Interceptor vs Escort.

[Erich]

Robert Johnson ? Copp ?

have you interviewed any Luftwaffe pilots ?

and yes I have interviewed dozens of US bomber and P-51/Jug chaps buddy. Better yet get rid of your alias and lets talk man to man ok. doesn't matter I already know who you are

 

[NAVAIR]

Robert Johnson ? Copp ?

have you interviewed any Luftwaffe pilots ?

and yes I have interviewed dozens of US bomber and P-51/Jug chaps buddy. Better yet get rid of your alias and lets talk man to man ok. doesn't matter I already know who you are

Don't change the subject... This isn't about me or who I am and I sure as hell made no effort to hide my identity. It's about test data for 500 mph Ta 152s... Where is it?

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[Erich]

wheres your historical fact that the Ta 152H was used for airfield protection ?

where is your fact that the Ta 152C was never used in action ?

on and on we could go man...........let's let it ride ok.

incidently I am not changing the subject, what do these two men have to do with the Ta 152H ?

the 485 to 500 mph test data is from German documentation taken on the pre trials before the initial take over of Tanks by III./JG 301.

another note since you brought it up about Herr Tank and the Stangs. Tank was flying a C variant.

I am going to drop this right now as we are a both bit heated.........agreed ?

 

[KraziKanuK]

I am interested in these 150 Ta152H that were produced. Do you have info on WNr 150 041 to 150 166?

 

[syscom3]

syscom your last statement is out of line and offensive and I really am tired of saying once again how many US bomber crews I have interviewed over the last 35 years............get a real clue this time please.

Isnt it really weird how Ive talked to aircrews at Chino the past 25 years, and they all say the total opposite of you. Sometimes the fighters got lucky and hit the pilots with a quick burst...... sometimes they needed to hit the bombers with several dozens of rounds before bringing it down. The fact is that most of those cannon shells are going to explode in a non critical point in the aircraft and just blow some sheetmetal out. There is simply no way a few widely dispersed 20MM shells will bring down a B17, unless it hits both pilots.

As I said, the 20MM gun/round was great, but it wasnt the wonder weapon that could take down a bomber with only a few rounds.

Now you get a clue......... just because you make claim, doesnt make it true. (hey, that rhymes, doesnt it)

 

[KraziKanuK]

I just read a post here claiming that 262s routinely shot down P-51s..Really? Someone should tell the Air Force so they can adjust their loss records... Here's the quote: "There are many who will debate your argument. The Me 262 accounted for an interesting number of P-51´s with the lousy ballistics of its cannon."

Pilots Schall and Wagmann got 4 P-51s in the area of Osnabruck on Nov 8 1944. Schall got another P-51 on Oct 28 1944 near Goesfeld. Lennartz got a P-51 near Beilen on Oct 12 1944.

That is just a short search. Seems the 262 did not have that much trouble getting P-51s.

 

[NAVAIR]

wheres your historical fact that the Ta 152H was used for airfield protection ?

where is your fact that the Ta 152C was never used in action ?

on and on we could go man...........let's let it ride ok.

incidently I am not changing the subject, what do these two men have to do with the Ta 152H ?

the 485 to 500 mph test data is from German documentation taken on the pre trials before the initial take over of Tanks by III./JG 301.

another note since you brought it up about Herr Tank and the Stangs. Tank was flying a C variant.

I am going to drop this right now as we are a both bit heated.........agreed ?

Many historians have written that 152s were used for airfield cover. I do know that the Dora was used in this role as well... Unfortunately, no one was protecting the Doras.... It may very well be that 152s were not used for 262 cover. I'm open to evidence that supports that. I'm not open to wiseguys who posture themselves as professional historians, yet can only claim that they know someone or have interviewed X amount of people... What do you call an interview? Bull sessions aren't interviews. I usually tape interviews. Data gents, unimpeachable documentation. Without this you can be 100% right and the professional historians will ignore you anyway. What historians want to see is reliable documentation, not personal accounts or memories. Reliable documentation excludes oral histories, diaries and the like. God knows, there has been a flood of counterfeit documents surfacing in recent years. Anyone trained in Photoshop or Illustrator can generate authentic looking documents and I've seen some pretty good fakes that fooled many. I know a chap who is an expert at detecting forgeries of Luftwaffe and RAF documents, so be advised, I will send him a copy of any data posted for his evaluation.

As to the 152C, I never discussed whether or not any saw combat. But considering that only two or three prototypes were built, it'd doubtful anyone noticed them. To my understanding, the Soviets captured the factory before any production 152Cs were completed. While the 152C would have been a formidable fighter, the latest American and British fighters were at least equal. If one or more prototype 152Cs were flown in combat, it was either for evaluation or out of desperation.

I'd still like to see factory test data showing that a Ta 152 could attain 500 mph in level flight, unassisted by gravity... But I won't see it, will I?

What makes you think I'm getting "heated"? Not in the least. I've been debating aviation on the web since the early days of usenet. You may be getting anxious being unable to support your 500 mph claim and would like to bug out of the discussion. You see, I'm willing to concede that 152s may never have been used for 262 cover. Maybe someone has better information than what I have seen. On the other hand, making a claim of 500 mph for the 152 is very much over the top. The incredible drag rise as a propeller fighter approaches 500 mph required a huge increase in power for tiny gains in speed. There's no way a 152 was going to attain 500 mph on just 2,000 hp. Republic's XP-47J could barely manage to exceed 500 mph and its R2800 C series engine was overboosted to the extent that it was making about 3,200 horsepower. Moreover, this was a one-off technology demonstrator, lighter and cleaner than any production P-47. Yet to exceed 500 mph, this lighter, aerodynamically cleaner aircraft required 600 more horsepower than the the P-47N to gain about 30 mph. To attain 500 mph, the 152 would need around 3,000 hp and it should be noted that the 152 probably had a similar drag coefficient to the 190D-9 which was likely greater than that of the XP-47J (.209).

My contention is that this is a bogus claim made spontaneously. If you have test data supporting it, post the data. By data I mean reliable factory data measured with calibrated test equipment, not anecdotal comments of pilots. As it is, you've already "adjusted" your facts down from "well the Ta could hit over 500 if neeed be then what?" to "485 to 500 mph".

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[NAVAIR]

I just read a post here claiming that 262s routinely shot down P-51s..Really? Someone should tell the Air Force so they can adjust their loss records... Here's the quote: "There are many who will debate your argument. The Me 262 accounted for an interesting number of P-51´s with the lousy ballistics of its cannon."

Pilots Schall and Wagmann got 4 P-51s in the area of Osnabruck on Nov 8 1944. Schall got another P-51 on Oct 28 1944 near Goesfeld. Lennartz got a P-51 near Beilen on Oct 12 1944.

That is just a short search. Seems the 262 did not have that much trouble getting P-51s.

Undetected bounce or maneuvering Mustangs? Anyone, flying virtually anything, can kill the best fighter on earth if the pilot doesn't see it coming. As I said, I haven't seen any evidence that a 262 shot down a maneuvering P-51.

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I do believe that some people here need to calm down, especially you syscom. This is supposed to be a friendly environment.

 

[Udet]

Mr. Navair:

Thanks for the kind comment regarding my signline. My mom has a common said: "how is it that such unpleasant people such as the french created a pretty city like Paris".


Now the business.
Aha! After introducing yourself to the members of the forum, what can I possibly say?

Welcome to the amateur world!

Putting aside the threatening aroma of your presentation (i.e "so be advised, I will send him a copy of any data posted for his evaluation), have all assurances you´ll have a very rough time when discussing with us amateurs. Not an amateur in the case of Erich though.

I understand you very well though. You have real strict sets of rules and procedures to abide by as an historian or professional researcher.

I am sure Erich is not trying to bug out of the discussion.


The most noteworthy news here is many books on the alleged undisputed superiority of the allies over the Germans are being proven wrong over the years. Such books were (let´s assume in most cases) the works of gentlemen like you, constricted to abide by such rules.

I´ll be glad to get back to you with juicy arguments, for now I´m off to the classroom and have my pupils entertained with a differential equations case.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Alright people again lets calm down with the insults to one another.

 

[lesofprimus]

As I said, I haven't seen any evidence that a 262 shot down a maneuvering P-51.

And as I said, there is no evidence that those -51's were bounced outta the sun with the Stang pilots unaware of their approaching death....

You fuck ing book geeks crack me up...

I have met loads of pilots from all different countries, and I trust the word of a 75 year old former Luftwaffe pilot and his "bad" memory than some text book written by some author who hasnt logged a single minute of stick time....

And until u tards prove urself as a viable source of info, erichs research and documentation and opinions stand above all of the other crap u type....

 

[syscom3]

Navair has some valid points. Claiming a production and in service prop plane to fly at 500mph in early 1945, is stretching it. Was the figure derived from an actual test flight under perfect conditions? The laws of aerodynamics and physics of flight at this part of the envelope cant be dismissed if it is inconvenient.

It wouldnt surprise me that many figures of the German aircraft performance in the last part of the war were extrapolations and not fully tested or validated.

And Im also curious about the Ta152 kills at low altitude. Were the victims unaware they were about to be bounced? Or were they shot down in a dogfight? A kill is a kill, but it will shed light on the performance at low altitude.

Ive seen a pix of a B25 strafer shooting down a Zero that was just taking off of an airfield at Rabaul. Does that mean the B25 was a dogfighter? Or was it in the lucky position to bounce an unsuspecting fighter?

 

[syscom3]

I have met loads of pilots from all different countries, and I trust the word of a 75 year old former Luftwaffe pilot and his "bad" memory than some text book written by some author who hasnt logged a single minute of stick time....

And until u tards prove urself as a viable source of info, erichs research and documentation and opinions stand above all of the other crap u type....

What makes you think Erich is 100% correct 100% of the time? If some of his statements dont sound right, we will challange him on it.

And by the way....... memories and perceptions change over the years.

 

[lesofprimus]

Yea but my perception of u and ur lame ass attitude towards the senior members here will never change...

What makes you think Erich is 100% correct 100% of the time?

Cause alot of what erich posts I can verify and have heard the same info from different individuals, and probably some of the same guys....

 

[NAVAIR]

Mr. Navair:

Thanks for the kind comment regarding my signline. My mom has a common said: "how is it that such unpleasant people such as the french created a pretty city like Paris".


Now the business.
Aha! After introducing yourself to the members of the forum, what can I possibly say?

Welcome to the amateur world!

Putting aside the threatening aroma of your presentation (i.e "so be advised, I will send him a copy of any data posted for his evaluation), have all assurances you´ll have a very rough time when discussing with us amateurs. Not an amateur in the case of Erich though.

I understand you very well though. You have real strict sets of rules and procedures to abide by as an historian or professional researcher.

I am sure Erich is not trying to bug out of the discussion.


The most noteworthy news here is many books on the alleged undisputed superiority of the allies over the Germans are being proven wrong over the years. Such books were (let´s assume in most cases) the works of gentlemen like you, constricted to abide by such rules.

I´ll be glad to get back to you with juicy arguments, for now I´m off to the classroom and have my pupils entertained with a differential equations case.

Hiya Udet,

I will never look down my nose at amateur researchers. Some of the greatest historical discoveries (mostly centering on the American Civil War) of recent years have been the result of an amateur researcher on a personal crusade for truth. Professionals do not have a monopoly on truth, even thought they often behave as if they do.

Yes, there are strict rules and there should be. However, that should not discourage people, but motivate them to get the details before going public.

Herein is found the greatest problem faced by amateur historians: Professionals, loaded down with PHDs and official sounding titles are incredibly jealous of the work of the "unwashed, self-appointed amateurs" (I've actually seen those words used correspondence). They will close ranks and rip apart research looking for any mistake or omission. Thus, it is absolutely vital not to make claims that are not supported by concrete evidence or that will not hold up under that kind of scrutiny.

Credibility is essential. I meant Erich no personal disrespect, but wanted to illustrate that you must be prepared to support your argument with facts and documents. God knows, I've been skewered for the same thing myself. I hope that I have established that if someone has better data, documentation or information than I have, I am perfectly happy to accept that, and will do so without arguing for the sake of saving face.

By the way, someday I'll tell you guys how an amateur researcher blew author Clive Cussler out of the water by finding a sunken ship Cussler was out searching for. He found it in the New York City public library...

My regards,

NAVAIR

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think everyone here as something to offer to the group.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes everyone here obviously has an area where they are perhaps more knowledgeable that some of the other members, i don't bealieve anyone here will dissagree with that, and by accepting this we can learn allot more from each other.............

 

[syscom3]

Yea but my perception of u and ur lame ass attitude towards the senior members here will never change...

At least I dont revert to name calling like you do



I was showing my colleagues at work your posts, and they had a good laugh at you. One of them teaches at a local college and she said she see's people like you from time to time. Know it all's who get emotional when someone challenges their facts.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i wouldn't laugh at les if i were you......