beaten by a F-16, the world record by the Lightning.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Bearcat record was beaten by the EE Lightning actually. It didn't take any time at all to get going and it could climb vertically off the runway. The US record was probably beaten by a F-16, the world record by the Lightning.



Well, 30 years ended in the 70's. You have something that shows the EE Lightning could make 10,000 feet in less than 91 seconds from brake off? The F-15 could go vertical, but could not beat that time till the latest versions.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

Grumman test pilot Bob Hall flew and studied (along with a Grumman engineering team) a captured FW-190 in England. They then took one home to study it further.



> The Grumman F8F Bearcat was the company's final piston engined fighter aircraft. Designed for the interceptor fighter role, the design team's aim was to create the smallest, lightest fighter that could fit around the Pratt Whitney Double Wasp engine (carried over from the F6F Hellcat) and the armament of four 20mm cannon. Compared to its predecessor, the Bearcat was 20% lighter, had a 30% better rate of climb, and was 50 mph (80 km/h) faster. In comparison with the Vought F4U Corsair, the Bearcat was marginally slower but was much more heavily armed {when fitted with cannon}, more manuverable and climbed faster. Many features of its design were inspired by a captured Focke-Wulf Fw 190 fighter that had been handed over to the Grumman facilities.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F8F_Bearcat





> Grumman, however, favored a lighter and more maneuverable design, more like the German Focke Wulf 190 -- a captured example having been flown by Grumman test pilot Bob Hall in England. The resulting Grumman design, the XF8F-1, weighed only 7,017 pounds empty and was sometimes described as the smallest airframe built around the most powerful, fully developed engine, a real "hot-rod."
> http://nasaui.ited.uidaho.edu/nasaspark/safety/f8f/f8fdev.html



The design probably did have more in common with the Hellcat, it used pretty much the same wing (though a little thinner), but it also borrowed heavily from the 190A, especially when it came to control surface design and cockpit ergonomics.

The F4U-4 would be a very tough matchup for the SeaFury. The F8F could beat them both.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2005)

i've seen a sea fury in flight and let me tell you it's no mellon...............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i've seen a sea fury in flight and let me tell you it's no mellon...............



Not saying it was. However, it is very hard to beat a fighter that out turns, out rolls, out accelerates, outclimbs you, has better visability, and has comparable speed. Only in flat out speed does the Tempest II (SeaFury) have a slight advantage, and even that is marginal and of questionable use except for escaping combat.

The SeaFury was an excellent design (when the many problems with the Centaraus engine were finally overcome), but the Bearcat was really the ultimate prop interceptor. It was a no-compromise design. It is indicative of what many US fighters might have been if long-range had not been an essential part of their specification.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2005)

after seeing a sea fury in flight i'm still sticking by my guns...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> after seeing a sea fury in flight i'm still sticking by my guns...........



It is impressive to watch! 8) 
Never seen the Bearcat in flight, but I'd love to!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 7, 2005)

i was lucky enough to see the FAA's now flying example (sea fury that is)..............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 7, 2005)

That is the first mention that I have heard of about the FW-190 influence on the Bearcat, and I have been working around one for 4 years. While I can see some of it, I see more of a follow on to the Wildcat and the Hellcat. But I sit corrected. 

I have seen both the SeaFury and the Bearcat fly on several occasions and the Bearcat has the manueverability and the climb rate that would put it at a great advantage. Due to it's size and weight, the SeaFury would probably have the edge diving. Range was always a factor with the Bearcat as I am all too aware of. But in an equal pilot skill matchup, I would confidently put money on the Bearcat.


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2005)

hope this works and probably too small. The painting of the Geschwader stab/JG 301 before the white stipe on the prop. Great painting sitting above my PC work desk


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

I can't find a source yet but you obviously have not seen a EE Lightning starting up. From the scramble call to the Lightning pulling off the runway, it's about 30 seconds. That includes time it takes for the man to run out and get in the thing. If you sat a man in a Lightning, told him to start it, it would take about 15 seconds to have his engines going and he could be hurtling down the run way. You know Lightnings don't have to wait for avionics to start up? Engine on, heated and he's off and pulling up vertically off the run way. And they could carry on going vertically to 10,000 feet and still gain speed.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> hope this works and probably too small. The painting of the Geschwader stab/JG 301 before the white stipe on the prop. Great painting sitting above my PC work desk



That's the Ta152 paint job we have in Fighter Ace!

In the game, it's a good plane up high, but most combat unrealistically occures below 10,000 feet, where the Tempests, Yaks, and F4U-4's have the edge.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Jan 7, 2005)

interesting, they should take the game up several levels to 30,000 feet and then see what happens............ ?

E ~


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I can't find a source yet but you obviously have not seen a EE Lightning starting up. From the scramble call to the Lightning pulling off the runway, it's about 30 seconds. That includes time it takes for the man to run out and get in the thing. If you sat a man in a Lightning, told him to start it, it would take about 15 seconds to have his engines going and he could be hurtling down the run way. You know Lightnings don't have to wait for avionics to start up? Engine on, heated and he's off and pulling up vertically off the run way. And they could carry on going vertically to 10,000 feet and still gain speed.



I think you should check this statement out. No jet that I'm aware of can take off without a substantial (several minute) engine warm up. Even prop planes require an engine warm up, but jets moreso.

I've not been able to locate time to altitude figures for the EE Lightning, but all sources refer to its "increadible zoom climb", which implies full speed at the start of the climb.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Easy to think about, the Lightning is like a rocket (  ). It was designed as an interceptor, this it did with incredible speed. The engine warm up is true for most aircraft but the Lightning took just seconds to warm up and go. There was no avionics to worry about, it was all EXTREMELY basic engineering to make the thing fly and fly fast.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Easy to think about, the Lightning is like a rocket (  ). It was designed as an interceptor, this it did with incredible speed. The engine warm up is true for most aircraft but the Lightning took just seconds to warm up and go. There was no avionics to worry about, it was all EXTREMELY basic engineering to make the thing fly and fly fast.



No matter how basic the avionics, the engine still has to warm up completely for the tolerances to be right. As far as I know, all jet engines require at least 2 minutes absolute minimum warm up time, most require 5 minutes to be safe.

Jet's don't accelerate that fast from a standing start. I suspect the Bearcat had the advantage to 10,000 feet only because of its very short takeoff distance. I could be wrong, but so far I've found nothing to indicate the EE Lightning could beat 91 seconds to 10,000 feet from a standing start.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

Erich said:


> interesting, they should take the game up several levels to 30,000 feet and then see what happens............ ?
> 
> E ~



It happens sometimes, and if the Ta pilot flies smart he has the distinct advantage. However, it is very hard to maintain your altitude in such a fight. Almost any combat manuver will cost you 4-5 thousand feet. It is very easy to get into a rolling scissors type thing and end up down at 20k or lower in no time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The Lightning didn't have 2 minutes to sit there warming up. It had to get to 50,000 feet pretty damn quickly as soon as the scramble came in. You think it could get up to a Soviet Bear quick enough if it had to sit there for 2 - 5 minutes? 
Not only have I seen one of those buggers start up in under a minute, my dad worked on the Quick Response pens when in 11 Sqn. and saw them scramble weekly. And he says that they could be up in the air in well under a minute from scramble call.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Lightning didn't have 2 minutes to sit there warming up. It had to get to 50,000 feet pretty damn quickly as soon as the scramble came in. You think it could get up to a Soviet Bear quick enough if it had to sit there for 2 - 5 minutes?
> Not only have I seen one of those buggers start up in under a minute, my dad worked on the Quick Response pens when in 11 Sqn. and saw them scramble weekly. And he says that they could be up in the air in well under a minute from scramble call.



I don't know about the British, but US scramble teams on alert have aircraft that have the engines warmed up in advance. If they are warmed up every 30 minutes or so (or even less if indoors) then it takes much less time to get them ready to go.

Also, the Russian Bear? Its top speed was about 600 mph, or about 1 mile every 6 seconds, at altitude (~35,000 feet). It would have been detected at a range of several hundred miles. Even at a range of 150 miles it would take 15 minutes to reach the radar station, which would be foward deployed somewhat from the targets. This leaves 5 mintues for warmup, 3 minutes to get to altitude, and 7 minutes for intercept - totally doable. And of course there would be a lot more time than that because radar would give the warning at a range of several hundred miles.

Finally, what does warmup time have to do with it anyway. It is assumed the plane is sitting with brakes on and the engine thourougly warmed up when the "go" signal is given to climb.

=S=

Lunatic

Note: edited due to math error.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Did you just say 35,000 feet for the Tu-95? Try 50,000 feet and then we're talking. Those things could fly at 57,000 feet if they really wanted to. 

If we're talking a Lightning sat there, warmed up with brakes on. Do you know how fast these things can get going? The thing could climb vertically like a bloody rocket to 10,000 feet. You have obviously never seen a Lightning in flight, or I'm doubting you've seen one at all.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 7, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Also, the Russian Bear? Its top speed was about 600 mph, or about 1 mile every 6 seconds, at altitude (~35,000 feet).



Plus the Bear isnt going to be doing 600 the whole time. It going to have to cruise for a while just to be able to get where its going. The listed cruise speed is 442 mph.

I dont know how long it could keep up the near 600 mark but I doubt they would want to do it very long simply for fuel economy purposes.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

No I've never seen one in flight, never seen one in real life at all.

But have you ever seen a F8F take off? 



> 20 November {1946} At Cleveland, Ohio, an F8F Grumman Bearcat with Lieutenant Commander Merl W. Davenport as pilot, took off in a distance of 115 feet from a standing start and climbed to 10,000 feet in 94 seconds.
> http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART06.PDF



And that wasn't even the record for the plane!

I would bet the F8F was off the ground before the EE Lightning had rolled 50 feet.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Do you know how impressive Mach 0.92 is for a turbo-prop plane? 

You think the Lightning rolls? Jesus christ, you really need to see it take off. It's a bloody rocket with wings! That pilot opens the throttle, that bugger is hurtling down the runway like an effin' rocket, and he'll put its nose straight up like a rocket too.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

Now, now, turbo_shaft_...





Let's not get this up again...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

Bloody hell, GrG. TURBO-SHAFT plane.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> You think the Lightning rolls? Jesus christ, you really need to see it take off. It's a bloody rocket with wings! That pilot opens the throttle, that bugger is hurtling down the runway like an effin' rocket, and he'll put its nose straight up like a rocket too.



I'm sure it was very impressive. Still I would bet it would not get 50 feet before the Bearcat was in the air. Turbojet/fan engines just don't accelerate that fast from a standing start. I would also bet it took 1500+ of runway to get airborne. The F-15 takes 2500 feet to get airborne.

BTW: in checking this out, the Phantom appears to have climbed faster than the EE Lightning. Beats the F8F by a fair margin too, *which tends to make me think you are probably right about the Lightning being faster to 10,000 feet.*



> In March 1962 new world climb records to 9,000 and 12,000 meters were established at NAS Brunswick, Maine, when an F4H-1 piloted by Lieutenant Colonel W. C. McGraw, USMC, reached those altitudes from a standing start in 61.62 and 77.15 seconds, respectively. The F4H-1 continued its assault on time-to-climb records at NAS Brunswick as Lieutenant Commander D. W. Nordberg piloted the Phantom II to 15,000 meters altitude in 114.54 seconds. -Lieutenant Commander F. Taylor Brown piloted the F4H-1 Phantom II at NAS Point Mugu, to a new world time-to-climb record for 20,000 meters with a time of 178.5 seconds.
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-4-history.htm



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The F-4 was actually slower at scrambling than the EE Lightning. The F-4 had to wait for everything to power up, the EE Lightning didn't. Really, RG, you need to see an EE Lightning take off it's just like a rocket.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The F-4 was actually slower at scrambling than the EE Lightning. The F-4 had to wait for everything to power up, the EE Lightning didn't. Really, RG, you need to see an EE Lightning take off it's just like a rocket.



The F-15 really beats them both and I've seen it.

Taking off before everything powers up is stupid. What if something critical does not power up?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 7, 2005)

I'm no expert, but I'm sure I heard that one of the criteria for the E.E Lightning and Vulcan was to make a swift getaway from the airbase before the nuke arrived. 

I've seen with my own eyes the button on the Vulcan marked 'rapid start'. Press that, and all four engines start immediately. The idea was that the whole squadron could be airborne and away in under ten minutes.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 7, 2005)

The same with Lightning. The plane could be in the air in a few seconds. The Lightning doesn't have all the systems on modern planes, RG. It was a most basic design, it didn't need everything to power up to fly. It still used valves for gods sake!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 7, 2005)

Press a button, flip a switch, the engines are on. Drop flaps, apply trim, open throttle, and you're off!


Simple as that.


Can an F-15 or F-4 do that?


I think not!


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 7, 2005)

It may have been faster than "modern" jets. But I have a hard time believing the turbines didn't need at least a minute to get up to temperature before being wound up.

I really suspect that for such a squadron two or even 4 planes were kept warm at all times when on alert.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 7, 2005)

Ever modern US bomber (B-52, B-1, B-2) have had a similar "bang" switch on the nose gear intended to power up the engines and align the navigational systems to allow a very quick takeoff.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 8, 2005)

In the QRH two Lightnings were kept but were not warmed up. I can ask my dad about it all since he worked in there. The scramble would be given, the pilot rush out, the technicians strap him in pull away the ladder. 
And as GrG quite rightly said "Press a button, flip a switch, the engines are on. Drop flaps, apply trim, open throttle, and you're off!" And was it ever, he'd be hurtling down the runway and bang that nose up vertical. From scramble call it would take a minute to have both Lightnings in the air.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

yes just trust us RG, i've seen a video of a lighning at takeoff, and it DOES accellerate very quickly, and as has been said, goes straight into a vertical climb for several thousand feet, no piston engined aircraft can go from take off to into a vertical climb for 10,000ft and not loose any major ammount of speed...............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 8, 2005)

No piston warbird can do a vertical climb from the ground to 10,000 feet. There might be some aerobatics airplanes have a very light fuselage and might be able to, but no piston powered warbirds could.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

Ill give it a try in the PZL P.11, it takes off a bit quicker than you might think...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

It may takeoff quickly. But its rate of climb would be far to slow. I think most likely you would merely stall and crash.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

wouldn't mind giving it a go in a lyslander


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

I think you'd reach a similar end in the Lysander. As impressive as its STO capability was, it still lack the power and acceleration to maintain a vertical climb. You might be able to make it to vertical, stall, and still regain flying speed before you crash.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 8, 2005)

perhaps you're missing the point, it was british!!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 8, 2005)

I could do it in the Wright flyer...


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 8, 2005)

Bollocks, that thing stalls when you try to turn...



Twelve whole horsepower isn't quite enough for a vertical climb...


__________/\... BOOM! (That would be the flight pattern, a long roll, a quick climb, a stall, and a dive resulting in a crash...)


----------



## redcoat (Jan 8, 2005)

I went to the Woodford airshow in the 80's, and I saw 3 EE Lightnings do a quick take off in formation and a vertical climb.... I'm not a fan of jets, but it impressed me.... 
Mind you, I was slightly deaf for a few days afterwards


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 8, 2005)

A jet could do it. And even the number of jets that could do it would be rather limited. And many of those jets could only do it in a clean configuration. I just don't think a piston-engined aircaft would have the speed/power needed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

a piston wouldn't have a chance in a straight up vertical climb, only a small handfull of jets had the pure power to do it, especially in the 60s.............

interestingly the vulcan could also go straight up into a vertical climb from a take off, although obviously for not as long as the lightening...............


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

The Bearcat could not go "strait up", but it could (in later models) maintain something around 6500 feet per minute right off the ground. I.e., that's not a "zoom" climb.

The Lighting could do 30,000 fpm in the earlier versions, 50,000 in the later versions. The Phantom could do 70,000 fpm, and I believe the F15 is faster than that!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

but i don't believe the phantom could sustain a vertical climb from take off as long as the lightening.............


----------



## evangilder (Jan 9, 2005)

I agree Lanc, the Phantom is probably considerably heavier too. The fpm measurment is okay, but it doesn't tell how long that climb rate can be maintained. Weight and drag are going to effect it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

not to mention the fact that the lightening did it in far more style............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Bollocks, that thing stalls when you try to turn...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





But it was very light...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2005)

and i've been reading about it and it was extremely advanced.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 9, 2005)

Yep, if the British had it in 1066 the Frenchies might not have made it onto our turf  Emphasis on "might" there


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 9, 2005)

evangilder said:


> I agree Lanc, the Phantom is probably considerably heavier too. The fpm measurment is okay, but it doesn't tell how long that climb rate can be maintained. Weight and drag are going to effect it.



The phantom, from a standing start, could reach:

9000m (29528 feet) in 61.62 seconds
12000m (39370 feet) in 77.15 seconds
15000m (49213 feet) in 114.54 seconds
20000m (65617 feet) in 177.5 seconds

It had a thrust to weight ratio of greater than 1, so it could climb "strait up", though I imagine the best climb rate was at something a little less than 90 degrees (and this is probably true of the EE Lighting too).

F-15 -
30,000m (98,425ft) in 207.8 seconds

EE Lightning -
12192m (40000 feet) in 150 seconds

This was the only time to alt figure I could find for the EE Lightning. Since I only found it in one place, perhaps you can provide some better info?

BTW: The initial rate of climb of the Lightning is indeed considerably better than that of the Phantom, about the same as the F-16, and a little worse than the F-15.

Relating to the quick takeoff...



> The main incursion Russian bomber was the Tupolev (Myasishchev ‘Bear’) which had a range of some 6000 miles, once RADAR had picked up one of these monsters the klaxon alert was sounded from RAF Bawdsey, RAF Neatishead, Fylingdales and other RADAR stations. The front and rear hangar doors had ‘panic red buttons’ situated in the corridor from the accomodation block to the hangar, the first through the corridor hit the buttons. The pilots were strapped in, if it was an immediate alert the two Rolls Royce Avon engines would be started through the AVPIN (Iso-propyl nitrate) starters and the one or both aircraft would be scrambled onto the runway and airborne in just a *few short minutes*. These aircraft had priority over all other aircraft.
> http://splashdown2.tripod.com/handleypagehastings/id7.html



To me, a "few" means 3 or more.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

Are those figures for clean aircraft? If so, the value is little more than academic. It may make for nice records, but more useful is how quickly they can reach altitude carrying a useful weapons load.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Are those figures for clean aircraft? If so, the value is little more than academic. It may make for nice records, but more useful is how quickly they can reach altitude carrying a useful weapons load.



I suppose... but... the EE Lightning couldn't carry a "useful weapons load" 

 

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Excuse me, RG. I'll tell you the truth behind the QRF (Quick Reaction Flight) since my dad served in those hangers, with the 11 Sqn. Lightning at RAF Binbrook. 
I'm glad you've finally realised how quickly the AVPIN can start an engine (A short note on AVPIN, when it's alight you can't put it out. It creates it's own oxygen). 

The two Lightnings in the ORF hangar were very rarely scrambled together, it was normally only one scrambled while the other pilot waited in the second in case another 'Bear' was picked up. 
The pilot often knew about the upcoming scramble call before it actually happened because he could listen on land-line radio. Listening to air traffic challenging the UA (Unidentified Aircraft). The pilot often had his helmet resting on the canopy so he wouldn't have to rush for it, it'd be there with his plane. 

When the scramble call came, all the technicians and pilots would run out. The pilot would get in, followed by a technician who would strap him in, pull out his ejection pin, show the pilot, then close the canopy and pull away the ladders. While this was going on, another tech had banged the doors open. At the same time another tech had plugged in power sets and as soon as the confirmation (through land-line, couldn't be intercepted) came from air traffic the pilot would go - if both were ordered, both would go. AVPIN would kick in, the engines (didn't require heating, no avionics needed to start) would start...he'd taxi on to the piano keys (end of the runway) and bang on re-heat and be slamming down the runway and up. 

From scramble call to that Lightning being up, yes a few minutes. But it takes time to get all men out and all jobs done. From brakes off to taking off, a few seconds. 

Now, no matter what your site tells you. I could tell you more, my dad was there, he served with these things and sometimes scramble calls came three times a night. And he worked on the things, he made sure they flew. I don't care what 'few' means to you. My dad says from scramble call to the Lightning up, 2 minutes was easy. It's your problem if you don't believe it. 
Oh and I forgot, the pilot was told where to go by ground control with their own RADAR. The pilot could turn all his stuff on while in flight. 

And 2 Firestreaks is good enough ammo load, plus 2 30mm Aden cannons. If it was a true attack, the whole station would be on alert..and RAF Binbrook had 2 Lightning (11 Sqn and 5 Sqn) both with 14 Lightnings, with 2 Firestreaks each getting prepped. On top of the QRF, there were two loaded up in a hanger to be sent straight out after the QRF ones. 

It's all much better than anything America had that couldn't even reach 57,000 feet until the Phantom. And I'll say again, the Lightning could scramble quicker than the Phantom.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

very good info, thanks............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

I forgot to mention the power sets didn't need to be unplugged by a tech, once he'd plugged them in he'd run to the front and wave the Lightning out of the hangar. He'd tell the pilot to start both engines at once (normally you do it one at a time) and wave him straight on to the runway. The power set was anchored down, so the Lightning pulling away would pull them out.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

pretty clever.............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

Not really difficult to think of but it made the operation quicker, and there was one less tech needed to scramble a Lightning. Plus while the Lightning was plugged in he was talking over land-radio so it couldn't be intercepted.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

did they keep radio silence on the way up??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

No, they couldn't. The Lightnings RADAR wouldn't be on until he was some way up, so ground control had to direct him. Once he was facing the target and in range he could see for himself but until then, it was the ground controllers job to get him there. That's one of the reasons they were so quick, they didn't need to power everything up on the aircraft. 

Modern day aircraft need to sit for 3 - 5 minutes waiting for all the avionics to power up. The Lightning could get in, bang on the engines and be gone within 2 minutes of the scramble call.







I just like this picture. I don't know the history behind the picture but I think they must have been on their way to Cyprus or Malta and re-fueling over south Germany


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 10, 2005)

wasn't it dangerous to keep the fuel in the plane for a long time though??


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

The normal fuel was fine, the AVPIN was dangerous but on a scramble that'd mostly get used up starting the engines. A fuelled up aircraft GENERALLY, no matter the kind, is dangerous. I'm just saying the Lightning wasn't anymore dangerous.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

I would like to correct a common mistake with the Lightning. It's engines did not provide a greater thrust than it's weight. The thrust of both RR Avons combined was 31,160 lbs. The EMPTY (No fuel) weight of the Lightning was 28,000 lbs. The weight loaded was 50,000 lbs. See, fuel weighs a lot! 

The initial rate of climb on the Lightning was 50,000 ft per minute. 

The same thing applies to Phantom, RG, when refering to thrust:weight ratio. It was NOT 1:1. The EMPTY weight of the Phantom was 31,853 lbs. The combined thrust of both J79-GE-17s was 35,800 lbs. The normal take-off weight was 53, 814 lbs while maximum was 61, 795 lbs. 

Make sure when you look at thrust:weight check the weight is loaded because when empty it has no fuel, so it's not going to go anywhere! The F-15 was the FIRST aircraft to have over 1:1 thrust to weight. Meaning it could climb vertical until it's ceiling without losing speed.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

I have to disagree that the phantom had a 1:1 thrust to weight. Maybe for an airplane with no combat load, but the engines had 17,900lbs. thrust each, meaning about 35,800 lbs total. The empty weight of a phantom with no fuel or ammo was 29,535 lbs. The standard combat load added another about 38,000 lbs (Fuel and armaments) for a max takeoff of about 60,000 lbs. This is an F4E.

I have seen quite a number of phantoms over the years and I never watched one take off vertically and sustain it. It could go straight up for a few thousand feet, but not much more. 

I have also watched a number of lightnings take off and must say that the results were impressive. For their time, they were quite impressive. Even in the mid-eightes, when I saw them at air shows in England, they raised eyebrows.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 10, 2005)

I was just wondering, evan, did you read my last post?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 10, 2005)

Sorry, I guess I did AFTER you posted. Better to be redundant than to not say it, I reckon.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 10, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I would like to correct a common mistake with the Lightning. It's engines did not provide a greater thrust than it's weight. The thrust of both RR Avons combined was 31,160 lbs. The EMPTY (No fuel) weight of the Lightning was 28,000 lbs. The weight loaded was 50,000 lbs. See, fuel weighs a lot!
> 
> The initial rate of climb on the Lightning was 50,000 ft per minute.
> 
> ...





> In service, most late F-4As incorporating all of these changes were re-engined with J79-GE-8 engines rated at 10,900 lb.s.t. dry and 17,000 lb.s.t. with afterburning. This increased thrust more than made up for the increased drag produced by the higher canopy. The Phantom had a thrust/weight ratio that had never before been achieved by any fighter, and *a ratio exceeding unity was often achievable in practice*, enabling the aircraft to continue to accelerate while traveling straight up.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_2.html



As you can see, the early model Phantoms had 17000 lbs s.t. However, the later models (by the time of the E, 1966) had 17900 lbs s.t., as you quoted. Empty weight on the F4-E was 29535 lbs, not the 31853 lbs you quote. Typical combat takeoff weight was 38019, not the 53814 lbs you quote. 

While it is true the "combat weight" of the Phantom is rated about 2000 lbs greater than it's thrust, this does not change the fact that the plane could be configured for intercept (ie: armed) and have a better than 1:1 thrust/weight ratio. Internal fuel was 1225 US Gallons in the fuselage tanks and 630 gallons in the wing tanks, about 13000 lbs of fuel max capacity. For intercept 5000 lbs of fuel would be pleanty, so a 1:1 thrust to ratio on an intercept configured Phantom was doable, giving a range of about 250 miles (rt).

Initial climb rate on the F4-E Phantom was 61,400.

Also, Phantoms were often set up for quick takeoff on Carriers. Exactly what the proceedure was I'm unsure, but they were set on the catapults and could be launched as fast as the pilot could get to them. I suspect these were simply kept warm and ready to go. From cold to go it took a Phantom approximately 9 minutes to get rolling.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 10, 2005)

As an honorary mention...


The Mig-25.


Initial Climb Rate 40,950 ft (12,480 m) / min


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 10, 2005)

After which the engines would have to be replaced and the MiG would be off operations for a while. In term of performance, the MiG-25 is impressive. In terms of practicality, the MiG-31 is a major improvement.

I wouldn't feel comfortable taking of on an intercept with only 5,000lbs of fuel. On an intercept, afterburner would be used frequently causing fuel consumption to skyrocket.

Incidentily, I don't believe the Ta-152 wasn't the be-all of piston engined fighters.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 11, 2005)

You seem to be forgetting that the same involves the so-beloved F-15...


It can only climb at its maximum and can only reach m2.5 when VMAX is on, a special afterburner switch on the side of the cockpit which requires the engines to be overhauled after the flight and can only be used for a short period of time.

Generally speaking, a loaded (not fully, just an average loadout of fuel/tanks and missles - maybe four AAMRAMS and two Sidewinders) is limited to, "only," m1.78.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 11, 2005)

F4As were test aircraft only. There were only 45 built. The F4E was the most common phantom built with 1405 made.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

Obviously, RG, you have NO idea how much fuel can weigh. The Phantom cannot take-off with a 1:1 thrust:weight ratio because it'd have no fuel. 
The empty [equipped] weight is 31,853 lbs, the normal take-off weight (internal fuel and 4 AIM-7E) was 53, 814 lbs. The MAXIMUM take-off weight was 61, 795 lbs. The majority of that weight is fuel. You want to get the aircraft moving you have to have fuel...  35, 800 lbs does not provide enough for 1:1 thrust to weight. 

250 miles isn't enough to intercept, the Lightning had 450 miles radius and that is considered poor. Even for an interceptor. That site is talking bollocks. Oh, on top of that use a little math a J79-GE-17 provided 17,900 lbs combined both engines provided 35,800 lbs. 

And the MAXIMUM rate of climb for the F-4E (clean) was 49, 800 feet. Clean wing means no armament. 

Again, the first aircraft to achieve 1:1 thrust:weight was the F-15. With combined thrust reaching 47,600 lbs from both F100-PW-100 each (re-heat) with clean take-off weight being 40,000 lbs.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2005)

i still considder the lightnig the better interceptor.............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 11, 2005)

He can certainly get off the ground quicker. However, the F-4 Phantom had 4 AIM-7s for intercept where as the Lightning had two Firestreaks which were very good short range missiles but there's two, not four. The F-15 could also go intercept with radio silence as it was one of the first aircraft that could track it's target without ground controls help, plus the F-15 was a superior interceptor to the F-4 due to its quicker climb and quicker speed. 
The Lightning was a 1947 design and was the only Western aircraft to reach 60,000 feet and intercept a Tu-95 until the Phantom came about during the 60s (Flying in the 50s though). Even then it can be considered a superior interceptor to the Phantom because it COULD get there quicker. 

Oh and in the RAF all interceptors, including Phantoms, were full to the brim on fuel even when intercepting. It's much safer, and they can escort the Soviet bombers away further.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 11, 2005)

Good point, plan_d. It's one thing to intercept and destroy. But that would have ruffled some feathers during the cold war, not to mention cause a potentially devastating escalation! You need the fuel to keep pestering them to go away.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Obviously, RG, you have NO idea how much fuel can weigh. The Phantom cannot take-off with a 1:1 thrust:weight ratio because it'd have no fuel.
> The empty [equipped] weight is 31,853 lbs, the normal take-off weight (internal fuel and 4 AIM-7E) was 53, 814 lbs. The MAXIMUM take-off weight was 61, 795 lbs. The majority of that weight is fuel. You want to get the aircraft moving you have to have fuel...  35, 800 lbs does not provide enough for 1:1 thrust to weight.
> 
> 250 miles isn't enough to intercept, the Lightning had 450 miles radius and that is considered poor. Even for an interceptor. That site is talking bollocks. Oh, on top of that use a little math a J79-GE-17 provided 17,900 lbs combined both engines provided 35,800 lbs.
> ...



Jet fuel weighs about 6 lbs per gallon (US).

The F.6 Lightning had a combat radius of 400 miles. Earlier versions, which are what we are discussing, had a shorter range. I chose 250 miles because this was about equal to that of the contemporary Lightnings of ~1965.

I suggest you look at the whole J. Baugher site, one of the most respected aircraft sites on the web:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4.html



> Specification of the F-4E Phantom:
> Engines: Two General Electric J79-GE-17 turbojets, 11,870 lb.s.t dry, 17,900 lb.s.t. with afterburner. Performance: Maximum speed 1430 mph at 36,000 feet (Mach 2.21), 914 mph at sea level (Mach 1.19). Cruising speed 585 mph. Landing speed 158 mph. *Initial climb rate 61,400 feet per minute*. Service ceiling 62,250 feet. Combat ceiling 59,600 feet. *Combat range 595 miles, maximum range 1885 miles with maximum external fuel.* Weights: *29,535 pounds empty*, 40,562 pounds gross, *38,019 pounds combat weight*, 61,651 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Dimensions: Wingspan 38 feet 5 inches, wing area 530 square feet, length 63 feet 0 inches, height 16 feet 6 inches. Fuel: *Maximum internal fuel in the fuselage tanks* was 1364 US gallons (up to block 40) or *1225 US gallons *(block 41 and beyond). An additional *630 gallons of fuel could be carried in internal tanks inside the wings*. Maximum external fuel load was 600 US gallons in a centerline tank that could be carried underneath the fuselage plus 370 US gallons in each of two tanks that could be carried underneath the outer underwing pylons, bringing total fuel load to 3334 US gallons (up to block 40) or 3195 US gallons (block 41 and beyond). Armament: Armament consisted of a single 20-mm M61A1 cannon with 639 rounds in an undernose gondola, plus four AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles in semi-recessed slots in the fuselage belly and two to four AIM-9 Sidewinder infra-red homing air-to-air missiles carried under the wings on the inboard pylons.* A total offensive load of up to 16,000 pounds could be carried on the centerline and four underwing hardpoints*.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_11.html



If your figures were right, there would be no way the plane could carry 16000 lbs of offensive weapon.

I figure the interceptor configuration weight as:

empty weight + full fuselage fuel + 4 x AIM-7 Sparrow a2a missiles + 2 AIM-9 Sidewinder A2A missiles

or

29535 + (1225 x 6) + 2000 + 380 = 39265

Which put's its power-weight ratio about equal to the Lightning.

Interestingly,



> * By the late 1970s, the Lightning was beginning to be replaced by the McDonnell Douglas Phantom in RAF service, with a number of Lightnings relegated to such roles as ground decoys. *Overall performance of the Phantom was comparable to that of the Lightning*, with pluses and minuses, but the Phantom provided better endurance; more sophisticated and capable avionics; and much more substantial missile armament: a Phantom could carry four Sidewinder short-range AAMs and four Sparrow medium-range AAMs, in contrast to the two Firestreak or Red Top short-range AAMs carried by the Lightning. Later model Sidewinders and Sparrows were also far superior technically to the older Firestreak and Red Top. The Lightning was superior in terms of gun armament, however, since RAF Phantoms were limited to carriage of a centerline 20 millimeter Vulcan cannon pod, which lacked both the accuracy and the hitting power of the Lightning's twin Aden cannon.
> http://www.vectorsite.net/aveeltg.html#m4



It seems in the end even the RAF prefered the Phantom.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Your interceptor configuration is not correct. Standard air to air interception with the phantom consisted of the following on the hardpoints:
4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
4 x AIM-7 Sparrows
2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station. 

This was [bold]standard[/bold] configuration for the US Navy as well as AF Guard and Reserve Units.

Enhanced air to air interception war loads
1 x SUU-23/A Vulcan six-barrel 20mm machine gun pod with 1,200 rounds mounted on the Centerline
4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
4 x AIM-7 Sparrow
2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station. 

These are right out of the AF and Navy manuals and are published in the Book "The World's Greatest Attack Aircraft"

A few other numbers that need correcting here, the internal fuel load on the F-4E Phantom II weighed 12,290 lbs. couting wing and fuselage tanks (1,855 gallons). 

You need to be careful making assumptions based solely on numbers and on one website. While the performance of the lightning and the phantom may have been comparable, they were a generation apart.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Your interceptor configuration is not correct. Standard air to air interception with the phantom consisted of the following on the hardpoints:
> 4 x AIM-9L Sidewinders
> 4 x AIM-7 Sparrows
> 2 x 370 US gallon drop tanks, one on each outer underwing station.
> ...



The F-4E could carry 2 or 4 AIM-9's as part of a "standard" configuration. But it hardly matters, two more weigh a wopping 380 lbs. I figured internal fuselage fuel only (1225 gallons) because this yeilds a range approximately equiv. to the 1965 era Lightning.

It is kind of muddy because most performance figures are comming from the F.6 Lightning and the F4-E Phantom, pretty much contemporaries. However the misssion of comaprision would better be served by the F.2 Lightning and the F4-B/C Phantom (quick intercept).

Much more data is available on the F4-E and F.6 planes.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Regardless of the model though, the standard load out for interception would be the same, regardless of whether they were flying B/C or E, or whatever model. With all the fuel, and depending on whether or not the Vulcan cannon was being carried, it was heavier than your initial assumptions. The point is, an F-4 could not sustain a vertical climb for as long as a Lightning.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

The standard load-out for a Phantom was four AIM-7s when on QRF. The Lightning carried two Red Tops (or Firestreaks) and it is a fact that from scramble call to take-off the Lightning was quicker. 

1965 was F.6 Lightning, 1961 was F.2. A UK gallon weighs 8 lbs. Ever thought your site might be wrong about its weights? 

That site really is talking shit. If the RAF prefered Phantoms, why did the Lightnings out live them? 5 Sqn. and 11 Sqn. were still flying Lightnings when all the Phantoms had been replaced by Tornados. 

The fact is, the Lightning could climb faster than a Phantom from standstill. The Lightning nor the Phantom had 1:1 thrust:weight, the F-15 was the first to achieve it. The Lightning is one of the greatest interceptors of all time, a lot of American personel seeing them in flight were greatly impressed but is there something that prevents you from accepting its brilliance? Is it that name ENGLISH Electric Lightning?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

I will have to be honest here, despite my patriotic fervor to want an American plane to be better (no offense to the English, BTW), the Lightning was a better interceptor. I have seen both in action and nothing beats the look on the face of an American pilot the first time he sees a Lightning in action. Something like this...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

The Lightning entered service in 1960, the final squadron to convert to Tornado (11 Sqn.) did so on 30th April 1988. Admittedly the final stand down of Phantoms was 43 Sqn. in 1989 but it began conversion (for training) earlier, in 1988. 
Remember though the Phantom entered much later than the Lightning. And the Phantom NEVER replaced the Lightning.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Yes, they were a generation apart, which makes the Lightning even more advanced forit's time. It was a remarkable airplane. I saw it several times and was impressed every time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2005)

The Lighting was very advanced for its time and yes the Phantom was a great aircraft also but again how can one really compare two aircraft that were a generation apart. Infact the only thing I like about the Phantom is its looks, but I would compare the Phantom more to aircraft of its time.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The standard load-out for a Phantom was four AIM-7s when on QRF. The Lightning carried two Red Tops (or Firestreaks) and it is a fact that from scramble call to take-off the Lightning was quicker.
> 
> 1965 was F.6 Lightning, 1961 was F.2. A UK gallon weighs 8 lbs. Ever thought your site might be wrong about its weights?
> 
> ...



LOL, I have nothing against British (or Russian) planes. I have already accepted that from the word go a cold Lightning beats a cold Phantom to altitude (but a warm Phantom probably beats the EE Lightning by a tiny bit to 60,000 feet). It depends tremendously on how the measurement is being taken and what models are being discussed. For instance, a Carrier Phantom on intercept alert probably beats a Lightning on intercept alert by over a minute, since it's sitting on the catapult warmed up and ready to go and the crew chief would start the engines immeadiately (if they were not already running) if the pilot were not already sitting in it.

As for being a "great interceptor", I have my doubts given the very weak armaments and the nature of the armaments. 4 x Sparrows and 2-4 x Sidewinders beat a pair of Redtop (or firestreak) missiles by a large margin.

As for weights and measures - A US gallon is only about 80% of an Imp. Gallon, all the figures I gave in gallons were in US gallons (UK figures converted from metric). Also, while it is true that a US gallon of gasoline weighs about 7 lbs, a US gallon of jet fuel only weighs about 6 lbs. Jet fuel is lighter than gasoline.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

Any Naval aircraft that is hook up to the catapult has already been started. It would be just plain dumb to to put a plane on a catapult and then have it not start. Look again at the standard air to air intercept configuration, that was Navy and AF units. That includes 2 drop tanks of 370 gallons each, adding approximately 5,000 lbs! 

8 missiles are okay, but what about guns? Two big advantages with guns; you can shoot at more than 8 aircraft and if you need to fire a warning shot or volley, you can't do that with a missile. I simply do not understand why you say the Lightning was not a great interceptor. You are the ONLY person that I have ever heard say that, British or American.

Jet fuel is 6.6 lbs per gallon, by the way.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Any Naval aircraft that is hook up to the catapult has already been started. It would be just plain dumb to to put a plane on a catapult and then have it not start. Look again at the standard air to air intercept configuration, that was Navy and AF units. That includes 2 drop tanks of 370 gallons each, adding approximately 5,000 lbs!
> 
> 8 missiles are okay, but what about guns? Two big advantages with guns; you can shoot at more than 8 aircraft and if you need to fire a warning shot or volley, you can't do that with a missile. I simply do not understand why you say the Lightning was not a great interceptor. You are the ONLY person that I have ever heard say that, British or American.
> 
> Jet fuel is 6.6 lbs per gallon, by the way.



Today that is how they are configured. At the height of the cold war, when intercept missions against Russian intruders were common. They were configured for quick scrambles didn't have external tanks. Typically 2 planes would be up on patrol and two would be maintained in scramble condition sitting on the catapults ready to rock and roll.

Radar guided missiles could be locked on the target, same effect as firing a volley as their internal sensors would go wild, but well out of defensive gun range. Pulling in close enough to fire a meaningful volly of cannon as a warning was a questionable thing, as a Soviet bomber could wax you with its AM-23 or GSH-23 guns if you did so. Given the nature of the cannon on the Lightning, perhaps 3 or 4 targets could be engaged, but the value of guns compared to missiles at that point, especially against bombers, was highly questionable.

FAA sight says 6 lbs per gallon, but it may well be 6.6 lbs.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

There is no today with the F-4. The last F-4s in US service were retired in 1996. They are not even flown by guard or reserve units anymore. They are missile drones now. The standard air to air configuration was used during the cold war. The reference that I supplied was written in 1988, and that configuration had been in use for quite some time. They added the guns in the enhanced version because they saw the need for them. Radar lock does have effect, but tracers past your canopy have an even greater effect.

You can continue to defend your position, but you really need more reference material. Talk to some guys that actually flew them. I'm done, the facts are there. How you choose to interpret them or try to deny them is completely up to you.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 12, 2005)

By "today" I meant in the 80's, I should have been more clear.

My Dad flew phantoms a bit, and commanded a whole attack wing of them (but could no longer go "in country" in VN by that point). I've heard stories about the pilots sitting in the Phantoms on the catapults ready to launch for hours.

We're talkin 1965 here right? I think I've even got footage of mid-60's Phantoms scrambling of carrier decks with only missiles as ext. stores.

But all that is mute. The topic was time-to-climb figures. More specifically, it was late-WWII era fighter performance.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2005)

Two Firestreaks is perfectly adequete to bring down Soviet intruders. Obviously, with your over-American patriotism, you'd want the Lightning with two Sidewinders which as it happens, the Lightning was being tested with in the 70s-80s. It was decided that instead of WASTING money on these new missiles, the old stock Firestreaks did the job just as well against the Soviet aircraft. 

You are the only person I have ever come across that has called the Lightning a bad interceptor. I can understand it actually, you were sure a Bearcat could beat an EE Lightning to 10,000 feet.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 12, 2005)

> I can understand it actually, you were sure a Bearcat could beat an EE Lightning to 10,000 feet.


Ouch....
Open it planD.....


----------



## evangilder (Jan 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> By "today" I meant in the 80's, I should have been more clear.
> 
> My Dad flew phantoms a bit, and commanded a whole attack wing of them (but could no longer go "in country" in VN by that point). I've heard stories about the pilots sitting in the Phantoms on the catapults ready to launch for hours.
> 
> ...



If the 80s is today, you are about 20 years behind. Attack wings carry different loads than air to air interceptors. 

Footage of an aircraft launching from a deck does not prove your point. They could be doing training exercises or other missions completely. The phantom was a versatile airplane.

This is my last post on this. Take a look below, every single intercept photo has..._Drop tanks_.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

I didn't say it was a "bad" interceptor, just that it lacked firepower found on the Phantom. Being restricted to use of IR guided missiles was also a significant comparative disadvantage.

We could continue this debate into relative quality of missiles, but I think if you check it out you will agree the Sidewinder was the better missile by the mid 60's, and the Sparrow certainly the better choice for bomber interception.

There were effective countermeasures to IR missiles in the mid-60's, so I don't know how you can consider two to be enough. The sidewinder, firestreak, and redtop were all known to chase flares, the sun, or sometimes even reflections off the ground.

By the 70's and 80's the Sidewinder was tremendously more advanced than the Firestreak. The 11 mile vs 7.5 mile max range and the 900m vs almost 3 km min range are huge advantages.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

If you have studdied the Sparrow you will know that it has always been a piece of crap missile. The best performance it ever gave was in the '91 Gulf War when it was responsible for the majority of air-to-air kills. It success rate, however, was only 30% or so.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 13, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> If you have studdied the Sparrow you will know that it has always been a piece of crap missile. The best performance it ever gave was in the '91 Gulf War when it was responsible for the majority of air-to-air kills. It success rate, however, was only 30% or so.



71 Sparrows were fired in Desert Storm for 26 kills. In most cases, two or more missiles were fired against each target, with an interval between firing, so the 37% hit ratio is misleadingly low.

Against low flying fighters it is not the best missile, especially the earlier versions. Against high flying bombers, the orginal intended target, its a great missile and has been since the early 60's. I'll do some more research on this when I have more time.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

The Red Top was perfectly adequete for the job. This isn't a case of which carried the better missiles, it's the aircraft we're talking about. I already told you the Lighting was being tested with Sidewinders anyway. With a 68 lb warhead at 7 miles, going Mach 3 one missile would bring down a Bear. 
The Firestreak was a poor missile by mid-60s but it entered service in 1958. At Mach 2, 50 lbs warhead with a range of 4 miles it was still adequete to bring down the slow Soviet bombers. 

Yes, the Phantom could carry the bigger payload but the Lightning could reach the enemy first and deal with the threat quicker. The RAF had already ordered the AIM-9L in the 80s anyway, had the Lightning carried on service it probably would have been equipped with them but by 1988 the age-old Lightning was finally retired from service at the same time as the Phantoms. 

The AIM-7 wasn't a short range air-to-air missile, it was a long range missile. Comparing that with the Red Top is stupid. The AIM-7 is in the same catergory as the BAe Sky Flash. 

Brilliant pictures by the way, evan. Notice the one Phantom in the RAF shot, although I know it was probably another Phantom taking the shot the RAF NORMALLY only scrambled one plane for one Soviet bomber.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> 71 Sparrows were fired in Desert Storm for 26 kills. In most cases, two or more missiles were fired against each target, with an interval between firing, so the 37% hit ratio is misleadingly low.
> 
> Against low flying fighters it is not the best missile, especially the earlier versions. Against high flying bombers, the orginal intended target, its a great missile and has been since the early 60's. I'll do some more research on this when I have more time.
> 
> ...



If it truely is such a good missle then why did they have to fire 2 or more missles at each target, that would actually confirm to me that its success rate was quite low.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

i know little about missiles but i do know the lightning was a better intorceptor than the phantom, and few would argue with me on that one.............


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Few would. Damn it! If it weren't so obvious I KNOW the Lightning was a better interceptor, I would argue...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

don't worry Plan_D, i'll think of something we can argue about soon..........


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

Good...we agree on too many things, you know that's wrong...it shouldn't happen. It's almost tragic.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 13, 2005)

ok, which is the mother of all deserts?? it has to be sticky toffe pudding or apple pie................


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

The Sahara.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2005)

Mamma home made fudge!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2005)

He said desert, the mother of all deserts is the Sahara. It's the largest desert in the world.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 13, 2005)

But which is the hottest????


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 13, 2005)

The only reasonable success any of the Sparrow family have had is as a navy point defense system.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

I don't know why you'd compare the AIM-7 to Red Top, they're different catergory missiles! 

Which is the hottest, I don't know. Mojave? Arizona?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

plan_D said:


> He said desert, the mother of all deserts is the Sahara. It's the largest desert in the world.



Yes I know I was making a joke.  

And as for Lightning guy on the sparrow. I believe the sparrow is a good missle system but I think there are missles that are just as good out there.

AIM-120A AMRAAM, AIM-54C Phoenix, Skyflash, Mica, AA-10C Alamo, AA-6A Acrid, AA-9 Amos, AA-12 Adder, and Aspide.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Wasn't the AIM-120 supposed to take over the AIM-7?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2005)

Yes it is a better replacement and was meant for all NATO countries.



> The AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range, Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM (pronounced am-ram), commonly known to air crews as the 'Slammer,' is a new generation air-to-air missile, developed as the result of an agreement between the United States and other NATO countries (see below). Its eastern counterpart is the very similar Russian R-77 AA-12 Adder, commonly known in the west as "Amraamski".
> 
> The AMRAAM has an all-weather, beyond-visual-range capability. It improves the aerial combat capabilities of U.S. and allied aircraft to meet the future threat of enemy air-to-air weapons. AMRAAM serves as a follow-on to the AIM-7 Sparrow missile series. The new missile is faster, smaller, and lighter, and has improved capabilities against low-altitude targets. It also incorporates an active radar in conjunction with an inertial reference unit and micro-computer system, which makes the missile less dependent upon the fire-control system of the aircraft. Once the missile closes in on the target, its active radar guides it to intercept. This feature, called "fire and forget", frees the pilot from the need to continuously illuminate the missile's target with a radar lock, enabling the pilot to aim and fire several missiles simultaneously at multiple targets and perform evasive maneuvers while the missiles guide themselves to the targets.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 14, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > 71 Sparrows were fired in Desert Storm for 26 kills. In most cases, two or more missiles were fired against each target, with an interval between firing, so the 37% hit ratio is misleadingly low.
> ...



Why not fire more than one? One missile can be evaded, but that usually makes evading the 2nd missile nearly impossible.

Who's missiles were better????

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 14, 2005)

Who out of contest between American and Iraqi missiles!?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 14, 2005)




----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 14, 2005)

The only American fighter still using the AIM-7 is the F-14 and that is only because it already had the Phoenix.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...



Well the Iraqis certainly did not have anything that compared, they had outdated Russian and French missles just like the aircraft that carried them and there crews were undertrained. The average Iraqi pilot recieved less then 50 flight hours a year in training. So you can not compare American Missles with Iraqi. Sorry cant do it that is already onesided. As for missles that are just as good or better I have already made a list of them in my other recent post including AMRAMM, which was made to replace the AIM-7.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 15, 2005)

I agree.

So what other missiles in the 60's-70's timeframe were better?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2005)

No I will agree with you that in 60's to 70's timeframe it was the best missle of its type. However I think the AIM-54 Pheonix was the best air to air missle period. Its only downfall was that only the F-14 Tomcat could fire it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 16, 2005)

The Phoenix was great for intercepting steady, unmanouverable aircraft at a set altitude...... In a multitude of targets, simulatneously.....

However, at a $1,000,000 dollars a shot, it was very expensive..... I have a whole book on the test firing of a 6 shot drone attack.....

It has been found that an agile fighter such as the Mig-29 type could successfully evade this missle with ease...

The AMRAMM is a much better weap in my opinion...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2005)

The AMRAMM is a great weapon and very hard to shake.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 16, 2005)

The Red Top was hard to shake, but only had a 7 mile range. Then, it is a short range missile, the sparrow was medium. The AIM-9 is short range and before the L, I believe inferior to the Red Top. 

The British had the BAe Sky Flash in place of the Sparrow


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 16, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Red Top was hard to shake, but only had a 7 mile range. Then, it is a short range missile, the sparrow was medium. The AIM-9 is short range and before the L, I believe inferior to the Red Top.
> 
> The British had the BAe Sky Flash in place of the Sparrow



The Firestreak came out in 1958, had a minimum range just shy of 2 miles, a max range of about 5 miles. It weighted ~300 lbs.

The Redtop came out in 1964, had a 16.5 mile max. range and weighed 330 lbs.

The early Sidewinder AIM-9B entered service in 1956 and had a range of just 3 miles, but min range was extremely close. Various models were introduced at least through the D by the late 50's and the E by the mid 60's. This was followed by the G and H models in the early 70's, and then we get to more modern models. Range on the D E verision is about 10 miles. Weight is only about 180 lbs, almost half that of the Redtop.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 16, 2005)

Weight of the missile means nothing, weight of the warhead does. The Red Top had a range of 7 miles. It wasn't until the 80s AIM-9Ls that they became superior to the Red Top missile. 

The Firestreak doesn't need to be mentioned because it was soon replaced by the Red Top, as there were many faults with the Firestreak. Although they can be forgiven, being a 50s design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

And how can really compare a short range missle to a medium or long range missle anyhow. Fighter in England and the United States carry both short and medium or long range so you really cant compare them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Alright lets see if this siggy thing I made works in the posting.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Alright that did not work how do I get my siggy to post like your guy's does?


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Jan 17, 2005)

Go to your profile and paste this in the "signature" box:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Allright here is the test lets see if it works. Thanks again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Cool it worked.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 17, 2005)

Nice siggy!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 17, 2005)

Yeah, nice!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Yeah I like the font. I need to get an old english font. Does anyone know any websites where you can get them and other fonts?


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Weight of the missile means nothing, weight of the warhead does. The Red Top had a range of 7 miles. It wasn't until the 80s AIM-9Ls that they became superior to the Red Top missile.
> 
> The Firestreak doesn't need to be mentioned because it was soon replaced by the Red Top, as there were many faults with the Firestreak. Although they can be forgiven, being a 50s design.



Weight and size are always a factor.

Your figures for Sidewinder range are wrong. Ranges are listed below:

AIM-9B: 4.8 km (3 miles)
AIM-9E: 4.2 km (2.6 miles)
AIM-9D/G/H/J/L/M/N: 18 km (11 miles)
AIM-9X: 40+ km (25+ miles)

The AIM-9B came out in the early 50's, the AIM-9D came out in the late 50's. The Red Hat qualified in 1964 but was not fielded until 1967. The AIM-9G qualified in 1963 but was not fielded until 1968. The AIM-9G was not signficantly used until late 1969 or so, because it required targeting systems mods to the planes to use them effectively. The same issue existed for the Red Hat, but since it was never actually used we don't have a figure for how long this may have taken.

So the range argument you've been presenting is bogus. The late 50's AIM-9D had greater range than the Red Hat. And the proper comparisons are between the Firestreak and the AIM-9D, or between the Red Hat and the AIM-9G, since those are contemporary missiles.

When comparing the Red Hat to the AIM-9G, well, they have different primary intents. The Red Hat is an all-aspect IR missile intended for bomber interception. It could be fired at a target at any angle but it's minimum launch range was 1.2 km, a maximum range of 11 km, and its ability to lock highly manuverable targets, especially near the ground, was limited by the planes optical scanning targeting system.

The AIM-9G was a high-aspect IR missile that could use either an optical scanning targeting system to achieve a lock or the scanning system could be slaved to the pilots helmet allowing a much improved lock capability against hard manuvering opponents, especially near the ground. It had to be behind the target to aquire a lock. The AIM-9G had no minimum range (other than "behind the target") and a maximum range of 18 km. It was intended to intercept fast moving/manuvering fighters.

The AIM-9L "all-aspect" Sidewinder was introduced in 1976, not "the 80's". The L's first use was in the early 80's by British Harriers in the Faulkin's war. H and J models were in use as early as 1972 in Vietnam.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

The Sidewinder was and is the best short range missle. Atleast the newer models are.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2005)

I said nothing about the Sidewinder ranges.    

The late 70s and on are the best short range air-to-air missiles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2005)

Oh I agree I was not saying that you did, I was just making a statement. I think this whole discussion on a missle from the 90's being better than a missle form the 60's is stupid anyhow. You can not compare them ofcourse the missle from the 90's is better. Anyway he will argue to argue so dont worry.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Jan 17, 2005)

By the mid-90s the Sidewinder had been surpassed. The Israeli Python, European ASRAAM, and Russian AA-11 Archer where all far supperior to the AIM-9M. However, the newest version, AIM-9X, has restored the dominance of the Sidewinder family.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> I said nothing about the Sidewinder ranges.
> 
> The late 70s and on are the best short range air-to-air missiles.



Hmmm....



plan_D said:


> The Red Top was hard to shake, but only had a 7 mile range. Then, it is a short range missile, the sparrow was medium. The AIM-9 is short range and before the L, I believe inferior to the Red Top.
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=47609#47609



I'd assumed in this you meant the range of the Sidewinder was inferior to that of the Red Top. If you meant generally inferior, that is very debateable.

The Red Top was all-aspect, so it could be fired at the front of the target. The AIM-9G was high aspect, it could be fired at significant angles off the rear of the target, but it had much faster target locking and was better suited to use against fast moving manuvering targets. By this point, the purposes had diverged, the Sidewinder being more for fighter and attack plane interception, the Red Top being more for bomber interception.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh I agree I was not saying that you did, I was just making a statement. I think this whole discussion on a missle from the 90's being better than a missle form the 60's is stupid anyhow. You can not compare them ofcourse the missle from the 90's is better. Anyway he will argue to argue so dont worry.



Who's talking about missles from the 90's? I've been talking about missiles from the 60's. AIM-9B - early/mid 50's. AIM-9D Firestreak - late 50's. AIM-9G Red Top - mid-late 60's. AIM-9H - early 70's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

The Red Top was capable of locking on an enemy fighter, without the Lightning even facing the enemy plane. Plus, as you said, it could fire anywhere on the enemy plane. The Firestreak had to be fired from behind the enemy. 

The only reason the Red Top is known as being made for bringing down bombers is because the Lightning was only intercepting bombers. The Red Top could have done the job over fighters too.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Red Top was capable of locking on an enemy fighter, without the Lightning even facing the enemy plane. Plus, as you said, it could fire anywhere on the enemy plane. The Firestreak had to be fired from behind the enemy.
> 
> The only reason the Red Top is known as being made for bringing down bombers is because the Lightning was only intercepting bombers. The Red Top could have done the job over fighters too.



Read about IR scanning systems of the time. For a missile to be launched first the planes IR scanner had to aquire a lock. This took time, especially if the target was engaging in evasives and could not be held in the center of the sensor easily. The scanning system is typically referred to as a "rosetta pattern" scan, with the scanner passing through the center far more often than the edges. As far as I know, the scanner on the Lightning was forward looking only, and there was no pilot-helmet scanner. Do you have info to the contrary?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I agree I was not saying that you did, I was just making a statement. I think this whole discussion on a missle from the 90's being better than a missle form the 60's is stupid anyhow. You can not compare them ofcourse the missle from the 90's is better. Anyway he will argue to argue so dont worry.
> ...



I was making a general statement, sorry that you read to much into it.  You can not compare missles of different types to each other. A short range and a medium range how can you compare them. I understand comparing the AIM 9 to other short range missles which you have done on several occasions but otherwise it has been how the Sparrow is superior to short range missles of the 50's. Do you understand my general statement now, if not oh well I dont care.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 18, 2005)

bit late but nice siggy der alder................


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 18, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I like the font. I need to get an old english font. Does anyone know any websites where you can get them and other fonts?



There is a font called 'Fraktur' which was used on all the official leaflets and letterheads of the Third Reich. 

Okay, this came from this site linked here;

http://www.waldenfont.com/default.asp

At the end of the 15th century most Latin books in Germany were printed in a dark, barely legible gothic type style known as Textura. What little was printed in German used the rougher and more base Schwabacher type. When the German emperor Maximilian (reigned 1493-1517) decided to establish a splendid library of printed books, he directed that a new typeface be created especially for this purpose. This typeface was to be more elegant than the boorish Schwabacher, more modern than the gothic Textura and yet distinctly “German” in that it should not incorporate elements of the Antiqua style typefaces that the humanist movement had just created in Italy based on ancient roman lettering, and which had become the rage of printing fashion south of the Alps. Based on the Bastarda handwriting used by the scribes of the Emperor’s chancery, the calligrapher Leonhard Wagner designed this new typeface, which soon became known as Fraktur (say frac-toor) for the broken character of its lines. Only four of Maximilian's 130 planned editions were completed in his lifetime, but those four had been sent for illustration to the foremost German renaissance artists, Dürer, Cranach and Grün. The artists used the new typeface in their works and thus gave it a wide distribution. Albrecht Dürer’s “Unterweysung” is still one of the most famous books printed in Fraktur. 
When the reformation movement swept across Germany, a flood of printed propaganda came with it. Much of this material used the new Fraktur and helped to make the new type popular far and wide. It allowed for an easy distinction of catholic and protestant publications: The protestants printed German, using Fraktur, the Catholics printed Latin, using Antiqua types similar to the one used here. One edition of the Bible even had each verse start with a Fraktur letter when the topic was salvation or other positive events, but Antiqua when it was satan, hell, and eternal damnation. It was this separation that caused Fraktur to be known as the “German” and Antiqua as the “Latin” font. For the next five centuries, the Germans managed to hold on to the ancient Fraktur, swaying between unanimous support of it and cursing the “anachronistic monk’s scribbling” depending on the current level of national sentiment. Most works intended for a general audience continued to be printed this way well into the 20th century, while books of a more scientific nature used the “learned” Latin type. In the meantime, most other European countries adopted Antiqua, and still use it to this day. After World War I Fraktur finally began to go out of style as German society became more cosmopolitan and open to international influences. This ended, of course, with the rise of the Third Reich and the ensuing glorification of everything German. Many pseudo-Fraktur and Gothic types were created then, most displaying the harsh spirit of the “New Germany” and all of them incredibly ugly. It is ironic to learn that it was Hitler himself who finally terminated Fraktur printing. During the course of the war, the German type had proved to be a communications barrier with the peoples of occupied Europe, and so in January of 1941, Fraktur was officially abolished by declaring it to be “Un-German” and “of Jewish origin”. The order directed all newspapers and publishing houses to switch to Antiqua at the earliest practicable date. Due to the economic difficulties caused by the war, this date never really came, and relatively few publications had actually switched by the end of the war in 1945. The occupying allied forces naturally imposed a censorship on printed materials and further encouraged the use of Antiqua typefaces for reasons of legibility. In the following years, German printers and type designers looked for new directions that were not reminiscent of Germany’s militarist past, and eventually developed a style similar to the Bauhaus designs of the 1920’s. During the next forty years, Fraktur became closely and solely associated with the Third Reich. All Fraktur printing was treated with suspicion. Today, printers and type designers are carefully pulling these treasures back into the light and hope that they will once again be freed of political sentiments.

Now, it's a nice font, but not so nice that you'll want to pay for it! Fear not - here's a selection of 'true type' downloads;

http://www.morscher.com/3r/fonts/fraktur.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Cool thanks for the websites and the history will check it out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Now one more question, once I have downloaded it how do I get it to work? I put in my fonts folder in windows but it does not work.


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 18, 2005)

Hmm, I can't think what's wrong - I've just done exactly what you tried and it's fine for me. That's very strange!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

I just got it working thanks again.


----------



## Erich (Jan 18, 2005)

I agreed boths sites are fine, and yes how do you down load one or more of the selections of the last link posted ? it comes up as a box and that is it.....

mr. non PC chatting here E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

when the box comes up, click save, when the save to box comes up go to My Computer and then click on Windows and when in Windows click on Fonts and save it to fonts and it will be ready to use.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Test


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Test Again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 18, 2005)

Alright good stuff I have it figured out now.


----------



## Erich (Jan 18, 2005)

Adler it is still a bit big in my estimation. thanks for the introduction into saving the fonts....  I'll try that and see what happens

Gruß


----------



## Medvedya (Jan 18, 2005)

Looking good!  Glad to be of service.


----------



## Erich (Jan 18, 2005)

friends I have downloaded it successfully............finally. excellent type faces. Yeah guys 8) 

Glück auf !


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

> The Red Top, originally known as the de Havilland Firestreak IV, entered service in 1964 as a complement to and partial replacement for the earlier marks of Firestreak. Unlike it's predecessor, the new missile could engage targets from any direction, and both the launch aircraft and its target may be travelling at speeds up to Mach 2. The Red Top, which carries a larger warhead than the Firestreak and uses semiconductors in place of valves, was designed *for use against low-level manoeuvring targets rather than high level bombers, and may be fired without having to aim at the launch aircraft in the exact direction of its objective*. The position of the target to be engaged may be supplied by the interceptor's fire-control system (Ferranti Airpass on the BAC Lightning) or by the pilot...



Type: Short-Range Air-to-Air missile.
Powerplant: one two-stage solid propellant rocket motor
Performance: cruising speed Mach 3 or 1,980 mph at 40,000 feet. Maximum range 7 miles.
Weight: 330 lb
Warhead: 68-lb HE


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 18, 2005)

Source of this document?

My understanding was the first Red Top missiles used vacume tubes, later they were upgraded to use solid state technology (in the 70's).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Jan 18, 2005)

Where is YOUR source for the vacuum tube story then? If you are going to ask for sources, you better be ready to cough up yours as well.

So what if they used vacuum tubes? Did you know that alot of early Russian jets used vacuum tubes, and not for the reason that most people think. Vacuum tubes are far less succeptable to the EMP from a nuclear explosion than solid state electronics. 

Well built tubes would not affect the functioning of the missile.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 18, 2005)

Sorry, I forgot the source. "Encyclopedia of World Air Power" - Bill Gunston (1985) 

Old but not too old to know about the Red Top.


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 19, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Where is YOUR source for the vacuum tube story then? If you are going to ask for sources, you better be ready to cough up yours as well.
> 
> So what if they used vacuum tubes? Did you know that alot of early Russian jets used vacuum tubes, and not for the reason that most people think. Vacuum tubes are far less succeptable to the EMP from a nuclear explosion than solid state electronics.
> 
> Well built tubes would not affect the functioning of the missile.



I never said vacume tubes were all bad. But they did have problems with high G tolerance, and cooling issues for IR sensors.

My reason for asking was I suspect the Red Top had vacume tube tech at the start and then transitioned to solid state. But I could be wrong on this, its just that 1964 seems too early for solid state given my reading on the subject.

I've posted numerous sources already.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 19, 2005)

I did a search to see what I could find about the vacuum tubes and I could not find anything but this.


> Red Top was evolved from the earlier Firestreak AAM, with improved Violet Banner seeker, Green Garland IR fuse and Linnet booster rocket. Originally called Firestreak Mk IV, De Havillands, kept the Ministry of supply code name for marketing. Deployed on Lightning and Sea Vixen, Red Top remained in service until retired along with the Lightning in 1988
> 
> Proposed variants included Blue Dolphin, which was also called Blue Jay MkV. This was to have an active continuous wave radar seeker and was intended for Sea Vixen and TSR.2. Blue Jay MkV was similar in capability to the US AIM-7 Sparrow.
> www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/redtop.htm


----------



## Clever (Jan 26, 2005)

Gents

May you advise me on any pilots, who flew Ta-152, preferably against Soviets? Any aces among them?

Friend of mine makes a flying model of the plane and wants to paint it as specific as possible.

Thanks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 26, 2005)

Umm lets see what I can find. It was not used as much as you think in combat because there were not very many built. From what I have found so far the aircraft saw most of its combat in the defense of Berlin against the Russians.

Okay here looks like a good one for you:

Walter Loos



> Walter Loos was one of the last German Experten. He came as a newly-trained pilot to the III./JG 3 in January 1944, and was one of the few new pilots of 1944 who survived the war. He claimed his first aerial victory during a fierce aerial battle when the 8. US Air Force attacked Berlin on March 6, 1944.
> 
> While with the "Sturmgruppe" IV./JG 3, he downed several four-engine bombers and was hand-picked by Walther Dahl for Geschwaderstab/JG 300. Loos made a great success as a Sturmflieger, but was himself shot down nine times in only a few months.
> 
> ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2005)

wow he's got quite a record...............


----------



## Clever (Jan 26, 2005)

Thanks!

Thats exactly what was needed!


----------



## Erich (Jan 26, 2005)

Loos victories during the summer/fall of 44 are suspect and Stab./JG 301 never defeneded ANY jet bases. Not sure where this myth has come from or evolved. Jupp Keil was an ace with the Tank and Will Reschke was close flying several different numbered Tanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 27, 2005)

From what I read he got all of his kills from in the Defence of Berlin.


----------



## Clever (Jan 27, 2005)

Thanks again. Can you advise where thats possible to find cockpit drawings of the plane? Dashboard? Any pictures?


----------



## Erich (Jan 27, 2005)

the best reading on the Ta 152H is in Willi Reschke's JG 301/302 book now translated to English by Schiffer pubs.

yes the Stab/JG 301 was in the defence of Berlin and there were actually more victories against Sopviet a/c that have been claimed.

JG 301 will be covered by Jerry Crandall with many profiles and a special tribute to the Ta 152H with several different above, below, side views, cockpit details, armament details. I will be supplying some material/pics when he gets to that point for the work


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2005)

Thank for the book reference will deffinatly have to buy it. I tried a search for Ta-152 cockpit pictures online and was unable to come up with any though.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 28, 2005)

Clever said:


> Thanks again. Can you advise where thats possible to find cockpit drawings of the plane? Dashboard? Any pictures?



Clever, a Google image search found many Ta152 photos including these fantasict wooden models.

http://ggi.cool.ne.jp/solid/models/152H.htm

Another source is the Harmann Ta 152 book. (Erich what do you think of this book?)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2005)

I could find plenty of photos of the Ta-152 but could not find any cockpit photos of actual Ta-152's


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 28, 2005)

Ta 152 cockpits

http://www.geocities.com/ta152uk/

This is the NASM one.

You can buy the Il-2 sim series for it has the Ta 152H in it. The developer *insists* on 100% authenticity.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2005)

Yes I went to this website but it is a Flight Sim I am talking about the real cockpit photos, not computer ones. Something like this but not of a Me-109 but a Tw-152


----------



## KraziKanuK (Jan 28, 2005)

This photo from the link is not a computer rendition.


----------



## Erich (Jan 28, 2005)

KK the book you speak of is a combination of information from Will Rescheks book on JG 301 and the very old but excellent title from mongram publishers, the TA 152. Dietmar pretty much has done more of a tech book opn the Tank and he has done well. His operations is another story......still a book worth having for data on the fast a/c.

E ♪


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

Did anyone else notice the radiation tag in the cockpit photo? I wonder what that's all about.


----------



## Erich (Jan 28, 2005)

Asbestos ?


----------



## evangilder (Jan 28, 2005)

I didn't think asbestos was a radiation hazard, but it could be.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2005)

Yeah I dont know either. It would be neat to find out though. 5 Cool Points to the first to do so! Yeah!


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 31, 2005)

I'd say its more likely due to the gauges having a radioactive paint applied to make the marks visible at night. Lots of American aircraft had it, I don't know about British, German, Japanese or anybody else though!

I know the tag is tied around a bundle of wires but perhaps that was just a good place to tie it


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 31, 2005)

DaveB.inVa said:


> I'd say its more likely due to the gauges having a radioactive paint applied to make the marks visible at night. Lots of American aircraft had it, I don't know about British, German, Japanese or anybody else though!
> 
> I know the tag is tied around a bundle of wires but perhaps that was just a good place to tie it



It is possible. But the amount of radium used was tiny. It was used in watch dials too. It was the workers (mostly women) who painted them that suffered. They'd keep the brush wet with their tounges as they were working, and injested the paint.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 7, 2005)

Very good guess either way. It is the best guess from what I have seen so far. I remember when I was in training to learn about the Blackhawk, I now remember seeing a radiocative warning on the instrument panel, but I can not remember why, nor do i remember asking why.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 21, 2005)

Some Messerschmitt proposals to compite with the TA-152.
*BF-109H-1*, tree stage supercharger DB-605.






3 x 30mm plus 2 x 13mm.







*BF-109 H2* jumo 213.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

The Bf-109H was only meant to be an Interim High Alltitude fighter. It first flew (werk Nmr - 15708) on 5 Nov. 1943. The second prototype was the end of the program due to the development of the Ta-152H.



> The Bf-109H-1s were evaluated by the Luftwaffe in France in early 1944. The trials went well, except for the fact that the aircraft demonstrated an unhealthy wing flutter in dives. Tests were conducted on some of these aircraft back in Augsburg, and in April 1944 one lost a wing during a dive. This apparently stalled the program, which was then presently cancelled in favor of the Focke-Wulf Ta-152H. A number of additional H-series subvariants were considered but never reached prototype stage.
> http://www.vectorsite.net/avbf1092.html#m4


----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 11, 2012)

There is much confusion and discrepancy in the Ta-152H1 war record. Some sources claim SEVEN wins for FOUR losses. Most of the rest of the records are related to the Ta-152C which was used to guard the Airfields used buy the Jets and as such they were at best only moderately successful.

An apparent failure in the post's logic, was that the Ta-152H1 had twist in the wings that gave it particularly forgiving handling at, near, or post stall. This is not true. Almost all planes have "Wash out" or reduced AoA nearer the tips so that the wing will maintain roll control in or near stall. But because of the very long span and subsequent high Aspect Ratio, the stall would have been less forgiving than planes with less span and much less than planes with leading edge slats, like the Me-109! ( Which by the way, was widely regarded as the single best single engined fighter plane of WW-II by the pilots who flew and fought them!) Kind of tough to argue with pilots who have over 100, 200, 250, 300, or even 352 confirmed victories?

Others have made the point that comparing any two planes depends on so many parameters that comparison is only valid under those specific conditions. At low altitudes, the Ta-152H1 was a dog when compared to several other planes and yet the superior skill of at least two Ta-152H1 Pilots allowed them to prevail against supposedly supirior aircraft! ( Spit Mk-XIV and Tempest/Sabre falling to Ta-152H1 guns!) I also note that none of the seven known kills recorded by Ta-152H pilots were at high altitude.

Finally, a more valid comparison would be, as has already been pointed out, between the P-51H and the Ta-152H1. (There were more P-51Hs in service at any one time than there were Ta-152s.) But under that condition, the P-51H was vastly superior to the Ta-152H1 below 40,000 WO using the GM-1! ( NO2 Injection.) Above that altitude, the P-51H could wait him out or out climb them after and before the GM-1 was in use. Having >1,000FPM advantage in Rate of Climb even when using GM-1 means that unless the Ta-152H1 starts significantly higher than 40,000' altitude, the Mustang can climb up and get him before he reaches the altitude band where the Nazi plane has the advantage, or climb up past the "Service Ceiling" and shoot him down after he runs out of GM-1, which is the ONLY condition in which the Nazi plane is superior! WO GM-1, the Ta-152H1 is a dog when compared to the P-51H and can not match any performance parameter! Not a one!



Anonymous said:


> The Seafury (or Tempest II) could not have won a dogfight with the Bearcat. The Tempst could not out turn the P-51, the Bearcat could easily outturn the P-51 and probably almost any other WWII plane because of its huge powerloading advantage. It had the advantage in acceleration and climb, and probably was equal in a dive. It was just more of a "pure fighter" than the Tempest II.
> 
> On the otherhand, the F8F probably would not have been the best matchup against the Ta152, as it was really designed for combat below 22,000 feet.
> 
> ...



I find it kind of interesting that the F-8F was no match for the P-51D above 20,000'! Having seen a "mock combat" between the two that was flown for, IIRC, Flight magazine? There was much to compare between the F-8F and Fw-190A, except that the -2 'cat had the big engine that made all those numbers and the first gen version was not nearly so great! ( Relatively speaking that is! 424 Vs 440 MPH a thousand FPM less Rate of Climb, 50 MPH less dive speed, etc.)

Just to make some trouble for all the armchair pilots here, why not consider the P-38L Vs the bunch at altitudes above 25,000'? What can be said of the -38 is that it had better all around performance than all of the rest! But much more importantly, in the most vital performance parameters, it was heads and shoulders above them! ( Buy the way, those parameters were the ones no one talks about and few consider most important!)



lesofprimus said:


> The Sea Fury was designed to fight a different type of fighter than the Bearcat.... The Bearcat was a much more agile and powerful fighter....
> 
> And at altitude, I agree LG... The -152H was, in the hands of an Ace, extremely deadly over 35,000 feet...



As far as any one knows, not one single victory was won by Ta-152s of any type at more than 30,000'! Some sources say not one over 26,000'.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i was lucky enough to see the FAA's now flying example (sea fury that is)..............


See U-Tube of the Seafury at Reno! Note also the "Super" Seafury with R-4360 engine at the same venue!



plan_D said:


> Did you just say 35,000 feet for the Tu-95? Try 50,000 feet and then we're talking. Those things could fly at 57,000 feet if they really wanted to.
> 
> 
> > Could you please post a link to this info? This is much higher than I have ever heard of for that plane! I do not know of a single intercept at which the Bear was at or over 40,000'! While I know it is possible for a lightly laden Bear almost home and thus sans many tonnes of fuel to reach over 41,000' I have never heard of one at or over 45,000'!
> ...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2012)

Unfortunately I doubt you will get any responses from them. The posts you are referring to were written more the 7 years ago, and some of these members are no longer active.


----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 12, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Lighting was very advanced for its time and yes the Phantom was a great aircraft also but again how can one really compare two aircraft that were a generation apart. Infact the only thing I like about the Phantom is its looks, but I would compare the Phantom more to aircraft of its time.



The Convair F-106 Delta Dart was the primary all-weather interceptor aircraft for the United States Air Force from the 1960s through the 1980s. Designed as the so-called "Ultimate Interceptor", it has proven to be the last dedicated interceptor in U.S. Air Force service to date. My friend and F-106 pilot claimed that it was far and away the worlds best "Intercepter".
I also think the F-4 and EE Lightning were the same generation. (3.) About the same time fraim of first flight and entry into service? But it was not the first aircraft to have true super cruise! That was and still is the F-104! Even the early prototypes would cruise at M1.12 WO AB on the Saphire Engine! It just needed a shallow dive or briefe burst of AB to get through the Mach. The later J-79s would push any of them to exceed M1.27 WO the AB and the later mods were faster still!


----------



## cimmex (Apr 12, 2012)

Strange...what is the title of this thread???
cimmex


----------



## Erich (Apr 12, 2012)

I see the myth keeps on reliving itself in post # 237, Ta's protecting LW jets and their A/F's. this thread should be put away in the archiv's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2012)

Shooter - this is a 7 year old thread!!! Upper Left hand of the thread page will give you a date.


----------



## CobberKane (Apr 12, 2012)

plan_D said:


> I'm wondering too now, it's on my favourites (the site) but I can't find it.
> 
> I have a better one with the RR Nene which is probably true -
> 
> ...



Yep, great engine the Nene - so good that the Brits in their wisdom gave one to the Soviets, who produced it as the Klimov VK-1, wrapped it in the Mig 15 and sent the whole package back to bite everyone on the bum in Korea...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Yep, great engine the Nene - so good that the Brits in their wisdom gave one to the Soviets, who produced it as the Klimov VK-1, wrapped it in the Mig 15 and sent the whole package back to bite everyone on the bum in Korea...


I don't think so. 3 to 1 conservative estimates, 6 to 1 including Chinese and North Koreans. The F-86 was a major distributor of used MiG-15 parts.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 12, 2012)




----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 13, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Unfortunately I doubt you will get any responses from them. The posts you are referring to were written more the 7 years ago, and some of these members are no longer active.


Bummer! I like to get in on a good argument! And these sort of things are some of my favorites. Personally, I like the P-38 as top dog over all and the Me-109 if restricted to a single engine. The first because of it's potential and the second because of it's demonstrated effects.


----------



## SHOOTER (Apr 13, 2012)

I like the rifle in your picture so much that I have two.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 13, 2012)

SHOOTER said:


> Bummer! I like to get in on a good argument!



As long as you keep it civil...


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 14, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As long as you keep it civil...



Which going by Shooter2000s previous history on countless forums will be about a week. The man collects bans like I collect empty beer bottles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2012)

He is certainly being watched. I will not tolerate it!


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

Shooter,

I fully understand how power loading affects climb rate. How does it affect turn rate?

Wing loading affects turn rate MUCH more than power loading, except at high altitude, where span loading takes over as a maneuverabilty indicator.


----------



## GregP (Apr 14, 2012)

Erich,

How can you say the Ta-152s being used to protect jet airfelds is a myth? It is the main oeprational duty described in many references, including some authored in Germany.

If it really wan't protecting German airfields (I'd need to be convinced), then its combat record is even worse than it apprears on the surface, because there was surely no shortage of targets in 1945 over Germany.


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2012)

because it is Reschke himself told me that the Ta 152H was used to counter the Mustang threat at altitude not hover over the airfields to protect 262's it has nothing to do with the jets all mention in any book(s) are incorrect as there is NO factual evidence. the record stands straight up in Reschkes book not one instance of this useage only high protection on one op of II./JG 301's Dora 9's. not sure how many times I have had to correct those believing this stuff the last 20 years.by the way the victories of the operations at mid-altitude are not all that much, flugbuchs have been fudged to get credit for several successful pilots of the Stab as example.


----------



## Denniss (Apr 15, 2012)

Just because something is repeated over and over in books, it must not be true. 
Remember the 15mm MG 151 as synchronized guns in the Bf 109 K-4 ?
Or the Bf 109 G-10 were just refurbished older airframes ?


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 15, 2012)

...and some of the Mustangs were there to attack presenting targets of opportunity, with particular effort towards jet bases jet aviation readying for take off or landing. 
Other stangs and allied A/C groups/squadrons/etc woud be supplying top mid cover too. 
And higher alt can mean higher dive/closing speeds upon any airborne jets so a counter/decoy for that cover would be more warrented, although getting up there to do just that, in hostile skies above your remianing own territory...


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2012)

it's already a fact that Ta's were not used for protection of jet A/F's in fact JG 301 were never close to any of the JG 7 or other jet fields to do this. are we confusing the Dora 9 in regards to this muddled thought pattern.................I believe this is the case with the Würger staffel and JG 54 Doras. look to see where was III./JG 301 based and it's actions from Janaury 45 onward and then later a trasfer of most of it's Ta's to the Geschwader stab.


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

So you have one guy who never protected jet airfields and you extrapolate that nobody else did either?

I don't follow that reasoning, and neither do most historical aithors, including some German pilots who came to talk at the Planes of Fame when we rolled out our Fw 190F replica and flew it.

I can easily belive that several Ta-152s didn't participate in airfiled protection duty, but to deny that ANY of them did it will take some proof that probably does not exist since there ARE German pilots who corroborate it.


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2012)

the history of JG 301 states what I have been saying, the German pilots you have obviously heard were talking of the Dora 9 only if they said Ta 152H then they are wrong of course they would of mentioned the protection outfit name wouldn't they Greg ? state the German references please and nif you are talking about any osprey title then that can be discounted totally.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 15, 2012)

I believe this is a airfield protection Dora.


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2012)

yes Milosh the Würger staffel incorrectly called Papegai staffel for AF protection of JV 44 jets. funny several interviews of jet pilots did not even know that they had a protection flight for them as the Doras were parked across the field.

III./JG 54 remnants which protected Kommando Nowotny jets which then became dissolved to form the new JG 7. Interesting that the only protection at all for the jets of JG 7 was ground placed 2cm Flakvierlings which there were hordes of. there were also factory protection units of Dora-9's in fanciful Reich band colors of checks.

Back to the Ta units only Bruno Stolles experimental E-Rechlin testing new arms and engine implant devices flew the Ta though some talk of JG 11 operating just a handful possibly from Bruno's cadre of crates.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 15, 2012)

Erich, isn't Milosh's pic representative of the Schasenberg(?) staffel that protected JV 44 and NOT JG 54 which protected JG 7 in late '44?


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2012)

C ~ Sachsenburg/Würger staffel is one and the same, my above posting yes states JV 44. JG 7 DID NOT have a protection staffel. JG 54 Doras protected Kommando Nowotny's unit until he was KIA in action of which then this jet kommando was dissolved and became the basis for the future JG 7 but the famous jet unit still did not have any air protection.. ... ...

still confused ?


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

Perhaps both of the Ta 152C's that were operational when the war ended did double duty. Who can say?

Let's just say we disagree on this one and let it go.

I wish there were a Ta 152 of any variety airworthy today. Then, whether or not it was airfield protection or not, we could hear and see it fly.


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2012)

Greg no disrespect but who is coming up with the statement(s) that the TA flew high cover, nobody I have engaged in this conversation can give me details; 45 years of research on the Ta and JG 301 by myself says a big fat NO.

Osprey, Wiki ? or .............


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

I looked back at the first page of this post and had to laugh. I see Udet posted that there were "many victories scoed at low level by the Ta-152."

The sum total of Ta-152 victores is known to anywhere from 7 to 10. I don't think that qualifies as "many" when trying to settle a point of discussion, es[ecially when Erich Hartmann, all by himslef, shot down 352 in Me 109's. If 7 to 10 is the measure of the Ta-152, it comes up well short of a great plane.


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2012)

think the point is that the Ta had the potential but that is it, plus E. Hartmanns score has been diminished great;ly as not being the top scorer amongst LW fighter pilots. sorry to be a hard hat about this .......................... there are numerous threads of my links and materials on JG 301 in this whole forum that can be attested to. the high cover thing is compared to the 1st page of this lengthy thread about the Ta's invented to chase down B-29's, heck the LW pilots didn't even know what a B-29 was.


----------



## Njaco (Apr 15, 2012)

MY mistake E, meant Nowotny and not JG 7.


----------



## GregP (Apr 15, 2012)

I don't doubt the Ta-152 had potential. I am a big fan in fact.

But in the actual war, it did not perform very well when you look at losses and victories. I have said many times before that I believe that could easily be to the war situation at the time, the tactics employed, and many other factors. But the facts are the facts; the Ta-152 may well have had the potential, but it never showed in real life.

They never got more than about 43 or 44 into the field, never more than about 25 at the same time in the entire world, and they were never all at the same place for a single mission. Basically, the Germans fielded prototypes that weren't ready for deployment and they had no mechanics trained on Ta-152's (they relied on experience with the Fw 190D), and had no spare parts logistics train. Often, when a Ta-152 broke, it never flew again. When the war ended, only two Ta-152C's were operational. The rest were destroyed or were broken so as to be unairworthy. Usually, the malfunction was in the engine or systems (such as cooling or hydraulic); the airframes were pretty robust.

So I just don't get this "the Ta-152 was the best" stuff because the war record is simply not there to make that statement.

We had some Luftwaffe pilots at the palens of Fame who flew Me 109s, Fw 190s, and Ta 152s. I wasn't there and will have to ask names, but I got the report that they all loved the Me 109, liked but never really got used to the Fw 190, and thought the Ta 152 had great potential, but that it was not ready for deployment and was, in fact, used for both intercept missions as well as airfield protection for the jets. As I said, I'll ask in the next couple of weekends and get back with names. I really don't care at all about units ... I love the planes, not the military organizations. Restoring and fyling the planes is what keeps me there. Lest you think I am anti-military, I served in US Air Force, so that is really not the case. I'm just a big fan of the aircraft, not the war.

To me, Erich Hartmann will always have 352 victories (and Barkhorn and Rall at 301 and 275). I do not recognize modern revisionists who weren't there and didn't fight in the fray, but feel that sifting through other people's papers will reveal the truth. How do they know they haven't missed some papers that corroborate the claims they want to strike? The papers could simply be lost or have gone missing over time. That's why Boyington will always be at 28 for me. Both Hartmann and Boyington were awarded their victories at the time by the people in charge at the time. That's good enough for me.

But hey, if you believe the revisionist's lesser victory list, then that's OK. I simply think you are wrong and I don't want to fight about it. You won't change my mind. hTh war awards were the war awards, and time won't change it.

Cheers!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2012)

I think the Ta 152 had great potential to be a great fighter, and potential to be the best fighter. 

I don't think it ever had the chance however to be either of those, especially not in the situation it was placed in.


----------



## renrich (Apr 16, 2012)

As far as claims of shootdowns and credits are concerned, Butch O Hare became an "ace in a day" in his famous mission where he first claimed six G4M land attack bombers which was reduced to five. Lundstrom in "The First Team" discovered that Japanese records showed that only three G4Ms in that mission were shot down. Later, in researching the actual records of both the USN and IJN during the period December 7, 1941 through November, 1942, regarding the combats between F4Fs and A6Ms he found that the actual shoot downs were about equal, roughly 30-30. Claims and claims credited were in excess of those numbers on both sides. To me, if by some means, the true figures could be ascertained, most pilot's records would be reduced by 30%-50%.. That would of phantom kills.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Apr 16, 2012)

I have an article that is buried in several Rubbermaid tubs that would take days and a trip to the chiropractor if I searched but... I recall after at least 10 years an article that described the 356(?)th fighter group modifying a couple of their Thunderbolts in order to get them to fly high enough and fast enough to engage the TA's at high altitude. It said they removed camo paint on all leading edges, took out 4 guns, reduced armor to lighten the ship and I believe a wax coating was applied.They called them "superbolts, obviously unaware of any stateside XP designations.
The Ta152's must have posed a serious problem for our fighters as we went to great lenghts for a solution. Fortunatly as stated in previous posts it was too late.
The only thing that bothers me about this is I can't remember the results of any combat that came from it. 

Dave Caswell


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2012)

the 356th fg had changed over to the P-51D in December 1944 and had not even heard of the Ta 152H as it did not come into III./JG 301 until Januarys 45 end. so with that the article is full of errors obviously. what is unique about the 356th fg is the pilots impressions of flying against the 262; have had the honour of conversing with a minimum of 15 of the former Jug and Mustang pilots of this little know fg.


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2012)

If you want to revise the victory totals, then do it for EVERYBODY, not just the high-scoring aces.

I have a complete list of Erich Hartmann's victories (all 352) with dates and times of victories and type for many). If you want to sift through his, do it for ALL Luftwaffe pilots, all Japanese pilots, all US pilots, all British pilots, etc. There were about 133,066 aircraft shot down by individual pilots in WWII by something like 11,054 pilots, with 4,862 shared kills. That totals 137,928 victories.

Good luck in your research.

If you can't find the data for most of them (and you can't), then don't revise ANY of tnem or you are doing a disservice to the ones whose scoes you reduce. Selective research is what I object to. Either do it or don't do it, but don't do iy for just some people; do it for everyone or refrain.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 16, 2012)

Aircraft like the Ta-152 were expected to appear. The Allies had similar models under development, such as the P-51H. Not to mention the promising jet propulsion.


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2012)

think the Ta was actually being refused by III./JG 301 pilots as very few of the 35 accounted for in that group stayed with 3rd gruppe the unit changing back to the heavy A-8, some A-9's and finally the Dora 9's in few numbers the remnants going over to Stab JG 301. being a Reich defense unit in the rare occurrence of engaging both US/British and Soviet A/C it was always on the move, it was not used in it's primary role of high alt interceptor but piecemeal at mid alt of which it engaged British and especially Soviet fighters.................... what a waste of resources.


----------



## Dcazz7606 (Apr 16, 2012)

It's possible I have the wrong group hence the ? mark. I'm posting from a long way back. If i ever find it I'll clarify.


Erich said:


> the 356th fg had changed over to the P-51D in December 1944 and had not even heard of the Ta 152H as it did not come into III./JG 301 until Januarys 45 end. so with that the article is full of errors obviously. what is unique about the 356th fg is the pilots impressions of flying against the 262; have had the honour of conversing with a minimum of 15 of the former Jug and Mustang pilots of this little know fg.


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2012)

again no matter what US group claims to have re-treaded their Jugs to chase Ta's no US fg knew of the Ta until February of 45, even JG 301 crews did not know of the Ta until it was delivered piecemeal towards 1945 January's end. even then for III./JG 301 it was so scattered the units A-8/A-9's in February 45 were used on stupid ground attack missions against the Soviets, even II. gruppes Doras.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 16, 2012)

Dcazz7606 said:


> It's possible I have the wrong group hence the ? mark. I'm posting from a long way back. If i ever find it I'll clarify.



The 56FG had P-47M's and some pilots yanked half to 8 gun .50 cal battery to lighten it up. But not because of the Ta 152


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2012)

Great info guys, I've enjoyed reading this. For what it's worth, this is what Wiki says about the -152 operational history. Note the "citation needed" or "verification needed notes within the text;

_By fall 1944, the war was going very badly for Germany, and the RLM pushed Focke-Wulf to quickly get the Ta 152 into production. As a result, several Ta 152 prototypes crashed early into the test program. It was found that critical systems were lacking sufficient quality control. Problems arose with superchargers, pressurized cockpits leaked, the engine cooling system was unreliable at best due in part to unreliable oil temperature monitoring, and in several instances the landing gear failed to properly retract. A total of up to 20 pre-production Ta 152 H-0s were delivered from November 1944 to Erprobungskommando Ta 152 to service test the aircraft. It was reported that test pilots were able to conduct a mere 31 hours of flight tests before full production started. By the end of January 1945, only 50 hours or so had been completed. The Ta 152 was not afforded the time to work out all the little quirks and errors plaguing all new designs. These problems proved impossible to rectify given the situation in Germany towards the end of the war, and only two Ta 152C remained operational when Germany surrendered.[citation needed]

III./Jagdgeschwader 301, initially a Luftwaffe Wilde Sau unit, was ordered to convert to the type in January 1945, which it did (and flew them operationally for a short time). In the end, available Ta 152s were pooled in a special Stabstaffel JG 301, first based at Alteno, then at Neustadt-Glewe in Mecklenburg.[citation needed] The Stabstaffel never had more than 15 Ta 152Hs available, both H-0s and H-1s. Since the usual transfer system had broken down, pilots had to look for additional 152s themselves.[citation needed]

An early Ta 152 combat occurred on 14 April 1945 when Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke tried to intercept a De Havilland Mosquito over Stendal, but failed to catch up due to engine trouble.[9][page needed] On the evening of that same day, Reschke was to demonstrate that the Ta 152H could be used as a low altitude fighter. A section of four Hawker Tempest Vs of 486(NZ) Squadron were out on patrol. After attacking a train near Ludwigslust, the section split up into pairs; Wing Commander Brooker ordered the Tempests flown by Flying Officer S.J. Short and Warrant Officer Owen J. Mitchell to make their own way back to base. On the way back, this pair, which was strafing targets along the railway tracks near Ludwigslust, was spotted by lookouts posted at Neustadt-Glewe. Three Ta 152s—flown by Reschke, Oberstleutnant Aufhammer and Oberfeldwebel Sepp Sattler—were scrambled, catching the Tempests by surprise. Reschke declared:

We reached the position at an altitude of 200 metres, just at the moment when both Tempests after diving started climbing again. Just as the dogfight was developing Sepp Sattler, on our side, was hit and his plane fell like a stone out of the sky ... The Tempest which I attacked quickly reached the same height as me and was [at] approximately 10 o'clock before me. The dogfight began between 50 and 100 metres above ground level and very often the wing tips passed close over the treetops ... The whole fight was executed in a left-hand turn, the low altitude of which would not allow for any mistakes. Ever so gradually I gained metre-by-metre on the Tempest and after a few circles, I had reached the most favourable shooting position ... I pressed my machine gun buttons[10] for the first time ... I could see the Tempest for a short moment in straight ahead flight displaying slightly erratic flying behaviour. But immediately she went straight back into the left turn ... I sighted the Tempest very favourably in my cross hairs and could not have missed, but my machine guns experienced feeding problems. I therefore tried to shoot it down with my cannon and forced her into a tight left-hand turn from where she tipped out over her right wing and crashed into a forest.

(A more detailed and slightly different account of this incident, also by Reschke, is given in 'Fw190 Aces on the Attack' published by Osprey)

Lt. Owen J. Mitchell (a rookie with only a month and half of experience on the front line[11]) was flying the Tempest and was killed on impact with the ground.[12] It is thought that Sattler had been shot down either by Short or Bill Shaw of 486 Sqn, who claimed a Bf 109 in the same area (the Ta 152s were mistaken for 109s).[13][14] [15] Operational missions were flown in April 1945 from Neustadt, mostly escorting close support aircraft to the Battle of Berlin. Reschke claimed two Yakovlev Yak-9s near Berlin on 24 April,. It seems that three often reported victory claims by Obfw. Walter Loos, on 24, 25 and 30 April [16][verification needed]), cannot be attributed to Ta 152. Loos himself stated he never shot down a single enemy fighter while flying the Ta 152 [17][verification needed]).

The Ta 152 score at the end of the war was likely seven victories and four losses in air combat (a degree of uncertainty about those numbers exists). Four victories were achieved by Josef Keil, from 1 March 1945 to 21 April 1945.[18] The statement that he had five victories on Ta 152 is unsubstantiated and is shown to be false by matching score table and dates. The Ta 152 was delivered to JG 301 on 27 February 1945 and the first Ta 152 combat action against American bombers happened on 2 March 1945,[19] so his victory against a B-17 on 20 February 1945 couldn't have been achieved flying that type of fighter. Alternatively, this results from an incorrect reading of published sources such as Lowe [20] because JG 301 had the Ta 152 in service from late January 1945, and individual missions such as Keil's could well have been flown. At least three victories were achieved by Willi Reschke.[21]

The four losses in air combat were: Hptm. Hermann Stahl, KIA on 11 April 1945; Obfw. Sepp Sattler, KIA on 14 April 1945; two unknown JG11 pilots, downed by Spitfires in the last days of April 1945 during transfer from Neustadt-Glewe to Leck airfield.[22]

The total Ta 152 production is not well known but 43 are identified,[1] (H-0 and H-1) with c.6 prototypes._

*What I thought was interesting is despite the sometimes sketchy sources you would find on Wiki, this article says nothing about the me 262 or the Ta 152 being deployed to protect it. A myth busted? I know what Erich has to say about that!*


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 16, 2012)

I think the intelligence units could have alerted the fighter units that it would be possible the appearance of aircraft like the Ta 152. So, some commanders could have think of modifications like the one cited about the P-47. However it would only make sense implement such modifications in case it was constated their presence.


----------



## Erich (Apr 16, 2012)

checking the Mustang files/ops reports there are a few that indicate is somewhat surprised fashion a new Fw 190 - Long nose as it was called and more and more of these of course were engaged like JG 2's, the British with JG 26's as examples. we do know that the US 56th fg engaged JG 301 on at least 1-2 occasions and this in my belief were the Dora-9's of the Geschwader, even the US 9th AF seeking low level strikes were probably engaged as well by JG 301 running back and forth between Soviet and US lines.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2012)

More from Wiki...

_"Because of the greater length of runway it required, and the slow acceleration it had at low speeds, the Me 262 was especially vulnerable during take-off and landing. Galland thus established his own protection squadron, the Platzschutzstaffel (Airfield protection squadron), headed by Lieutenant Heinz Sachsenberg, to provide air cover for takeoffs and landings.

*The Platzschutzstaffel flew the long-nosed 'Dora', Fw-190 D-9, or Fw-190 D-11 variant of the well-known Fw 190.* These aircraft were painted bright red on their wings' undersurfaces with contrasting white stripes so anti-aircraft batteries could distinguish them from Allied piston-engined aircraft, leading to their humorous postwar nickname of the Papagei Staffel (Parrot squadron). The Staffel was nicknamed "Die Würger-Staffel", a play on the common nickname for the BMW 801 radial-engined original A-version of the Fw 190, which was Würger or Butcher-bird."_

From "Jagdverband 44 "


----------



## GregP (Apr 16, 2012)

The Fw 190D that was in the Doug Champlin collection for many years was a D-11. I heard it run once in 1985, and it sounded different from the standard Merlins and Allisons we know and love. Wish it would fly occasionally, but you never know. Paul Allen might fly it sooner or later. He tends to do that ... we can hope.


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 17, 2012)

there is a video of it running on youtube, but from what I read, it will probably never fly as it is the only example in the world that is near air-worthy condition....

Here is that video....
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y5LBUVS1T8_


----------



## Siegfried (Apr 18, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> An early Ta 152 combat occurred on 14 April 1945 when Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke tried to intercept a De Havilland Mosquito over Stendal, but failed to catch up due to engine trouble.[9][page needed] On the evening of that same day, Reschke was to demonstrate that the Ta 152H could be used as a low altitude fighter. A section of four Hawker Tempest Vs of 486(NZ) Squadron were out on patrol. After attacking a train near Ludwigslust, the section split up into pairs; Wing Commander Brooker ordered the Tempests flown by Flying Officer S.J. Short and Warrant Officer Owen J. Mitchell to make their own way back to base. On the way back, this pair, which was strafing targets along the railway tracks near Ludwigslust, was spotted by lookouts posted at Neustadt-Glewe. Three Ta 152s—flown by Reschke, Oberstleutnant Aufhammer and Oberfeldwebel Sepp Sattler—were scrambled, catching the Tempests by surprise. Reschke declared:
> 
> The Ta 152 score at the end of the war was likely seven victories and four losses in air combat (a degree of uncertainty about those numbers exists). Four victories were achieved by Josef Keil, from 1 March 1945 to 21 April 1945.[18] The statement that he had five victories on Ta 152 is unsubstantiated and is shown to be false by matching score table and dates. The Ta 152 was delivered to JG 301 on 27 February 1945 and the first Ta 152 combat action against American bombers happened on 2 March 1945,[19] so his victory against a B-17 on 20 February 1945 couldn't have been achieved flying that type of fighter. Alternatively, this results from an incorrect reading of published sources such as Lowe [20] because JG 301 had the Ta 152 in service from late January 1945, and individual missions such as Keil's could well have been flown. At least three victories were achieved by Willi Reschke.[21]
> 
> The four losses in air combat were: Hptm. Hermann Stahl, KIA on 11 April 1945; Obfw. Sepp Sattler, KIA on 14 April 1945; two unknown JG11 pilots, downed by Spitfires in the last days of April 1945 during transfer from Neustadt-Glewe to Leck airfield.[22]:




Sattlers crash was witnessed from the ground by the commander of II.JG 301 Haupmann Roderich Cescotti. Sattler dived on to a tempest, apparently setting it alight but failed to recover from the dive.

Getting involved in a turning fight with a Ta 152H was not a sound idea and should've been avoided by the NZ/RAF tempest pilot Oewn Mitchell, who lost his life; I expect he had not identified the Ta 152 nor was he aware of its turning abillities given its new nature.

In June 1943 Reschke served with Jagdgruppe 102, in Zerbst to undergo operational training. On completion of training, Unteroffizier Reschke was posted to 1 staffel, Jagdgeschwader 302, based near Vienna in June 1944. Reschke thus was not much more experienced than Mitchell though he had 'on the job trainging'.


----------



## Erich (Apr 18, 2012)

Sattlers demise is getting further coverage in my book on JG 301, one of the oddities is just where the JG 301 personell on the ground were truly located to view the air engagment, some British sources are saying the action(s) took place over a mile away. Also Sattler may have been the only JG 301 piloting a TA shot down in combat.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 18, 2012)

Someones take on the combat.

Ludwigslust aerial combat


----------



## Kryten (Apr 18, 2012)

I understood Sattler was late off and went down before he caught up with the rest of the flight, which had attacked a flight of Tempests on a ground attack mission?

a second flight of tempests claimed an FW in the time and place of Sattlers demise so cant really see the debate on this one?


----------

