Since the new member here, TheArtOfFlight, want's to have a thread started dealing with what is listed in the title, but for some reason he is unable to do it, I'll start it. Join us, people, share what you consider myth or misinformation about ww2 aviation in the new thread.
Myths and misinformations in 21st century
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #2
To start the ball rolling: on this blog page (link) the author states that MW 50 tank was removed from the Fw 190A-5 in order to make space for the second cockpit. Now, the Fw 190A was rarely, if ever (apart from experiment purposes) outfitted with MW 50 system in the 1st place.
GregP
Major
Biggest myth to me is that the Ta 152 was the best piston fighter of the war.
In reality the actual combat accomplishments of the type were VERY ordinary. Anywhere from 7 to 10 victories versus anywhere from 2 to 4 losses in combat. We can find no more than about 42 airframes completed and delivered during the war of some 200 or so airframes built, and no more than about 20 operational at any one time. Any Ta 152 was probably out of action with the first malfunction since no spares were in the logistics chain. I'd suspect some other airframe was canabalized for parts and, when one failed, it could be returned to operations only by scrounging from a possibly down other ariframe. When the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152Cs left operational.
The Ta 152 might well HAVE had great performance, but was never allowed to operate in the high altitude environment it was designed for (Ta 152H) and was pressed into airfield defense for the returning Me 262s, creating a bad siauation for the Ta 152 pilots.
So through no fault of the aircraft, it was never allowed to achieve it's operational goals.
That is no reflection on the aircraft design or its actual performance. Rather, it has much more to do with the state of the war when the Ta 152 became "operational," if you could ever really call it so. I can't and still belive it was basically a small deployment of what were essentially production prototypes. I don't call 42 combat planes a production run.
I would surely love to have seen the real opertaional performance of the actual combat aircraft at low altitudes since that is where they were allowed to be used, if briefly, and would absolutely love to see and hear a restored airframe fly with the Jumo engine.
Myth though it be, it is one of the more aesthetically pleasing fighters built, at least to me. I got to see an Fw 190D start up and run at Phoenix, Arizona once at Doug Champlin's Fighter Museum located at Falcon Field in Mesa, AZ for years. It could only start and idle as a critical carburetor part was missing, but sounded good as well as different from Merlins and Allisons. Love the wide-chord prop!
In reality the actual combat accomplishments of the type were VERY ordinary. Anywhere from 7 to 10 victories versus anywhere from 2 to 4 losses in combat. We can find no more than about 42 airframes completed and delivered during the war of some 200 or so airframes built, and no more than about 20 operational at any one time. Any Ta 152 was probably out of action with the first malfunction since no spares were in the logistics chain. I'd suspect some other airframe was canabalized for parts and, when one failed, it could be returned to operations only by scrounging from a possibly down other ariframe. When the war ended, there were exactly two Ta 152Cs left operational.
The Ta 152 might well HAVE had great performance, but was never allowed to operate in the high altitude environment it was designed for (Ta 152H) and was pressed into airfield defense for the returning Me 262s, creating a bad siauation for the Ta 152 pilots.
So through no fault of the aircraft, it was never allowed to achieve it's operational goals.
That is no reflection on the aircraft design or its actual performance. Rather, it has much more to do with the state of the war when the Ta 152 became "operational," if you could ever really call it so. I can't and still belive it was basically a small deployment of what were essentially production prototypes. I don't call 42 combat planes a production run.
I would surely love to have seen the real opertaional performance of the actual combat aircraft at low altitudes since that is where they were allowed to be used, if briefly, and would absolutely love to see and hear a restored airframe fly with the Jumo engine.
Myth though it be, it is one of the more aesthetically pleasing fighters built, at least to me. I got to see an Fw 190D start up and run at Phoenix, Arizona once at Doug Champlin's Fighter Museum located at Falcon Field in Mesa, AZ for years. It could only start and idle as a critical carburetor part was missing, but sounded good as well as different from Merlins and Allisons. Love the wide-chord prop!
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
We already had quite a long thread about myths and mis-info here: Aviation myths that will not die
Regarding this:
They employed Fw190D-9 and Fw190D-11 types as "Platzschutzstaffel" for JV44, not the Ta152.
Regarding this:
Is not correct.
They employed Fw190D-9 and Fw190D-11 types as "Platzschutzstaffel" for JV44, not the Ta152.
GregP
Major
I read they employed both years ago. I didn't mention the Fw 190D at first since it wasn't the myth I was talking about, and nobody said not to rehash, the first post asked about myths. I responded. Simple.
Yes, there are other myths abounding. I'm sure we';; se a few in this thread. The myth of the superiority of the Ta 152 is my pet "myth." It's real-life performance doesn't support that contention at all. Ergo ... myth.
Yes, there are other myths abounding. I'm sure we';; se a few in this thread. The myth of the superiority of the Ta 152 is my pet "myth." It's real-life performance doesn't support that contention at all. Ergo ... myth.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Well Greg, to be absolutely honest, I have never heard that the Ta152 was relegated to any airfield defense duties.
The Ta152s that were operational, were transferred from an Ekdo unit to JG301 at Luckau, later near Mecklenburg.
At the time, JV44 was operating in the areas of Ulm, Stuttgart, Munich and Salzburg.
While the Ta152's performance may be seen by some as a "myth", the fact remains that it was not ever within 100 miles of JV44's operational areas.
The Ta152s that were operational, were transferred from an Ekdo unit to JG301 at Luckau, later near Mecklenburg.
At the time, JV44 was operating in the areas of Ulm, Stuttgart, Munich and Salzburg.
While the Ta152's performance may be seen by some as a "myth", the fact remains that it was not ever within 100 miles of JV44's operational areas.
The Ta 152 was never used for airfield cover.
GregP
Major
I believe you. Many things were written in the 1950s and 1960s that today prove to be somewhat ... in error. Read almost anything by Martin Cadin. If they weren't used that way, then they weren't, and I haven't researched it much in the last few years. Somebody in here was preparing a new book on the subject, but I have yet to see news of a newly-published work on the Ta 152 aircraft surface yet. When and if it ever does, I'll be interested.
I still can't buy the "best fighter" part due to virtual non-participation in the war with regard to almost all other types used in the war, but it's still a beautiful aircraft. I have drawn it in CAD perhaps 10 times over the years, more than any other WWII aircraft, each iteration more detailed than the last. The fact that I personally deny its place as one of the greats doesn't preclude it from being a favorite of mine, and I've built it in RC form twice, both Ta 152H. Both flew well, for scale-type fighters as they have plenty of wing. I believe one had a scale airfoil (at least claimed so. Not sure if the H. tail was scale or not).
Cheers and Happy Holidays.
I still can't buy the "best fighter" part due to virtual non-participation in the war with regard to almost all other types used in the war, but it's still a beautiful aircraft. I have drawn it in CAD perhaps 10 times over the years, more than any other WWII aircraft, each iteration more detailed than the last. The fact that I personally deny its place as one of the greats doesn't preclude it from being a favorite of mine, and I've built it in RC form twice, both Ta 152H. Both flew well, for scale-type fighters as they have plenty of wing. I believe one had a scale airfoil (at least claimed so. Not sure if the H. tail was scale or not).
Cheers and Happy Holidays.
Last edited:
That the Germans flew a Ju 390 to within 12 miles of New York harbor as a test flight during WW2.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
"The AVG Group was operational before Pearl Harbor and fought against the Zero."
In his book AIRWAR, Edward Jablonski writes about the AVG battling Zeros. It shows that you can't trust everything you read.
- Thread starter
- #13
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
One of the problems though, Tomo, is that several publications base their works on flawed data and it just keeps on perpetuating the problem.
Social Media along with websites and blogs aren't helping the matter any. I've posted plenty of this in the thread "History according to Random People" as a stark example.
One of those myths that keep circulating out there, is the bombing of Dresden, where a disturbing number of people still fall for Dr. Goebbel's initial press release even to this day.
Social Media along with websites and blogs aren't helping the matter any. I've posted plenty of this in the thread "History according to Random People" as a stark example.
One of those myths that keep circulating out there, is the bombing of Dresden, where a disturbing number of people still fall for Dr. Goebbel's initial press release even to this day.
The C definitely reached production and at wars end JG301 had two on strength... Did it reach combat, probably not.
D
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And Jablonski was one of the more credible authors from the late 60s/ early 70s. AIRWAR was written during a time when only a handful of historians were beginning to question aerial victories vs. squadrons and aircraft types. We've come a long way since then.
To add to that you still had some AVG aces who firmly believed they fought Zeros.
Two of the prototypes.
- Thread starter
- #18
Joe - do we know who were the 1st authors that challenged the established 'kill tally'?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The first ones I could think of are the authors of "Bloody Shambles" (Shores, Cull and Izawa)
Shortround6
Major General
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
